Quite frankly, I would rather be a blithering idiot than a prick. Misplaced confidence and unnecessary insults are a bad combination. Furthermore, my negative proposition "there is no God" is certainly falsifiable - by you proving there is one! Quite frankly I don't care if you believe in God or not. I don't care what you believe. And you can't prove your position any more than I can prove mine. I can say the same thing to you: prove to me there is NOT a God. You can't do that either. The point is that there is no incontrovertible evidence either way. You have no more incontrovertible evidence than I do in terms of being able to convince others. If theism is absent, a position is automatically deferred to atheist. Are you telling me there is no such thing as an agnostic? That everyone has to be certain there is a God or there isn't? So when you ask someone if there is a God and they say 'I don't know,' does that mean they are lying? Or do 'I don't know' and 'No' mean the same thing to you? How many times are you going to put your foot in your mouth? 3) You state there was agreement established that there is no possibility of conclusive evidence for my position or yours, Darkhorse, yet claim ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY in your beliefs. The logic of this is lost on me. I have absolute certainty in my beliefs because I have evidence that convinces me absolutely. Just because I cannot convince YOU does not make it otherwise. I am also not able to communicate certain direct experiences and connections through words. When you build a structure of understanding that is interconnected, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Are you certain that profitable patterns exist in the market? Could you convince a random walker? Even if you couldn't, could you still maintain certainty for yourself? Would the random walker's disbelief have any effect on your personal knowledge? how do I go about choosing which religion to follow? Each claims as punishment eternal torment for the non-believer, am I to believe them ALL? The way you discover the path is by searching for it, examining and weighing many things, spending long hours and long nights in thought and contemplation until you put the puzzle pieces together in a way that makes sense to you. If you think I have a two sentence answer for you, you're even worse off than I thought.
Darkhorse, by your reasoning I could make a thousand irrational assertions and not have to provide evidence for a single one of them. If pressed, I can simply say, "prove me wrong, go on! ha! you can't can you! Therefore you have to at least except that I might be right. Conventions of philosophy dictate such a position is untenable. Re: agnosticism: What happens in a court of law when the jury is aksed, "did he kill him?" and they answer "we don't know" - decision is deferred to the negative. "In light of all the evidence, we cannot state that 'x' occured." If you cannot communicate your experience of God in such a way that another may understand it, it is tantamount to having no evidence at all. We cannot, therefore, give any credence to your claim that "God exists".
Darkhorse, by your reasoning I could make a thousand irrational assertions and not have to provide evidence for a single one of them. Superficial and incorrect assumption. I don't even have to explain why because it has already been fleshed out in the thread. Basing ultimate belief on unprovable first presuppositions is a fact of limited understanding which all men face. This does not mean arguments cannot be made, only that they can only go back to a certain point. This is basic. You are correct in one sense though: you can make as many irrational assertions as you want, you've already made quite a few. Re: agnosticism: What happens in a court of law when the jury is aksed, "did he kill him?" and they answer "we don't know" - decision is deferred to the negative. "In light of all the evidence, we cannot state that 'x' occured." This analogy has no bearing on anything. I spent years in the twilight of not being sure whether God existed or not. Many other people spend their whole lives in this twilight. This is not the same as being confident God does not exist. Maybe for you but certainly not for all. Courtrooms go by the guide of innocent til proven guilty. There is no similar cosmic law that says 'nonexistent unless proven to exist.' The opposite of knowledge is uncertainty, nothing more. If I can't prove what's in the box, do I have the right to assume nothing is in the box? No.... If you cannot communicate your experience of God in such a way that another may understand it, it is tantamount to having no evidence at all. We cannot, therefore, give any credence to your claim that "God exists". I can communicate my experience of God in many ways and also give you pages and pages of reasoning evidence as to why I am confident He is there. Scroll back and you'll find some arguments based on reasoning and observation. The only thing I cannot give is the 'incontrovertible' evidence you seek, which cannot be provided most specifically because intellectual assent is an act of will on the part of the receiver as well as the communicator, which essentially means no evidence is 'incontrovertible' in the first place. Every limitation that you place on my position is placed on your position as well. I can just as easily say 'We cannot therefore, give any credence to your claim that 'God does not exist.' Your entire confidence seems to rest on the idea that agnosticism = atheism, that lack of proof equals confidence of assumption. This is a highly illogical (and unscientific) leap. The only one with a pass card is the functioning agnostic, and that is because the agnostic does not take a position and thus does not have to defend anything. So there really is no pass card at all. Thus we are back to what I've said a dozen times at least, all men ultimately walk in faith whether they like it or not. We could have gotten here peacefully. You didn't have to walk in here using words like laughable and despicable and calling names.
I don't seek INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence (although that would be nice, and most certainly IS possible to give), I am merely asking for strong evidence. Support your claims. I called your babblings of the past 30 pages "hot air" because no such "strong evidence" is forthcoming. None of your models of existance ceases to function without the existance of your God, therefore he is redundant, and for the purposes of the principle of parsimony must necessarily be excluded. There may not be a cosmic law that says " non-existance until proof of existance" but science IS based on the one that says "assumption of existance is dependant on the weight of evidence." It seems as though we will have to have that argument over reason and faith that I was trying to avoid. I reject your claim and that reason requires faith and, furthermore, reject your claim that reason requiring faith is a philosphical axiom. Also, the only way I can "prove" my position is by disproving yours. I can only disprove yours by refuting your evidence. If you cannot or will not provide it, i win by default.
There may not be a cosmic law that says " non-existance until proof of existance" but science IS based on the one that says "assumption of existance is dependant on the weight of evidence." If you think science has anything definitive to say about God, you don't understand the limits of science. Science describes a closed system; anything beyond the boundaries of that system is beyond the boundaries of science also. I reject your claim and that reason requires faith and, furthermore, reject your claim that reason requiring faith is a philosphical axiom. Reject whatever you want. You still don't get it. Prove to me that logic is valid without using logic. Prove me to that words have meaning without using words. You can't. You have to assume the validity of logic and the soundness of reason as operational first principles before you can even take one step forward. That is an act of faith. If you dispute this you are completely clueless. Or perhaps just living in your own world, where your definitions are completely different than other people's. You have already disputed the dictionary so perhaps this is the case. Also, the only way I can "prove" my position is by disproving yours. I can only disprove yours by refuting your evidence. If you cannot or will not provide it, i win by default. So now we see what this is about for you: winning. Well, at least your shallow attitude matches your shallow motive. You can't 'win' anything, except silly contests in your own head. There is nothing to win. Your desire to show dominance for the sheer sake of dominance is akin to beating your chest like a chimpanzee. If you lose an argument with a random walker, does that make the markets random? No, it makes you a lousy debater. Or you could even be a great debater and the random walker could be a blockhead. So winning or losing an argument essentially means what? Zero. If you cannot win a debate with someone because they refuse to entertain common sense ideas, does that negate truth? No, it highlights the fact that communication is a two way street. I have a tough time talking with someone who is so blind to common sense their position almost defies logic. You have an almost perverse fear of faith as shown by your completely irrational rejection of it. This is a common occurrence among those who live in fear of losing their grip on the world they 'control'- a world that only exists in their minds. 'Winning' is a stupid reason for debating anything, not least because it closes the mind of the debater to new possibilities, as well as the main drawback of having nothing to do with the search for truth.
Darkhorse and Daniel you guys are both retarded for sitting on a message board and arguing about this sh*t. GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL point taken brotha man noodles be the rizzeal dizzeal, keepin' the shiznit straightup cold true, word all the best Dan, feel free to take the last post, open season, see you on the boards
If you think science has anything definitive to say about God, you don't understand the limits of science. Science describes a closed system; anything beyond the boundaries of that system is beyond the boundaries of science also. You'd better update your knowledge base Darkhorse. The scientific community does not regard the universe a closed system. Anything beyond the bounds of the universe is beyond the bounds of knowledge itself. Explanation only has meaning in the context of the universe; by positing "god" - who by the scraps of definition I have picked up is supernatural, BEYOND nature - you forego the epistemological right to the very concept of explanation. Reject whatever you want. You still don't get it. Prove to me that logic is valid without using logic. Prove me to that words have meaning without using words. You can't. You have to assume the validity of logic and the soundness of reason as operational first principles before you can even take one step forward. That is an act of faith. If you dispute this you are completely clueless. Or perhaps just living in your own world, where your definitions are completely different than other people's. You have already disputed the dictionary so perhaps this is the case. Communication is the means by which I share my sensory perception of the world. Reason is the neurophysiological means by which the brain acquires knowledge. Neither of the two require "faith". Reason is the only context in which anything can have meaning. The concept of faith cannot be described without reason. Reason is the way mankind is built from the groundup. A child "reasons" (learns and acts) way before it is even aware of what "faith" is. Reaon, not faith, is the operational first priciple. So now we see what this is about for you: winning. Well, at least your shallow attitude matches your shallow motive. "winning" is not my reason at all. Like I said Darkhorse, I too, am in search for a better understanding of the world and willing to explore the issue with you so that not only you or I, but ALL third parties stand to gain something constructive. At the moment our positions appear to be diametrically opposed. By failing to support your outlandish claims of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY your argument, by default, is inferior. That was the point of using the word "winning". You have an almost perverse fear of faith as shown by your completely irrational rejection of it. This is a common occurrence among those who live in fear of losing their grip on the world they 'control'- a world that only exists in their minds. Stop speaking absurdities. My rejection of faith is based on NOTHING BUT reason. I, perhaps unlike yourself, don't live in fear of losing my grip on anything. A world without God - as the evidence thus far indicates - makes perfect sense to me. A world WITH god - if he could be shown to exist - would make perfect sense also. If you cannot fathom a world without god (as your previous posts suggest), if you cannot bear the possibility of life "having no meaning without god" that is your own pyschological problem. Do not pretend the rest of the world shares your forlorn predicament.
Go F thyself you POS! My time could, perhaps, be better spent, but since I'm sitting at my computer unable to trade, I thought I would engage in some half-way intelligent discussion on a topic to my liking. This makes me retarded?
Dark, my man. You finally got ME to disagree. Debating per say IS about "winning". Actually, what you guys have been doing is arguing your "beliefs". A true debater would be able to take either side of this (or any other issue) and "score points". It is not about "closing the mind" or "search for truth". A debate is indeed a contest. You should know that you really cannot "win" the kind of argument you have been carrying on here. Not that your arguments haven't been concise, well thought out, and extremely eloquent. The problem is that you have too much passion about the subject; which is great in life, but not particularly effective in a "debate". And if it is an "argument", I KNOW you are way too bright to expect to win it. I have said "thank God I'm an atheist"...I am sure you remember. Well that was to try and keep it light. I am NOT an atheist, nor am I an agnostic. I actually am a participant in my place of worship. But my religious beliefs are personal to me....as they are to everyone. Dark, you have so much to contribute to this site in every way. Your insight, your humor, your way with words. And though I may disagree with some of your beliefs (political mostly...not religious), I respect and like you. So as your friend (I hope I am considered that by you), do yourself a favor and just accept that some people will not accept! Peace, good trading, love, and rock and roll...heavy doses of all! RS