don't tell me how you would argue - make an argument - you just are trolling me to type something you can throw rocks at. I do not care at all if you do or do not - but if you actually make a coherent argument with clear propositions and conclusions I will happily address such an intellectually honest effort.

That is the argument. There is no sufficient evidence to be found to the best of my knowledge, and you aren't providing any, so it wouldn't be reasonable for me to reach any other conclusion, would it?

There is no sufficient evidence to be found to the best of my knowledge, — S

for what

so it wouldn't be reasonable for me to reach any other conclusion, — S

state your conclusion

Delaying tactics don't help resolve the problem, they exacerbate it. It's clear what I was talking about from the context without me having to repeat myself word for word each time. Don't play dumb. Retrace the conversation and use your brain.

make a succinct and cogent argument all in one place about the conclusion you want to show me is true - or go back under your bridge or find someone else to waste their day with you. Either way I am indifferent -

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.

You're the troll. You are far more manipulative than me. Instead of addressing your problems, you deflect back to me with unnecessary and unreasonable requests, so that we get further and further away each time.

Yes, I know. I was typing up my reply saying just that when you got there first.

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

I am not - I have no issue or point I am trying to make. S asked, I said faith - He said that equals guessing and wants me do defend it is not. That is his point - not mine. If he wants to make the argument faith = guessing he is free to do so. He doesn't want to do that. I have no desire to prove to him that faith does not equal guessing - I could care less. If he wishes to prove the point to me - he is free to do so.

that is how I see it.

If you're not trolling, then you must have psychological issues. There must be a psychological reason why you aren't addressing the problem I raised, and which you can still decide to address. I think that you're just so attached to your belief that you can't bear scrutiny. That's why you respond with delaying tactics.

I will take a deep breath and try to explain

YOU asked if any theist would say why they believe
I said - faith
YOU said that faith = guessing, and asked me to prove it does not
(I have made no claim or effort to argue any of this - you asked - I said faith - that is all)

I feel no need to prove to you that faith does not equal guessing - I could care less what your view is on the topic

I have - however a few times, said if you wish to make some cogent and complete argument on the point , I would respond

That is how I see it - either make an argument, let it go, or throw another barb and move on - I am indifferent to each option

Im sorry, I just cannot believe that. You are refusing to even disagree with him in any real away, yet on and on you argue. You are having a very dishonest exchange here, which you might feel is justified for personal reasons. If you aren’t fucking with him then its very hard to tell what you are up to here aside from just not listening or engaging. To be honest i do not even agree with S’s framing here, but you keep picking up your ball and threatening to go home but linger in the playground. Its dishonest, and its hard not to see it as trolling or vastly more personal than honest engagement of ideas.

Your last delaying tactic was to manipulate me into filling in gaps which should be obvious from the context. If I do this, you'll just respond with another delaying tactic, because you're predictable like that.

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?

Answer the question.

I am not doing anything

YOU said Faith = guessing , with no support, and asked me to prove that it does not -

My last post on this - unless you make a full argument

Told you so. You can't even bring yourself to answer a yes-or-no question. Your psychological barriers are impervious.

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

That is not an argument for faith = guessing.

And has little to do with faith. I agree and have like a thousand times said that there is no physical evidence that God ( whatever such a thing as God is) exists ( however such a thing as God exists)

That has nothing at all to do with faith.

I am not ever going to convince you at all about anything I believe about faith, and I have no desire to try. But it seems you do have an issue about faith that you would like to convince me of. If that is the case go ahead - make your point.

We have already had the chat on the difference between teapots and God on the claim of reasonableness of claims of existence. No need to repeat. - Seems a different point to me than the one that started this - that you said faith = guessing. Not sure when that changed.

For starters, you have (deliberately, it seems) misrepresented my claim multiple times now, in spite of my clarification of it. Yet you accuse me of trolling. You even quoted my clarification, yet you ignore it.

That faith in God is on epistemological par with guesswork in a space teapot necessarily relates to evidence, even if your faith, like guesswork, has nothing to do with evidence. If the evidence isn't enough to support the conclusion, then in that sense, and in that sense alone, they are on par with each other, and the difference between the subject of the faith or of the guesswork, whether God or a space teapot or something else, is logically irrelevant. Does a teapot have a handle? Yes. Does God? Who the hell knows? But are they both equally unreasonable? Yes. Are they both on the same epistemological level? Yes. Reason takes into account the evidence. Neither are reasonably justified beliefs.

All I want from you is an intellectually honest response to this. Do you accept the equivalence, or is it too much to psychologically handle for a cherished belief of yours to be exposed in this way? You want your faith in God to be a special exception, right? So you deny the analogy, or misconstrue it.

Ok - thanks for sharing - as in your original faith= guessing I have no desire to argue you over it. You asked, and seem still to be asking me to defend a position I haven't taken. The only claim I have made is my theism is a matter of faith. That is it. All the other claims are yours. And I have expressed no desire to argue against your claims.

But your desire not to intellectually engage it is very important, psychologically. You don't want to confront the logical equivalence of your cherished faith in God to faith in something you find ridiculous. But the truth is that they're similarly ridiculous. Are you really so attached to your faith in God? Can you really not cope without it?

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

But it's a practical necessity to form opinions and hypothesis based on testimony alone. Plenty of everyday situations reduce your opinion to the absurd. Certainly you wouldn't expect courts to let someone go free merely because only witness testimony is available. Given that there is no form of evidence that is beyond reproach in principle, I don't see how your reasoning is supposed to outweigh the utter impracticality.

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 the evidence in question is an absence of evidence. Sure there is data, but what's significant about the data is that it's random (indistinguishable from the control group) in relation to the connection being tested.

no just don't want to waste time with you. There is a difference.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that. But I know your psych better than you do. I've learnt how it manifests itself in how you react.

and I know you need the last word

Yes, I know myself. I know my own psychological mechanisms, and can be open about them. I already suggested earlier that I am self-aware of my superiority complex, and I also make light of things as a coping mechanism. But you don't know yourself. Know thyself.

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

But...but...but...any assertion that at least one god exists...or, no gods exist...IS a guess. A blind guess at that.

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.

ANY and EVERY assertion that at least one god exists...IS A BLIND GUESS.

ANY and EVERY assertion that no gods exist...IS A BLIND GUESS.

World view and choices notwithstanding.

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

Circumstantial ad hominem? What the hell is that? An ad hominem is "an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." I wasn't making an argument and I didn't say anything about you. I only said I would not be able to convince you, which is true. What I did say was:

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

How is that in any way directed against you personally? It is directed against what I understand your beliefs to be.

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

I'll respond to your challenge when you support your claim that you've had an experience of pain. Or love. Or anger.

When you say:

wording things in the right logical way — S

Seems to me your just saying "disagreeing with me."

This made me laugh! And even before I've finished the first cup of coffee. — Jake

As long as you laugh at my jokes and not my philosophy.

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.

Now, back to the point. You still have failed to properly explain yourself. I have had those experiences because I'm a normal human being. Yet if you want me to go by my own interpretation, then no, I haven't experienced God, and neither do I believe that you have. 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. But perhaps you just don't care about that. You only care about what some ancient text says.

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

Let me see if I've got this right. Just as a hypothetical, a completely made up example, if someone were to say

You only care about what some ancient text says. — S

That would be a circumstantial ad hominem. Is that correct?

In reference to love, anger, and pain, you say:

I have had those experiences because I'm a normal human being. — S

You're using my own argument, which you dismissed earlier, against me. My whole point is based on the contention that many people (read "normal human beings") experience god. That's consistent with what I just read on the web. Pew Forum says that 56% of the people in the US believe in god.

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

Come on, this must be a circumstantial ad hominem argument by your definition. Anyway, you call it a language game, but it's not a game to me. Just like Horton, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.

Yes, you've got it. :grin: :up:

But I still disagree with your use of "God" which has rather obvious shortcomings and will likely cause confusion. There's supposed to be controversy, is there not? Or did I imagine that? I was under the impression that atheists and theists were in disagreement about something... :chin: