We don't need to take materialist atheism as a whole seriously.

[blü 2]

1137

What can be falsified is the non-existence of deities, rather obviously.​

Then win the argument here and now!

Give us a satisfactory demonstration of a deity!

They're real, you say, they have objective existence, so that's not a problem, correct?

Oh ─ and what's the test we use to show whether something's a deity or not?

 

[Valjean]

have you looked in a mirror?

How does that demonstrate anything? My cat can look in a mirror. A robot can look in a mirror.
I don't see what you're getting at.

ghost in a shell?

That's my question. What evidence is there for this ghost/spirit?

as for me.....I've been here more than 8yrs and have not seen PROOF
there is no God

I don't see how you can have been here all those years and still not understand burden of proof or positive vs no assertions. You must have read hundreds of explanations.
No God is assumed, just as no leprechauns, jinn, or LGM. It's default epistemology. It's believers who are making the positive claim.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Oooh! Oooh! <hand up waving>

Can I has a class for Interdimentional Magical Unicorn Studies too?

Sure thing bruh! We can have it as an extension of Women's Studies

 

[Indagator]

5. Exactly, yet materialists and atheists provide no evidence.

You do realize that you can't provide evidence for a negative, right? It's impossible to PROVE that God does NOT exist... just like it is impossible to PROVE that pink unicorns do NOT exist. All one can do is provide evidence that they DO exist. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

what???

There is an empty box in front of us, you say that there is a cat inside the box, i say it is empty, then i open the box.

Nothing there... i just provided evidence for "a negative", an empty box.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Wait, you are able to interact with the external world without inner experience? Can you please explain how you do this?

Inner experience? Please define this because I have a severe worry that it is some sort of spiritualist woo.

You think math and telekinis have been used with equal success????????

The opposite, obviously not reading my post.

Lol magical pony? Definitely need to and number 8 for straw men, you guys are apparently lost without them!

No idea what you mean.

Because math objectively exists free of minds, thus disproving physicalism. I've decided not to address your childish challenge, rephrase or as an adult.

But you are the child here. You are not even addressing my statements for what they are. Why on earth would he even presume that I accept physicalism as a valid notion of the world?

As an atheist what about that makes you presume I reduce everything down to the physical yet alone disregard metaphysical absolutes like mathematics?

So you remember the mind, math, logic, etc exist, and expect me to believe you on your experience. Thread title, QED.

What experience? I made no such claim from experience, I have been stating quite the contrary this whole time. This is why nobody is taking you seriously. You are not even making a serious argument and reducing people down to thoughts or ideas that are not even their own and in my case oppose.

To call me a physicalist is like accusing Islamic terrorist of promoting radical atheism. You essentially throw me into a category I oppose so you could have the joy of attacking me.

The is a reason why my use-title says "Worshiper of The Monad." Which is my blatant expression of disdain towards physicalism and to a greater degree aggressive secularism.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, I guess those thousands of confirmed scientific experiments were wrong since you believe otherwise

Which experiments are those? All that I know of point to life being chemistry.

 

[blü 2]

1137

Ah, well cause and effect is the only evidence we need to accept to ride the cosmological argument to the end as valid and plausible, so it seems I did give you what you asked. Life fields are what guide cell-replication and the like, and prove that human beings posses a Teleology.​

Alas, the ol' Cosmo Argument assumes what it sets out to prove ─ that gods exist. It offers not the slightest demonstration that they do.

There's only one argument for the existence of gods, and all the arguments for god boil down to it ─

Assume that 'god' is a meaningful term and that god has objective existence.

Therefore god has objective existence.​

 

[Polymath257]

what???

There is an empty box in front of us, you say that there is a cat inside the box, i say it is empty, then i open the box.

Nothing there... i just provided evidence for "a negative", an empty box.

And this gets to an important point. You *can* demonstrate a negative *if* the existence would definitely provide evidence.

So, the cat in the box would be observable immediately if it existed. An elephant in the room would be observable if it existed. The fact that we do NOT see them is, in fact, proof of their non-existence in those locations.

Such negative observations are actually quite common in science. One of the most famous was the Michelson-Morley experiment. The negative result ultimately lead to the theory of relativity. An effect was *expected* and was *necessary* from what we understood at the time. The fact that it was not seen meant we had to change our ideas significantly.

The problem in the case of a deity is determining whether any observation *should* provide a detection. What *specific* situation would be expected to give a definite observation of that deity? Without such, the whole question is rather meaningless.

 

[Thief]

How does that demonstrate anything? My cat can look in a mirror. A robot can look in a mirror.
I don't see what you're getting at.
That's my question. What evidence is there for this ghost/spirit?
I don't see how you can have been here all those years and still not understand burden of proof or positive vs no assertions. You must have read hundreds of explanations.
No God is assumed, just as no leprechauns, jinn, or LGM. It's default epistemology. It's believers who are making the positive claim.

none soooooo blind as those who will not see

 

[Thief]

1137

What can be falsified is the non-existence of deities, rather obviously.​

Then win the argument here and now!

Give us a satisfactory demonstration of a deity!

They're real, you say, they have objective existence, so that's not a problem, correct?

Oh ─ and what's the test we use to show whether something's a deity or not?

the test comes soon enough

you die.....and maybe your will to live will prompt you to stand from the dust
and then you get to do the test
before God and heaven

good luck

 

[1137]

Which experiments are those? All that I know of point to life being chemistry.

http://www.pnas.org/content/25/6/284.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/27/6/276.short

Bio-Electric Properties of Cancer-Resistant and Cancer-Susceptible Mice | Cancer Research

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNH6UoawMf9ohJ7jzxPsPs_JdQ1FqA

Blueprint for Immortality: Harold Saxton Burr: 9780854352814: Amazon.com: Books

Harold Saxton Burr - Wikipedia

1137

Ah, well cause and effect is the only evidence we need to accept to ride the cosmological argument to the end as valid and plausible, so it seems I did give you what you asked. Life fields are what guide cell-replication and the like, and prove that human beings posses a Teleology.​

Alas, the ol' Cosmo Argument assumes what it sets out to prove ─ that gods exist. It offers not the slightest demonstration that they do.

There's only one argument for the existence of gods, and all the arguments for god boil down to it ─

Assume that 'god' is a meaningful term and that god has objective existence.

Therefore god has objective existence.​

#8, atheists have nothing but straw men.

 

[Polymath257]

http://www.pnas.org/content/25/6/284.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/27/6/276.short

Bio-Electric Properties of Cancer-Resistant and Cancer-Susceptible Mice | Cancer Research

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNH6UoawMf9ohJ7jzxPsPs_JdQ1FqA

Blueprint for Immortality: Harold Saxton Burr: 9780854352814: Amazon.com: Books

Harold Saxton Burr - Wikipedia

Yes, all life has electromagnetic phenomena associated with it. That happens from things like the separation of charges across a cell membrane to electrical impulses in neurons.

That *isn't* a 'life field'. It is ordinary physics that is associated with the chemistry of living things. Electromagnetism is probably the best understood of the fundamental forces of nature. it certainly isn't a 'mystical' or non-material thing.

Sheesh.

 

[Quintessence]

Any rational, truth seeking philosophers.

I see. I was hoping that you would clarify that you were speaking for yourself, and not presuming to speak for others. I'm optimistic that the other readers of this thread will recognize that you hardly speak for all so-called rational, truth seeking philosophers. Adieu.

 

[Indagator]

And this gets to an important point. You *can* demonstrate a negative *if* the existence would definitely provide evidence.

So, the cat in the box would be observable immediately if it existed. An elephant in the room would be observable if it existed. The fact that we do NOT see them is, in fact, proof of their non-existence in those locations.

Such negative observations are actually quite common in science. One of the most famous was the Michelson-Morley experiment. The negative result ultimately lead to the theory of relativity. An effect was *expected* and was *necessary* from what we understood at the time. The fact that it was not seen meant we had to change our ideas significantly.

The problem in the case of a deity is determining whether any observation *should* provide a detection. What *specific* situation would be expected to give a definite observation of that deity? Without such, the whole question is rather meaningless.

No the box would be observable not the cat in the box. One must open the box, or if there is multiply boxes one would have to find the right box, or maybe cat is not in boxes at all, it is in a refrigerator, or in a different dimension lol

But that is beside the point. You said that you cant prove negative, i showed you that you can. THE END

 

[1137]

Yes, all life has electromagnetic phenomena associated with it. That happens from things like the separation of charges across a cell membrane to electrical impulses in neurons.

That *isn't* a 'life field'. It is ordinary physics that is associated with the chemistry of living things. Electromagnetism is probably the best understood of the fundamental forces of nature. it certainly isn't a 'mystical' or non-material thing.

Sheesh.

Even with the links right there you deny huh? Thread title, QED.

I see. I was hoping that you would clarify that you were speaking for yourself, and not presuming to speak for others. I'm optimistic that the other readers of this thread will recognize that you hardly speak for all so-called rational, truth seeking philosophers. Adieu.

You also take flat Earth and YEC seriously I assume? There's not enough time in life to waste it, Q.

 

[Valjean]

none soooooo blind as those who will not see

Exactly!
Glad we're finally seeing eye-to-eye.

 

[Thief]

Exactly!
Glad we're finally seeing eye-to-eye.

all we need do now is get you past the details you're hung on

 

[Polymath257]

Even with the links right there you deny huh? Thread title, QED.

I am not denying the existence of electromagnetic fields in the body. What I am denying is that they are anything non-material. They are expected given the separation of charges in the body and the fact that neurons conduct a current.

You also take flat Earth and YEC seriously I assume? There's not enough time in life to waste it, Q.

Exactly. Why waste it on such BS as what you post?

 

[Polymath257]

No the box would be observable not the cat in the box. One must open the box, or if there is multiply boxes one would have to find the right box, or maybe cat is not in boxes at all, it is in a refrigerator, or in a different dimension lol

But that is beside the point. You said that you cant prove negative, i showed you that you can. THE END

I wasn't the one that claimed you can't show a negative. In fact, I was the one that pointed out the conditions where it is possible to do so.

 

[McBell]

none soooooo blind as those who will not see

The sad part here is that you say it as though it should perfectly clear to everyone else what you are saying and yet after 8 years of the same song and dance, you are no closer to being understood....