Theism vs. Atheism debate

#91

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

03.27.2019 09:18PM

3

4

9

03.27.2019 09:18PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Okay, so "observable evidence" is so loosely defined so that even though we can't observe meaning we can still consider there to be observable evidence of meaning?

If you experience a sense of "meaningfulness" and you can identify certain physiological symptoms of such an experience then the observation of those symptoms in others would reasonably be considered de facto evidence. NOT scientific evidence. Not conclusive evidence. But also NOT "zero evidence".

It is important to always clearly distinguish Quanta from Qualia.

Topic's author

#92

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.27.2019 09:38PM

2

5

03.27.2019 09:38PM

-->

@secularmerlin

You can observe people. You can observe actions. You can observe the consistency between people's statements and their actions. Indeed, all of those all have observable evidence.

But do you have observable evidence of meaning? If so, how can you show meaning to me so that I may observe it?

#93

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.27.2019 09:49PM

3

03.27.2019 09:49PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Meaning exists subjectively for me as a brainstate. I can only assume that since you seem to respond to my posts moe or less apropriately that you assign meaning to the symbols I string together to form words and that you too are assigning meaning.

If this is incorrect then this conversation has been entirely one-sided.

Topic's author

#94

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.27.2019 10:36PM

2

5

03.27.2019 10:36PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "observable evidence." Can you provide a definition?

#95

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.27.2019 10:43PM

3

03.27.2019 10:43PM

-->

@Fallaneze

We have already defined evidence so I will assume you are asking what observable means? In the context of evidence it means independently verifiable perceptions.

Topic's author

#96

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.27.2019 10:48PM

2

5

03.27.2019 10:48PM

-->

@secularmerlin

How is "meaning" an "independently verifiable perception"?

#97

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.27.2019 10:59PM

3

03.27.2019 10:59PM

-->

@Fallaneze

As I said before your responses seeming to be in direct response to my own is independently verifiable (I could ask kieth if it looks like you are assigning meaning to him) and I do perceive them. You would seem to display the very human characteristic of assigning meaning.

Topic's author

#98

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.27.2019 11:23PM

2

5

03.27.2019 11:23PM

-->

@secularmerlin

It's not a matter of determining whether we have a shared understanding of meaning but whether "meaning" itself is an "independently verifiable perception." Where can I perceive observable evidence of meaning?

#99

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.27.2019 11:30PM

3

03.27.2019 11:30PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Ah I see what you are asking. There is none. Meaning is entirely contingent on brainstates. Without our subjectively assigning meaning there is no meaning. What observably exists is the human capacity to assign meaning. Nothing is intrinsically meaningful in any independently verifiable manner.

Topic's author

#100

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.28.2019 12:56AM

2

5

03.28.2019 12:56AM

-->

@secularmerlin

So the claim "there is no observable evidence of meaning" is true?

#101

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.28.2019 01:04AM

3

03.28.2019 01:04AM

-->

@Fallaneze

I suppose that is correct. What there is evidence for is that humans assign meaning.

Topic's author

#102

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.28.2019 02:55AM

2

5

03.28.2019 02:55AM

-->

@secularmerlin

Will you continue to find things meaningful even though there is no observable evidence of meaning?

#103

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.28.2019 04:15AM

3

03.28.2019 04:15AM

-->

@Fallaneze

I will continue to subjectively assign meaning as I see fit the same as you.

#104

keithprosser

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

keithprosser

03.28.2019 06:25AM

3

03.28.2019 06:25AM

-->

@Fallaneze

..even though there is no observable evidence of meaning?

What is it you want evidence of?

#105

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

03.28.2019 12:15PM

3

4

9

03.28.2019 12:15PM

-->

@Fallaneze

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "observable evidence." Can you provide a definition?

Comprehensible text on a computer screen is one example of such "observable evidence".

#106

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

03.28.2019 12:20PM

3

4

9

03.28.2019 12:20PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Nothing is intrinsically meaningful in any independently (objectively) verifiable manner.

Mostly because humans are incapable of comprehending anything "objectively".

So to be fair, "meaningful" is by no means unique in this assessment.

#107

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

03.28.2019 12:23PM

3

4

9

03.28.2019 12:23PM

-->

@Fallaneze

So the claim "there is no [objectively] observable evidence of meaning" is true?

Clearly there IS ample subjective evidence of meaningfulness.

Topic's author

#108

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.28.2019 02:08PM

2

5

03.28.2019 02:08PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Next question: do you have any observable evidence of consciousness?

#109

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

03.28.2019 03:14PM

2

3

03.28.2019 03:14PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Next question: do you have any observable evidence of consciousness?

Minimal consciousness = twoness, otherness, awareness

O = me { observer }

O = other { observed }

--- = line-of-relationship --ex EMRadiation or gravity-- between me and other

<..O--O...> = background, against which finite other is observed, finite me is observed, or finite Universe is conceptualised.

EMRadiation is quantised and quantified --visible and invisible---

Gravity has neither association to quanta or quantifiable, to date --underlying essence--

The most complex consciousness, accesses metaphysical-1 mind/intelllect/concepts and ego, ergo the ability to conceptualize a finite Universe with a conceptual God { self } outside of the finite conceptual Universe, looking back in and holding the finite conceptual Universe in a set of conceptual hands.

They got the whole wide world//Universe in their hands......Sing it with me..........

Most complex entity is woman { Xx } ---see more bilateral brain activity--- with man { Xy } a close 2nd having less bilateral brain activity.

Woman = attracter

Man = pusher

#110

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.28.2019 10:25PM

3

03.28.2019 10:25PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Are you concious?

#111

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

03.28.2019 10:38PM

2

3

03.28.2019 10:38PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Are you conscious?

I can hear there reply already.

....'Do I have evidence that I'm conscious? No.

.....Do I believe I'm conscious? Yes'....

This is all Tom Foolery 101 philosophical looping in circles without ever addressing the rational, logical common sense elephant in the room { thread }.

Philosophy 101 meets relgious 101 and infinite set of random two-way looping{?}, for eternity, broke out.

Actually a looping i--see a torus or triangle integrally resolve itself-- what creates integrity so what you so called philosophers and religious are doing is an irrational, illogical looping of sorts.

Topic's author

#112

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

Fallaneze

03.28.2019 10:40PM

2

5

03.28.2019 10:40PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Can you use some independently verifiable observable evidence to determine that?

#113

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

03.28.2019 11:05PM

2

3

03.28.2019 11:05PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Can you use some independently verifiable observable evidence to determine that?

Just as I predicted you would say in #142.

...M-Tard ..."I can hear their reply already.".....

....'Do I have evidence that I'm conscious? No.

.....Do I believe I'm conscious? Yes'....

This is all Tom Foolery 101 philosophical looping in circles without ever addressing the rational, logical common sense elephant in the room { thread }.

Philosophy 101 meets relgious 101 and infinite set of random two-way looping{?}, for eternity, broke out.

Actually a looping i--see a torus or triangle integrally resolve itself-- what creates integrity so what you so called philosophers and religious are doing is an irrational, illogical looping of sorts.

#114

secularmerlin

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

secularmerlin

03.28.2019 11:08PM

3

03.28.2019 11:08PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Unless conciousness is an illusion I can look at your behaviors.

#115

Outplayz

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

3

5

Outplayz

03.28.2019 11:47PM

3

5

03.28.2019 11:47PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Can i change your definition of god to something more like a non-dual, oneness, pantheism type god? These platforms basically imply everything is a manifestation of an infinite consciousness. So, it's a platform and not a entity or person... it's not a "who" but a source of everything. Although i wouldn't call it "god," does this work enough as a god in your view?

#116

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

03.29.2019 12:05AM

2

3

03.29.2019 12:05AM

-->

@Outplayz

Can i change your definition of god to something more like a non-dual, oneness, pantheism type god?

Did you actually see any definition of his God recently? I know is incorrect because it involves the creation of occupied space Universe.

Occupied space Universe cannot be created nor destroyed is transposition of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

...'naught is created nor destroyed'......ergo a finite set of eternal transformations is all that has existed and all that will ever exists.

None have ever offered any rational, logical common sense that, invalidates my givens as stated. I doubt any ever will.

#117

Outplayz

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

3

5

Outplayz

03.29.2019 12:20AM

3

5

03.29.2019 12:20AM

-->

@mustardness

I see his definition... i just want to make sure he agrees with what type of "god" i'm willing to go over. I personally think this platform has the best story / hypothesis... and all science starts with a story.

#118

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

03.29.2019 12:23AM

2

3

03.29.2019 12:23AM

-->

@Outplayz

I see his definition...

Outplayz, Please point me to his definition of his God --thank you-- as I seemed to have missed, tho I think his definition is relevant to any of my posts here recently.

#119

Outplayz

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

3

5

Outplayz

03.29.2019 12:46AM

3

5

03.29.2019 12:46AM

-->

@mustardness

"prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

That was in his response to Merlin... and i saw it in a couple other responses.

What i'm willing to discuss with him is everything up to the "creator of the universe" ... i would have to see how he defines that.

#120

mustardness

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

mustardness

03.29.2019 12:55AM

2

3

03.29.2019 12:55AM

-->

@Outplayz

"prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

Ok thanks.

So Fallanese's God is "prime". Whatever that may mean to them.

"Eternal" is good as Ive made clear Universe//God is eternal for many years now.

Creator is incorrect. You and him both reference an inferred cosmic "source" ergo a "creator".