Who is the one who must "prove"

[ChristineM]

Well, show me something that doesn't involve you and I will accept that it, but here is the relevant definition of objective you left out:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
So please do that without sensible experience.

I did, the spectroscopic analysis of over 4000 exo planets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did, the spectroscopic analysis of over 4000 exo planets.

So you are saying based on human observation using instruments, we can know without human observation of the world, what the world is.

 

[ChristineM]

So you are saying based on human observation using instruments, we can know without human observation of the world, what the world is.

What?
With - without???


Instruments can analyse, can record.

Example. A single experiment at the LHC Cern, produces the equivalent data, if printed into books to fill over 200 libraries of congress.


Do you expect scientists to observe everything to know what happens in a particle collision?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My answer would be : No i can not give you evidence for or against a dimension full of unicorns, that does not mean it can not exist somewhere. It means i can not see it my self. If i had personally been to a dimension full of unicorns i would still not be able to bring back physical evidence, only my personally experience and my understanding of what i saw. But that would not be taken as scientific proof or disproof

Precisely. Which is why one should not get too upset when someone dismisses what you consider "evidence" that is of a thing that cannot be either proven or disproven. When someone tells you "I don't believe you," that should be accepted if you cannot produce rational, sharable (inter-subjectively verifiable), compelling evidence toward demonstrating the truth of your claims. And when you can produce such evidence, that's the time at which you can claim that the denying party is being irrational. But not before that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What?
With - without???


Instruments can analyse, can record.

Example. A single experiment at the LHC Cern, produces the equivalent data, if printed into books to fill over 200 libraries of congress.


Do you expect scientists to observe everything to know what happens in a particle collision?

No, I expect them to observe the result given by computers build by humans.
You are so concrete in your thinking. I am asking you an abstract question:
Can you know something without first person experience as e.g. seeing something. I.e. you see a dog. Without seeing the do could you know that there was a dog?
It is philosophy and goes to the limit of knowledge. You treat it as only science.

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts (propositional knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge). By most accounts, knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many difference sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology.
Knowledge - Wikipedia

All of the highlighted words requires humans and include philosophy. We are not doing science, we are doing epistemology

 

[Spirit of Light]

Precisely. Which is why one should not get too upset when someone dismisses what you consider "evidence" that is of a thing that cannot be either proven or disproven. When someone tells you "I don't believe you," that should be accepted if you cannot produce rational, sharable, compelling evidence toward demonstrating the truth of your claims. And when you can produce such evidence, that's the time at which you can claim that the denying party is being irrational. But not before that.

I have no problem at all that people do not believe me or my faith. Those times i reacted "to strongly " in the past it was because how some people tried to riddicule and make it look like a fairytail. Yes i could have left out some of my negative comments, i know that now.
And i accept that the negativity will keep coming no matter what form of religion or spiritual teaching that will in discussion

Nothing i can do about that

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Precisely. Which is why one should not get too upset when someone dismisses what you consider "evidence" that is of a thing that cannot be either proven or disproven. When someone tells you "I don't believe you," that should be accepted if you cannot produce rational, sharable (inter-subjectively verifiable), compelling evidence toward demonstrating the truth of your claims. And when you can produce such evidence, that's the time at which you can claim that the denying party is being irrational. But not before that.

That depends on what you mean by "you cannot produce rational, sharable (inter-subjectively verifiable), compelling evidence toward demonstrating the truth of your claims. " We could inter-subjectively share beliefs that doesn't meet your requirement and it wouldn't be irrational, unless you can demonstrate that e.g. morality is irrational.

 

[ChristineM]

I am asking you an abstract question:

I don't do abstract, i do do factual, evidenced, verifiatiable, truthful

We are not doing science

You may not be but i am, the spectroscopic observation of distant planets was not done by thinking about it it was done by doing it and observing the results

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't do abstract, i do do factual, evidenced, verifiatiable, truthful



You may not be but i am, the spectroscopic observation of distant planets was not done by thinking about it it was done by doing it and observing the results

How is truthful concrete? Can you hold truth, see it, touch it and so on. What is its measurements and what instrument do you use to measure it with. Truth is an abstract concept.

 

[ChristineM]

How is truthful concrete? Can you hold truth, see it, touch it and so on. What is its measurements and what instrument do you use to measure it with. Truth is an abstract concept.

My truth is..
Truth : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

It does not work with the version of truth you favour

Truth 2 : a fact or belief that is accepted as true

And there lies the problem, we are arguing, not on from different ideas of the same thing but from complete different planets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My truth is..
Truth : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

It does not work with the version of truth you favour

Truth 2 : a fact or belief that is accepted as true

And there lies the problem, we are arguing, not on from different ideas of the same thing but from complete different planets.

Now you just have to define reality.

 

[ChristineM]

Now you just have to define reality.

Oh an easy one and one that i have given you at least twice before

Reality : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh an easy one and one that i have given you at least twice before

Reality : the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

That is abstract and subjective. The bold one is a subjective idea itself. You are not that good when it comes to the difference between abstract and concrete.
It is not objective as it doesn't meet the standard of objective as given above.

 

[ChristineM]

That is abstract and subjective. The bold one is a subjective idea itself. You are not that good when it comes to the difference between abstract and concrete.
It is not objective as it doesn't meet the standard of objective as given above.

the state of things as they actually exist,
Is objective


as opposed to
an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Is subjective, did you notice the "as opposed to"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

the state of things as they actually exist,
Is objective


as opposed to
an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Is subjective, did you notice the "as opposed to"?

No, because actually exist is subjective. You can't observe any of them and existence is an idea from philosophy

 

[ChristineM]

No, because actually exist is subjective. You can't observe any of them and existence is an idea from philosophy

No. Actually exists is objective

Exist : have objective reality.


Ideas are are subjective.

And in the real world it is not the thought that counts

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Actually exists is objective

Exist : have objective reality.


Ideas are are subjective.

And in the real world it is not the thought that counts

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

That you claim, existence is objective, is subjective and only exists, because you subjectively claim it.

 

[ChristineM]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

That you claim, existence is objective, is subjective and only exists, because you subjectively claim it.

No, the accepted dictionary definition claims it

And i go by the definition, not some guy from the bronze age

Plato got virtually everything wrong

 

[Koldo]

God is not necessarily Christian and all ideas of God are not theistic.

I agree with the first part although I don't understand where you are headed with this. About the second part, I have no idea on what you mean by 'ideas of God that are not theistic'. What do you have in mind exactly?

Your culture is showing. Here is what religion is according to science:


So learn to understand the influence of you being in a culture yourself and learn to understand that as per what you answered to as it was about philosophy. And what God is in philosophy is not Christianity.
In short what God is in philosophy is metaphysics and that is not religion per se.

It is interconnected. The concept of God comes from a religious background which is then further elaborated on philosophy.

 

[osgart]

I could frame the question, what evidence does an atheist have for there being no God?

An atheist is definitely making the claim that there is no God. So they have a burden of proof as well as a theist.

That would make the conversation more fair and balanced between an atheist and a theist.

It certainly shouldn't be a one way street inquisition on theists as if in a position of total authority.

If we are saying I do not know if there is a God or not then there is no burden of proof. That's different.