Dissociative Identity Disorder and the Soul

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Take away God’s creator and there is no God.

Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.

[Outrider]

Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.

You need to establish THAT God is, before you can deduce that God 'just' is.

The universe manifestly is. God, not so much.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

You need to establish THAT God is, before you can deduce that God 'just' is.

The universe manifestly is. God, not so much.

O.

Exactly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not if God , as you claim for the universe, just is.

But if we look at the evidence, surely a more reasonable conclusion is that god just isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You need to establish THAT God is, before you can deduce that God 'just' is.

The universe manifestly is. God, not so much.

O.

Sorry Jeremy assumed that if there was a god that God needs a creator. Yet he has elsewhere allowed for the universe to just be. That is at least special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But if we look at the evidence, surely a more reasonable conclusion is that god just isn't.

Look at the evidence for what exactly?

[BeRational]

Look at the evidence for what exactly?

For a god surely?

You have concluded there is a god.

 Did you do that by evidence?

[Dicky Underpants]

Sorry Jeremy assumed that if there was a god that God needs a creator. Yet he has elsewhere allowed for the universe to just be. That is at least special pleading.

No; he was just adopting the implications of Alan's causative argument to expose its hollowness.
The special pleading is Alan's and yours.

[ProfessorDavey]

Look at the evidence for what exactly?

But that't the whole point - there isn't any evidence. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does mean that until or unless such evidence arises (noting that people have been failing to provide any evidence of the existence of god for millennia) then it makes no sense to try to explain things we don't understand from a first principle assumption (or assertion) that god exists. This is, of course, the approach that both you Vlad and AB cannot help them selves but do.

[BeRational]

But that't the whole point - there isn't any evidence. Of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it does mean that until or unless such evidence arises (noting that people have been failing to provide any evidence of the existence of god for millennia) then it makes no sense to try to explain things we don't understand from a first principle assumption (or assertion) that god exists. This is, of course, the approach that both you Vlad and AB cannot help them selves but do.

Almost totally agree. I think that in certain situations and absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For a god surely?

You have concluded there is a god.

 Did you do that by evidence?

And what evidence for god are you proposing? God, like philosophical empiricism is unfalsifiable.

In terms of concluding there is a God I will say that the christian wordframework more adequately describes my experience than anything else on offer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No; he was just adopting the implications of Alan's causative argument to expose its hollowness.
The special pleading is Alan's and yours.

No the special pleading is Jeremy's as he appears to insist that a God has a creator but elsewhere suggests that the universe just is. That is the special pleading.

Alan's causative argument? what's that? I should perhaps state that I am chiefly on here for pleasure so i'm not here to fault Alan but to be all over atheist nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Almost totally agree. I think that in certain situations and absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

Example?

[BeRational]

Example?

If you make a claim like there is a dragon in my garage. Then we would expect to see a dragon if we go into the garage. If we don't, then this is evidence against your claim.

Another trivial example, is when the fire service are called to put out a fire. When do they leave?
When there is no evidence of a fire surely.
This is just another way of stating the first example. If there were a fire you would expect to see A,B,C etc. If you do not see A or B or C then this is evidence of the absence of fire, and so they can leave the scene.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you make a claim like there is a dragon in my garage. Then we would expect to see a dragon if we go into the garage. If we don't, then this is evidence against your claim.

Another trivial example, is when the fire service are called to put out a fire. When do they leave?
When there is no evidence of a fire surely.
This is just another way of stating the first example. If there were a fire you would expect to see A,B,C etc. If you do not see A or B or C then this is evidence of the absence of fire, and so they can leave the scene.

Yes, that's correct.

I think the notion of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence best applies to situations where people have not attempted to obtain evidence, or that that attempt isn't exhaustive. So we couldn't conclude there was no dragon if we hadn't looked even though at that point we have no evidence for a dragon in the garage.

But that isn't really the case with god as people over thousands of years have been trying to provide evidence for god, yet they have all failed to provide any credible evidence for the existence of god. So it is rather more akin to someone claiming that the dragon exists even after the garage has been searched high and low - and then claiming that the reason that there is no evidence for that dragon (despite exhaustive search) is that the dragon is invisible/not responsive to material assessment/only appears to certain people who really, really, really want it to be true/that the search party aren't the right type of people etc, etc (delete as applicable).

[BeRational]

Yes, that's correct.

I think the notion of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence best applies to situations where people have not attempted to obtain evidence, or that that attempt isn't exhaustive. So we couldn't conclude there was no dragon if we hadn't looked even though at that point we have no evidence for a dragon in the garage.

But that isn't really the case with god as people over thousands of years have been trying to provide evidence for god, yet they have all failed to provide any credible evidence for the existence of god. So it is rather more akin to someone claiming that the dragon exists even after the garage has been searched high and low - and then claiming that the reason that there is no evidence for that dragon (despite exhaustive search) is that the dragon is invisible/not responsive to material assessment/only appears to certain people who really, really, really want it to be true/that the search party aren't the right type of people etc, etc (delete as applicable).

I totally agree. Once the garage door is open, then the excuses begin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you make a claim like there is a dragon in my garage. Then we would expect to see a dragon if we go into the garage. If we don't, then this is evidence against your claim.

As a free standing example I would agree and the reason is I would expect to see a big lizard thing which at least smells of burning and/or has wings. In short that there is a dragon in your garage is a falsifiable claim.....and I expect that is your criterion. As an example to use as against the existence of God it obviously falls apart and assumes it's rightful place as a horses laugh argument.

[BeRational]

As a free standing example I would agree and the reason is I would expect to see a big lizard thing which at least smells of burning and/or has wings. In short that there is a dragon in your garage is a falsifiable claim.....and I expect that is your criterion. As an example to use as against the existence of God it obviously falls apart and assumes it's rightful place as a horses laugh argument.

If you have concluded there is a god, then presumably you used evidence. Can we see the evidence that confirmed its existence. Or is it invisible like the dragon in my garage.
Do you have evidence, or excuses for lack of evidence?

[BeRational]

As a free standing example I would agree and the reason is I would expect to see a big lizard thing which at least smells of burning and/or has wings. In short that there is a dragon in your garage is a falsifiable claim.....and I expect that is your criterion. As an example to use as against the existence of God it obviously falls apart and assumes it's rightful place as a horses laugh argument.

If you make an unfalsifiable claim, then I am not at all interested.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you have concluded there is a god, then presumably you used evidence.

Experience and argument is what leads me to where I am. I think that that qualifies neither as evidence nor conclusion in your empirical criteria for evidence or criteria.

Also you have foisted the term conclude on me in a sleight of hand......Very dirty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you make an unfalsifiable claim, then I am not at all interested.

Then you have a philosophy which leads you to that stance. And that philosophy is more than likely unfalsifiable.

If it doesn't come with curry sauce then I am not interested.

[Outrider]

Sorry Jeremy assumed that if there was a god that God needs a creator. Yet he has elsewhere allowed for the universe to just be. That is at least special pleading.

Not really, the universe is a background of physical laws, whereas you are positing the unprompted, unwarranted, immediate existence of a complex, coordinated intelligence. Vastly, vastly different claims, even if you accept that the notion of a god is justified in the first instance.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Experience and argument is what leads me to where I am.

Exactly the same approach that lead people to think the sun went round the earth, that the earth was flat and that earthquakes were due to the moving of the giant elephants who held up the world.

Experience and argument get you no-where - evidence does. And you have none to back up you assertion that god exists Vlad.

[BeRational]

Experience and argument is what leads me to where I am. I think that that qualifies neither as evidence nor conclusion in your empirical criteria for evidence or criteria.

Also you have foisted the term conclude on me in a sleight of hand......Very dirty.

If you believe in a god, you must be convinced that it exists.

I just wonder why you are convinced and what was the evidence that convinced you. If it is personal revelation, I am not interesed, as that is personal.

[BeRational]

Then you have a philosophy which leads you to that stance. And that philosophy is more than likely unfalsifiable.

If it doesn't come with curry sauce then I am not interested.

I think you are now in avoidance and excuse mode.
If you cannot provide evidence for the god you believe, just admit it.