Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
Thanks Tree14Thanks

Thread: Eric the Magic Pengruin

  1. #21
    Begin with a happy Ending Engine-Ear's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    14,715
    Thanks
    10716

    From
    The last place I lost my keys.
    Has anyone ever seen a single atom?

  2. #22
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    29,422
    Thanks
    17841

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    To clarify, if Eric exists, then he eats God and God 'ceases' to exist, meaning he existed up to that point.
    and Gawd ain't scared of no "pengruin"......!!!
    Thanks from Engine-Ear

  3. #23
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    29,422
    Thanks
    17841

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    Has anyone ever seen a single atom?

    I may have. But there was a lot of alcohol involved. Could be wrong....
    Thanks from Engine-Ear

  4. #24
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    No. Your dismissal of my personal evidence does not invalidate my evidence. Century after century great minds have thought that they had the universe mostly figured out, and succeeding centuries had paradigm shifts, after which they congratulated themselves being enlightened, unlike those uninformed souls who came before. This will happen again after we are both dust.
    Actually, it kinda does. You're "personal evidence" is the weakest form of evidence. Hey. If that's good enough for you, that's fine. I'm just sick of theists insisting that their belief based on such weak evidence is rational, or reasonable:



    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    You have built your personal system on axioms which include the nonexistence of God.

    I have built mine on axioms which include the existence of God.

    Your system is not more valid than mine, logically speaking. Your axioms are no more objective and verifiable than mine. You have your personal reasons for thinking that your axioms are reasonable to build upon. I have my personal reasons for thinking that my axioms are reasonable to build upon.
    Of course it is. Any system that is based on the requirement of objective, verifiable evidence is, by nature, more logically valid than a system that is not. Because when you remove the need for objective evidence than all manner of subjective variables such as delusion, emotion, and confirmation bias skew the results. Your insistence that I have "personal reasons" for my position is nothing more than transference. I have no personal reason to discount the existence of God. In fact, I have every reason to want God to exist. After all, how much more comforting would it be to know that there was some great cosmic force, out there, looking out for each and every one of us. But, what I want, and what I desire has no bearing on what is rational, and logical. To assert a thing without any objective evidence is irrational, and my personal desires do not change that fact.

    See, this is the misconception that theists have of atheists. Almost invariably, they presume that our atheism is tied to some personal agenda: we hate god, we're mad at god, we want to do icky things, and god's rules get in the way. This is, quite simply, not true. Most of us would be thrilled if we were proven wrong. However, we refuse to abandon reason, and logic simply for the security blanket of desire.

    You want me to believe in God? Give me a reason to. One that is logical, and rational. One that is based on objective reality, not because I "experienced" something I can't explain.

  5. #25
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,880
    Thanks
    26615

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    To clarify, if Eric exists, then he eats God and God 'ceases' to exist, meaning he existed up to that point.
    Well, I started to break the first case down into subcases of whether God was ever present and available to be eaten, but I decided to keep it simple.

    Czernobog's argument was that (a) if Eric does exist, then even if God did once exist, he exists no more, and (b) whether or not we can prove that Eric exists it follows that God does not exist. The logical flaw in his mathematical conundrum was located in part (b) so that's where I gave a little more detail.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    To clarify, if Eric exists, then he eats God and God 'ceases' to exist, meaning he existed up to that point.
    LOL. Touchť.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Engine-Ear View Post
    Has anyone ever seen a single atom?
    I'm not certain that anyone has ever seen a single atom. However, we do have objective, verifiable evidence of the effect of a single atom on the universe around it. Can the same be said of God?

  8. #28
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,880
    Thanks
    26615

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Actually, it kinda does. You're "personal evidence" is the weakest form of evidence. Hey. If that's good enough for you, that's fine. I'm just sick of theists insisting that their belief based on such weak evidence is rational, or reasonable:




    Of course it is. Any system that is based on the requirement of objective, verifiable evidence is, by nature, more logically valid than a system that is not. Because when you remove the need for objective evidence than all manner of subjective variables such as delusion, emotion, and confirmation bias skew the results. Your insistence that I have "personal reasons" for my position is nothing more than transference. I have no personal reason to discount the existence of God. In fact, I have every reason to want God to exist. After all, how much more comforting would it be to know that there was some great cosmic force, out there, looking out for each and every one of us. But, what I want, and what I desire has no bearing on what is rational, and logical. To assert a thing without any objective evidence is irrational, and my personal desires do not change that fact.

    See, this is the misconception that theists have of atheists. Almost invariably, they presume that our atheism is tied to some personal agenda: we hate god, we're mad at god, we want to do icky things, and god's rules get in the way. This is, quite simply, not true. Most of us would be thrilled if we were proven wrong. However, we refuse to abandon reason, and logic simply for the security blanket of desire.

    You want me to believe in God? Give me a reason to. One that is logical, and rational. One that is based on objective reality, not because I "experienced" something I can't explain.


    I don't "want" you to believe in God. God is personal. I have quite a lot of evidence that a higher power has been active in my life. But it's personal.

    So carry on in your atheism. But if you are dismissive of my experience then that says more about you than it does about my experience. You exhibited your "reason" in your OP. I showed that your reasoning had a major hole in it.

    I am of sound mind, with extensive scientific training. You make unfounded leaps and broad generalizations and then try to act like you're operating from the higher ground rationally speaking.

    You are not.
    Thanks from pragmatic

  9. #29
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Well, I started to break the first case down into subcases of whether God was ever present and available to be eaten, but I decided to keep it simple.

    Czernobog's argument was that (a) if Eric does exist, then even if God did once exist, he exists no more, and (b) whether or not we can prove that Eric exists it follows that God does not exist. The logical flaw in his mathematical conundrum was located in part (b) so that's where I gave a little more detail.
    Actually, my argument was that if Eric could be proven not to exist, that same method of poof could be applied to God. You simply chose to argue that Eric can simply be asserted to not exist, because Eric's existence is an assertion without evidence, and that assertion does not affect the question of God. My response is that the same assertion, without evidence, can be made to God, being asserted without evidence.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    I don't "want" you to believe in God. God is personal. I have quite a lot of evidence that a higher power has been active in my life. But it's personal.

    So carry on in your atheism. But if you are dismissive of my experience then that says more about you than it does about my experience. You exhibited your "reason" in your OP. I showed that your reasoning had a major hole in it.

    I am of sound mind, with extensive scientific training. You make unfounded leaps and broad generalizations and then try to act like you're operating from the higher ground rationally speaking.

    You are not.
    I've made no such unfounded leaps. What unfounded leap have I made in my dismissal of God? My entire premise has never change. God does not exist. My requirement to alter that premise has never changed: present objective, verifiable evidence. Where, then, is the "unfounded leap"?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 5th August 2017, 06:27 PM
  2. Replies: 182
    Last Post: 16th June 2016, 02:33 PM
  3. Magic paper!
    By Sassy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17th November 2015, 04:05 PM
  4. magic number
    By yuri zhivago in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd October 2013, 08:13 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed