Religions have succeeded

[Outrider]

There may be methodological aspects of empiricism that are of value sure but they have a track record in er, empiricism.

Yep.

You seem to be recasting all other attempts at understanding as failed science.

Not in general, but on the particulars of demonstrating the reality or falsity of god-claims, they had been inconclusive.

You seem to see things as only comprehensible by science and that is scientism par excellence.

There are any number of notions that can be demonstrated by pure logic, there are mathematical proofs of concepts (some of which underpin the workings of empirical validations), so I don't think that's the case. When it comes to the idea of gods, though, I see an empiricism that demonstrates you don't need the idea to realise the reality we see and a bunch of attempted rationalisations that just don't work.

Yes there was 9/11 where people of our kind were Killed and we felt it keenly, but then there were the Killing fields in Cambodia at the hands of atheist Utopist Pol Pot where people who weren't like us were killed by a mad atheist.

9/11 didn't highlight the dangers of religion because the perpetrators were religious, I suspect the majority of the victims were religious as well. 9/11 highlighted the dangers of religion because the perpetrators were explicitly motivated by their religious sentiment, and had been recruited via their religious affiliations, and were funded by religious networks working explicitly in the furtherance of their understanding of their religion. It's not just that religious people could be bad, because there have always been flawed people, but that people could be bad (from a given perspective) BECAUSE of their religion.

Pol Pot and his regime were explicitly atheist, but that wasn't the motivation for the horrors they perpetrated.

I'm not clear what you mean here'.

You were criticising the 'New Atheist' movement as being unjustifiably empiricist, and I was pointing out that whilst a lot of the disproofs of specific god-claims were empirical, they weren't making an empirical case, fundamentally. The case is the purely rational one that god claims are made and are not adequately supported, and so can be not accepted. Empirical arguments are deployed, in some instances, to show the flaws in arguments in support of the idea of god, but there is not an underlying empirical atheist claim resulting 'not-god'.

Pleading that the Necessary entity is special.

Pleading that the necessary entity, if there is one, for no obvious reason can't be a natural event but must be some magical self-creating intelligence is special pleading, yes.

I cant see it being special being half of the picture, the other being the contingent. What is special is a universe that just is without the principle of sufficient reason required by philosophical empiricism and science.

Given the well-established principles of conservation (energy, momentum etc.) I still haven't seen a coherent argument as to why we shouldn't presume that reality is infinite, and our universe just one event within it.

First a necessary universe would also have to be specially pleaded for in many more ways than a properly necessary being, in other words pleading a necessary universe rather than one that just is would be special pleading.

Perhaps.

Secondly chains of cause and effect require a terminator other wise they are infinite regresses and don't explain anything but particularly the question why is there anything and not nothing.

There could have been nothing, because nothing is not the lower boundary, nothing is the equilibrium point. Energy and matter have both positive and negative manifestations, and so 'nothing' is when they are in balance - nothing is as much part of the infinite reality as any of the rest of it.

And for the 'infinite regress' commentary - infinite regress is a description, not an argument. Yes it's an infinite regress... so?

Day today reality is not a scientific term though

Day to day reality is what can be seen and measured and experienced - what could be a better empirical base than that?

The necessary being only governs itself since it is not contingent on anything else.

You presumption here is that the creator of the simulation is the necessary being, and not contingent on a larger reality.

You can only take it's attributes and see if what they are has also been the content of religious debate before.

Why are we restricted to previous religious arguments, that's begging the question. They have failed, or we wouldn't still be asking the questions.

The problem is that there are some churches who do not believe that holy matrimony was a state between people of different sex and there are people who think that the secular majority / ad populum view should somehow, in the nature of a religious mystery perhaps change that view.

No, the problem is that there are some churches who believe they somehow 'own' the concept of matrimony, and want to stop anyone else from partaking of the civil actions. The only people looking to 'force' churches to change are people within the churches, those of us outside couldn't give a crap as long as you don't tell us what to do and you pay your taxes.

I can't see Zeitgeist changing the holy or whether same sex holy matrimony is viable at the holy level.

What your magic circle of wizards think is part of their spellcasting doesn't matter outside of your temples, unless you bring it out and start swinging around.

If some clergy think that it is God's will for them though I wouldn't intervene.

Again, as long as your internal squabbles stay internal, nobody cares.

Well sometimes God's bound not to want what we want.

Why? If, as you suggest, God is the absolute morality (or, at least, is cognizant of it, depending on your theological persuasion) then we should be in perfect accord with God's view - except that, despite their alleged omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence, they seem incapable of clearly communicating it.

As i've said the awareness of God is ours, the presence of God is his

Or, as the case may be, the awareness of a god is your symptom, the presence of god is not real.

Then we have no business inflicting it on anyone else

No, we have an obligation to cooperate and build as moral a society as we can, collectively.

O.
[/quote]

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course, if Vlad says God exists as fact, then I'll revise my opinion.

There is only one God so it has to be that one.

...looks like a claim of fact to me otherwise he would have said "I believe that..."  Or similar.

You of course may interpret his statement differently.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

9/11 didn't highlight the dangers of religion because the perpetrators were religious, I suspect the majority of the victims were religious as well. 9/11 highlighted the dangers of religion because the perpetrators were explicitly motivated by their religious sentiment, and had been recruited via their religious affiliations, and were funded by religious networks working explicitly in the furtherance of their understanding of their religion. It's not just that religious people could be bad, because there have always been flawed people, but that people could be bad (from a given perspective) BECAUSE of their religion.

This is a simplistic, incorrect interpretation of the motivations of the 9/11 attackers. They did not wake up one morning and say God or the Quran said to fly a plane into a building. They rationalised it as an act of revenge for America attacking them first. Bin Laden's language has religious terminology but the reasoning is no different to America stating they bombed Hiroshima because Japan attacked them first or Putin saying he is attacking Ukraine because he thinks his land, Russia, is under attack from NATO. These motivations would remain whether they were Muslim or atheist.

Western soldiers are called to bomb people in other countries as part of their patriotic duty or because it is in their country's national interests or because they are told that their country or way of life is under threat, so being religious didn't cause 9/11. You are looking at the wrong bogeyman if you are blaming religion - you could just as easily say the problem is the existence of nation states or government or private ownership of land or money or resources or political parties or foreign policy.

Per the Bin Laden Letter to America statement released after 9/11, Bin Laden recruited the 9/11 terrorists for a specific reason. He said to American:

Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

.....The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

...(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

There is lots more of this in the letter along with a list of demands asking the US to get of their lands, end US support for corrupt leaders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

...looks like a claim of fact to me otherwise he would have said "I believe that..."  Or similar.

You of course may interpret his statement differently.

Looks like a statement of belief to me otherwise he would have said "it's a fact that...."

[ProfessorDavey]

Looks like a statement of belief to me otherwise he would have said "it's a fact that...."

But surely for consistency if it were a statement of belief then he would have said 'it is my belief that ..."

I think something phrased so definitively comes across more as a statement of fact than a statement of belief without any 'prefix' of the nature of "it's a fact that ..." or 'it is my belief that ...".

To complicate matters it could be that Vlad believes it to be a fact that there is only one god.

[Sebastian Toe]

You're still wrong.

That looks like a statement of belief to me otherwise you would have said "it's a fact that.."

Is that correct?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That looks like a statement of belief to me otherwise you would have said "it's a fact that.."

Is that correct?

Yup. As are any statements by BHS that I am wrong. When expressing opinions or beliefs on here, a lot of posters do not start the sentence with "I believe that".

When I post to people who do employ qualifiers such as "IMO" or "It seems" then I respond similarly.

If people post without these qualifiers, I tend to not spend the extra time typing them either. in my responses.

[Sebastian Toe]

Yup. As are any statements by BHS that I am wrong. When expressing opinions or beliefs on here, a lot of posters do not start the sentence with "I believe that".

When I post to people who do employ qualifiers such as "IMO" or "It seems" then I respond similarly.

If people post without these qualifiers, I tend to not spend the extra time typing them either. in my responses.

Do you post any statements of fact, without qualifying statements?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

You're still wrong. My analogy in reply #888 was about religion i.e. the interpretation of an experience that people's brains select based on prior information stored in their brain. My analogy did not have anything to say about the existence of God.

Except the attempted analogy failed because it was a category error for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring – you used it in reply to an exchange about the existence of god, not about how Vlad feels about a god if it does exist. If you won’t address the rebuttal there’s nothing more I can do to help you.             

Not sure what muddled thinking you are trying to present here but if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're wrong. He is stating his belief that god was present in his consciousness. When people give testimony as evidence, they are not giving evidence that they are making a claim. People don't give a statement saying "this statement is evidence that I am giving a statement". Their statement is evidence that they went through an experience and it is presented as evidence for the claim being true. And Vlad's claim about his experience implies that something could have been present or it could have been his imagination  - unless you are using "imply" to mean something else. Vlad's experience is not proof that there really was something there.

Yet again – Vlad thinks his belief “I encountered god” is of itself evidence for this god being a fact. You know that’s bollocks. I know that’s bollocks. Vlad though thinks otherwise, which is the point.   

I have asked Vlad to confirm to you that that’s what he thinks (more than once) but, typically, he’s just ignored the question (also more than once). It is though consistent with his countless statements to that effect.

Agreed.

Good.
 

Wrong - my impression is that Vlad is clear that the term "fact" is used to describe something he has empirical evidence for, and he has said he has no empirical evidence. So IMO he has claimed a belief God exists and a belief God was present in his consciousness. Of course, if Vlad says God exists as fact, then I'll revise my opinion.

Wrong again. Vlad thinks “god” is real” because he has does have evidence to that effect. The type of evidence he says he doesn’t have is empirical evidence, but he says that to leave the door open to some other type of supposed, mysterious, magic, whatever type of evidence that he can’t or won’t share here, but that he thinks is somehow evidence nonetheless. Thus, to his mind, the belief “I encountered god” is evidence that he really did encounter god, only this type of evidence it of the non-empirical sort. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is why he’d not afford the same evidential status to the belief “I encountered a leprechauns”.           

Wrong - your examples of tangible involve experiences that can be measured - salary increase, working hours. That does not apply to Vlad's experience.

Doesn’t matter: “There was a tangible atmosphere of evil” works just as well for this purpose. How would you propose to measure “an atmosphere of evil”, even though people experience it as tangible nonetheless?   

Wrong - my analogy in reply #888 was in response to you saying Vlad chose an explanation for his experience based on the information peddled to him by his Sunday school as a child. I said "if a person thinks they 'experienced' something supernatural in a religious context, their brain would seek to make sense of it with the information they have been exposed to at various times in their life." My analogy had nothing to say about whether Vlad's god exists but about the narrative Vlad's brain chose to explain the experience based on previous information stored in it. Why would you expect Vlad's brain or anyone's brain to come up with a narrative for an experience that wasn't already previously stored in their brain. Where would this previously unknown narrative spring from?

Still wrong for the same reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring – see first point above.

Feel free to congratulate yourself here on your supposed triumphs - if that's what you need to do to like yourself more.

Such a pity you have no sense of irony (something I find a lot with religious people by the way).

[ProfessorDavey]

Yup. As are any statements by BHS that I am wrong. When expressing opinions or beliefs on here, a lot of posters do not start the sentence with "I believe that".

When I post to people who do employ qualifiers such as "IMO" or "It seems" then I respond similarly.

If people post without these qualifiers, I tend to not spend the extra time typing them either. in my responses.

But I think when we are in discourse on the basis of opinion or belief then it is taken as read that 'you are wrong' means I disagree with your opinion, in other words it is my opinion that you are wrong. That's because we are working in the world of opinion/belief which is subjective and not therefore amenable to verification as objectively right or wrong.

But that isn't the case with facts, which by definition can be proven to be correct or incorrect. So let's imagine someone says that Canada is the largest country on the earth by land area, that isn't a statement of opinion or belief (as that would be meaningless as Canada either is or is not the largest country - opinion is irrelevant). Nope that is a statement of fact and if I say 'you are wrong' it would mean that you are factually incorrect as it can be objectively demonstrated which of us is correct in fact.

The distinction between fact, which must surely be subject to objective verification as to being right or wrong (in other words 'true for everyone'), and opinion, which is inherently subjective and not objectively provable (beyond 'true for me' subjectivity) is important in discourse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Yup. As are any statements by BHS that I am wrong. When expressing opinions or beliefs on here, a lot of posters do not start the sentence with "I believe that".

When I post to people who do employ qualifiers such as "IMO" or "It seems" then I respond similarly.

If people post without these qualifiers, I tend to not spend the extra time typing them either. in my responses.

Except that I use arguments for rebuttals rather than unqualified assertions, but in any case your growing desperation is showing here: if I say “I went to the Post Office this morning” I don’t need to pre-fix it as “it is a fact that I went to the Post Office this morning” to clarify that I intended my statement to be treated factually. Similarly Vlad’s “there’s only one god” is clearly intended to mean “I assert as a fact that there’s only one god” rather than, “here’s an unqualified faith claim that there’s only one god” etc.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Do you post any statements of fact, without qualifying statements?

Yes. I don't say it's a fact that I said or Vlad said XYZ when I quote from a previous post.

Or do you mean like the post above to Outrider about Bin Laden's letter to America. I didn't say it was fact because I have no way of knowing if it's a fact that the letter really is from Bin Laden. We are told it was a letter recovered from a raid on his compound in 2011 and declassified by the USA's Director of National Intelligence. https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-osama-bin-ladens-letter-to-the-american-people-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

I have no way of independently and objectively verifying this.

[ProfessorDavey]

Similarly Vlad’s “there’s only one god” is clearly intended to mean “I assert as a fact that there’s only one god” rather than, “here’s an unqualified faith claim that there’s only one god” etc.     

I agree - these statements and assertions come across to me as statements of fact, not mere expressions of opinion. Similarly assertions like 'god is the Necessary Being' - which comes across to me as multiple assertion of fact rather than opinion.

And how Vlad develops his argument seems to confirm this - his claim of Necessary Being seems based on a settled view that there is a Necessary Being - in other words that the Necessary Being is factual.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Except the attempted analogy failed because it was a category error for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring – you used it in reply to an exchange about the existence of god, not about how Vlad feels about a god if it does exist. If you won’t address the rebuttal there’s nothing more I can do to help you.

Nope - the analogy was in relation to "happened to be exactly the same god that these various organisations peddled to the young and impressionable you?" and these organisations were Sunday School and Vlad's conversion involved becoming a Christian. The statement was about the religious narrative, not about the existence of God.       

Yet again – Vlad thinks his belief “I encountered god” is of itself evidence for this god being a fact. You know that’s bollocks. I know that’s bollocks. Vlad though thinks otherwise, which is the point.   

I have asked Vlad to confirm to you that that’s what he thinks (more than once) but, typically, he’s just ignored the question (also more than once). It is though consistent with his countless statements to that effect.

And again, I have explained that I think that he thinks it is evidence of god's existence and the evidence is in the form of testimony. He said it was up to you whether you want to accept his relating of experience as evidence. He believes god exists and yes he along with many theists believe god exists for everyone, not just them, but I haven't seen him state that it is a fact that god exists. 

Wrong again. Vlad thinks “god” is real” because he has does have evidence to that effect. The type of evidence he says he doesn’t have is empirical evidence, but he says that to leave the door open to some other type of supposed, mysterious, magic, whatever type of evidence that he can’t or won’t share here, but that he thinks is somehow evidence nonetheless. Thus, to his mind, the belief “I encountered god” is evidence that he really did encounter god, only this type of evidence it of the non-empirical sort. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is why he’d not afford the same evidential status to the belief “I encountered a leprechauns”.

  The only form of evidence he has offered is his testimony and the testimony of others that he believes to be authoritative. No one is obliged to believe evidence in the form of testimony, in the absence of other corroborating evidence. Hence, there is such a low conviction rate for rape, because the evidence of lack of consent is mainly testimony. 

Doesn’t matter: “There was a tangible atmosphere of evil” works just as well for this purpose. How would you propose to measure “an atmosphere of evil”, even though people experience it as tangible nonetheless?

You used "tangible" in the sentence  "Because Vlad (and, presumably, most other theists) doesn’t claim “god” as an abstract concept - he’s claims it as a tangible entity of some sort that exists as an objective fact for all of us".

If you are now saying you meant that "god" as a "tangible entity" is something similar to the abstract idea of an "atmosphere of evil" then ok.

Still wrong for the same reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring – see first point above.

Such a pity you have no sense of irony (something I find a lot with religious people by the way).

I think you'll find you are the person lacking irony when you post self-congratulatory comments like "Sorry you crashed and burned so spectacularly here". I have no interest in asserting generalisations about atheists. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,
 

Except that I use arguments for rebuttals rather than unqualified assertions, but in any case your growing desperation is showing here:

More assertions of your beliefs from you. Thanks for your opinion.

if I say “I went to the Post Office this morning” I don’t need to pre-fix it as “it is a fact that I went to the Post Office this morning” to clarify that I intended my statement to be treated factually. Similarly Vlad’s “there’s only one god” is clearly intended to mean “I assert as a fact that there’s only one god” rather than, “here’s an unqualified faith claim that there’s only one god” etc.

No I think it's a statement of belief. Similar to when Muslims say "La ilaha illa allah"  which is Arabic for "there is no god except God" ie the monotheistic concept. And the statement in Arabic is short for ""Ashadu an La ilaha illa allah". The "ashadu an" part at the start means "I bear witness that" . It's a statement of faith.     

[ProfessorDavey]

No I think it's a statement of belief. Similar to when Muslims say "La ilaha illa allah"  which is Arabic for "there is no god except God" ie the monotheistic concept.

But surely the key point is whether you consider this to be objectively true in the sense of 'true for everyone' - or merely an opinion 'true for me' but not necessarily true for you.

That seems to be the critical issue here - I can express my belief that Mozart's music is beautiful - but that belief is merely a 'true for me' statement - it doesn't come with any further assertion that everyone finds Mozart's music beautiful (i.e. true for everyone), still less that Mozart's music being beautiful is some kind of verifiable, objective fact. Now that approach doesn't seem to cut it with many religious people - the "there is no god except God" assertion doesn't seem to be in the same category as my Mozart claim. It appears to be, at best, a statement of belief that "there is no god except God" is true for everyone, or even more definitive, that it is some objective fact.

[ekim]

The distinction between fact, which must surely be subject to objective verification as to being right or wrong (in other words 'true for everyone'), and opinion, which is inherently subjective and not objectively provable (beyond 'true for me' subjectivity) is important in discourse.

I think the difficulty arises when esoteric experiences are confused with exoteric experiences.  An individual could say that it is a fact that he is in a (heavenly) state of bliss or that he was overwhelmed by what appeared to be an inner presence. To the individual experiencer they are facts but not provable to others.  The most that can be done is to provide a method or way for others to have an identical inner experience.  I suspect that this was the intention of certain individuals before those methods became buried in organised religions and by theocracy.  Even then it would be difficult to compare those inner experiences especially if the individuals were separated in time and used a language and myth of a bygone era.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But surely the key point is whether you consider this to be objectively true in the sense of 'true for everyone' - or merely an opinion 'true for me' but not necessarily true for you.

That seems to be the critical issue here - I can express my belief that Mozart's music is beautiful - but that belief is merely a 'true for me' statement - it doesn't come with any further assertion that everyone finds Mozart's music beautiful (i.e. true for everyone), still less that Mozart's music being beautiful is some kind of verifiable, objective fact. Now that approach doesn't seem to cut it with many religious people - the "there is no god except God" assertion doesn't seem to be in the same category as my Mozart claim. It appears to be, at best, a statement of belief that "there is no god except God" is true for everyone, or even more definitive, that it is some objective fact.

I can only tell you my interpretation - that Islam requires faith in the absence of facts. That seems to be the basis for religion - that we are not required to establish facts when it comes to "god".

The god we believe in is assumed to exist but not as a physical entity in the natural world, so when you say god exists for everyone - I'm not sure how that works in the sense of making sense in English if you have no belief in the supernatural and we haven't established as fact that the supernatural is real. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think the difficulty arises when esoteric experiences are confused with exoteric experiences.  An individual could say that it is a fact that he is in a (heavenly) state of bliss or that he was overwhelmed by what appeared to be an inner presence. To the individual experiencer they are facts but not provable to others.  The most that can be done is to provide a method or way for others to have an identical inner experience.  I suspect that this was the intention of certain individuals before those methods became buried in organised religions and by theocracy.  Even then it would be difficult to compare those inner experiences especially if the individuals were separated in time and used a language and myth of a bygone era.

Yes I would agree that it would be difficult to compare inner experiences. On this forum we seem to differentiate between "facts" and experiences which we believe are true - or rather we believe that our interpretations of the experience are true.

It seems to be a convention that fact claims need to be backed up by objective evidence, whereas opinions we believe are true are asserted and argued for. We don't state they are beliefs but we can just apply the test of whether the statements are verifiable/ falsifiable. If they aren't then presumably our statements are beliefs or opinions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Leaving aside your argument by assertion there, the question though is still – even if you've guessed right about that – which of the bewildering variety of gods on offer would be the "only" one?

You still don't get this contingency-Necessary and Necessary entity thing do you. There is only one ultimate necessary entity right, Because were their two neither would be in complete control, they wouldn't be sovereign but worse than that there would have to be something, some sufficient reason for there to be two instead of one and that controls both their context so would itself be the necessary entity rather than the two proposed. An atheist therefore can't go one lower than a monotheist and it isn't the case that they just believe in one less they are actually discarding the PSR and introducing Brutefact.

Happy to help out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

Except the attempted analogy failed because it was a category error for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring – you used it in reply to an exchange about the existence of god, not about how Vlad feels about a god if it does exist. If you won’t address the rebuttal there’s nothing more I can do to help you.             

Yet again – Vlad thinks his belief “I encountered god” is of itself evidence for this god being a fact. You know that’s bollocks. I know that’s bollocks. Vlad though thinks otherwise, which is the point.   

I have asked Vlad to confirm to you that that’s what he thinks (more than once) but, typically, he’s just ignored the question (also more than once). It is though consistent with his countless statements to that effect.

Good.
 Wrong again. Vlad thinks “god” is real” because he has does have evidence to that effect. The type of evidence he says he doesn’t have is empirical evidence, but he says that to leave the door open to some other type of supposed, mysterious, magic, whatever type of evidence that he can’t or won’t share here, but that he thinks is somehow evidence nonetheless. Thus, to his mind, the belief “I encountered god” is evidence that he really did encounter god, only this type of evidence it of the non-empirical sort. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is why he’d not afford the same evidential status to the belief “I encountered a leprechauns”.           

Doesn’t matter: “There was a tangible atmosphere of evil” works just as well for this purpose. How would you propose to measure “an atmosphere of evil”, even though people experience it as tangible nonetheless?   

Still wrong for the same reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring – see first point above.

Such a pity you have no sense of irony (something I find a lot with religious people by the way).

So he said he didn't have evidence but you could tell by the tone of his post that he thought he secretly did have evidence but then switched that to knowledge which you then said you knew was bollocks but earlier he gave you the choice between thinking knowledge was only through having empirical evidence or primarily through having empirical evidence and then you seemed to say primarily which left room for other ways of gaining knowledge then he invited you to provide empirical evidence which you didn't do because you didn't have it but you reckoned you didn't need it because you believe empirical evidence only primarily gives knowledge.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But I think when we are in discourse on the basis of opinion or belief then it is taken as read that 'you are wrong' means I disagree with your opinion, in other words it is my opinion that you are wrong. That's because we are working in the world of opinion/belief which is subjective and not therefore amenable to verification as objectively right or wrong.

But that isn't the case with facts, which by definition can be proven to be correct or incorrect. So let's imagine someone says that Canada is the largest country on the earth by land area, that isn't a statement of opinion or belief (as that would be meaningless as Canada either is or is not the largest country - opinion is irrelevant). Nope that is a statement of fact and if I say 'you are wrong' it would mean that you are factually incorrect as it can be objectively demonstrated which of us is correct in fact.

The distinction between fact, which must surely be subject to objective verification as to being right or wrong (in other words 'true for everyone'), and opinion, which is inherently subjective and not objectively provable (beyond 'true for me' subjectivity) is important in discourse.

Vlad said he has no empirical evidence for God. Doesn't that indicate God can't be objectively demonstrated?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So he said he didn't have evidence but you could tell by the tone of his post that he thought he secretly did have evidence but then switched that to knowledge which you then said you knew was bollocks but earlier he gave you the choice between thinking knowledge was only through having empirical evidence or primarily through having empirical evidence and then you seemed to say primarily which left room for other ways of gaining knowledge then he invited you to provide empirical evidence which you didn't do because you didn't have it but you reckoned you didn't need it because you believe empirical evidence only primarily gives knowledge.

FFS. Do you or do you not think your “experience” of an “encounter” with “god” was evidence (albeit not of the empirical sort apparently) for there being an actual objective god that you actually objectively encountered, or is it just a “true for me only” subjective belief narrative that you happen to find persuasive?

I’ll make it even simpler for you: do you think your experience was evidence for a factually real god or just for an internally conceptualised one?

[Sebastian Toe]

Vlad,

FFS. Do you or do you not think your “experience” of an “encounter” with “god” was evidence (albeit not of the empirical sort apparently) for there being an actual objective god that you actually objectively encountered, or is it just a “true for me only” subjective belief narrative that you happen to find persuasive?

I’ll make it even simpler for you: do you think your experience was evidence for a factually real god or just for an internally conceptualised one?

If you get a straight answer to that, I'll have to start drinking again!

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Vlad said he has no empirical evidence for God. Doesn't that indicate God can't be objectively demonstrated?

Ask him. I've asked him several times but he won't answer me. Perhaps he'll answer you though.