THIS is where you were either being dishonest or lazy. This is kicking a rock and trying to refute an idealist. I had a friend, many years ago, who started hallucinating things. Scared the hell out of him. You're claiming the fact that he SAW the hallucinations is what? Evidence that they were real? Doesn't work that way.
Strawful, and not what any of us are saying.
A red herring. And pointless.
When you "see" a person, there are infinite models of reality that are consistent with what your eyes tell you: the person may be real; they may be a bit of software code; an experience fed to your mind; a part of a very vivid dream, etc. The fact that you are getting visual sense-data is not evidence for ANY of these possibilities, because the sense-data fits consistently with ALL possibilities, and you either knew this, or should have known this.
You must have a different defintion of infinite than I do.
And you missed the boat, as usual, and argue on the straw shore of your straw island.
If we are brains in vats, butterfly dreams, god thoughts or quanta doesn't matter. Ontology is a useless dead end.
I resent your foolish solipsism, a co-worker of mine died in a car accident two block from school, you philosophy is empty and selfish masturbation.
There is no meaning in your empty drivel, your supposition makes not a whit of difference.
You can not change the force we label as gravity, nor can you provide food and shelter with your foolish, infantile nonsense.
Please do not step in front of a car that is moving at a high rate of speed.
You also missed the obvious theist objection that God may not be the sort of thing one experiences with their senses anyway, so lack of "Godly" sense-data would not be a detriment to theism on that argument alone.
Uh huh, some thing that can't be seen, can't be felt or experienced has what relevance to anything?
Those atheists are wrong. Reality is either theistic (God or Gods) or atheistic.
Absolutes are so backwards, reality occurs along a continuum, a spectrum.
here is the deal, your words are empty bags, and they only work when used to carry idiomatic meaning.
You absolutism is foolish.
Atheists can't disprove God and theistic evidence is far from compelling (mostly personal stuff I talked about before, though I still like the fine-tuning argument). In the absence of any evidence for or against, a proposition must be given an agnostic value (.5). That is hardly a "minute probability" for theism.
Yeah that is right and little spirits cause infection, your alternate theory has no meaning, it has no relevance.
Your argument says that treating infection with holy water is as useful a treating it with cauterization.
Your patient dies, how wonderful.
Now, the same thing could be said about the existence of unicorns (or anything that's not a logical contradiction). Either they exist or they don't.
Keep playing the fool, strawman.
Science says perceptions are real, the perception of a unicorn is real. the question is what predictive validity does it have in interacting with the 'observed' universe.
get your straw out of my peanut butter!
We have no evidence for or against, so again an agnostic position should be taken. I think what you were trying to say is that the question of the existence of God is as trivial as the existence of unicorns or teacups orbitting the moon.
trivial is right, you have your theory to explain the data available, you have the burden to demonstrate the theory that a unicorn exists has predictive validity. I have the burden to over confounding explanation.
The burden is then on you to over the possible removal of that confounding factor.
the main point is your are full of straw.
Science is about approximate models, how does you approximate model for the actual existence of god, as opposed to the observed existence of organic beings (ontology aside because it doesn't matter) who have perceptions MAKE any predictions?
yes god could exist in a locked box that we can never open, so what?
Will it feed the hungry, comfort a child, grow a garden?
Nope.
What prediction does your theory make?
That is the point that you always avoid Malerin?
What point does your theory make that has any impact, meaning or ability to make predictions?
What difference does your approximate model make about anything?
I don't think that's true. For thousands of years, people have not been talking about, and killing each other over, and devoting their lives to the study of whether unicorns or orbitting tea cups exist and what their properties are. People have a fascination with God, and the technical definition of atheism itself proves it is a non-trivial discussion. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God(s) (though some atheist circles have a more robust definition of the term). Not teacups or fairies or unicorns. Atheism and theism are flip-sides of the same coin.
This is just amazing Malerin, how many straw arguments can you fit into one post?
Not collecting stamps is a hobby, just like collecting stamps!
You have only gotten through the first part of the thought and gotten stuck there, think it through Malerin, why would ontology matter?
Can you repeal the force we label as gravity. No you can not, ontology is worthless babbling.
Be sure to tell me why the suffering of people living with schizophrenia is so wonderful, and how you empty philosophy has any meaning in the face of suicide.
Go do something meaningful with your life, hang out with people. Why does your ontology matter.
What difference does it make. The answer is none.
You can't refute that, I don't think you can, what discernable difference does this pointless rambling make?
Care to defend it in another thread?
here is the challenge, and I will spare you the vitriol after this one post here:
"What prediction does your theory make?
That is the point that you always avoid Malerin?
What point does your theory make that has any impact, meaning or ability to make predictions?
What difference does your approximate model make about anything?"
Up for the debate? I will be polite after this one post.
(nor do I find several of them remotely convincing...)
