Monday, April 5, 2010

Playing the "Prove You Exist" game: Atheist Asnwers

here we have a different thread:




Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post 71


this is my "prove I exist" game. the game: prove to me using nothing but objective scientific data that there is a mind beyond my mind the point is to prove that there is not scientific data that helps us with epistemology but we have to resort to epistemic judgment. This proves hat science cannot be the only form of knowledge, so not having scientific proof of god is not an indication God is not real, and having logical arguments for God is not a draw back.



The game works like this: I demand they produce scientific evidence or data to prove the following questions, and this is usually played in response threads like "There's no scientific proof for your God" or statements about "the only trust worthy form of knowledge is science."


areas to prove:


a world beyond my consciousness


that other minds exist in this world


that I exist


that the future will be like the past


that the sun will rise in the morning.



They started out with incredulous responses. They tired to ridicule the value of the game sign it was stupid it proves nothing blah blah. One guy tried to name drop by mentioning every Scottish philosopher he could find. Genetic fallacy, identify the origins of an idea dn you beat the idea. He gets points for knowing it was Scottish Philosophy but the one guy he didn't name is the right one, Thomas Reid. Not that Reid ever played this game but it was suggested to me while reading him.


still me:


First I'm going to say this and you need to read the whole thing to see what i mean: God is not adding a fact to the universe. Belief in is God is not just a belief in one more entity but is a belief in an aspect of being, that of necessary eternal being.




let's settle the BS about "proof is only for mathematics." But if that's the case then atheists have to stop saying "there's no proof for your God" because God is not mathematics. You also miss the point of that expression becuase it means you can't expect any scientific data to be proof of anything. So then say "There's not scientific data that proves God" and expect that o be a big deal is a total contradiction to this concept that proof is only in mathematics.



When non mathematicians use that expression "proof" they really mean a very tight collation. Scientists will speak of "proof" which not math and call it proof and they mean more than just correlation. They also mean a mechanism. But epistemologically speaking even the inclusion of a mechanism is part of the correlation becasue nature doesn't come with labels telling us what the causes are. The analysis that decides what is a mechanism for a cause is also a correlative result.



So the upshot is we have two choices, we can either use the term "proof" in a less strict since, an "informal" sense of really strong warrants, or we can admit that its' silly to want proof of God since God is not a mathematical construct.



For those who chose the former, you are not out of the woods yet. I have often made a point that we take many things for granted which are not provable by science, not even in the informal sense of the term. For example basic epistemic judgments about other minds have to be made by a judgment or leap of faith, they cannot be settled by scientific data becuase any scientific data could be part of the illusion.



That means 2 things:



(1) It's false to say that we can't believe something without proof because we believe things without proof all the time, and in fact we could not live a coherent rational life without making assertions of these things which cannot be proved.



(2) This means there has to be a method for making such judgments that does not involve math or scientific data and that is only available to us Logically. Descartes tried to supply that method with the cogito ("I think, therefore I am?")



That method is found generally in various forms of philosophy especially existential and phenomenological but also deductive reasoning.




Because God is not merely adding a fact to the universe but really consists of coming to an understanding of some facet of being, the theist and the atheist live in different worlds. We have totally different ways of understanding the nature of truth the nature of proof the importance of logic and the basic epistemological set up.



What that means is it is absurd to make claims such as "there's no proof for God" because it's meaningless to expect proof for something that is not a matter of contingency but underpins the whole nature of existence; it also means that the demand for scientific data is absurd. Scientific data is only available where one has contingencies and where one can make observations. We can't make first hand observations about the basic nature of reality, and that's what the idea of God is, it's a concept about reality.



To believe in God is to believe in one's own contingency. That's why Tillich says if you know being has depth you can't be an atheist. That means if you realize there's more to being than just contingent things, and you realize you are contingent and there must be some necessity that these contingencies are pinned upon, then you can't be an atheist because that is a priori the definition of God.





The good little soldiers did their ideological duty and spouted a bunch of canned answers but did not answer the argument:



You claim atheism is based upon facts, and there not facts that stick up for belief in God. You also claimed the only form of knowledge is empirical scientific data, which of course the atheist ideology thinks that atheism has in abundance.



the upshot is the atheist ideological propagandist dictum that one cannot believe without proof.



I said two things:



(1) alleged factual basis of atheism is totally selective, it includes only facts that seem to bolster the ideology but ignore those facts that speak against it.



(2) You believe things all the time that cannot be demonstrated in empirical scientific data. You take for granted the necessity of epistemic judgment and you make such judgments all the time.



These are not "facts" that can be demonstrated objectively but you assume them as fact all the time and never consider the flimsy nature of proof concerning them.




A. The existence of your own mind



B. the existence of a world external to your own mind



C. The existence of other minds not dependent upon your imagination.



I have a huge list but this will do for now. No evidence at all of any kind has been presented yet to demonstrate the factual nature of these beliefs.



you are believing you exist in a real world with real other minds based upon 0 empirical scientific data capable of proving these assertions. To accept them as "facts" you must assume them as judgments.



upshot: demonstration of the necessity to use philosophy and logic in discursive reasoning to understand the reality of the world rather htan proving it by empirical scientific means.

Another try out for Saturday Nite Live. I'm laughing already.



here's the guy he got it from in post 70



Quote Originally Posted by madmax2976 View Post

What argument? Pretty much all you ever offer is:


I am Metacrock and I am great

Atheists are stupid and bad


That's really not much of an argument. Citing a few names here and there doesn't make it anymore impressive. From what I see, most of the time you don't even listen to what others are saying, rather you make things up and attribute it to them so you can pretend to have addressed something they actually said.
That's his answer to my quotations form experts, I do quote sources that anyone can find and see they they exist and I don't make them. I prove I don't make them up becuase you can look them up, but of course they would never do that.

Madmax:

Yes, you're a legend in your own mind - we get that.


Would you care to lay out your argument in a syllogism that can easily be followed or is that asking too much?

Meta:
same as above: foolish mockery, you are not capable of answering the arguments with logic or evidence so you have to result to mocking. Hate group atheism going into operation doing what they do best, mocking and ridiculing because they can't think.


if you had an argument, if you could disprove my point. you would do it. If you really had anything to say about that made any kind of sense you would be fighting tooth and nail to hand on to that. when atheist start the mocking game we know they can't think they are out of ammunition and they have packed the thinking.


this is just another example of the one and only argument atheists have, incredulity "I refuse to believe not matter what the evidence."



same thread post 37






Quote Originally Posted by His clay View Post

As the opening post already stated, “. . . we shouldn’t think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination.” That, as explained already, is what has been said; this answers your first question. Put another way, the atheistic straw man god, that they allow theists to have (paragraph 2 section 1 of OP), is a figment of the atheist's imagination.


In regards to your second question, is it good or bad to intentionally erect a straw man, and then beat it down as if it were the real thing? Your second question has already been answered as well; try reading the second paragraph of section two again.


Perhaps, you are trying, and I'm being overly critical. Yet, it does not appear that you tried to understand the OP, so I have responded restating what it seems you have missed. I'm not trying to be rude.
Madmax

What I missed is the evidence that God's not a figment of the imagination. I'm pretty sure I missed it because it wasn't there. Feel free to show how I'm wrong.

Meta:

The game proved exactly what it set out to prove. It also proved some other things too. It mainly proved that some atheist on this board cant' think, don't understand what's being said, can't comprehend what they read, and can't think seriously and can't face arguments like men.

The purpose of the game was to answer two kinds of statements by atheists:

(1) Science is the only valid form of knowledge; (2) there is no scientific evidence for God, therefore, it's irrational to believe because only scientific evidence counts. the game disproves this notion because it demonstrates that there is a whole level of thought prior to science, above scinece, from which science itself derives, that scinece cannot be used to provide answer for.

We take that level for granted because we don't need scientific evidence on that level (epistemology) and it can't help us anyway. That proves that scinece is not the only form of knowledge. not having scientific evidence for God doesn't mean it's irrational to believe, it just means that the question of God is not a scientist question but a equation on a philosophical level.

The proof that science can't work on that level: they never made one single attempt to show any scientific at all! They just gave up a prpori becasue they know I'm right. Instead of seriously arguing they spent most of their time (after I shot down a few early attempts which where mostly name dropping) just mocking and ridiculing the exercise.

what they really proved is that they are not prepared for serious thought.

read the thread. they should be totally ashamed but of course they wont be because acting little gigle girls made them feel like big men, big men who are afraid to debate seriously.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-a-little-game


Men face each other face to face and said their piece and when they are proved wrong point blank they admit it. These guys act like small children on the playground, here's something to run around and gigle at. Let's run around and make little sing song rhymes about metacorck and make fun of him and gigle like girls.

Their behavior in that thread is appalling. They try to fault me for everything from using red fonts to illustrating very important ideas, to things they made up by misreading articles and not comprehending them.

When I answered the article miscomprehended they began a fury of posting to bury my argument way back where no one will see it.

I worked for a long time getting stuff together and making arguments and they will answer those argument with irrelevant little one liners like "you are delusional"or " another try out for Saturday night live."

they think they are being so clever and they are getting their ruch from mocking a Christian but what they are really doing is showing the world that they cant' think they can't take ideas seriously and they can't understand what's being said.

do you, lurker, really want to become a little chattering monkey who can't think? why don't you join their movement of little full of hate monkeys that get their rush by mocking and ridiculing their intellectual betters. Does that sound appealing to you?

9 comments:

Rex said...

I love my girlfriend but I can't prove it.

I love chocolate but I can't prove that either.

I have a mind that I use to perceive the world, but I can't prove that either.

Ergo: God! Right?

I don't think so.

Just because some things are beyond our ability to "prove" them, does not mean that your god exists.

All I ever say is that god falls into the same category as magic pink unicorns. I can't prove that they don't exist, but you can't prove that they do.

I do not want to stake my entire worldview on a philosophical stalemate. C'mon the best god can do is a stalemate with pink unicorns? That doesn't sound omnipotent to me. I want to live my life to the fullest now, because I am pretty sure that here and now exist, and as for what is outside of here and now, we will all find out eventually.

Cutting this life short and causing pain and hate because someone told you that is what god wants, is a short sighted, pie in the sky piece of wishful thinking.

And I am not buying.

Metacrock said...

I love my girlfriend but I can't prove it.

I love chocolate but I can't prove that either.

I have a mind that I use to perceive the world, but I can't prove that either.

Ergo: God! Right?

I don't think so.

Just because some things are beyond our ability to "prove" them, does not mean that your god exists.


As usual you are not paying attentino to what's being said. you are just looking to your ideology to fix everything.

Here's how the game works:

(1) the point is not to prove God eixts, but to prove that sicnece is not the only form of knowledge of and it doesn't tell us everything.

(2) what proves that is that it can't solve the epistemolgical progemas brought up in the game.

(3) the way God argument works is that the only solution to the problems is epistemic judgment. We use a certain criteira for epistemic judgement.

(4) religious experience fits that criteria so it's trust worthy to tell us reality.

that setps 3-4 are not part of hte game, that's part of a separate argument.




All I ever say is that god falls into the same category as magic pink unicorns. I can't prove that they don't exist, but you can't prove that they do.

Yes, but that' stupid. that's what people say who don't think deeply and haven't read much and don't know about other forms fo knowledge like philosophy, I dare say don't know much science either.

I do not want to stake my entire worldview on a philosophical stalemate. C'mon the best god can do is a stalemate with pink unicorns?

wrong! any one of my 42 arguments demonstrates the rationality of bleief. that's all you need. you don't need to prove anything, all you need to know is that it's rational, then follow the experiences of God that you have in prayer. simple and direct.


That doesn't sound omnipotent to me. I want to live my life to the fullest now, because I am pretty sure that here and now exist, and as for what is outside of here and now, we will all find out eventually.


i didn't begin to live until I found Jesus. I lived a disipated life style of sin, I was stonned every night, I was always partying, I was in college debate and our squad was called the "scum of the earth." we went to debate tournaments in the day and had a wonderful time then went to parities at night and had tournaments judging the quality of pot and each school brought its own entry to be smoked and judged. Of cousre needless to say these parties were not known to the official school authorities.

I was living life to the fullest by the shallow standards of he world I had all the thrills an excitement of sin and a brilliant intellectual college career.

I was miserable and all the other people doing that with me were miserable. I didn't even know what life was until I met Jesus.

Everything changed then. That was the fist time I knew what being alive was.


Cutting this life short and causing pain and hate because someone told you that is what god wants, is a short sighted, pie in the sky piece of wishful thinking.


you have been brain washed by a pack of liars. Christanitiy is not cutting life short, it's not causing anyone pain it' eliviating paint. yiou are too shallow and silly to read history and find out the truth. you would rathe be spoon fed lies by a back o idiots have so much hate in them that they couldn't tell teh truth if they had to.

Christianity and hsitory are full of believers who gave their lives to stop slavery and end poverty and little evil piece of shit atheist hate group assholes are too stupid to tell tell truth about it.

I've posted the list before on Christians and their contribution to civilization. I'll do it again.

takes notes this time.

Rex said...

"Christanitiy is not cutting life short, it's not causing anyone pain it' eliviating paint. yiou are too shallow and silly to read history and find out the truth. you would rathe be spoon fed lies by a back o idiots have so much hate in them that they couldn't tell teh truth if they had to."


Can you read anything besides Teh Bilbe? The following items have all been in the news in the past 6 months. We are not talking about the crusades, or pope pious' cooperation with the nazis, these are current events examples where christianity IS causing shortened lives and pain and death TODAY:

Christianity tells some people to pray instead of taking their kids to the doctor. Some kids DIE because of that.

Christianity promotes hate and discrimination against people. See Fred Phelps and even Pat Robertson on the cause of the Haiti earthquake.

Christianity is the shield that allows institutionalized child rape in the Catholic church.

Christianity is why the pope says that in third world countries people are sinning if they use condoms. Lives are cut short by the spread of diseases including AIDS.

Christianity is the reason that Texas is trying to revise American history by removing Thomas Jefferson from the history curriculum in the public schools there. By default, that action has far reaching implications for the rest of the country because textbook publishers cater to the largest market in the country. That market is Texas.

In Mississippi, a teenager has been discriminated against by the whole community because she wanted to bring another girl to the prom. The community secretly organized two proms, one for the misfits, and one for everyone else.

Christians in Africa are still burning "witches" today, because they believe that the victims are possessed.

These events stand on their own. I do not have to make a single comment on how much damage and pain and suffering this insanity causes still in the 21st century.

I am not brainwashed by a pack of hate filled liars. I can read the news though, and it does have an impact on how I view the world.

Oh and by the way, the bible is practically a handbook on how to acquire and keep and to be a slave.

I see it still works for minds...........

Kristen said...

Rex, what if I said that you believing you loved your girlfriend was your little fantasy, like believing in pink unicorns? There's no proof for it so you're stupid and childish to think you love her-- just as much as if you believed in pink unicorns. It's all just a cute little fantasy that makes you feel good. You'd be even more stupid if you believed she loved you. You've got even less proof of that than you have that you love her.

Now, I don't believe any of this, and I'm not actually saying any of the above-- because I happen to respect the fact that you are a human being who has a right to believe things that you can't prove-- and that just because you can't prove something with narrow scientistic methods of proof, doesn't mean it's just a fantasy that can't be true. I grant you the right to love your girlfriend and receive her love, without being mocked and belittled by me.

How about if you extend the same courtesy to others?

Metacrock said...

Meta:"Christanitiy is not cutting life short, it's not causing anyone pain it' eliviating paint. yiou are too shallow and silly to read history and find out the truth. you would rathe be spoon fed lies by a back o idiots have so much hate in them that they couldn't tell teh truth if they had to."

Rex
Can you read anything besides Teh Bilbe? The following items have all been in the news in the past 6 months.

Rex you are dumb fuck. I'm sorry I can't help putting it in such harsh terms. I tried ot be nice to you, but you wont let me. you are so fucking stupid, you have no concept of what you are saying. your atheseit masters told you that you are supiror to Christians and all Chrisians are sutpid so believe it. But that's really dumb. you are just stupid. Youc an't see that I'm am a supuior intellectual with a real scholary bent who know far morre than you do. hwo in the hell do you think I know more about books than you do? you must be totallly idiotic not to see that talk about books more you do all the itme. how do you tink I knew who Abraham Maslow is if all I ever read is the bible.

on my blog it says I was a Ph.D. candidate in shirting of ideas. that's a secular program dildo.

atheist are are stupid. atheist are not well educated, atheists don't read atheist are fools. atheists nor learned. Christianity is for thinking people atheists are idiots. Cram this into your little empty brain cell.

Obviously I have read a hell of books, many more than you have because I could not be in a Ph.D. program and not read a bunch of books. Since history of ideas is a secular program than obviously I read secular books, even a imbecile could get that one.

your silly little desire to believe that Christians don't read books and only know the bible shows your dire need to feel supirior to someone but it's going to have to be someone else becasue I am clearly smarter than you are.




We are not talking about the crusades, or pope pious' cooperation with the nazis, these are current events examples where christianity IS causing shortened lives and pain and death TODAY:


You don't know anything about current events.

Christianity tells some people to pray instead of taking their kids to the doctor. Some kids DIE because of that.

that's extremely foolish. how stupid are you to believe such horse shit? that's an extreme little sect that's about 0.3% of Christianity. 99.9% of Christians think that's atrocious. Only a small pathetic little group do that then you sweep the murders that atheists committed around the world 100,000,000 people under teh rug!

you are obviously reaching. trying to find stuff to blame Christians for when you have to dig up obscure little sects like that!

Metacrock said...

your thinking is very space on the research and very heavy on informal fallacies like guilt by association.

Rex said...

Your "supuior intellectual" qualities are showing, especially during the part where you can't respond to the current events topics I brought up with anything other than profanity and name calling.

Sounds like hate to me.

If you are truly done posting comments, then I won't be back anymore, but I am glad that I could show you that your quest for atheist hate has revealed that you harbor much hate as well.

Metacrock said...

Your "supuior intellectual" qualities are showing,

they are always showing, especially for those who have the intelligence to look


especially during the part where you can't respond to the current events topics I brought up with anything other than profanity and name calling.


I had a longer response but took it down because it was unworthy of a Christian.

Sounds like hate to me.




If you are truly done posting comments, then I won't be back anymore, but I am glad that I could show you that your quest for atheist hate has revealed that you harbor much hate as well.


that's really cute, the mugger to back stabs the victim says "you look like you are angry that's your fault for being angry.

why would someone be angry when really really stupid people who can't think and don't know anything say really stupid insulting things to him and refuse to take his ideas seriously becuase they aer too fucking stupid to understand them? that wouldn't make anyone made.

except, I know you can't understand because you've never experienced it, but when you are smart and you know are and something you know it really stupid is putting down your intelligence because they too stupid to see you are smarter than they, then it's anger making, dumb ass.

do you understand what I'm saying now stoups?

Rex said...

@Kristen:

"Rex, what if I said that you believing you loved your girlfriend was your little fantasy, like believing in pink unicorns? There's no proof for it so you're stupid and childish to think you love her-- just as much as if you believed in pink unicorns. It's all just a cute little fantasy that makes you feel good."

I realize that you were just saying this for effect, but the gawd team people tell me exactly this all the time. I don't know the sweet fulfilling love of christ, so therefore, I can never know love. My life will never have any meaning because unless one is deluded by silly ancient superstitions, life is meaningless and worthless. The best I can hope for is a good feeling that will come to an end at some point because it has no foundation.

What B.S., but yes, I see that statement directed at me often, even by your friend Meta here.

I however, possess enough confidence in my own perceptions and convictions, that comments like that have no weight with me. My convictions are not fragile enough for me to need the waaaaambulance because I am being disrespected and persecuted. (funny how the MAJORITY makes the persecuted complaint!)

My beliefs get no sympathy or respect, and I am not complaining, because I feel that beliefs don't deserve respect, people do when they earn it. I feel really strongly that woo of any type deserves absolutely no quarter though, because I think it is harmful to progress and human harmony.