'God' is Impossible

[arfa brane]

You believe in your god because it is logical to you. You can't squirm out of this one.

You are a total fucking hypocrite.

You believe that I believe in God. What I believe in doesn't even have a name, but God seems to be appropriate. It doesn't matter what I think it is, like it doesn't matter what I think an orange tastes like.

I see you can't help yourself getting all upset, about sweet fuck all.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't have to pass it very far if it pertains to "myself" in that case, do I?

Providing you don't claim it as "proof" whatever you decide to believe based on that experience is fine. However you persist in claiming you have proof, when in fact you don't.

You're not trying to pass off non-subjective impersonal experience as proof, surely?

Nope. That's part of what constitutes proof: it being "non-subjective". I'm not trying to "pass off" anything.

If you see something with your eyes, what kind of proof is it?

None. Whatsoever.

 

[universaldistress]

Ok. But what you're saying is: "there is no proof, therefore it's impossible". That's what you're saying. I'm saying that's what you are saying, because that's what you keep saying.

No. When did I say say that? I believe god is possible. I believe there isn't proof enough to believe. But the proof can emerge.

Round and round in fucking circles we go. Because that is the only way you can continue your illogical stance.

As to analogy. Let's try again.
Suppose someone is completely blind, and has never seen anything, ever. They claim that sunsets are impossible. What do you tell them?

What bearing does this analogy have to anything? The sun exists.

You are assuming god exists. I do not make such an assumption as it is not proven.

Proving something to one person is not the issue. People can be fooled, like you have been. It is an unbiased community of intelligentsia that need to be convinced. You have no chance of that LOL.

 

[universaldistress]

You believe that I believe in God. What I believe in doesn't even have a name, but God seems to be appropriate. It doesn't matter what I think it is, like it doesn't matter what I think an orange tastes like.

I see you can't help yourself getting all upset, about sweet fuck all.

You are deluding yourself and trying to delude others using flawed logic. you need to be corrected. Try and pedal this shit to anyone with savvy. They are not going to have any of it.

 

[arfa brane]

You are deluding yourself and trying to delude others using flawed logic. you need to be corrected. Try and pedal this shit to anyone with savvy. They are not going to have any of it.

You've been using flawed arguments from page 1.
You don't have any savvy; if you think logic is the only way to deal with everything, you will probably get quite lost, or you already are. I don't see how you can think you can tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't think about, or what "it" they will "have any of"

 

[arfa brane]

Providing you don't claim it as "proof" whatever you decide to believe based on that experience is fine. However you persist in claiming you have proof, when in fact you don't.

I do have proof. It's exactly the same kind of proof of the existence of sunsets, which is something I can see is true personally.

I persist in claiming that I have proof because I do have proof. If you think this proof is something I can pull out of my pocket and show you, then you're the one with the problem.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I do have proof. It's exactly the same kind of proof that sunsets exist, which is something I can see is true personally.

Really? And what, exactly, would it be?

Edit: my apologies if you've already posted your "proof". Could you point me to the relevant post if you have?

I persists in claiminf that I have proof because I do. If you think this proof is something I can pull out of my pocket and show you, then you're the one with the problem.

If you can't "pull it out of your pocket and show us" then it seems to be a subjective "proof".
That is to say: no proof at all.
Merely a personal experience, your individual interpretation and a subsequent belief.

 

[universaldistress]

You've been using flawed arguments from page 1.

No. I have been using arguments linked to the real tangible world. You are just using make believe and philosophical conjecture and claims of personal proof. your solipsistic take has no bearing on the real world.

I really fear you have lost touch with reality.

Just because you can offer a point it doesn't immediately mean it will be accepted. Just because you WANT something to be real doesn't mean it is.

Seriously. You are borderline schizophrenic.

You don't have any savvy; if you think logic is the only way to deal with everything, you will probably get quite lost, or you already are. I don't see how you can think you can tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't think about, or what "it" they will "have any of"

All YOU use is logic; and VERY VERY VERY badly.

Proof is in the pudding. All I taste hear is bullshit pie.

 

[universaldistress]

Really? And what, exactly, would it be?


If you can't "pull it out of your pocket and show us" then it seems to be a subjective "proof".
That is to say: no proof at all.
Merely a personal experience, your individual interpretation and a subsequent belief.

I went to town on all his points. He has an untenable position. You wait. He will start using crap analogies next to prove his logical point that he claims is illogical and therefore not subject to the rigours of logic.

 

[universaldistress]

Arfe. You think I brought up logic. No. You did. You said god is illogical and therefore exists in your mind.

HAHAHAHAHA. Someone please stitch me back up.

 

[arfa brane]

I can't pull the taste of an orange out of my pocket either. Or the colours in the sky during a sunset.

So how do you "prove" that such things exist?
According to Dwywddr, if you see something with your eyes it constitutes no proof at all. So how can you prove to another person that you can see what they can see?

If you can't pull the colour of the sky out of your pocket and show someone else, then how can you claim to be able to see a sunset, or any of the colours?

If you see something with your eyes, what kind of proof is it?

None. Whatsoever.

Ok. Suppose I look at a photograph of some scene. Then this is no proof that the photo exists or was taken by a camera, or that the scene is real? I could go to the location the camera supposedly took the image, and again, there is no proof that any of it exists, because it's mere personal experience? What if I show the same photo to someone else? Do they conclude there is no proof of the existence of the scene or the photo, because they can only see it with their eyes?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I can't pull the taste of an orange out of my pocket either. Or the colours in the sky during a sunset.

False comparisons. As has been pointed out.
It is possible to obtain the wavelengths of the light in a sunset objectively, as it is possible to relate the molecules/ chemicals in an orange to the effect of the tongue.
What comes after that is a subjective experience.

According to Dwyddr, if you see something with your eyes it constitutes no proof at all. So how can you prove to another person that you can see what they can see?

Since what you see is no proof to you why do think it's worthwhile attempting to prove to others what you see?

If you can't pull the colour of the sky out of your pocket and show someone else, then how can you claim to be able to see a sunset, or any of the colours?

At least you're fit. All this dodging must be positively burning off the calories...

 

[universaldistress]

I can't pull the taste of an orange out of my pocket either. Or the colours in the sky during a sunset.

So how do you "prove" that such things exist?
According to Dwyddr, if you see something with your eyes it constitutes no proof at all. So how can you prove to another person that you can see what they can see?

If you can't pull the colour of the sky out of your pocket and show someone else, then how can you claim to be able to see a sunset, or any of the colours?

Are you alright?

 

[arfa brane]

It is possible to obtain the wavelengths of the light in a sunset objectively

How do you obtain the wavelengths "objectively", do you use a blind person?

 

[universaldistress]

Arfa. Do you really need the scientific method explained to you? Did you go to school.

Answers are 'yes' for former. 'No' for latter.

 

[universaldistress]

How do you obtain the wavelengths "objectively", do you use a blind person?

You are still using logic Arfa. Flawed logic.

Your analogy doesn't prove anything.

 

[arfa brane]

It's cool. I like to entertain the notion that I'm wrong, at times. And I like to entertain the notion that I'm right occasionally.

It doesn't make any difference to how an orange tastes, or what a sunset looks like.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ok. Suppose I look at a photograph of some scene. Then this is no proof that the photo exists or was taken by a camera, or that the scene is real? I could go to the location the camera supposedly took the image, and again, there is no proof that any of it exists, because it's mere personal experience? What if I show the same photo to someone else? Do they conclude there is no proof of the existence of the scene or the photo, because they can only see it with their eyes?

I take that you either failed any lessons in logic you've ever had, or not had any at all.

Read my sentence again.
What YOU see is not proof. As soon as you start getting other people in on the act then it becomes less subjective since there will (with luck) be corroboration. And this will then start to approach objectivity.
As far as I can tell (since you either haven't actually given your "proof, or can't be bothered to point out to me where you have given it) the case here is that YOU (note: a single individual) has had an experience. YOU (the same individual) have then decided (apparently) that YOUR senses have been 100% accurate and that YOUR (same individual) personal interpretation is incontrovertible.

In other words you are deluded. Whether in the belief arising from this experience or because you take your conclusion as the sole possible interpretation.

 

[arfa brane]

What YOU see is not proof.

YES it is. It's proof that I can see.

Because I do not believe that I am required by the "laws of logic", to confirm that what I can see is something someone else can see too, every time I open my eyes.

I believe instead that my sense of vision provides sufficient evidence, reliably, i.e. "proof of existence".


You say no "subjective" experience can constitute proof? I say, rubbish; all I need is a theory of mind which includes the notion of other minds who can see, hear, feel, taste, etc. This theory is I believe, quite widespread in the general human population.

If I can see something, so can you. At least, that's the theory. You might be blind though, or something.

Also, you appear to have leapt to the conclusion that my experience is unique, that I can ONLY claim this experience I claim constitutes proof (of God) for myself. This isn't true, I know more than a few other people who, apparently, experience the same thing. Of course, there's no way in the universe I can KNOW that they are experiencing the same thing.

The whole subjective/objective paradigm is just a logical framework. You can't prove that you are a subject and not an object, and you can't even prove that objects exist. So if personal experience can't constitute proof, how do people compare personal experience? Are you really claiming that only by comparing experiences can proof be "established"?

Say you're all alone in the desert. Can you prove that if you run out of water, you will die of thirst? Do you need to discuss this with someone else? Can you trust your own eyes when you look at your water bottle?
If you empty your bottle into the sand, does that constitute a test of the theory, and when you die of thirst, you will experience "proof". How is this possible if there's nobody else around to confirm it?

 

[Dywyddyr]

YES it is. It's proof that I can see.

Er, already covered:

the case here is that YOU (note: a single individual) has had an experience. YOU (the same individual) have then decided (apparently) that YOUR senses have been 100% accurate and that YOUR (same individual) personal interpretation is incontrovertible.

I believe instead that my sense of vision provides sufficient evidence, reliably, i.e. "proof of existence".

In other words you choose to ignore reality. The source of your delusion becomes clearer to me.
Have you ever actually looked at the facts on eye witness reliability? It would appear not.

You say no "subjective" experience can constitute proof? I say, rubbish; all I need is a theory of mind which includes the notion of other minds who can see, hear, feel, taste, etc. This theory is I believe, quite widespread in the general human population.

And you still can't work logically can you?
You accept that others hear, feel, see etc. the same way you. But there is no proof. It's a working (and workable) supposition.

If I can see something, so can you.

Ah, so now you're moving on to corroboration. Good.
So if we both see something working will we both have the same explanation of how it works? Will our individual interpretations be exactly the same?

Also, you appear to have leapt to the conclusion that my experience is unique

Nope, but then again you can't show (let alone prove) that anyone else has had the same experience.

that I can ONLY claim this experience I claim constitutes proof (of God) for myself. This isn't true, I know more than a few other people who, apparently, experience the same thing. Of course, there's no way in the universe I can KNOW that they are experiencing the same thing.

This where your claim of "corroboration" falls down: note your own use of the word "apparently" and the final sentence in that claim.

The whole subjective/objective paradigm is just a logical framework. You can't prove that you are a subject and not an object, and you can't even prove that objects exist.

When in doubt resort to word salad.

Say you're all alone in the desert. Can you prove that if you run out of water, you will die of thirst? Do you need to discuss this with someone else? Can you trust your own eyes when you look at your water bottle?
If you empty your bottle into the sand, does that constitute a test of the theory, and when you die of thirst, you will experience "proof". How is this possible if there's nobody else around to confirm it?

And if word salad doesn't distract them go for inane analogies.

And still no "explanation" of what your "proof" actually is.