Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Can You Prove It Didn't Happen? [View all]Orrex
(63,172 posts)78. Of course I'm not, though I understand that you need to believe that I am.
Why is that? Do you think billions of people have been and are deluded? Irrational?
It is intellectually dishonest of you to propose only those two possibilities, akin to Lewis' nonsensical "liar/lunatic/lord" construction.
Some are probably deluded (especially if they've fallen prey to a charismatic witness). Some are probably irrational (especially if they insist that someone else's revelation obviates the need for independently verifiable evidence).
Some are probably ignorant, in the literal sense. They lack the tools to assess evidence (i.e., young children) or the technical experience to understand tough concepts (i.e., young Earth creationists).
I would however suggest that most are mistaken. They have accepted the claims of the witnesses and have overstated the value of revelation.
Lots of people in ancient Egypt believed that pharoahs would rise after death if properly mummified. Would you assert that these people were deluded or irrational?
Lots of people believe in Big Foot. Are these people deluded or irrational?
On what basis can you assess the correctness of these other belief systems?
No, I guess you're content to believe that human history is made up of people wandering around aimlessly waving their arms in the air.
That may be your assessment of human history. It is not mine, and I have no need to address it.
My view that people have been mistaken in interpreting the value of revelation hardly translates to imagining them "aimlessly waving their arms in the air."
And yes, when you ask a question I get to declare the answer. Can't handle it? Boo hoo.
Bullshit. You can offer a response or you can decline to answer, but you don't get to declare that your offered response has in fact answered the question. Do you have any idea how logic actually works?
Moreover, I'm sorry to break it to you, but using "we" in that context is a rhetorical device to refer to the readership in general. If it upsets you, you are welcome to rephrase it as "What is one to conclude from your failure or unwillingness to answer straightforward questions about the nature of belief?" Regardless, it's hardly central to my argument, though I would indeed find it interesting to read why you ignore questions that you don't like.
And by "why you ignore questions" I also mean "why you pretend that you have answered questions that you haven't answered."
And, by far, convictions based on hearsay are sustained on appeal. Hey, hearsay was your term. Don't blame me if you don't quite see how it's irrelevant.
I entertained your preposterous analogy because it seemed as though you might understand it, but I see know that I was mistaken, alas.
Hearsay is easily and often overturned by contradictory material evidence, and in fact hearsay is often inadmissible as evidence in the first place because it's, you know, hearsay. The failings of human perception are well documented when it comes to identifying subjects in a line-up, for instance.
Further, even if hearsay were accepted as evidence in a trial, it is never acceptable as a substitute for empirical evidence in a scientific experiment.
When we're (and by using "we" in this sentence, I mean "rug and I." Understand?) talking about demonstrating the existence of a supernatural being, hearsay is simply insufficient to serve as evidence, unless we are willing to throw up our hands and say "I believe you." You are clearly willing to do so. I am not.
What material evidence do you expect to see of "transcendent reality"?
Seriously? That easy!
First, such evidence would need to withstand scrutiny under the scientific method. That is, it would need to be reproducible and independently verifiable by objective, disinterested parties.
Second, the evidence would need to be specific, such that it can be correlated exclusively to "transcendent reality" and not to some lesser phenomenon. If it can't be so correlated, the advocate would need to explain how the evidence serves as evidence for "transcendent reality" instead of the lesser phenomenon.
Third, it's frankly not up to me to disprove it. The burden is on the advocate to make his or her case in support of this "transcendent reality." Let him or her put it forth the purported evidence and subject it to independent review. If it can be shown that the evidence supports "transcendent reality" then I will be satisfied.
Failing that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So when Person A claims Bigfoot exists, and Person B claims that there's no good evidence...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#5
If human thought is inadequate for dealing with proof and comparision of supernatural claims...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#9
No, ignoring the special pleading of those who need special pleading for their supernatural...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#35
"You would only counter each offered experiment with reasons why that experiment was inadequate"
rug
Jan 2015
#63
It appears obvious that honest and rational discourse is impossible with him.
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#84
I think all people of average or better intelligence who believe religious dogma .....
tradewinds
Jan 2015
#101
ok. i hope no one alerts on it and if they do I hope it is not hidden on my account.
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#114
Then tell me exactly how you confirm one supernatural phenomenon but would reject another
Orrex
Jan 2015
#134
Sure I can but if you are trying to prove that I am delusional or irrational, then I have no
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#142
Nothing in this discussion indicates that you're willing to do so (edited for typo)
Orrex
Jan 2015
#150
Since I have answered the question and you have nothing else I wish you a pleasant evening.
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#161
Let's start with evidence that a supreme supernatural being is required to exist at all.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#18
You and Orrex both have demonstarted how it is impossible to have an honest and rational
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#83
Of all the monkey-shit-flinging fights we've had, I think *this* was the one that finally got
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#85
Lol. I'm not. I'm simply speaking in generalities about no one in particular.
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#92
OR, sometimes the issue is something you don't want to address, because it invalidates
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#119
It is a means to examine one class of actual material evidence that could establish that there must
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#125
If you're referring to cour comments to me, it takes two to have an honest discussion.
rug
Jan 2015
#93
The premise is not about proving or disproving God. It's about a logical fallacy.
DetlefK
Jan 2015
#30
It seems there are about 40 replies I can't see. Somebody must have had an upset.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#45
Why don't you rebut the argument in your last pararagraph instead of characterizing it?
rug
Jan 2015
#29
As I can't see 116 of those replies I can only guess at the hot mess.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#151