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
(63,208 posts)133. Tell me exactly what you mean by God
And then I will propose a test for it. Absent that definition, you are simply making shit up. You are throwing up your hands and declaring "I choose to believe."
It's fairly simple, but apparently not simple enough. As a means of demonstrating transcendental reality, revelation (i.e., hearsay) is fundamentally insufficient. Therefore, if they have concluded that such revelation is adequate demonstration of transcendental reality, they are mistaken.
A few posts ago you insisted that the person providing the response has the authority to declare the question answered. Now you are saying that this is not the case. Were you deluded when you wrote either post? Were you mistaken? Or were you lying? Or were you simply moving the goalposts because your argument is meaningless?
Is there an answer somewhere in there or are you just ducking the question. Note: the use of "therefore" does not mean you concluded anything at all.
You're trying to steer me into some sort of pseudo-gotcha moment wherein I say "no empirical experiment can verify transcendent reality," and you say "ah-ha!"
Well, your whole argument requires you to pretend that revelation is sufficient to verify transcendent reality, but you've offered nothing to support this fantasy. Sauce for the goose; if no empirical test is possible because the subject exceeds the bounds of empiricism, then one's own introspection and belief absolutely aren't adequate to verify the revelation.
And, yes, now that you mention it, I will ask you: do you think I'm deluded or irrational?
Must I choose one or the other?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