William wrote:
"Call it a form of questioning atheist positions... "
There remains only one atheist position: a lack of belief in a god(s)
That is the shared default position.
Q: What kind of atheist fits you best in relation to the subset positions?
"Incorrect. The unicorn is mentioned for its natural strength."
Something that doesn't exist can't have natural strength. If it doesn't exist, then any attribute attributed to it is fictional. I don't care why people try to justify it being in the bible, this is irrelevant to me. Unicorns are not real and never have been.
Perhaps it should have been called a 'unihorn' then?
If you don't care to do some research on it, then so be it.
Q: Why, as a particular type of atheist, do you refuse to examine possible explanations regarding the mention of the unicorn, when the opportunity is afforded to you to do so?
Your argument under the circumstance, has no traction.
Why Does The Bible Mention Unicorns? [Linky]
It appears that the link is a Christian perspective, but from a Jewish perspective, there is this;
UNICORN: [
Linky]
Now, the more one searches the perspectives, the more one can see that there is still some differences of perspective and some still invoke a supernatural quality to this beast.
When such happens, I tend to discard both as relevant - as they contradict to the point where debate about it becomes moot. All that is debatable is the 'supernatural' aspect. That is the aspect you are focused upon.
In relation to the idea of GOD, this for you, translates to 'a supernatural being' which is not how I 'see' the Idea of GOD.
So you are arguing with the wrong man in that regard as I don't claim that my idea of GOD is 'supernatural' - I do, however, acknowledge that something can
appear to be the case, but consider such to be something which happens naturally which is altogether outside the parameters of past and present human ability to understand in relation to nature.
"In regard to the biblical God, please explain to me what you are meaning by "supernatural attributes". "
Supernatural: does not exist in nature.
Then it does not exist in relation to this universe.
There may indeed be another universe which works in conjunction with this on, largely invisible to human senses.
Even so, this would not mean that anything 'supernatural' is actually going on, because the word 'supernatural' was invented by humans to explain something which does go on with humans.
Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:
Would those within that other universe see us as 'supernatural'?
Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:
Would it not likely be that those within it would see themselves as 'natural'?
Q: IF:
Those within it would see themselves as 'natural', and their position in relation to ours as being 'natural', would we be wise to consider such a universe and its creatures as 'supernatural' even that;
1: It appears to be the case for us because it is 'not normal' when the universes interact in relation to individual subjective reality and subsequent experience.
2: The natives of the other universe are not self-identifying as 'supernatural' anyhow?
Meaning that god is supposed to be able to do things that nothing else can do within the natural realm.
Apparently that isn't the obvious case though is it?
So naturally we should question the claim that GOD can indeed reach from one realm (universe) to the other and do physical tricks to entertain the natives?
Even if it were possible for one universe to do that to another, ripple effects can be major...even in very negative ways.
So we cannot assume that GOD can do whatever IT likes to do, within the parameters of any universe just to satisfy science and convince atheists.
Nature is limited, but god is supposed to be unlimited, that would make god's "unlimitedness" supernatural.
Only in human terms grounded in ignorance but wanting to make a statement anyway.
"Supernatural" is a human term for wanting something to happen which can never happen, naturally speaking. It is a human idea which may not have any relevance to the facts of what occurs in relation to individual human experience.
"One is of form, the other is not. Please explain how "verifiable evidence" can be made available in relation to something which has no known form. "
Things don't need "form" to be verified with evidence.
Really? Please name one for me.
Opinions don't have form either, but you can verify the existence of opinions with evidence by asking for opinions and documenting them.
Okay.
Did you notice that the opinion didn't actually become a "thing" until the process of recording it happened?
Yet, it existed before it became a "thing".
Please explain how individual subjective thought can really be a thing before it is recorded. I am not arguing that before it is made into a thing, it didn't exist.
I am arguing that before it was made into a thing, it did indeed exist.
Light doesn't have form, nor does energy of any kind.
I think this is plainly incorrect Clownboat.
Essentially light is information and given enough timespace it transforms into things and all those things are products of information.
Energy and light are the same. Energy is the manifestation of things - Lights way of...well...
doing things
Dark matter and dark energy have no known forms, but we have evidence they exist too.
They are things because they have mass. At that rate they represent things which are able to extinguish all light from there mass (what they are - there structure - as far as we can tell anyhoo) and this could represent the sum total of all information from light having perhaps created its masterpiece in those sections of the universe where they exist as things. - the ultimate end product of the data of light. Light has done its job in those departments.
"Therefore, why are you making a false analogy between the two ideas and trying to use that as an argument? "
Not liking an analogy doesn't make it a false analogy.
It isn't a question of me not liking it Clownboat. It is a question of why it should not be liked.
I gave examples as to why it should not be accepted as true argument, but rejected as fallacy (false argument)
I used unicorns as an example hoping we could both find common agreement that unicorns can have no evidence verifying their nonexistence, highlighting that the burden of proof is on the one claiming they exist instead of the one rejecting the claim. The exact same argument is what I use when rejecting god claims and the shifting of the burden of proof.
As explained Clownboat, the argument you are using is shown to be false.
1: In this universe, it is mathematically feasible that unicorns (as in the form of a horse with a horn growing out of the middle of its forehead) likely do exist.
Thus 'unicorns most likely exist in this universe'.
The idea of GOD as being a formless self aware consciousness, is another kettle of fish.
The analogies therefore do not align and thus the demand for burden of proof is a false one.
Burden of proof is not required.
[linky]
"If I said, "GOD exists", then that is a positive claim is it not? "
correct
"THEN more is required from me in relation to what I mean by "GOD', correct? "
correct
"THEN in providing more data, it is found that the idea being described cannot be produced through "verifiable evidence" for logical reasons, there is no case for burden of proof to be enforced. It is a fallacy to demand such. "
incorrect
Either something exists, allowing you to know something about it, or something does not exist and attributes are made up about it. If you believe you know specific properties of your god, then there must be a way of verifying that knowledge.
"The Way" is the manner in which one approaches the subject at the go-get.
It is the reality of the
individuals subjective experience which provides the evidence to
that individual.
Therefore in relation to that individual, yes - the knowledge is verified, as far as the individual is concerned.
In that, your demand for science to intervene on the matter is besides the point. Science is not about that. Subjective reality is off limits to present day science and generally rejected as unusable in relation to 'verifiable evidence'.
The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy and in that Burden of Truth is what is looked for in regard to evidence. The mind of the matter.
BoT rather than BoP.
Otherwise, you don't know anything about your god because you couldn't possibly know anything about it if nothing about it can be verified.
Untrue! The individual can indeed know something of the nature of their idea of GOD through that subjective interaction. To be sure, the individual is indeed dealing with something way beyond normal comprehension and thus metaphor comes into its own in attempts to make the idea a THING through the process of explanation - now situated within the physical universe in the form of written language.
Verbal language is the same process - it is made a thing through sound. What is made a thing? An idea, a thought. A thought exists even before it is made into a sound and the sound needs to somehow be captured in order to make it into a thing.
It isn't a fallacy to expect evidence of existence for something claimed to exist.
In the case of ideas and thoughts, we all know that they exist right? Even that until we make them into things, they dont exist in this universe as solid measurable objects.
Thus fallacy to expect evidence of existence for something which everyone knows exists, even that we cannot see these as solid objects, until we make them so.
"Bad analogy. What guilt is there, associated with having knowledge of an idea of GOD? "
Once again, not liking or understanding an analogy doesn't make it "bad."
You do me a disservice not to acknowledge that I have already explained WHY it is bad.
The analogy is intended to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god. I'll elaborate further by now comparing the example to the god question specifically (this is an argument I have heard used elsewhere by people like Matt Dilahunty, so it is not my own).
God is the subject on trial. We can either find god "guilty" of existing through the evidence presented or "not guilty" because of a lack of verifiable evidence. No evidence can be presented to show innocence, all one can do is try and disprove or poke holes in the evidence produced to try and show guilt. With no evidence of a god to show it being "guilty" of existence, one might reasonably conclude that god being "not guilty" of existence is sufficient reason to conclude that gods are truly "innocent" of existing.
Okay.
So in relation to that analogy, 'we' are the jury and all the evidence is not in so we are not even in the chamber where we can discuss the guilt or non-guilt of the idea of the being in question. (GOD)
Your analogy simple presumes the evidence is all in but the Judge has not asked the jury to deliberate and come up with a verdict. The jury still sits in the court, still being supplied with the evidence.
In the simplest terms, what is occurring here is that there are two courts.
One is bogus and the other is legitimate.
Due to the philosophical nature of the subject under investigation, The legitimate court is The Court of Philosophical Questions, not The Court of Scientific Questions.
In reality, because all the evidence is not even in, the proceedings are not even at the court stage re the investigations.
Thus atheists using the argument of science as a means to jump the gun and get to the finish line ahead of proceedings, is - while amusing - nonetheless, bogus.
"Still a bad analogy. Someone who claims GOD exists is not guilty of anything. Is not even guilty of being unable to provide "verifiable evidence" because of the nature of their subjective experience in relation to that. "
You completely misunderstood the analogy. You aren't on trial, your god is.
You either misunderstand 'my god' or are ignorant about Her. My idea of GOD is not on trial. My idea of GOD is still very much under investigation.
"Atheists would be far better off understanding this and trying a different approach toward theists belief systems. "
Take a step back sometimes and ask yourself "Do I understand what they are actually saying? Do I understand it well enough to make assumptions about it?" Rather than making assumptions because of a lack of understanding, ask for clarification.
Please clarify what you mean by the above. Thanks.
"Rubbishing, mocking, belittling, demanding "verifiable evidence" etc simply won't cut it because these are dishonest approaches, and fail to respect the sacredness of an individuals experience in relation to their own understanding of what GOD is. "
You are now accusing me of being dishonest?
You are being dishonest. I have pointed out where this is occurring in your argument.
I am able to understand why you believe you are being honest, but that still doesn't mean it is something I should accept from anyone as 'The Truth' when I can see and explain why it is NOT.
I see nothing wrong with asking for evidence of a god before determining that one exists.
If you want evidence that what I might testify of as having experienced, you would ask me for that evidence, would you not?
If you want evidence that GOD exists, should you not be asking that of GOD?
But how can you when you lack belief in all ideas of gods?
Is that my fault? Why should I be the one to prove to you that GOD is real in the context of MY subjective experience, even that it was even possible for me to do this for you?
You ask for far too much in relation to reality. What you ask for cannot be done for you, by me or by anyone else.
If such evidence does exist, I want to see it.
Then ask GOD for it.
This isn't being dishonest. Don't accuse me of such intellectual manipulation and I won't accuse you of being intentionally obtuse.
*sniffles*
"Only if said theists broke the law and murdered others claiming GOD told them to, can guilt and GOD be linked with said act. Giving testament to the power of an idea of GOD in ones life, is not and should never be considered a thing to be ashamed of and thus requiring some sort of social judgement and condemnation for holding such a position."
I have no idea what this ramble is about, but I suspect it is from a lack of understanding what my analogy means.
Now you're being rude and personal.
The courtroom analogy is and always has been to demonstrate where the burden of proof lies. You never answered my question on this.
Does the claimant (the state prosecutor) have the burden of proof, or the defendant (my hypothetical hermit without electronic devoices)? Does the defendant have to prove with evidence their innocence, or is it the prosecution's job to demonstrate (with evidence) guilt?
