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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?