Hey roundguy, how about this. You have your opinions, I have mine, and they have their’s, right? Now, your idea is that there is no afterlife, there is no soul, and there is no spirit. Now something has to have some sort of substance, or else it doesn’t exist in your world, right? If it has no empirical counterpart, or some sort of empirical evidence of it’s existence, then it’s merely a figment of the imagination, it may as well be a ghost or a gremlin. Show me your ideas then. Where do your ideas exist? What is this concept you call atheism? I understand what you say of it, but where is the evidence of it?
This isn’t necessarily supporting anyone’s argument, but there’s always more than meets the eye, or in this case, there’s more than empirical evidence would suggest.
Like what?
See, if you can’t measure it, how does it exist? What is the ‘yardstick’ that we measure that which is unmeasurable?
Zero=Zero. How do I prove that zero exists?
I’m simply saying that obviously you have these concepts in your mind. Liberty, atheism, religion, all concepts and ideas, quite abstract. Yet, where do they exist? How is that both you and I know exactly what I mean when I say atheism, and that we both what I’m referring to? Just because there’s no empirical/physical proof doesn’t mean jack.
OK. It’s not my definition of eternal life, it’s part of my thinking of what Lib had in mind. And I don’t recall even typing “eternal” in my post, so what my definition of eternal life has to do with anything is something I’m interested in you explaining:)
How do you measure love? Furthermore what is there in the essense of human measurement that determines existence? I can’t measure my distaste for consuming liver any more than I can measure my love of olives. To do so would not only be pointless but a waste of my time (and a waste of liver … there’s gotta be someone out there who’ll eat the stuff).
Some things, IMO, it is pointless to measure. It just is. And you live with that. “How much do you love me?” is an amusing question because of that, to me … what’s an appropriate answer there? This much? ::Stretches out arms:: 42? Pi? “Enough to do anything for you”?
Measuring ingredients for a cake, sure. But some things, IMO, just don’t need it. It neglects the reasons for their existence.
By the way, CO is odorless, tasteless and colorless. So what? It’s still potentially lethal … just because you can’t measure it or even detect it (without technological help) doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
I’m a simple man. So, I hope a few simple questions will not offend your obvious intellect. Things to me are pretty black and white. Gray areas give me headache.
Also, just to let you know, depending on what you’re talking about, it can be extremely inappropriate to adopt this point of view. This works for most of Philosophy because otherwise it’s nearly impossible to hold an argument. (Generalization I know, call me on it if you like, but it’s not worth the time in this instance) If you try to hold this on some issues, you end up with something like the “true scotsman” crap. Just because I’m not one thing, does not mean I’m diametrically opposite it.
So just because there’s no empirical proof, you feel that you have the upper hand in the argument and that you don’t have to try and disprove God’s existence? Of course you do, if you find fault with one argument, you should at least provide some sort of alternative in it’s place.
This is, without question, the five most intelligent sentences I’ve seen you post.
But, what is an idea, and what really exists? Because I think it, it exists? On what basis?
Here’s a Sesame Street question for you: Which of the following does not belong:
Love
Hate
Liberty
Freedom
Christianity
Atheism
God
I trust you see the difference.
You are really getting on my nerves, iampunha. 
You, and I, know exactly what your point was. That you wish to change it now makes no difference.
Please see my post above. If you can’t understand the difference between “love” (an idea, emotion, feeling), and “God” (a supposedly existing being), then I really don’t know what more I can say.
Ah, but you can measure it. It exists. This was a piss-poor analogy.
You know, you don’t have to insult me every other post, just seems petty and condescending from this end.
Well, your concept of ideas and all that, well, there is no answer to it. A lot of people like Plato’s Theory of Forms, which is pretty nifty, but has it’s problems. There are other theories, but that’s not really all that important at this point in time.
Now, all those words are nouns. All of them represent various ideas and concepts. I don’t see why you would say one of them doesn’t belong. How about you tell me which you think doesn’t belong and why?
Just so we have the same scorecard, here’s what my point was:
Lib might have been meaning a different sense of death than what you typically think of.
If you want to attribute another point to what I was saying, let me know;)
I have a different answer from what I bet you were expecting.
IMO, neither religions belong in that gathering of ideas. Love, hate, freedom, liberty, [deity] … all ideas. But then you’re not going to get a fully contexted statement like “God exists” from me, so there you go;)
Using only your stated methods of measurement you sure as hell cannot measure CO. So either your own post was piss-poor or something was lost in the translation, I dunno. If you’re going to blame me for using your own methods to show a point, direct your words at the origin. And here’s a hint: it ain’t me.
Piss-poor indeed. My whole bloody POINT was that your thought was incomplete:rolleyes:
See? Now here you go. You follow a very reasonable, rational post with a stupid-ass comment.
Here’s the deal:
You say that an all-powerful, supernatual, omniscient, omnipotent being exsists. I say it doesn’t.
Who has the burden of proof? Me? I don’t think so. Geesh.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
We can measure it now. Does that mean that before we were able to measure it, it somehow did not exist? Because we can’t prove or measure consciousness, love, God, does that mean that we might not have some way of doing so later? Our means are limited even now, and we can not claim to know everything. I don’t think that analogy was ‘piss poor’ at all.
Damn it, iampunha, then what the fuck is “God” – to you?
You knew bloody well what my point was. Why the bullshit?
And why do you do this to me 10 minutes before bedtime?
And here I thought I was keeping it to every third post. Didn’t I apologize to you once already?
And saying that we’re the only things existing in this universe is a perfectly reasonable explanation isn’t it? I’m not going to argue strongly the existence of God, but this is where it gets to the point that it’s simply opinion. Extraordinary is in the eye of the beholder. Some people find it a perfectly good idea that in fact nothing at all exists, and I’d like to see you even try to debate that with some of the people who believe that. When it comes down to it, belief in God is not necessarily a scientific thing in that we aren’t trying to find the theory to best explain everything.
God is a very different entity to everyone, and so your idea of God may not be mine. Even Christians of the same church might have slightly differing ideas of God’s nature. Say I’m some sort of Deist and believe that God existed, but he has done little besides observe this little thing we call life. From my point of view, that’s perfectly reasonable, and I’d like to see you try and refute that idea.
Really, all that there is to say about the existence of God is that all who enter these debates generally have their own ideas, and it’s terribly hard to sway people from their positions. However, your idea of God is not the end-all, simply because you have as little evidence as anyone else.
You both have burden of proof.
If you say that a being does not exist, then it is your burden to show that it does not, which is not nearly as difficult as you might think. Very intelligent (and even not so intelligent) atheists have been doing this for a long-ass time.
If you say that a being does exist, then it is your burden to show that it does, which is also not very difficult. Very intelligent (and even not so intelligent) theists have been doing this for a long-ass time.
Long story short: if you say something, be prepared to back it up.
I don’t say this to annoy you … truly, I don’t … but to even begin to answer that in a meaningful, actual way (as opposed to theory, which I’ll give if you like, though I think you’ll find it largely useless) I’d have to have as a set premise that God exists in a tangible way. And I am not going to take that as a premise. I don’t know if it’s true or if it’s false.
To show you the content of your own:p
To wear you down, of course. The more aggravated I make you, the more sleep you lose, and the worse your posts get. If you do a search for my posts in GD you’ll find that most of them are either during lunch (when people are in a rush to either read posts or get back to work “after that last thread”) or at night, when people are not only windind down for the night but also not as sharp as they usually are.
If you believe that, I have some shares to sell you in atomic badger racing:D
Actually, this is very close to what I believe. I’m an agnostic. Go figure, eh?
Guys, this has been fun. I have been both challanged, and entertained, by this discussion. Unfortunately, I must leave in the AM for a weekend jaunt to Kansas City for some serious casino poker.
I hope to have access to a computer, if for no other reason than to see Lib’s response to my post. If I can’t, then I guess I’ll have to dig this thread off the third page on Monday.
Farewell.
ROUNDGUY –
God is supernatural, literally and definitionally beyond nature. Even if you only grant God the status of a fallacious concept, surely you grant this. But then you ask for “empirical evidence,” that which you can verify through observation or through experiment – “proof” obviously and definitionally limited to the natural world.
There is no empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of God. The nature of God as most Christians (and AFAIK Jews and Muslims) understand Him is inconsistent with it. Because if He were observable, verifiable, and “provable” by human standards, He would not be God. And we would not need faith. I’m not asking you to believe any of this – I don’t care if you do or not – but it’s the standard party line from the theists’ seats. And, more importantly for purposes of this discussion: There is no empirical, verifiable evidience for the non-existence of God. Because the same exact reasons (or problems) preventing the proof of His existence also prevents the proof of his non-existence. Which is kind of my point. If you can’t prove that you’re right in your assertion that God does not exist, then you shouldn’t be so damn snarky with people whom you know believe He does. Especially when they are people of apparent intelligence and reasonable good will and when your challenge of their beliefs is gratuitous and pointless.
Lots of people mix this up. It is possible to affirmatively make a claim that is couched in the negative: I did not eat bacon for breakfast this morning. An ordinary ball, thrown into the air, will not stay in the air. Canada is not in South America. These are affirmative statements that require proof of a negative. If you affirmatively assert that God does not exist, then the burden of proof is on you – because you made the assertion. And you will be bound to come up with proof because it is your belief system that demands empirical evidence for everything – despite the fact that you can’t marshall any, which means that in the end, of course, your disbelief is as much a matter of faith as my belief.
I on the other hand, can freely assert that God exists and then disavow any burden of proof, because God by definition is supernatural and therefore beyond the grasp of human proof. Therefore, if you demand I prove Him, I will cheerfully admit I can’t, and we will neither of us be any closer to “proving” our assertion – though only one of us will have failed to meet the standard he demands of others. (And by “he” I mean of course, “you.”)
Annoying, innit? But there it is. And when you think about it, that’s why these discussions always end up right where they start. If you’d like to set different ground rules for the discussion, I’d be happy to entertain them, but you cannot escape the fact that you are asking for proof of something that is definitionally not amenable to proof. Change the concept into something empirically provable (that you would be satisfied with), and we’re not longer talking about God.
Well, yes, but not just you. I can’t prove that God exists any more than you can prove that he doesn’t. So when talking to someone who, like you, demands empirical proof, I don’t stand any chance either.
This, in a nutshell, is why discussions of religion always go in circles, minds are rarely changed, time is wasted, and tempers fray – which is why I rarely participate in religious discussions anymore, at least on the Boards. I used to do 'em all the time when I was new, but they never go anywhere, and two months (or weeks) later, someone new comes along and asks the exact same questions you’ve just spend ten days (and ten thread pages) hashing out. Which, with all due respect, is what you, a comparative newbie, are doing now. And, hey, more power to you; I’m just telling you where it will end up.
So if it’s all largely pointless to argue over, the only thing we can expect to do constructively is educate each other about our respective beliefs. We may not change each others’ minds, but at least we might reach some greater understanding of each others’ positions. But that requires a minimum level of respect – not of the beliefs themselves, but of the fact that others do legitimately hold them, which ought to be enough to prevent all of us from mocking them or belittling them.
BADCHAD is quite obviously not interested in learning what liberal Christians believe. He’s not even interested in arguing with them about the merits of those beliefs, tiresome as I find those arguments to generally be, for the reasons given above. He seeks instead to condescendingly inform them of what they must believe – which is not only annoying, but laughable. And his intent has been perfectly obvious from his very first post, for which you can either credit him for shining honesty or criticize him for a lack of guile. In either event, why would I (or anyone else) want to participate? Has he ever given me the slightest reason to give a rat’s ass what he thinks?
Anyway, have fun playing poker, and ask yourself: WWJD? (What would Jesus draw?) 
Thinking in black and white isn’t always bad. But even accounting has certain gray areas. As you know, the foundation of GAAP is the concept of the matching principle, but the foundation isn’t the totality. For example, as an accountant you must not only maintain propriety, you must maintain the appearance of propriety. Bookkeeping is only a part of accounting.
You shouldn’t be surprised that “life” has many definitions. And lest you think that materialists use a clear, black and white definition of life while theists use a spongy definition, I would remind you that even biologists have yet to define life in a clear, concise, and consistent manner. Here is one failed attempt at using biological functionalism to craft a usable definition. But what I mean by life, and what Jesus means by it when He teaches, would be a blend of 1, 4, 7, 9, 11a, ahd 12b. Life is the presence of God.
The dictionary is your friend. Spirit is incorporeal consciousness.
Sure. See 3a, 3b, 3c, 5a, 5b, and especially 9.
As a black-and-whiter, this one should have been easy for you. A spiritual phenomenon is a nonmaterial one. An accountant should know that context is everything. You don’t, for example, apply 3-value logic to a balance sheet. Well, you don’t if you’re honest. 
If you bring to the table that God does not exist, then every conclusion that you reach with respect to spiritual matters will be wrong. Just as if you brought to the table that close is good enough to accounting.
You’ve just illustrated a classic denial of the antecedent. Unless you can show that the whole of reality is comprised of your personal experiences, your statement that you see no evidence is worthless. Moreover, the very narrow philosophical boundaries of empiricism are not always applicable. For example, assume that, like you and Badchad, I come to the debate with certain rigid preconceptions that I am unwilling to change, and that one of them is that there are no beautiful lakes. How then will you provide an empirical example of a beautiful lake when I demand it? Showing me a lake won’t help since I’ve already determined that beauty is not an attribute of lakes.
I already explained that. Feel free to review.
Your equivocation makes that quite impossible. If I refused to accept negative integers as representing quantities, maintaining steadfastly that no one can have minus ten dollars, then you would understand my frustration when you tried to present me my financial statements and I threw them back in your face. Yet here, you claim “rational proof” as something that somehow belongs to materialism, even as you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any definition for life other than a biological one — one which is as full of holes as Swiss cheese.
[…shrug…] What’s yours?
You haven’t heard of My Cousin Vinny? Marisa Tomei won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. It was only her second role in a major motion picture. She starred with Oscar winner Joe Pesci. Well, at least we know the answer to one question — your experience does not constitute all of objective reality. Anyway, I explained the pertinent parts of the movie in quite some detail, and gave further illustration outside the context of the movie in my paragraph about bringing principles of physics to bear on the topic of force in a discussion about political philosophy. I don’t think a third example would help you to understand that applying irrelevant principles to a discussion leads to obfuscation if it is something that, after two perfectly good examples, you still don’t understand.
That would make you ignorant, I reckon.
Libertarian,
So nice of you to bless me with your response.
While I really have no idea why this is important to the discussion, I must point out that this is not correct. The “matching principle” is certainly important in accounting, but it is definitely not the “foundation of GAAP”. This is the foundation of GAAP:
The mission of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the issuer of GAAP rules) is to establish and improve standards of financial accounting and reporting for the guidance and education of the public, including issuers, auditors, and users of financial information.
What good is the “appearance of propriety” if the accountant is unethical and dishonest? Even a dishonest and unethical accountant can show an “appearance of propriety” if he is smart enough and covers his tracks. The best accountants, on the other hand, have no concern about appearances if they are truly honest and ethical.
But, once again, this is of no relevance to the issue at hand.
Here you direct us to the dictionary.com definition of “life”, and then blast us with this:
In which we are forced to read a thesis by some unknown professor from the University of North Carolina.
Pardon me if I am not going to take the time to try to figure out how this relates to your response!
Why don’t you tell us why you think this is relevant, and then if we find more research necessary, we can go back to the original source.
So, what is “biological functionalism”, why is it important to this discussion, and why should we be concerned with a cite that “failed … to craft a usable definition”?
Ah. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Libertarian’s meaning of life according to the Bible.
So you refer us back to dictionary.com’s definition of life, and propose to tell us that Jesus’ meaning of life is encompassed in the points above. But, at this point, I must ask you what you think dictionary.com (or any other dictionary for that matter) uses as its source for the definition of “life”? Could it be, in part, the Bible?
So you use dictionary.com to back your definition of “life” according to the Bible, which uses the Bible as one of its sources for the definition of “life”. Seems a bit circular to me.
Care to try again?
And then, out of nowhere, you come up with this:
How do you possibly come to this conclusion based on what you’ve presented thus far?
In response to my question concerning what “spirit” is, you offer this jewel:
Yes, and the dictionary can be your enemy if improperly used, as I’ve shown above.
So, what do you mean by “incorporeal consciousness”? And I would prefer your own definition rather than dictionary.com.
In regards to my question concerning spiritual phenomenon, you offer this:
Again, no apparent relevance to the issue at hand.
I readily admit I am not a mathematician, and I have no desire to argue 2-value, 3-value, or ‘fuzzy’ logic. But I will ask you a few real world accounting questions.
What good is the Balance Sheet without the Income Statement? What good is the Balance Sheet and Income Statement without the Statement of Cash Flows? How could one’s view of the Balance Sheet change with or without access to either of the other two statements.
And finally, do have any idea what financial statement analysis is all about, or are you simply faking it?
Bullshit. The second sentence is a complete non sequitur to the first. Spiritual matters offer no comparison with accounting. Accounting is an established art based on real world transactions.
Spiritual matters are nothing more than mental masturbation.
I make no definitive statement as to the existence of God. I simply do not know. But I certainly question, and argue, with those who do. The only definitive statement I will make on the subject is this: If God exists, he is irrelevant.
Care to challenge?
Hardly, but let me rephrase so it’s clear. There is no irrefutable evidence that anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has shown anyone, anywhere, at anytime, that a person’s life continues after they are dead. Therefore, one may assume that life after death does not exist.
Another non sequitur. Remove the adjective “beautiful” from your demand, and I will show you lakes a-plenty. I put no adjective in front of God.
Your ignorance of accounting is shining like a summer sun. There is no such thing as “minus ten dollars” in accounting – that is impossible. For example, if you overdraw 10 dollars from a checking account, your checking account is no longer an asset, it is a liability to the bank. How can you have “minus ten dollars” of cash on hand? Do you have a clue what you are talking about?
I’m sorry, what are those “holes”, again. I don’t think you’ve made that at all clear.
Ah, yes. So easy to shrug off the difficult questions, eh?
Please show me the difference in truth between the following two statements:
- [Jesus is] the way, the truth, and the life…
- Whoever believes in RoundGuy, though they are poor, will soon be rich"
Of course, argumentum ad numerum, and argumentum ad antiquitatem will not be accepted.
Sorry. Your reference to a movie I’ve never seen does little to further your argument.
Try me.
Only ignorant of “the wisdom of Libertarian”.
But hardly ignorant of anything that really matters.