I can assure you that this is not the wedge dividing the competing opinions in this thread.
“Game”?
“My turn”?
I’m not playing a game here-I’m trying to pin you down when you throw out explanations that have no definitions. I’m trying to have an honest discussion-what are you doing here?
The difference is that I believe that an informed opinion is better than an uninformed opinion.
Why don’t you inform us as to what you mean when you throw out terms like “no space”, “outside space/time” and “immaterial entity”? I am tired as hell of trying to nail your Jello to the wall, as much as you seem to be proud of flinging it.
Or we can go with Plan B-I’ll go ahead and provide my own definitions for your terminology since you refuse to do so.
Immaterial Entity: An African elephant fully contained in a thimble. Since you cannot fit an African elephant in a thimble, Immaterial Entities are therefore impossible.
No Space: The empty area that a point in space surrounds. Since a point in space is just that, No Space is impossible.
Outside Space/Time: The place and time Harlan Ellison finishes The last Dangerous Visions. Impossible.
Alas, my energy to try and get you to produce some evidence feels pretty much exhausted. You got me all excited in your post up a bit when you said you weren’t interested in the assertions game, but you then started laying the assertions on thick and heavy like “No space is impossible” … and “Outside Space/Time… impossible”. Perhaps “no space” is where the evidence to back up your claims can be found.
This isn’t a debate.
Please see post #404, where I proved that those concepts are indeed impossible.
Well, you’ve got that right, at least.
Now explain again why someone should have to prove your wild assertions wrong, instead of you having to provide at least some evidence for your strange concepts.
Does “negative no space” exist?
Last time I checked the person making the assertion is the one required to provide evidence for the assertion, rather than having the opponent try to prove a negative.
You could if you eliminated most of the space between the atoms of the Elephant.
That’s true. And if you insist the real world begins and ends with what we see around us and we cease to exist when our physical bodies die, that’s fine as a belief. When you try to convince a believer it’s true for them too you’re going to have problems because as you said “I believe it is so” won’t convince them.
There really is no debate available in pure speculation about what may or may not be outside the limits of our present knowledge.
Your homework assignment is to rent and watch and make a report on “Horton Hears a Who”
The difference being, my beliefs about say, Man United winning the Champion’s League trophy again, are based on experiences that others can verify, ie. we have won it twice before, we have a good squad, there is strong team spirit - yes, even that can be gauged to some degree. But how do we measure religious beliefs, that seem to rely on circular reasoning to make any sort of sense?
It’s a fine belief because there’s strong evidence that we cease to exist without a functioning brain and body. There isn’t strong evidence that we can live without a brain and a belief that we do is contrary to what we know. The two beliefs are far from being equal.
If you just say it is so because you believe it, you are playing their game. Say a believer in the mind’s existence without a body and a non-believer are trying to convince someone who has no belief in this area.
The non-believer can say that a hypothesis of mind tied to a brain can be tested by predicting the impact of injury and manipulation of the brain to the mind, and by observing the response of the brain to certain stimuli and even thoughts. We can change the mind by changing the brain. While this doesn’t prove the nonexistence of an afterlife, it certainly suggests it, since it would be easy to falsify the connection.
What does the believer say? He can appeal to literature and religion, and appeal to our frustration at being mortal. He can appeal to anecdote and legend. But there are plenty of ways of verifying his belief - real ghosts, mediums actually contacting the dead, etc. Our believer must appeal to either fakery or invent excuses - the dead don’t come at our call, they are not allowed to talk to us, or whatever. Hard to believe since there are plenty of dead non-believers who you’d think would want to set the record straight, most notably Houdini.
So, I don’t think the strengths of the arguments are equal, and our person with no preconceived beliefs is most likely to fall into the non-believer camp.
You play for Man U? Can I have your autograph?
You’ve very successfully hijacked the discussion from the real issue, and Czarcasm has taken the bait. But the burden of proofis on you to show that your immaterial entity exists, not on Czarcasm to prove that it doesn’t exist. This thread is entitled “Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs?” Not: Non-believers, why are you so sure of your non-beliefs? :smack:
Do we need to measure them? We don’t. I completely agree that anytime a believer decides to witness and/or insist their beliefs are the right ones or the best ones or whatever, it’s fine to challange them. I’d be first in line.
If thier beliefs are thier own, about something we really don’t know for sure anyway, and they are not trying to push them on you, then return the favor.
It has nothing to do with whether you or anyone thinks they are equal or not. It’s not a matter of who has the better belief.
It’s accepting and recognizing the limits of knowledge and allowing people the basic respect of forming their own belief system without having to justify it. if you want believers to not try to force thier beliefs on you then allow the believers who don’t do that to go in peace to choose thier own path. Simple huh?
Yes, we do need to measure them. It’s the scientific and rational way. Inventing something called a quark to explain the substance of an atom is far more productive than assuming an entity called god that is responsible for everything since time began.