[Replying to post 172 by TheBeardedDude
Okay I have some time so will continue answering your post Beaded Dude.
"In the case of ideas and thoughts, we all know that they exist right? Even that until we make them into things, they don't exist in this universe as solid measurable objects. "
1) no one ever claimed (at least I didn't) that only solid objects exist in the universe
2) no one ever claimed (at least I didn't) that only solid objects are measurable
We can MEASURE things that exist that are not composed of matter. Like heat, or light, or sound, etc. Also, THOUGHTS. We can observe thoughts and even manipulate thoughts (big electromagnets have been shown to generate hallucinations in people).
The point wasn't focused upon anyone claiming anything.
"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."
It isn't a fallacy. It is a misunderstanding on your part. Please stop throwing out the word "fallacy" because you don't like what I said.
It is not that I don't like what you said. Please refrain from using that as an argument, or at least provide evidence that this is the case. Otherwise it isn't even addressing what I wrote as argument but diverging away from what I wrote as argument.
"You do me a disservice not to acknowledge that I have already explained WHY it is bad,"
You explained why you don't like it, but that does not make it objectively bad.
So one can commit a fallacy without being challenged on it because is isn't 'objectively bad'?
Explain why it is not 'objectively bad.' What does that even mean in relation to committing a fallacy, and continuing to argue in favor of doing so even when it is pointed out to you logically WHY it is a fallacy?
As far as I am concerned, it is not a personal subjective feeling of being offended. It is a matter of being honest. I don't like dishonesty. I don't even have to wait until someone is being dishonest toward me before I choose to point it out. If they are being dishonest with someone else, it is a valid and virtuous thing to do.
In this case, the dishonesty is you refusing to acknowledge I am correct. I tend to give people the benefit of doubt while they integrate concepts which might be new to them, and will always try to clarify when asked.
However, if their replies continue to reflect that they are not actual even interested in examining what I have said, I am fine with then assuming they are perhaps just being dishonest and cagey.
Misunderstanding what I am saying does not make it bad.
If indeed you really think I have misunderstood you, would you not try to explain things another way in order to help the process, rather than just claim I am 'misunderstanding you'?
As if that is even a true argument! (you do not even back up the statement with any evidence that this is the case.)
"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."
I don't understand how you took my example and perverted it to this degree. There aren't "two courts." And in the end, you concluded an argument from ignorance.
you have made a statement without backing it up with any example.
How are we to get on the same page if you are not willing to argue properly?
I took your court-room analogy and placed my
understanding of what is going on, into that, NOT to pervert
your analogy but as a further attempt to help you understand where I am coming from.
Why do you think that where you are coming from is so truthful that anything else which disagrees with it is 'perverting' your idea of truth'?
Why would anyone wish to argue in such defensive manner?
What about your opinion is that precious that you would accuse another of 'perverting' your opinion?
Are you trying to push me away?
Is it a reflex barrier put up to fob the other off by subtle use of personal slight?
Really! What 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. "
"Please clarify what you mean by the above. Thanks. "
Either your god exists and can be shown to exist, or it doesn't and is indistinguishable from fiction.
Yes. You appear to be ignorant about my idea of GOD. I think you are perhaps arguing against one type of idea of GOD and projecting that onto me and my idea of GOD.
That's why I asked for clarification.
This is why I re-explained my analogies. Please take the time to read through them to understand them instead of trying to disagree with them from the beginning under the assumption that I must be wrong and you must be correct.
And I replied to your analogies with ones of my own, which I took care to keep to the theme your analogies were using.
This was directly to show you that we see things differently in relation to GOD.
You see GOD as a question of science in which science should be able to varify through physical evidence.
I see ideas of GOD as a question of philosophy.
I projected my understanding into the analogy to show this as being the case.
I have given good solid reasons for this being the case, but you still are avoiding actually addressing these let alone arguing against them. You appear not to even want to go there at all and prefer to stand behind your own opinions and beliefs on the matter.
That is of course entirely your prerogative, but;
Wherein that is the need or justification for you to accuse me of 'perverting' what you said?
All I did was - oh well, I explained that already, so no need to repeat myself.
The point is, why would anyone play that game? If you don't want to go there, then say so, or just ignore me, but please don't use the opportunity to slight me as some kind of perverter of your opinion.
Best keep those types of opinion to yourself don'tcha think?
"You are being dishonest. I have pointed out where this is occurring in your argument. "
I am done with you now. I do not engage with people who call me dishonest when I have been nothing but forthcoming.
I apologize for not phrasing that better.
What I mean is that, having interacted with you these few posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are not being honest, either with me, and more importantly, with yourself.
I stand by my words and had every right to say them. I consistently pointed out where the differences in our opinions were and I have spent a lot of time doing so which should at least should go some way to showing I am being sincere in that - I made the effort.
You are done with me, and that is your choice. I still have others who demand 'burden of proof' to challenge and not all react the way you have done with me.
I understand that new concepts are difficult for people to integrate into their beliefs, certainly if it challenges those beliefs and would even predict that as theists come to understand what I am saying about this and catch on, it will become a part of their argument when demands of 'burden of proof' are made by non theists.
It would be good to see it spread.
GOD is not a question of science. The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy.
Burden of proof? No. Burden of truth? Sure, why not. Truth is a subject philosophy is able to discuss and debate.