tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post2077222598123308158..comments2010-11-21T02:17:45.580-08:00Comments on The Dumb Planet: Dumb Philosophy: "Disproof of God"Ashurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-67969739674634259692010-07-13T14:26:41.475-07:002010-07-13T14:26:41.475-07:00Holly said..."All evidence is personal revela...<em>Holly said..."All evidence is personal revelation."</em><br /><br />For that to be true it would have to make something evident. It doesn't.<br /><br />Think about the evidence for the electron structure of the atom 10 billion years after humanity has died out. What do you notice?<br /><br />Good girl; it's still there. The evidence is completely intact, lacking only an intelligent thing to find it again.<br /><br />So clearly all evidence is not personal revelation. You are not capable of distinguishing between what is evidence in the scientific sense and 'what people take as evidence', which is not necessarily evidence at all.<br /><br /><em>chathamh said..."The existence of God is nonfalsifiable."</em><br />Correct. Debate stops.<br /><br /><em>chathamh said (on personal revelation)..."Why isn't it a type of evidence? "</em><br /><br />Because it doesn't make anything evident.<br /><br /><em>chathamh said..."If we treat evidence as a means of justification, a man is more justified in believing in something that he has experienced than in believing in something he has not experienced."</em><br /><br />Thinking about schizophrenics would allow a smart person to reason past this fallacy.<br /><br /><em>chathamh..."If a person experiences the existence of god, then he would be irrational to deny God's existence just as he would be irrational to deny his own hands' existence."</em><br /><br />Thinking about what would happen if one man experienced God A who asserts God B doesn't exist, and another man experiences God B who asserts God A doesn't exist would allow anyone with the mental development of a 7 year old to see past this fallacy.<br /><br /><em>chathamh..."Now, the believing man is philosophically in the wrong when he tries to persuade you to believe because he experienced God, because his evidence cannot justify your belief."</em><br /><br />Idiot can't see that what is actually true determines how correct you are when you believe something, not how much evidence you think you have.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-17513056090564359182010-07-12T20:13:05.894-07:002010-07-12T20:13:05.894-07:00Not big enough to have any comprehension of falsif...<i>Not big enough to have any comprehension of falsifiability or use it in a grammatically correct way or even recognize it when you see it.</i><br /><br />The existence of God is nonfalsifiable. Therefore it is not a valid scientific question. A theory based on God's personally revealed existence may still be meaningful.<br /><br /><i>This is true. As long as you don't imply there's something else than can when there isn't we don't have a problem. That would be you going "My beliefs are the only one of its kind you can't reason against them they're just right" like a fucking idiot.</i><br /><br />There could well be something else as long as it doesn't make a claim to empirical, observable, falsifiable truth. If you don't respect such a claim, you are within your rights to disregard it.<br /><br /><i>No we don't have to. Personal revelation isn't evidence. <br /><br />You're an idiot if you can't see that "personal revelation" isn't a type of evidence. An absolute idiot.</i><br /><br />Why isn't it a type of evidence? If we treat evidence as a means of justification, a man is more justified in believing in something that he has experienced than in believing in something he has not experienced. If a person experiences the existence of god, then he would be irrational to deny God's existence just as he would be irrational to deny his own hands' existence. You may find it unlikely, and would be justified in doing so, as your own experience clearly does not include the existence of God. He may be mistaken, but he is not unreasonable. He is simply acting in accordance with the evidence in front of him. Now, the believing man <i>is</i> philosophically in the wrong when he tries to persuade you to believe because he experienced God, because his evidence cannot justify your belief.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-59953372632125319972010-07-12T13:09:54.473-07:002010-07-12T13:09:54.473-07:00You're an idiot if you can't see that &quo...<i>You're an idiot if you can't see that "personal revelation" isn't a type of evidence. An absolute idiot.</i><br />All evidence is personal revelation. When you look at evidence as ironclad as a reading on a thermometer, what you're actually experiencing is your <i>personal experience</i> of perceiving that thermometer. Now, you may class that as a different kind of experience than the experience of divinity, but making that distinction is a personal decision, not a foregone conclusion.Cliff Pervocracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080142422250604406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-46635904264400959212010-07-12T12:40:49.210-07:002010-07-12T12:40:49.210-07:00No, I'm a big fan of Karl Popper.
Not big en...<em>No, I'm a big fan of Karl Popper. </em><br /><br />Not big enough to have any comprehension of falsifiability or use it in a grammatically correct way or even recognize it when you see it.<br /><br /><em>I'm implying that an empiricist approach cannot comment on it.</em><br /><br />This is true. As long as you don't imply there's something else than can when there isn't we don't have a problem. That would be you going "My beliefs are the only one of its kind you can't reason against them they're just right" like a <b>fucking idiot</b>.<br /><br /><em><br />Here we must differentiate between scientific evidence and nonscientific evidence. Personal revelation is evidence. It is not scientific. But to conclude that it is true is reasonable.<br /></em><br /><br />No we don't have to. Personal revelation isn't evidence.<br /><br /><em><br />Personal revelation is a kind of evidence, as I said above.<br /></em><br /><br />You're an idiot if you can't see that "personal revelation" isn't a type of evidence. An absolute idiot.<br /><br /><em><br />Don't make promises you can't keep. <br /></em><br /><br />Comprehend simple philosophical concepts then. Everything you've said so far has been wrong.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-73457801985790862462010-07-12T12:31:10.360-07:002010-07-12T12:31:10.360-07:00Karl Popper on falsifiability. However I can feel ...<i>Karl Popper on falsifiability. However I can feel your retarded thought processes lining up to make an "argument from authority" fallacy.</i><br /><br />No, I'm a big fan of Karl Popper. <br /><br /><i>As long as you don't imply it might exist, we don't have a problem.</i><br /><br />I'm implying that an empiricist approach cannot comment on it.<br /><br /><i>If "this nonscientific claim" is "god exists" then it is already refuted. If there's no evidence then any claim that it exists is made mistakenly.</i><br /><br />Here we must differentiate between scientific evidence and nonscientific evidence. Personal revelation is evidence. It is not scientific. But to conclude that it is true is reasonable.<br /><br /><i>No it hasn't. No evidence has been laid out in this example.</i><br /><br />Personal revelation is a kind of evidence, as I said above.<br /><br /><i>Stupidity is relative. I can promise you that you're stupid relative to myself. </i><br /><br />Don't make promises you can't keep.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-2868366779588576952010-07-12T11:56:35.355-07:002010-07-12T11:56:35.355-07:00Could you tell me where the quoted "philosoph...<em><br />Could you tell me where the quoted "philosophy" is from? I'd like to read it. <br /></em><br /><br />Karl Popper on falsifiability. However I can feel your retarded thought processes lining up to make an "argument from authority" fallacy.<br /><br /><em><br />Proof is only necessary for a belief that the believer considers empirically true. If a belief held is neither falsifiable nor verifiable given the evidence at hand, it is scientifically meaningless, but it still has meaning for the person in question, and as such may still be something worth believing. <br /></em><br /><br />As long as you don't imply it might exist, we don't have a problem.<br /><br /><em><br />Simply noting the lack of evidence does nothing to refute this nonscientific claim.<br /></em><br /><br />If "this nonscientific claim" is "god exists" then it is already refuted. If there's no evidence then any claim that it exists is made mistakenly.<br /><br /><em><br />The key example of this is belief in God that is based on personal revelation. If a person experiences God telling them to go to church and to worship Him, why should that person choose to disbelieve in God? The evidence for His existence has been laid in front of him.<br /></em><br /><br />No it hasn't. No evidence has been laid out in this example.<br /><br /><em><br />You needn't be abusive. I am neither dumb nor stupid. <br /></em><br /><br />Stupidity is relative. I can promise you that you're stupid relative to myself.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-42739548782006900162010-07-12T10:21:08.110-07:002010-07-12T10:21:08.110-07:00Proof is only necessary for a belief that the beli...Proof is only necessary for a belief that the believer considers empirically true. If a belief held is neither falsifiable nor verifiable given the evidence at hand, it is scientifically meaningless, but it still has meaning for the person in question, and as such may still be something worth believing. Simply noting the lack of evidence does nothing to refute this nonscientific claim. The key example of this is belief in God that is based on personal revelation. If a person experiences God telling them to go to church and to worship Him, why should that person choose to disbelieve in God? The evidence for His existence has been laid in front of him.<br /><br />Could you tell me where the quoted "philosophy" is from? I'd like to read it. <br /><br />Your proviso renders your argument a tautology. Given that there is no available evidence for God, and that all evidence available is identical to all evidence, then yes, it is proven that God does not exist. But this is not the case and therefore not relevant.<br /><br />P.S. You needn't be abusive. I am neither dumb nor stupid.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.com