You are being trolled dude. Im guessing because he feels like he’s giving you your own medicine or something but its clear he is being deliberately obtuse and dishonest. I think its a personal issue with you since he isnt always like that...not on purpose like he is here anyway. — DingoJones
There is no sufficient evidence to be found to the best of my knowledge [for either the existence of God or the existence of a space teapot], and you aren't providing any, so it wouldn't be reasonable for me to reach any other conclusion [than that the two positions are on the same epistemological level], would it? — S
I think that's a horrible idea. I explained why. Not everyone is going to agree with me, no matter what I do. — Terrapin Station
that is a conclusion based on evidence. You a mis-understanding me - I am not saying science will not say something does not exist, but they will only say that when there is evidence that it does not exist — Rank Amateur
But both ARE JUST GUESSES. They are not "conclusions"...they are guesses. — Frank Apisa
Not really. I do agree that evidence doesn't point either way of the issue. Not enough to say God exists and not enough to say God doesn't exist. Given so, any claim on either of the two positions appears like guesses but it isn't. — TheMadFool
We, depending on our worldview, choose one option based on the arguments that most convince us. Theism/atheism is based on some form of logic and so aren't simply guesses.
It is a shame when people respond with a type of ad hominem (a circumstantial ad hominem in this case) rather than a response which actually attempts a justification. I had it from Jake in a different discussion in the philosophy of religion section. — S
As far as I can tell, you don't believe science has any limitations. You define what is real as "what science can explain." So it's a circular argument. It can't be real because it's not what science can explain. — T Clark
The challenge is to reasonably support your claim that you've had an experience of God, rather than of anything else which you take to be of God. — S
wording things in the right logical way — S
A circumstantial ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance whereby you address the person instead of the point, and whereby you address the personal circumstances, alleging that they're predisposed to take a particular position, which is exactly what you did. — S
You only care about what some ancient text says. — S
I have had those experiences because I'm a normal human being. — S
But you appear to be playing a rather immature language game, where you just use "God" to mean a thing like 10,000 other things that we've both experienced, in which case, yes, I suppose I have experienced that by your language game, but I consider that an improper and problematic use of language which suggests that you haven't thought through the logical consequences. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.