Evidence and the Supernatural

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Evidence and the Supernatural

In response to Caposkia's request, I've started this thread in the hopes that the conversation will actually progress somewhere. 

The topic of this conversation is very simple. 

- show me evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, basically, any world other than this one.

- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

- existence of some "creator" or "higher power."

etc.

I am pretty lenient on what is evidence: refer to a scientific journal with an article discussing evidence for the supernatural (even theist websites are okay, but it better be good. Not AIG), some aspect of nature or life that requires an outside force, valid philosophical argument, and even anecdotal evidence. 

Oh, if I start seeing stereotypical, lame arguments like the fine tuning argument, every painting has a painter, appeal to fear or guilt, argument from morality, argument from faith, I'm going to be royally pissed.    

I hope I have made this clear.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Warm fuzzy feelings count as

Warm fuzzy feelings count as evidence, right? I mean, everybody has had a warm fuzzy feeling about something at one time or another, so we know that warm fuzzy feelings exist. So it follows that if someone has a warm fuzzy feeling about god, then god exists.

Not enough for ya? Well, then here are several hundred more absolute proofs, each of them completely logical even though we all know how useless logic is.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Two whole minutes have

Two whole minutes have passed, and you have yet to refute each and every proof , therefore god exists. Yay, I win!

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Two whole

Desdenova wrote:

Two whole minutes have passed, and you have yet to refute each and every proof , therefore god exists. Yay, I win!

And let's see what you've won! Promises of an afterlife in the clouds, all your enemies burning, freezing or being otherwise tortured forever, and all of your wishes and hopes satisfied!*

*offer only valid when deceased

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:*offer

HisWillness wrote:

*offer only valid when deceased

*sigh*

As youth is wasted on the young, so is heaven wasted on the dead.  I was hoping for a 12 year old single malt or maybe a gift certificate to Amazon.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:HisWillness

Desdenova wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

*offer only valid when deceased

*sigh*

As youth is wasted on the young, so is heaven wasted on the dead.  I was hoping for a 12 year old single malt or maybe a gift certificate to Amazon.

Man, did you ever pick the wrong side of that argument, then. I'm pretty sure you were looking for the Christopher Hitchens office raffle by that description.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:- show me

butterbattle wrote:

- show me evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, basically, any world other than this one.

Alright, enough time has passed. I can be the killjoy now. I was hoping that you'd get a frothing-at-the-mouth response, but no such luck.

IF there were evidence ... if there ever were any piece of evidence ... then we would have evidence of something to explain. It would no longer be supernatural, but natural. We have a natural world, and things happen in it. The things that don't happen in the natural world ... don't happen.

I'm sorry, guys, Santa still doesn't exist. He doesn't see you when you're sleeping, and he doesn't know when you're awake or any of that other creepy shit.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Two whole

Desdenova wrote:
Two whole minutes have passed, and you have yet to refute each and every proof , therefore god exists. Yay, I win!

Oh crikey!  What do I do now? I always knew the Lord was watching over me, but I wouldn't admit this fact because I wanted to continue watching porno. Is there any way for me to watch porno and avoid hell?

HisWillness wrote:
Alright, enough time has passed. I can be the killjoy now. I was hoping that you'd get a frothing-at-the-mouth response, but no such luck.
   

I'd estimate that about 0.1% of theists admit there is no evidence for their God, so I still contend that some idiot will turn up soon.

Quote:
I'm sorry, guys, Santa still doesn't exist. He doesn't see you when you're sleeping, and he doesn't know when you're awake or any of that other creepy shit.

And this part, "He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes." That annoys the hell out of me. You'll get coal in your stockings if you're bad, but that shouldn't have any weight in the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Bring it on "god of abe", I

Bring it on "god of abe", I will easily crush you.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:- show me

butterbattle wrote:

- show me evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, basically, any world other than this one.

- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

- existence of some "creator" or "higher power."

etc.

I am pretty lenient on what is evidence: refer to a scientific journal with an article discussing evidence for the supernatural (even theist websites are okay, but it better be good. Not AIG), some aspect of nature or life that requires an outside force, valid philosophical argument, and even anecdotal evidence. 

CRI.org might be a good start.  Note:  not all Hank's extensive information is on the site, so you might have to request the paperwork on whatever specific information you want.  Be detailed in your request. 

Also note that part of learning about God would have to be a personal feat.  Unlike most religious sects want to believe, I can't make you believe in God just because I showed you some information.  It's something you'd have to accept and further persue. 

Part of the Scientific Method thing I was trying to get at was I'd ask you to try some things for yourself to see if it would help you see.  Is that feasable to request? 

No, I don't mean pray for something specific and wait for it to happen or do a ritual animal sacrifice to appease his holyness so that he wouldn't shy away from you. 

butterbattle wrote:

 

Oh, if I start seeing stereotypical, lame arguments like the fine tuning argument, every painting has a painter, appeal to fear or guilt, argument from morality, argument from faith, I'm going to be royally pissed.    

I hope I have made this clear.

Understood... so not even a ritual repetitive prayer to reach nostelga? 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Oh

butterbattle wrote:


Oh crikey!  What do I do now? I always knew the Lord was watching over me, but I wouldn't admit this fact because I wanted to continue watching porno. Is there any way for me to watch porno and avoid hell?

Do not despair my child, for there is even now hope. The answers you seek rest in watching Jesus Porn. Might I suggest that you pick up a copy of Jesus Christ, Serial Rapist? Our Lord and Savior also has His very own line of sex toys.  Just don't waste your seed on the ground. We need those children to keep paying us to build more churches! If nothing else, venture to Las Vegas and pay a visit to the Hookers for Jesus. They will be sure to leave you with a tingly feeling in your heart & loins as well as a blessedly empty wallet. What more could a mortal man ask for?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
It's

It's www.equip.org

www.cri.org leads to Sage College.

Quote:
Note:  not all Hank's extensive information is on the site, so you might have to request the paperwork on whatever specific information you want.  Be detailed in your request.

Hank?

This guy?

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=2616123&ct=5466223

I've already lost most of my respect for this website.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:IF there were evidence

Quote:
IF there were evidence ... if there ever were any piece of evidence ... then we would have evidence of something to explain. It would no longer be supernatural, but natural. We have a natural world, and things happen in it. The things that don't happen in the natural world ... don't happen.

...And this is the crux of the problem with the 'supernatural'.

Let's say that, tomorrow, a team of scientists more or less conclusively verifies the existence of ghosts. Guess what? Now ghosts aren't supernatural anymore! They're just another part of the natural world to be studied and understood.

 

'Supernatural' is just another way of saying, 'Something I just made-up about the world that you'll never likely be able to prove conclusively wrong'. Unfalsifiable & unexplorable claims.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...And

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...And this is the crux of the problem with the 'supernatural'.

Let's say that, tomorrow, a team of scientists more or less conclusively verifies the existence of ghosts. Guess what? Now ghosts aren't supernatural anymore! They're just another part of the natural world to be studied and understood.

 

'Supernatural' is just another way of saying, 'Something I just made-up about the world that you'll never likely be able to prove conclusively wrong'. Unfalsifiable & unexplorable claims.

I wish this would be said outright more often. I'm right tired of the terms "supernatural", and "metaphysical".

"What dos 'supernatural' mean, really?"

"Means it's above nature."

"I know that. Jeez. I mean, what does being outside or above nature really mean?"

"Means not part of nature."

"Of for the sake of Pete. You've already said that, but what does it mean? What are the properties of 'outside nature'? How do you detect this place?"

"Well, if something happens outside nature, it's outside nature, see?"

"You're barking mad, do you know that?"

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 That's the conversation

 That's the conversation for sure. Continued:

"You can't possibly understand. It's supernatural."

"Wait, if I can't understand, how can you?"

"I have faith."

"In what?"

"The supernatural."

"So if I believe in something that doesn't exist in the natural world, then I can make the supernatural real?"

"No, it's still there, whether you believe it or not."

"How is that different from imagination?"

"Imagination isn't real."

"Riiiiiiight." (face, meet palm)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 butterbattle wrote:   

 

butterbattle wrote:

 

 

 

yea, that guy.  I can't vouch for the opinions he expresses, but everyone's entitled to their own.  The only reason why I referenced him is because when it comes to the more technical stuff, in my experience, he's done a bit of homework.  Just know, just because someone has the right knowlege doesn't mean they hold an agreeable opinion.  I've seen a few of his statements to be quite anal-retentive. 

It's www.equip.org

www.cri.org leads to Sage College.

You're right, my mistake.  It's the Christian Research Institute, i forgot they updated it.

butterbattle wrote:

Hank?

This guy?

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=2616123&ct=5466223

I've already lost most of my respect for this website.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Let's

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Let's say that, tomorrow, a team of scientists more or less conclusively verifies the existence of ghosts. Guess what? Now ghosts aren't supernatural anymore! They're just another part of the natural world to be studied and understood.

 

'Supernatural' is just another way of saying, 'Something I just made-up about the world that you'll never likely be able to prove conclusively wrong'. Unfalsifiable & unexplorable claims.

I guess I'd have to look back into my writings, but I'm pretty sure I never used the term "supernatural". 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: That's

HisWillness wrote:

 That's the conversation for sure. Continued:

"You can't possibly understand. It's supernatural."

"Wait, if I can't understand, how can you?"

"I have faith."

"In what?"

"The supernatural."

"So if I believe in something that doesn't exist in the natural world, then I can make the supernatural real?"

"No, it's still there, whether you believe it or not."

"How is that different from imagination?"

"Imagination isn't real."

"Riiiiiiight." (face, meet palm)

I think you'd benifit from reading "The New Atheist Crusaders and their Unholy Grail" Becky Garrison. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

 

butterbattle wrote:

 

 

 

 

yea, that guy.  I can't vouch for the opinions he expresses, but everyone's entitled to their own.  The only reason why I referenced him is because when it comes to the more technical stuff, in my experience, he's done a bit of homework.  Just know, just because someone has the right knowlege doesn't mean they hold an agreeable opinion.  I've seen a few of his statements to be quite anal-retentive. 

 

It's www.equip.org

www.cri.org leads to Sage College.

You're right, my mistake.  It's the Christian Research Institute, i forgot they updated it.

butterbattle wrote:

Hank?

This guy?

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=2616123&ct=5466223

I've already lost most of my respect for this website.

The "right" knowledge? Do you mean "correct information" or "He agrees with me"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

 That's the conversation for sure. Continued:

"You can't possibly understand. It's supernatural."

"Wait, if I can't understand, how can you?"

"I have faith."

"In what?"

"The supernatural."

"So if I believe in something that doesn't exist in the natural world, then I can make the supernatural real?"

"No, it's still there, whether you believe it or not."

"How is that different from imagination?"

"Imagination isn't real."

"Riiiiiiight." (face, meet palm)

I think you'd benifit from reading "The New Atheist Crusaders and their Unholy Grail" Becky Garrison. 

Only if it could tell me how the New Atheism differs from the Old Atheism. Never understood that - is it just because some atheists are (finally) no longer willing to meekly let the theists run roughshod over human rights?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The "right"

jcgadfly wrote:

The "right" knowledge? Do you mean "correct information" or "He agrees with me"?

The fact that I've already mentioned I disagree with many of his opinions should have given you that answer.

He has the "correct information" from what I have seen when requesting information from him. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Only if it

jcgadfly wrote:

Only if it could tell me how the New Atheism differs from the Old Atheism. Never understood that - is it just because some atheists are (finally) no longer willing to meekly let the theists run roughshod over human rights?

This forum's not about the book.  See other forum


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The "right" knowledge? Do you mean "correct information" or "He agrees with me"?

The fact that I've already mentioned I disagree with many of his opinions should have given you that answer.

He has the "correct information" from what I have seen when requesting information from him. 

I only brought that up because you implied that there's "wrong (bad)" knowledge and "right (good)" knowledge.

And the sole basis of your determining the correct information is that he agrees with you, yes?

Information about the God of the Bible can't be researched credibly, can it? It winds up being "Which apologist agrees with more closely with my interpretation of the Bible?", doesn't it?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:It's

butterbattle wrote:

It's www.equip.org

www.cri.org leads to Sage College.

Quote:
Note:  not all Hank's extensive information is on the site, so you might have to request the paperwork on whatever specific information you want.  Be detailed in your request.

Hank?

This guy?

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=2616123&ct=5466223

I've already lost most of my respect for this website.

 

I read it, and I just wanted to vomit. It was like visiting the holocaust museum and really confronting the existence of total, degenerate, nauseous evil. It made me feel the same type of anger and loathing I felt when I had to read, for a class,  some pedophile's explanation of why it was alright to rape little children for reasons that I can not even bring myself to write.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote:I read it,

patcleaver wrote:
I read it, and I just wanted to vomit. It was like visiting the holocaust museum and really confronting the existence of total, degenerate, nauseous evil. It made me feel the same type of anger and loathing I felt when I had to read, for a class,  some pedophile's explanation of why it was alright to rape little children for reasons that I can not even bring myself to write.

Yup, it was pretty interesting.

Hank wrote:
He (Dawkins) simply doesn't know what to say except that maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, which, of course, must mean that life did come from some sort of intelligent design. Of course he doesn't recognize that he actually spoke in favor of intelligent design while disparaging it.

- fooled by quote mine.

Hank wrote:
I think in light of this you will see that rhetoric and emotional stereotypes are winning the day in the arguments against intelligent design. I think that the day should be won through reason and empirical science, not rhetoric, because worldview clearly is driving the science rather than the science driving the worldview. ID proponents are willing to follow scientific evidence wherever that scientific evidence leads.

- believes evolution is beating ID because of emotional arguments and rhetoric.

- thinks ID "scientists" stands for reason while real scientists are underhanded cheaters. He's got it backwards.

Quote:
And when applied to information-rich DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, as well as the fact that the earth is perfectly situated in the Milky Way for both life and scientific discovery in the first place, the existence of an intelligent Designer is the most plausible scientific explanation, period.

- irreducible complexity

- fine tuning argument

Hank wrote:
I went to see the movie quite late with my kids, and late became later and then later because they wouldn't stop talking about it. They asked me question after question after question, and in the end my kids are more grounded in their beliefs than they were prior to seeing the documentary, and they were pretty grounded to start with.

Poor kids.

Hank wrote:
We are seeking to demonstrate that the Christian faith is reasonable, that it stands up under scrutiny.

Wow, good luck with that. 

caposkia wrote:
He has the "correct information" from what I have seen when requesting information from him.

I've already read several of his articles, and they're all really, really stupid, so I am rather skeptical about the validity of his resources. However, if you can link me to some, "correct information," I would happy to take a look.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And when applied to

Quote:

And when applied to information-rich DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, as well as the fact that the earth is perfectly situated in the Milky Way for both life and scientific discovery in the first place, the existence of an intelligent Designer is the most plausible scientific explanation, period.

These words alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the speaker has no understanding of the relevant science whatsoever. This is completely fallacious. He is an intellectual black hole.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I only

jcgadfly wrote:

I only brought that up because you implied that there's "wrong (bad)" knowledge and "right (good)" knowledge.

And the sole basis of your determining the correct information is that he agrees with you, yes?

Information about the God of the Bible can't be researched credibly, can it? It winds up being "Which apologist agrees with more closely with my interpretation of the Bible?", doesn't it?

No, it's not because he agrees with me.

Information about the God of the Bible can be researched credibly.  Whether you want to believe it's real or not is another story. 

Just as scientific fact has a "right" understanding, so does the Bible.  However, just like science, not everything about the Bible is clearly understood, which leaves parts theoretical.  The important details about who God is and Jesus as well as how to live a "good" life is clear. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
  patcleaver wrote:  I

 

 

patcleaver wrote:

 

 

I read it, and I just wanted to vomit. It was like visiting the holocaust museum and really confronting the existence of total, degenerate, nauseous evil. It made me feel the same type of anger and loathing I felt when I had to read, for a class,  some pedophile's explanation of why it was alright to rape little children for reasons that I can not even bring myself to write.

 

I only referenced this site because if you ASK FOR IT, he has well researched information on particular topics.  I never said anything about agreeing with his OPINIONS or saying that was the way a Christian should be.                                                                                                                   If this site honestly is that much of a problem, forget it, I'll look elseware for sources.  It would help however if I had a specific idea in mind.  I would like to note that there are many people out there that make atheists look bad even to another atheist.  does that mean you disagree with their reasons for not believing???

        


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Hank

butterbattle wrote:

Hank wrote:
I think in light of this you will see that rhetoric and emotional stereotypes are winning the day in the arguments against intelligent design. I think that the day should be won through reason and empirical science, not rhetoric, because worldview clearly is driving the science rather than the science driving the worldview. ID proponents are willing to follow scientific evidence wherever that scientific evidence leads.

- believes evolution is beating ID because of emotional arguments and rhetoric.

I never said I agreed.  You are all falling into a tangent on OPINIONS!!!!  Let's stick with fact.  If you care to find any, he's got some if you ask.  I've already said I'll consider finding another source because it seems that people on here get stuck easily on the irrelevant.  A specific idea to seek out would help.

butterbattle wrote:

- thinks ID "scientists" stands for reason while real scientists are underhanded cheaters. He's got it backwards.

and yet there are "real scientists" that are believers... hmmm. guess he does have it backwards.

 

Quote:
And when applied to information-rich DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, as well as the fact that the earth is perfectly situated in the Milky Way for both life and scientific discovery in the first place, the existence of an intelligent Designer is the most plausible scientific explanation, period.

- irreducible complexity

- fine tuning argument

no facts to back it up

caposkia wrote:
He has the "correct information" from what I have seen when requesting information from him.

I've already read several of his articles, and they're all really, really stupid, so I am rather skeptical about the validity of his resources. However, if you can link me to some, "correct information," I would happy to take a look.  

I guess you missed the part where I said he does not have most of the information on his site.  Most of his site is opinionated. 

What happens if you ASK FOR INFORMAITON is he will send you in the mail an unopinionated, strait forward outline.  From that information you can draw whatever conclusion you wish. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:These words

BobSpence1 wrote:

These words alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the speaker has no understanding of the relevant science whatsoever. This is completely fallacious. He is an intellectual black hole.

I've come across many atheist sites I could say the same about and I'm willing to be you'd agree.  Does that mean you would still disagree with their reasoning for not believing???


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Perfect! Maybe he will send

Perfect! Maybe he will send me a picture of a crocoduck.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Caposkia

Caposkia is there any evidence you personally use to support your belief in God?  


If so would you be willing to discuss it with us?  


Do you believe that evidence is necessary to believe something?

 
Do you consider personal experience to be evidence?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

These words alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the speaker has no understanding of the relevant science whatsoever. This is completely fallacious. He is an intellectual black hole.

I've come across many atheist sites I could say the same about and I'm willing to be you'd agree.  Does that mean you would still disagree with their reasoning for not believing???

How the hell could I say anything about their "their reasoning for not believing" without knowing what those reasons were. Your expressed opinion is of no significance. Was that meant to be a serious question?

My comment was an expression of my reaction to the total crap he espoused in the paragraph I read and quoted. Your opinion on other atheists is quite irrelevant.

The author appears to be an ignorant pretentious twit, and his views are only of interest to the study of the psychology of persistent irrational belief.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Perfect!

butterbattle wrote:

Perfect! Maybe he will send me a picture of a crocoduck.

You really need to read that book


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Caposkia is

RatDog wrote:

Caposkia is there any evidence you personally use to support your belief in God? 

yes, there is a broad spectrum of evidence.  It's important to note that it is the conglamoration of all the evidences that have led me to my belief and you cannot hang on just one.   

RatDog wrote:


If so would you be willing to discuss it with us?  

always have been.  It's why I suggested to everyone on the other forum to start a new one if they wanted to talk about something besides the book.

RatDog wrote:


Do you believe that evidence is necessary to believe something?

Why would you believe it otherwise?

RatDog wrote:


Do you consider personal experience to be evidence?

Yes, and most people do.  It is your personal experience that has showed you evidence to believe that there could not possibly be a higher power.  It is my personal experience that has showed me evidence to believe that there has to be a higher power. 

You can see from the above statement why personal experience would be a bad place to start unless we're willing to walk in each other's shoes.  All of the people I've talked to so far on here are not willing to do that. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:How the

BobSpence1 wrote:

How the hell could I say anything about their "their reasoning for not believing" without knowing what those reasons were. Your expressed opinion is of no significance. Was that meant to be a serious question?

Most atheists would see the opinions expressed by Hank and not only say he has poor judgement, but will proceed to dismiss his credibility for believing in the first place. 

The question was completely rational.  It was basically asking whether you're just judging his poor judgement or if you've completely denounced him as a credible source for information. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

My comment was an expression of my reaction to the total crap he espoused in the paragraph I read and quoted. Your opinion on other atheists is quite irrelevant.

It's completely relevent.  I never asked you what you thought of his opinions, I told you he'd be a source for "factual information" if you were interested in asking something specific.  You've made it abundantly clear that you missed the point.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The author appears to be an ignorant pretentious twit, and his views are only of interest to the study of the psychology of persistent irrational belief.

There's a few on the other forum that I've considered to be that possibility as well.  Though i have not dismissed anyone as a credible source for information. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

How the hell could I say anything about their "their reasoning for not believing" without knowing what those reasons were. Your expressed opinion is of no significance. Was that meant to be a serious question?

Most atheists would see the opinions expressed by Hank and not only say he has poor judgement, but will proceed to dismiss his credibility for believing in the first place. 

I doubt anyone would say he had 'poor judgement' rather he is fundamentally ignorant and/or ill-informed on the topic, so why would one bother seeking further information from him? Those things he said are simply untrue, independently of what he believes about God. His misunderstanding of those things is clearly linked to his belief in God, of course.

Quote:

The question was completely rational.  It was basically asking whether you're just judging his poor judgement or if you've completely denounced him as a credible source for information.

That may have been the 'basic' question you had in mind, but it was NOT the question you asked me.

You said:

"I've come across many atheist sites I could say the same about and I'm willing to be you'd agree.  Does that mean you would still disagree with their reasoning for not believing???"

Your actual question was asking me about what I thought of some unspecified person's thoughts about the article, based purely on them being atheist. Which was a stupid question!

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

My comment was an expression of my reaction to the total crap he espoused in the paragraph I read and quoted. Your opinion on other atheists is quite irrelevant.

It's completely relevent.  I never asked you what you thought of his opinions, I told you he'd be a source for "factual information" if you were interested in asking something specific.  You've made it abundantly clear that you missed the point.

The author clearly considered those ideas about DNA and the situation of the Earth in the Galaxy as "factual information", so it is abundantly clear that he is unlikely to be a reliable source of "factual information", at least about anything to do with scientific knowledge.

What area of knowledge did you have in mind where he might be a source of "factual information"?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes, and most people

Quote:
Yes, and most people do.  It is your personal experience that has showed you evidence to believe that there could not possibly be a higher power.  It is my personal experience that has showed me evidence to believe that there has to be a higher power.
 

This is common bullshit, that due to our personal experiences, our positions must be equal to each other. By doing this, the claimer completely ignores something called objective evidence. Clearly, Caposkia is avoiding discussing his beliefs because he is insecure about them and is also projecting the flaws of the methodology he used to reach his conclusions to our position to take the discussion one step backwards. When and if we begin debating our beliefs, he will no doubt be arguing that due to our personal bias, we can't claim that his position is any more intellectually empty than ours.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's one of Hank's

Here's one of Hank's resources. (ha)

CRI wrote:
Evolution is much more than a theory about man's origins. It is a comprehensive world view that determines how you live your life. Hank looks into the face of our supposed ancestor and exposes the astonishingly weak arguments that support evolutionary theory. This book will help you: (1) Discover the undeniable link between evolution and such social horrors as racism, sexism, and abortion. (2) Gain confidence in the validity of the creation model of human origins. (3) Learn how to effectively question and counter school teachers and professors who communicate that evolution is an established scientific fact.

I'm drowning in facts.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Capo, you've cited a source

Capo, you've cited a source backing Intelligent Design and the YEC creationist model, then have backpedaled and effectively said, 'Ohh, no. The real information/evidence is secret. Hank wil only give you that if he likes you!'

This is absurd sheistering.

 

You've said several times that you have a plethora of evidence that demonstrates God, yet have not produced anything at all for us to see other than references to ID proponents and 'fine tuning' nonsense. If you have it, put it on the table - don't just deflect by linking us to some douche.

In your own damn words, what evidence do you have that a magical deity conjured-up the universe ex nihilo?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I doubt

BobSpence1 wrote:

I doubt anyone would say he had 'poor judgement' rather he is fundamentally ignorant and/or ill-informed on the topic, so why would one bother seeking further information from him? Those things he said are simply untrue, independently of what he believes about God. His misunderstanding of those things is clearly linked to his belief in God, of course.

I guess it depends on what specific information you were looking for.  I guess I was assuming you'd be looking for historical information, from which he would have a decent library.  Jim Fowler might be a better source for history.  I'm not sure of his opinions or views either, therefore I cannot hold any credibility for what he says.  I'm willing to discuss any disagreements between either of them however.  Anything specific as long as the founder of this forum is good with it.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That may have been the 'basic' question you had in mind, but it was NOT the question you asked me.

You said:

"I've come across many atheist sites I could say the same about and I'm willing to be you'd agree.  Does that mean you would still disagree with their reasoning for not believing???"

Your actual question was asking me about what I thought of some unspecified person's thoughts about the article, based purely on them being atheist. Which was a stupid question!

You're good at somantics aren't ya.  It's not an effective way to corner me.  I'm just as stubborn  

Anyway, to suggest that you disagree with why they believe what they do and to ask if you find any of their information credible is implying the same thing.  non-credible information leads to disagreeing with why they believe in what they do. 

neither question had anything to do with an article but was understood to be a general questioning on their core belief.  Whether atheist or believer. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

My comment was an expression of my reaction to the total crap he espoused in the paragraph I read and quoted. Your opinion on other atheists is quite irrelevant.

your opinion on other believers is irrelevant as well.  This forum was not started to debate the mistaken views of other believers or non-believers.  It was to talk about "Evidence and the supernatural" as titled. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

The author clearly considered those ideas about DNA and the situation of the Earth in the Galaxy as "factual information", so it is abundantly clear that he is unlikely to be a reliable source of "factual information", at least about anything to do with scientific knowledge.

Maybe not so much science, but history.  I should have specified.  No one really gave me a clear basis for research.  I know the implication was probably science, but I didn't know his sources.  He might have something depending on the specific scientific quesiton, he might not. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
Yes, and most people do.  It is your personal experience that has showed you evidence to believe that there could not possibly be a higher power.  It is my personal experience that has showed me evidence to believe that there has to be a higher power.
 

This is common bullshit, that due to our personal experiences, our positions must be equal to each other. By doing this, the claimer completely ignores something called objective evidence. Clearly, Caposkia is avoiding discussing his beliefs because he is insecure about them and is also projecting the flaws of the methodology he used to reach his conclusions to our position to take the discussion one step backwards. When and if we begin debating our beliefs, he will no doubt be arguing that due to our personal bias, we can't claim that his position is any more intellectually empty than ours.  

ouchy

Now that we're done crying about not getting our way, lemme give it a try. 

Clearly what butterbattle is trying to say is that he is insecure of his beliefs and therefore wants to make it look like I'm avoiding the point by using the same tired old excuse I've heard since day one of my membership on this site.  The simple question required a simple answer and when he didn't get a specific belief that he could imediately denounce as delusion, he got scared that he might have to be on the same page with a believer for the moment to actually make progress with the conversation.

How'd I do?  Was I as far off with you as you were with me?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Here's

butterbattle wrote:

Here's one of Hank's resources. (ha)

CRI wrote:
Evolution is much more than a theory about man's origins. It is a comprehensive world view that determines how you live your life. Hank looks into the face of our supposed ancestor and exposes the astonishingly weak arguments that support evolutionary theory. This book will help you: (1) Discover the undeniable link between evolution and such social horrors as racism, sexism, and abortion. (2) Gain confidence in the validity of the creation model of human origins. (3) Learn how to effectively question and counter school teachers and professors who communicate that evolution is an established scientific fact.

I'm drowning in facts.

so you read the book! great.  let's talk about it.  It's very possible that I won't agree with everything he said, but it will be an interesting conversation none the less.  I'll let you start


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Capo,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Capo, you've cited a source backing Intelligent Design and the YEC creationist model, then have backpedaled and effectively said, 'Ohh, no. The real information/evidence is secret. Hank wil only give you that if he likes you!'

This is absurd sheistering.

oh... er... secret... right.  um.. sorry. 

Please reference btw where you quoted that

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You've said several times that you have a plethora of evidence that demonstrates God, yet have not produced anything at all for us to see other than references to ID proponents and 'fine tuning' nonsense. If you have it, put it on the table - don't just deflect by linking us to some douche.

In your own damn words, what evidence do you have that a magical deity conjured-up the universe ex nihilo?

I've stopped giving evidence.  oh yes, I have given it in other forums, but I've stopped because until I'm on a topic that someone else has decided, it seems that no one can stick to that topic.  If that's the case, why should I bother bringing something up. 

Why don't you tell me something specific that you want me to talk to you about as far as my belief goes and we can go from there.  I don't know what you're looking for.  The whole conjuring up the universe thing is a very broad spectrum.  You can look at the forum science vs. religion for all the juicy information on that.  Then when you come up with new questions from what you've read, we can go from there.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, this is really

Wow, this is really just.....hopeless, isn't it? I actually started a thread called, "Evidence and the Supernatural," and Caposkia still refuses to do anything except continue pouting about how the atheists won't cooperate.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is the problem - we

This is the problem - we have looked at all the arguments we are aware of, and find nothing remotely compelling to justify the outlandish concept of a supreme, sentient, universe creating being.

IOW, I see no credible evidence. So if someone wants to get me to re-examine the issue, the only possible avenue is to present what they consider the strongest evidence, so we can see if it presents something we haven't previously come across, and then we can have something specific to discuss.

I certainly have no time to waste reading thru yet more lame apologetic trash. If cap thinks he has someone who has some argument or evidence we may not have encountered, let him at least outline what he considers that writer's strongest argument.

The writer he suggested in another thread didn't sound too promising from a sample of his article.

What little cap has so far presented as evidence or argument has been less than compelling to say the least.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:This is the

BobSpence1 wrote:

This is the problem - we have looked at all the arguments we are aware of, and find nothing remotely compelling to justify the outlandish concept of a supreme, sentient, universe creating being.

That's right.  I have to say the same about my point of view.  I have found nothing remotely compelling to justify the concept of the absense of a supreme being.

Right now, what I'm looking for is what you both would want to talk about SPECIFICALLY that might help you consider the idea.  OR that might at least bring up a good discussion and possibly make me consider your idea. 

So far I've been asked to present a source for information which I presented 2 so far on this forum.  Instead of actually doing what I told you you'd need to do to get relevent information from the source, you complained about opinions he's expressed on his site.  I never said I agree with everything he said, I just said he did his homework for historical and other factual information. How much money should I put on the table to bet that no one has STILL requested information.  I bet my life savings wouldn't be that much of a gamble in this case.

If sources are not your thing, then fine.  Give me:

1. A SPECIFIC TOPIC OR IDEA

2. A RELEVENT source for research that you will find acceptable.

3. An acceptable method of research, ideally that still coensides with the scientific method of research

4. An open mind to the topic

From there, without other sources you can get lost in or complain about, we can discuss what I understand and what you understand.  When needed, we can refer to others for specific details because I know I'm not a walking library and I definitely don't assume you are either.  This goes for Butterbattle as well.

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, I see no credible evidence. So if someone wants to get me to re-examine the issue, the only possible avenue is to present what they consider the strongest evidence, so we can see if it presents something we haven't previously come across, and then we can have something specific to discuss.

As I've explained to others.  there is no one peice of evidence I can pull out of a hat for you to say that that was the defining fact that led me to accept this belief.  It's not one thing and it's not one source, it's a little bit of everything.  This is why I keep asking for SPECIFICALLY what you're looking for.  There's just too much stuff to just spew out and talk about.  Trust me.  I've tried it on here.  If you think the other forum was off topic, heh.  yea. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

I certainly have no time to waste reading thru yet more lame apologetic trash. If cap thinks he has someone who has some argument or evidence we may not have encountered, let him at least outline what he considers that writer's strongest argument.

The writer he suggested in another thread didn't sound too promising from a sample of his article.

What little cap has so far presented as evidence or argument has been less than compelling to say the least.

as for you as well.  Are you here to prove me wrong or are you here to come to a conclusion? 

If you're here to prove me wrong, then I definitely see no progression in our conversation.  If you are actually here for a conclusion either or, which requires time and an open mind from both sides, then stop complaining about nothing because you're doing the same thing I am right now and let's actually talk about something.  Otherwise, I will have to apologize, but I will not waste my time with 2 people who are better at complaining then conversing. 

I would also like to note that I've never studied apologetics so don't even try to use that crap on me.  I think a true follower is what you haven't encountered.  If you'd actually get to a point, we could discuss that more. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:In

butterbattle wrote:

In response to Caposkia's request, I've started this thread in the hopes that the conversation will actually progress somewhere. 

The topic of this conversation is very simple. 

- show me evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, basically, any world other than this one.

- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

- existence of some "creator" or "higher power."

Now if you're willing to actually progress with the purpose of this forum.  let me try to be more specific with what I need from you.

1.  Show you evidence for the existence of a spiritual world.  Exactly what would have to be presented to you LEGITIMATELY that would make you consider the possibility.  Is there really anything? 

I ask because I"ve already presented ideas, most of which have been quickly dismissed as either delusion, or requested a physical evidence of sort for proof.  This in other forums, not these 2.

If there's nothing, then we cannot go further with that.

2.  Evidence for the existance of a soul:

Another topic completely, however still ties into a spiritual world.  Again, what evidence would you need to be presented to make you consider the possibility?  Is there any? 

3.  The existence of a Creator or higher power:

Same question applies. 

I already know your state of mind is that there is no evidence, but that's not what I asked.  I asked what would need to be presented to you for you to consider the idea.

It obviously cannot be a physical proof.  We've agreed upon that.  What else is there?  A lot, there are chains of events, there are personal experiences, there are actual sightings from people, among other things.  You would just have to think about it.

If you're serious, you'll respond with a serious answer.  There must be something that would be relevent to the spiritual world that would help you consider the idea that you could tell me  you'd need to hear of or have presented to you.  Otherwise, if there isn't, how would you expect me to answer you? 

 


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I already

caposkia wrote:

I already know your state of mind is that there is no evidence, but that's not what I asked.  I asked what would need to be presented to you for you to consider the idea.

Oh, oh, oh! I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

What I would need to be presented is.... drum roll, please.

EVIDENCE!

Of course since you have already admitted that there is no evidence for the supernatural, this whole conversation is rather pointless.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Right now,

caposkia wrote:

Right now, what I'm looking for is what you both would want to talk about SPECIFICALLY that might help you consider the idea.  OR that might at least bring up a good discussion and possibly make me consider your idea.

What I would want to talk about SPECIFICALLY that might help me consider the idea is exactly what's been asked for repeatedly:

Present. Your. Evidence.

You say you have evidence that leads you to believe in God. Produce it. Let us examine and consider your evidence. Our rationales for holding the positions we have are all over this site. We produce our views and claims (if we, as individuals, make active claims, not all do) at the figurative drop of a hat. We're asking you to show the same consideration.

Present your evidence.

Quote:

So far I've been asked to present a source for information which I presented 2 so far on this forum.

Except what you've been asked to present is your evidence which leads you to believe in God. So far, the evidence you've presented is to say "Look at this guy! He seems to know a lot, and he believes!" And if that's the basis of your belief, that's fine, just say so. But that's not what we're asking for.

What things have you seen, encountered, or experienced (yes, I'll open the floor to experiential evidence, why not?) that leads you to believe in God?

Quote:

How much money should I put on the table to bet that no one has STILL requested information.  I bet my life savings wouldn't be that much of a gamble in this case.

Then you should send me your life savings. I'll let you know what I get in reply to my request for information and credible evidence.

Quote:

If sources are not your thing, then fine.  Give me:

1. A SPECIFIC TOPIC OR IDEA

All of it.

Quote:

2. A RELEVENT source for research that you will find acceptable.

How about... when you present the evidence, you present it with sourcing?

Quote:

3. An acceptable method of research, ideally that still coensides with the scientific method of research

How about when you present the evidence and the sourcing, you present your methodology as well? You see, ideally, what you want to do is establish your premises, provide us with the evidence you acquired, where you acquired it from, and how you acquired it, and see if we can duplicate your results, or if we find errors that you didn't notice in your experiment. And if we do find errors, then please don't take that as a personal attack on you, Caposkia, but as us trying to help you ensure that your work is error-free, and so trustworthy. This is what is known as peer-review, and it's an important part of the scientific method.

Quote:

4. An open mind to the topic

I'll have one if you'll have one.

Quote:

As I've explained to others.  there is no one peice of evidence I can pull out of a hat for you to say that that was the defining fact that led me to accept this belief. It's not one thing and it's not one source, it's a little bit of everything.  This is why I keep asking for SPECIFICALLY what you're looking for.  There's just too much stuff to just spew out and talk about.

We're not asking for one piece of evidence. We're asking for all of it. If you think there's too much to present, then pick a starting point and work from there. If you'd like, I'll pick one for you:

Start with your earliest memories and work forward, through each segment of your life.

Begin with early childhood. Be thorough.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
capioska wrote:I already

capioska wrote:

I already know your state of mind is that there is no evidence, but that's not what I asked.  I asked what would need to be presented to you for you to consider the idea.

It obviously cannot be a physical proof.  We've agreed upon that.  What else is there?  A lot, there are chains of events, there are personal experiences, there are actual sightings from people, among other things.  You would just have to think about it.

I know you were not replying to me here, but let's talk about those things, work through them one by one. That is exactly what I am interested in, the experiences, observations, events, whatever, that you feel justify your belief. I'm sure that goes for others here as well.

Had you somehow concluded that we were only looking for what you think of as 'physical' evidence? That may be the source of our misunderstanding.

We are not asking for the "defining fact that led me to accept this belief", we fully understand that it is usually an accumulation of things, just as it is typically for us, when concluding there is nothing to support belief. It would have to be a lot more straight-forward for you to start talking about some of the things which positively contributed toward your ultimate position than for us to work through all the arguments we examined and found lacking, especially as from some of your comments you may well find some of them faulty as well.

The quickest way to find something substantial to discuss is to work thru the experiences, observations, and other things which contributed to your position, since by definition each issue must either be something we have not thought of or encoutered before, or something we disagree with. Either way we will be guarranteed to have something specific to discuss/debate.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology