I'm not convinced - why are you?

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 165
#121
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
You don't know what evidence is and apparently can't read
I understand evidence just fine, you are the one who doesn't, you have made evidently clear by using religious testimonials as evidence for the existence of something. That is entirely false and is NEVER used as such.

The evidence required to validate the existence of something is hard evidence, physical objects, direct proof, a thing or things, which is exactly what the definition states. You have ignored all of that, so it clearly is you who can't read.

#122
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
and everyone knows it.
Yes, everyone knows you're wrong, that's why you have to constantly repeat yourself over and over with the same false claims, you're doing it on this thread alone. No one with a brain in their head agrees with you.

#123
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't think that represents your own question very well. Why not respond to my replies to you? Why all the tangential remarks?
#124
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Not necessarily. Was it truly a gnome or something else? But if they truly did witness a gnome then yes... that would be evidence.  
#125
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Goldtop
I've shared my experiences. If you think they are something i could mistake... then fine that's your decision. I was there and witnessed it. They didn't come across as mistakes and in one i have corroboration that it wasn't a mistake. So if the rest of them are, one wasn't. This really isn't about my experiences however. There are thousand of other claims. Me experiencing only brings me to the belief that not everyone is lying/mistaken. If you think "everyone" is... then that's a position i don't agree with. 
#126
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I am objecting to "god" essentially being defined into existence. You suggested a definition which assumes existence is a creation and "god" is the origin. ("Now suppose we define god as the origin of all creation").There are a lot of unverifiable assumptions in that.
Okay, I see what you're saying, but disagree. I don't think that that definition is defining God into existence. It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated. If X is logically demonstrated, then God exists. There are ways to argue for an origin and that existence is a creation (per KCA), but debating those is beyond the scope of my interest in this thread.

As to Wimps and Gimps, I dont believe we are saying they definitely exist. Currently it is thought one of the two have explanatory power in relation to dark matter, but it might be neither are real and a third option is reality (dependent on future observation or maths). This is not analogous to the definition you've provided for god because, as I understand it, physicists are saying if dark matter then possibly X or Y ...tbd, and you are saying existence is created therefore X (origin) and Y (god).
I wrote: "We have observations about lions. We have no observations about God or gnomes. GIMPs and WIMPs--theorized particles which contribute to dark matter--have never been observed. We're not even sure they're real. But that doesn't prevent us from defining them, at least in a broad sense. You're fallacy here is comparing the unlike (the lion) to the like (God) when you should be comparing the like (potential phenomena) to like (God)."

So, I agree that we're not saying that WIMPs and GIMPs definitely exist--that was just the point of my argument. That we have no observations which can prove their existence or which we can use to characterize them (i.e. they are theoretical), does not prevent us from defining them. This is analogous to the definition of god I offered because, WIMPs, GIMPs, and God are meaningfully defined without concrete observations having been made of them.
Topic's author
#127
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@bsh1
I have replied to your responses as I have seen appropriate. You are under no obligation to reply if you are uninterested, can't follow, or uncomfortable with where the conversation has gone.
#128
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I simply missed the reply of yours to which I later responded. Hence my assumption that you were not engaging.
Topic's author
#129
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@bsh1
 I don't think that that definition is defining God into existence. It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated.
As already mentioned, the definition has unwarranted assumptions built into it. (Eg. Creation) and the premise that what ever caused existence is a god is flawed as well. I won't go into it again. The point is, the definition is flawed before we ever look at evidence. Plus, the process is backward - I'll get into that below.


So, I agree that we're not saying that WIMPs and GIMPs definitely exist.
That's because the evidence is inconclusive. Theorists did not decide wimps and gimps exist and then define the circumstances that confirm it into a definition. This is the problem I have with your definition of god. God is arbitrarily given the originator label so that 'if origin then god' rather than doing our best to understand origins and following the evidence where it leads or acknowledging ignorance.
Topic's author
#130
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@bsh1
I realized that after I saw your second reply. No worries! 😉
Topic's author
#131
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Outplayz
How can we tell they truly saw a gnome and, by extension, if we should accept their tale as evidence?
#132
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
You ask them to explain what they saw and evaluate the claim, and most importantly, the person. Thereafter you can decide if it qualifies as evidence or not. 
#133
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
As already mentioned, the definition has unwarranted assumptions built into it. 
This entirely misses the point of what I said, namely: "It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated. If X is logically demonstrated, then God exists. There are ways to argue for an origin and that existence is a creation (per KCA), but debating those is beyond the scope of my interest in this thread."

Creation is not an assumption, but the thing which if demonstrated, indicates God's existence. The key phrase there is "if demonstrated." In my above quote, X stands in for creation. Even as you put it: "if origin, then god." The "if" clause indicates that there is no assumed creation, but that if creation were proven, so too would God's existence. This is why God is potentially demonstrable in a way that gnomes are not. There is nothing about gnomes which, if independently demonstrated, necessitates gnomes existence, whereas this is not the case for God.

Theorists did not decide wimps and gimps exist and then define the circumstances that confirm it into a definition. 
Neither did I in defining God, as I explain above. We can define them without being sure of their existence, and then investigate to see whether the theoretical concepts which were defined actually exist. It's not so different from trying to prove a hypothesis through testing. We invent the hypothesis absent observation and then seek evidence to confirm it or refute it.


Topic's author
#134
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Outplayz
How should a claim without evidence be evaluated? And unless the person is known to be a liar or delusional they and their person are irrelevant to the validity of the claim.


Topic's author
#135
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@bsh1
We invent the hypothesis absent observation and then seek evidence to confirm it or refute it.
 Ok, but this has not been done for god and that brings us back to the OP. Why should we accept god as real and not the other mythical beings?

#136
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
You were the one who said 99.9% are either lying or mistaken. Things that exist, no matter what it is, aren't based on 0.1% of peoples claims. so yes, you are indeed mistaken. You're experiences could easily be delusion, which is more likely the cause.
#137
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
How should a claim without evidence be evaluated?
You're still addressing the question incorrectly....you ARE evaluating the evidence (weak or strong)…….A reasoned claim or experience is SOMETHING that "indicates" a proposition true, which qualifies a witness as evidence. Again go back to the definition I supplied.

And unless the person is known to be a liar or delusional they and their person are irrelevant to the validity of the claim.

In the case with God we have more than a couple of "delusional" claims by liars and far from it, and we have more testimonial and documented evidence for spirituality than any one could ever study in a lifetime.There is no other single subject with such a vast array of observation, evidences, literature and experience/knowledge available. Again, we only rely on testimonial based evidence (as opposed to physical evidence) because of the NATURE of the Creator, the nature of souls, so it is not that anything is lacking, rather the nature of spirituality naturally eliminates the method of a materialistic study which leaves personal observation and experience. On top of that, everyone seems to ignore the fact this supposed absurd claim (which amounts to believing in gnomes) has been debated and considered by the most prominent philosophers and even scientific minded people for generations. That is due to the fact that the concept of a Creator is not comparable to believing in gnomes.

#138
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
That's why i said it isn't a preferred avenue of evidence. At this point, it's all we have. Therefore, all you can do is evaluate the person and his/her claim. But you should for the most part be able to tell if they have a mental disorder, are liars, were on drugs, mistaken, lying, deceived etc ("negatives"). If they seem very serious and don't seem to be the type to lie... you can take their claim for whatever you want. This evidence isn't the type of evidence to make one sure... it's far from proof. Although, it may be proof to the person that witnessed it... everyone else can only weigh it how they see fit. 

What i am saying is that while i believe many people could be negatives. There is a portion of people that aren't those negatives and actually are good people telling you what they witnessed. To me, it's unlikely that everyone that has witnessed something paranormal be a negative person. For every lets say 20 people that are negative, 1 is potentially positive. Or you may think that ratio is less, all i'm saying is i doubt every single claim comes from negative people. All you need, out of every claim that has ever been said, is one person that is a positive. The implications of just one person witnessing paranormal phenomena is pretty huge. 

I always phrase spiritual phenomena as more than likely than not - never sure. From what i see and hear, it sounds like to me there is evidence to at the very least suspect something is going on that we aren't aware of, and further, that this something seems to exhibit intelligence in some claims. If you are of the opinion every single one of these claims are not true... then, that is how you weighed the evidence. I personally think that is not a fair assessment of the evidence, but then again... i can't prove it. But for me there is proof (although i don't see it that way) as well since i have experienced stuff so i am privy to this bias. That is why i am sure not everyone is lying bc i'm not. I guess all you can do is decide if you think everyone is lying/mistaken and i understand why you would think so... i probably would if i never experienced anything. Or, you can be curious to what these claims could implicate. That's where i'm at.      


#139
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Goldtop
Even if out of the millions of claims there has been only "one" claim where a person experiences paranormal phenomena is true... that is evidence, and further proof of it at least to that one individual. That was the point of that number... not that i believe that is the number. 

#140
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
Even if out of the millions of claims
Suddenly, it's millions of claims? The problem with any number of claims is consistency, no two claims are alike, hence we can assume it's all in their heads.

#141
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Goldtop
You can assume whatever you want. 
#142
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
Those kind of assumptions usually if not always turn out true.

I understand you want to be special in that you have experiences no one else had, but if you can't even be honest with yourself, how do you expect to be honest with others?
#143
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Goldtop
I am being honest with myself and i am not the only person that has had experiences...
#144
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
I am being honest with myself
Not even remotely.

#145
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Goldtop
Okay. 
Topic's author
#146
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
You're still addressing the question incorrectly....you ARE evaluating the evidence (weak or strong
No. Follow the conversation. Outplayz and I are talking about evaluating a claim to determine if it is evidence.


we have more testimonial and documented evidence for spirituality than any one could ever study in a lifetime.
First  off, we were talking about god and mythical beings. Spirituality is a different subject and does not mandate a god (eg. Buddhism). Secondly, the conversation has progressed passed testimonial being evidence by default. So, a lot of people attesting to something doesn't mean anything in regards to the validity of that claim. Finally, I have no idea what "documented evidence" you're talking about, but, again, spirituality =/= god or mythical beings so it's irrelevant to this discussion. 

the concept of a Creator is not comparable to believing in gnomes
You are under no obligation to reply if you are uninterested, can't follow, or uncomfortable with where the conversation has gone.

Topic's author
#147
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Outplayz
All you need, out of every claim that has ever been said, is one person that is a positive. The implications of just one person witnessing paranormal phenomena is pretty huge. 
The problem is every claim is made by persons who have no doubt their claim is true, the claims are not compatible, and we have no way to test the claims for truth. Couple this with the fact that there are many ways the human brain can be decieved (fatigue, drug or alcohol use, seizures, mental illness, lack of oxygen, etc.) and it starts looking very likely that these experiences can be explained in very natural ways.

So, testimony of experiences with god or the supernatural  should not be accepted as evidence personal or otherwise, imo.  ...present company excluded, of course! 😉😉😉

#148
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was not attempting to demonstrate that God is real. I neither believe nor disbelieve in God's existence.

I was attempting, and I think I succeeded, to show how one could plausibly and rationally believe in God while not believing in gnomes. God's qualities, as defined, allow him to potentially be demonstrable in a way which gnomes are not. It is up to the believer to then demonstrate that the qualities which necessitate God's existence are themselves extant.
#149
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
So, testimony of experiences with god or the supernatural  should not be accepted as evidence personal or otherwise, imo.  ...present company excluded, of course! 😉😉😉
Again, this is if you are of the opinion that every single claim of the supernatural is a negative. Remember, technically only one needs to be true for there to be something to it. Should it be accepted as evidence, i would say yes... should it be accepted as proof, i would say no of course. Could there be a natural explanation..  i acknowledge that could be a case. What i've witnessed i couldn't find one other than deceiving myself that it never happened though. But i'd rather not use my experiences as some kind of extra evidence here only that these things happen and i'm just one of these people claiming something.  

I'm also very skeptical of many claims bc i've seen how a large portion of the population is easily deceived and/or manipulated. I mean, there are a good number of videos that claim street magicians are using the devil's power to do their tricks. I mean... come on. But just bc these type of people exist, and i would admit muddy the water, i still think saying "all" of these experiences are negatives is just... not the right answer. 

But of course you are the one weighing this so it's up to you. The thing about this kind of evidence is that it doesn't lead to any concrete conclusions. I can't just sit here and prove it to you. Although one of my experiences has corroboration... but that's never going to get to you anyways since we will likely never meet. But i'd like to say... by you saying "all" these claims are negatives you are alienating people that really could have gone through something. At least for me, it leaves me in an uncomfortable position bc i want to tell you that you're wrong... but i can't bc i know i can't prove anything. So just know that by saying they are all wrong, you've already shut yourself off to even testing the waters to see where it leads. By definition that would make you a skeptic, and i am fine with that... i think there should be more in this world. You'll just never understand where people like me are coming from. 
#150
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
EtrmVw claims:

In the case with God we have more than a couple of "delusional" claims by liars and far from it, and we have more testimonial and documented evidence for spirituality than any one could ever study in a lifetime.
No, there's actually a great deal more scientific documentation than there is for myths and superstitions.

There is no other single subject with such a vast array of observation, evidences, literature and experience/knowledge available.
Science has far more knowledge, observations and evidence than any hocus pocus you can conjur from God Worlds.

Again, we only rely on testimonial based evidence (as opposed to physical evidence) because of the NATURE of the Creator, the nature of souls, so it is not that anything is lacking, rather the nature of spirituality naturally eliminates the method of a materialistic study which leaves personal observation and experience.
So, you just believe whatever anyone else says about things that have never been shown to exist rather than understanding real things.

On top of that, everyone seems to ignore the fact this supposed absurd claim (which amounts to believing in gnomes) has been debated and considered by the most prominent philosophers and even scientific minded people for generations. That is due to the fact that the concept of a Creator is not comparable to believing in gnomes.
And now, Harry Potter, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are far more popular, so they too must be real.