I have no problem. It's an empty concept, therefore there are no meaningful claims about it, therefore nothing to refute. No problem.
For someone who spends a heck of a lot of time arguing against something he has no problem with...
Just as we should not should not confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself, we should not confuse feelings about a thing with the thing itself.
I can have feelings about unicorns. Doesn't mean they exist.
Love, of course, IS a feeling. God, however, is not a feeling. The universe was not created by our emotions. The faithful do not pray to our emotions.
This is transparently obvious.
Wait a second. Are you saying that love exists even if someone is not feeling it?
If you are, then show me where love is.
If you aren't, why can't you accept that a deist god is merely a feeling?
What if you told me that?
If you told me that, I'd say you were wrong.
There is a perfectly reasonable theory to explain why we believe in God, which is not in itself supernatural.
If you told me that something indetectable was making me believe in God, I'd point out that you're engaging in empty verbiage.
I'm not wrong. Read about
Persinger's experiments.
Now, imagine you are somewhere where something was tickling those temporal lobes of yours, but you didn't know it was. How would you know what happened?
You're not paying attention.
God is not something we have yet to discover. It's not something we have no idea about.
That's not correct. We have plenty of basically concurring stories on what god is. The stories may vary from religion to religion, and from believer to believer, so there certainly isn't a consistent perception of what god is. But we can say the same about any phenomenon: Some view lightning as Thor's doing, others as a meteorological phenomenon.
It is also not a concept which can now be claimed to be anchored in deductions from known fact.
It is a concept that is claimed to be anchored in purported facts from the past: E.g., Jesus walking on water.
As skeptics, we can't really do anything about such a claim: We can't test it, because it was supposedly 2000 years ago. The only thing we can say is that if someone claimed such an ability today, we would test him. What we can't say is that it couldn't have happened then.
That's what you are doing, and you are wrong to do so.
It is a debunked notion whose conceptual base has been replaced by a different and valid worldview.
If you look at it from a scientific view, yes.
No, it's not a NS. If you want to dismiss someone's argument because you see them as a sloppy thinker, then you should point to someone who isn't.
Are you a sloppy thinker?
I have no tolerance for post-modernist claptrap.
These are not value statements.
They are statements about the reasonableness and logicality of a claim or statement.
"Meaningful" is not a value statement? You can objectively determine if something is "meaningful" to someone?
If you think there's a competitor in the ring, I reckon you'd best get busy describing it.
There are plenty of competitors. But that doesn't mean they are equally valid, if we look at it from a scientific POV.
More post-modernist, easy-way-out non-thinking.
Name your nonsense, someone out there believes it.
That's not the bar, not the test.
Yes, someone will believe it. So you don't deny that the idea of God is meaningful to others.
Are you claiming that they are?
If so, you're out of your gourd.
What I said is perfectly accurate.
The earth is shaped more like a beachball than like a frisbee.
What happens to all these objects in hyperdimensions doesn't change that, relative to the reality we perceive.
You are so close, yet so far away. What we perceive is not reality - we have learned that from science. We can't trust our senses, because our senses can and will deceive us.
You're going to have to do a damn sight better than that if you want to make this point relevant to a discussion of God.
The status of other theories is totally irrelevant to this thread.
It's easier to just answer the question with either yes or no:
Do you think evolution will ever be proven false?
What sort of place?
A remote star system?
Could be. We have just begun to look at remote star systems.
An ad hoc imaginary world dreamed up solely to house God?
A "higher dimension" devoid of qualities?
None of these deserves consideration by a resonable person, for various reasons already mentioned.
You don't think looking at remote star systems deserve consideration?
Why are you reluctant to say where such a thing might be?
I'm not. The point is that God could be where we haven't looked - or even thought to look.
Is this truly the company you wish to keep?
You have, then. The point of that argument is that it isn't falsifiable: If god put the dinos in the various strata, then how will that theory ever be proven false? It can't - therefore, it isn't scientific.
You have not explained here the relevance to our discussion of God.
It is very relevant: Love and god are both concepts that are culturally determined.
Again, I must ask... also encompass what, exactly?
Whatever people think god is.
More post-mod drivel.
And yet another spurious appeal to QM.
QM is empirically verified. God is a bunch of debunked mythology.
I didn't ask if QM is empirically verified. I asked if it makes sense. Does it?
