an excellent exposition, however, im exploring the reason for love in a purely deterministic universe under the assumption of no G-d, i am attempting to point out yet another absurdity in the POE and how the existence of love is even more of a conundrum. yet no one asks that question. funny that. it smacks of truth seeking behavior. maybe atheism isnt a rational position, but one held by desire?
love of a mate may well be chemical lust, im not sure that should be the standard of what love is. while love of music or a football team is different, these can be loved or not. so i dont think dividing into various kinds of love would be fruitful, but if you care to cite examples, id be happy to see them.
That’s exactly what I have come to believe!
The alternative to an infinite regression is an ‘uncaused cause’, right? What evidence do you have that the uncaused cause is He Who Must Not Be Named? Why can’t the universe itself be the uncaused cause? Or the entity that caused the entity that caused the entity that caused the Universe? Or the entity that caused the 9th entity along the regressive chain?
I’m not quoting anything, I’m just applying logic. Cast-iron logic actually, whether you like it or not.
I’m not ignoring it - as I have pointed out irrefutably above, there is no evidence as to what the first non-contingent thing is. So it might be the Universe itself. There’s no evidence that it’s not. You’ve just arbitrarily stated that the universe is contingent, in the same way as you’ve arbitrarily claimed that God is not. There is zero logic, and zero evidence, behind such claims.
Oh, so you know the answer, do you? You know why, and how come, we love? Let me guess… erm… did God do it?
No, as I said before, evolution does not demand that every attribute is essential to the existence of the species. This is a lack of understanding on your part.
By “seems to have none,” you clearly mean, “I don’t understand the cause.” That’s okay, because nor does anybody else, really. Don’t feel bad.
Exactly my point. The “why” doesn’t need an answer because there is no “why.”
You’re being very naive here - love of a football team, particular weather etc. is not love in any real sense of the word. It just happens to be the word we use. As pointed out by liquidpele.
Yes, and as I stated in my previous post (and above),we don’t know that love is not a by-product.
I’d say you’ve failed, given that you have had several rational answers to your OP.
I can’t imagine a more rational position than requiring evidence before believing in something. Maybe I’m just irrational.
My dog loves chasing a ball. That should be enough for you, particularly with your outmoded views on animal sentience, to recognise that love of a football team is not really a valid definition of love.
Wrong. I said that I wasn’t going to waste my time with the Summa because I’ve already heard Aquinas’ five “proofs.” I have to say I’m not impressed. Even if I accept that there must have been a necessary entity, there’s no reason to believe that the entity was intelligent, sentient, and had willpower. In short, his idea of God would be as good as mine, so long as we both profess that he is a necessary entity in the deduction. That’s all that’s required for validity in three of his arguments (I think it was three). The other two fail to provide adequate definitions of terms that I would consider subjective in their common usage, such as “good.”
It’s as I suspected: you’re a full-fledged Platonist. I don’t see why the “Form,” “essence,” or whatever you choose to call it of an object has to exist before the object itself. The idea of Forms is completely incoherent anyway, not to mention the obvious fact that there is no sensory data to support it.
Since you seem so informed, would you mind giving me a synopsis of this hypothesis?
You said “as you’ve been led to believe.” Whose led me to believe that your argument is nonsense? Is it possible for me to lead myself to a conclusion? No, you seem to think I’ve gotten my arguments from some atheist website.
I never said that. I’m telling you that your “explanation” for almost everything metaphysical (“God did it.”) isn’t sufficient. You forget to explain something rather important, like, I dunno, how God went about doing those things. Your assertions, then, can’t rightfully be said to be explanations.unless you can tell me how QM works then matter doesnt exist.oh wait, are you sure you still want to hold the idea that someone must understand a mechanism for a phenomenon to exist?
Why can’t love be caused by unintentional things? Why do we need a reason?
Not being obligated to answer is not the same as not having an answer.
I’m not certain. I’d say we mutated to develop an emotional capacity because it is beneficial to our species, or perhaps we retained it as a benign mutation.
Why our G-d?, i just answered that in a post replying to you in another thread. but ill repost it.
because it might not have been, of all the possible worlds this one was the one actualized.
because then it wouldnt be first cause. no matter how long the chain of contingent beings you go, you must come to a first cause, anecessary being, in this case G-d who is the maximal state of being, whose essence is existence.
not cast iron, simply ignorance of metaphysics and then the theology making the final leap from necessary being to G-d.
you might as well get over the idea of irrefutability now, you simply dont know the refutations. as to what the first contingent being is we are back to necessity and the maximal state of being. existence itself.
except it might not have been as there are no restrictions on possible universes, saying there is no logic, isnt the same as simply being unaware of the arguments.
again, you dont seem to be aware of the argument, just what comes of atheistic websites where they have no better idea either. the reason G-d is not contingent, is that nothing could exist if he was, there would be no first cause and hence no other contingent beings.hence G-ds necessity.
if i knew the answer than i wouldnt have posted the OP. in my worldview love is a reflection of G-d, but then that doesnt make sense in a deterministic universe. which is why i use that default state in the OP
as you can see i have reasons for the claims heh? no bare assertion at all. if you had doen the research you wouldnt have these" gaps in knowledge" that you assume, my gaps lay in other areas.
hey! so do i!, now since i am well educated, and i was once an atheist, how do you figure we come to different conclusions? mayb e there is more to the question then?
i dont suppose that at all, your assuming that i do, im pointing out that there isnt a determinant cause for it. which is awful suspicious in a determinant universe. everything else has a cause, why not love?
i didnt realize that was an arguement it sounded like a bare assertion, what evidence do you present?
maybe it wasnt you, but someone, identified “why” with intent. however, there being no why is yet another dismissal of the PSR.
than what is the real sense of the word? romantic love? pure chemical lust, i may as well say a rutting buck loves a doe, but if youve ever witnessed the act, there is nothing bout it other than reproduction
he repeatedly said and acted as if he loved bears, it was in opposition to natural selection, becuase it cut short his ability to reproduce, a negative outcome in view of evolution.
i dont think its in opposition all the time, but it frequently can be. why do some people love others who are barren? their is no chance at reproduction and they know it, but yet they still feel romantic love for that person.
you just said that romantic love was a uniquely human trait, how then does that relate to homosexual love?, chemicals are blind, animals hump whatever smells right, how do you think they collect bull semen for breeding? why do you think pets that are spayed or neutered still try to mate? my roomates cat is proof in point, a tumor left him with no equipment whatsoever, yet he will still fight the other males, and pin down the momma cat, like he thinks he is really doing something. she does too. chemicals are blind.
i dont accept it, obviouly you made contradictory statements here. maybe im missing something, but how does romantic love equate to SSA in animals?
no, its not a threat to the species, but it is against natural selection, anything that even reduces the number of offspring ultimately frustrates natural selection and dies out in decreasing numbers through the generations, there is an argument that it possibly comes from a number of factors, but i am unconvinced that these arent subject to the same factors as a single cause.
then give evidence that it is.
there arent rational answers, so far there have been dodges. big difference.
ummm…yes you might be, your an atheist that doesnt know what the PSR is, thats like being a musician that doesnt know what notes are, your confusing rationalism with the search for evidence, rational that quest for evidence may be, it doesnt however make you a rationalist, especially if youre denieing the PSR. it means you are truth seeking, you simply reject the evidence that convinces billions of theists, thats irrational with a reason to reject it.I can’t imagine a more rational position than requiring evidence before believing in something. Maybe I’m just irrational.
they arent outmoded in the least, for that entire thread no one had evidence, they still dont, they have assumptive anthropomorphism based on projective parodelia, see i like evidence too. its only a recent idea that animals have emotions, until the 1960’s that would have gotten one lughed out of university most places. i didnt change my mind for emotional reasons as many others did. i still need evidence.
this seems reasonable, but it doesnt answer why loves exists, you say here that love is an intellectual emotion, however, if true, why is love so often irrational? why cant it be turned off like a tap? i dont deny an intellectual component, but it seems unreasonable that it is solely that. even if it be several factors what then aree they? do they conform to all our common notions of love?
You don’t think dividing into various kinds of love would be fruitful, but I think not doing it is misleading - like trying to define how a crop is grown but not specifying the type of crop. Since you seem to want specifics into how I believe love would come about, you’ll have to first prove specifics into a certain situation where love is shown for me to then give an accurate explanation.
i have given several specifics in the OP and other posts, there are a number of technical variations, but if you want those, simply name the one you choose.
Yes, I read your post, I won’t bother to copy my entire response here! I will repeat my call for you to present your evidence though.
And by exactly the same logic, God might not have been either. I repeat, what this boils down to is your arbitrary attribution of what is subject to contingency and what is not. There is no logic or evidence to support your hypotheses.
No, not “in this case”, **in your opinion. You should not be stating this as fact if you expect to be taken seriously, unless you have evidence. You have, so far, not provided any.
Ignorance of something that cannot be defined, or even shown to exist? I’ll admit to that gladly. Theology is unlikely to make any other kind of leap, now is it! My logic is perfectly sound; your refutations of it are clearly anything but.
No I don’t, and you’ve been unable to provide any.
Conjecture. Not fact. No evidence. Nothing to suggest that a ‘maximal state of being’ is anything other than a philosophical ideal.
How do you know? Quick - your Nobel prize in Physics beckons!
Well maybe there’s an argument you haven’t made yet. Certainly the arguments you have made so far do nothing to make my position invalid. If you have more, please present.
Then explain the argument to me. I’ve seen nothing other than you arbitrarily making claims. Bare assertion fallacies, in effect. You can cast aspersions on atheist websites if you like, and I’m not blind to your implication that I’m regurgitating other people’s ideas (this is not the case). However unless you can present a compelling argument, which you have so far failed to do, then saying, “You don’t understand” is nothing but bluster, a get-out clause.
Why is God not contingent on a super-God? And that then contingent on a super-super-God? How do you know that God is what you claim he is? Where is your evidence?
Fair enough, I feel I have provided adequate theories. They’re not proof, but I don’t think they can be disproved, and they at least make use of known physical phenomena and processes.
No, unless you count wild conjecture as valid reasoning.
Generally, if an arbitrary claim is made without evidence, it can be called a bare assertion. That is what you have done.
What research? How can you research something that cannot be independently, objectively documented? All you’ve ‘researched’ is other people’s opinions, themselves based only in conjecture. Unless you can prove differently…?
It is a puzzling dichotomy, that otherwise rational and intelligent people can choose to believe something for which no evidence exists. I don’t understand it myself but I accept that it happens. That doesn’t make it right, any more than atheism is necessarily right. The difference is that atheism has the unassailable foundation of requiring proof before belief. That is why, until religion can provide proof of its raison d’etre, atheism is by far the stronger and more rational position. Sorry.
Sorry, can’t resist an ad hominem here - but if you’re so well educated, why can’t you use apostrophes or capitalisation appropriately?
Well, read the post again, and then maybe look up the definition of assertion, Mr Educated. I suggested the possibility that love is a by-product of another evolutionary trait. It was in no way an assertion of fact. This was the only part of my post that you didn’t address, and I note that you still haven’t.
It may have been me, but regardless, I have differentiated between “how come” as “how does something come to take place” and “why” as “what is the intelligent purpose of that process.” There is no evidence of any “why” in the Universe. This is not a dismissal of the PSR. The “R” in “PSR” stands for Reason in the context of cause, not in the context of purpose.
I refer you back to liquidpele’s post, where he described the difference perfectly well. I believe you’re being evasive now, probably due to embarassment in grouping all the different meanings of “love” into one without due consideration. Did you know that the Greeks have five different words for “love”, depending on context?
You have amply demonstrated you know nothing about evolution. Read up on it. It’s not about the individual.
Again you misunderstand evolution.
I’m not sure why you’re confused. Firstly there is evidence that same-sex sexual activity exists throughout the animal kingdom (of which humans are a part). This removes any argument for whether the physical act has precedence. Secondly, human love, being an intellectual emotion, does not care about the gender of its target. I was simply providing a theory on how come homosexual love exists. Sorry if it was a bit convoluted.
Hopefully I’ve clarified now, and you understand that my statements aren’t contradictory.
Again, answered above.
Again - natural selection does not occur at the individual level. You need to do some research.
Oh, here we go, the typical bleat of the theist. Seizing upon the unknown as an advocation of their individual belief.
I’m sorry you don’t like the answers, it’s a shame you’re not honest enough to accept them for what they are - reasonable theories. You do yourself no favours by disputing this, you just make yourself look stubborn and pettty.
I just didn’t know the acronym - so shoot me. You’re an indivdual that has no evidence for his belief - THAT’S irrational in a nutshell!
Well I’ve never denied the PSR, so your schoolboy chants merely expose you as an intellectual infant.
Well you clearly like Google.
How does the chronology of the idea have any bearing on its validity?
And as I said to you in that thread - how come you need evidence for animal emotion, yet you’re happy to believe in God without? As I also said to you in that thread, based on probability, there is more likelihood for animal emotion than there is for the existence of God.
I use the phrase intellectual emotion purely to differentiate romantic love from attachment forms of love, such as family love, love of a football team etc. You’re right, this doesn’t answer the question of why love exists, but it wasn’t trying to, it was just a comparison.
I’ve never questioned suffering! Suffering is easily attributed to chance, coupled in many cases with a lack of altruism from those who are able to help but don’t. The altruism aspect is worthy of research.
That’s simply an artifact of language, as you mention later in your post regarding nothingness. If objects (entities that are given form by their qualities) require existence to exist, then existence would just be another quality that would require existence to exist.
In other words, Aquinas’ arguments, when examined alone, allow for Cronus (or Allah, or Vishnu…) just as much as they do Yahweh?
Indeed, but I didn’t say that nothingness existed. I’m saying that it is a possibility. Or, to speak your language, “the world of objects/qualities might not have been.”
Where did I suggest that? I’m saying that if God is such a mysterious being, then it’s a bit silly to cite him as the source of the universe and consider that an explanation. Since God is supposedly infinite, in fact, he would be an unintelligible source, and could never be explained satisfactorily.
That depends. Do you have any actual refutations? Originality doesn’t count for much if the arguments or refutations are illogical.
So why is it too much to ask to allow people to walk away from your hypotheses, that you admit have many gaps, and say they don’t feel you’ve adequately explained God as being the original source of the universe?
Mutations seem to be a hit-and-miss process. The mutations are unpredictable, and so we conside them detrimental if the genes that were mutated aren’t passed down the generations. Genes don’t “know” how to evolve.
you read some of it right there, how are you missing that? you had to place qoutes on it to comment, seems like you just dont want there to be any evidence.
thats not the same logic, all possible worlds are predicated on existence, G-d the maximal state of being is such existence.
it was defined above as the maximal state of being. you even qouted it. an yes theology does make a leap on the mathematics of Messianic Prophecy, you simply claim soemthing isnt evidence ofr logical without a refutation. your atheism is a faith.
why shhould i provide you with the refutations to my arguments? that doesnt make any sense.
our existence is conjecture? are you speaking solipistically? cogito ergo sum, existence is a hard fact, not simply a philosophical idea.
what does modalism have to do with physics? what kind of atheist doesnt know what the PSR is or basic logic structures? are you sure, you dont just really, really want to be an atheist, no matter the cost?
i expect someone claiming to be an athiest to know the arguments that you dont believe, do your research, then decide if your an atheist. dont truth seek.
its not an implication, its obvious. and do your own research if you dont know the arguments, how can you claim to be an atheist?
as above, no contingent beings can exist without a first cause, a necessary being, thats the evidence, google the contingency argument if you need to.
your a physicalist? thats laughable, even children know that something cannot cause itself. kind of rules out a self explanatory universe.
i simplyt expect you to know the arguments. a real atheist does, a wannabe doesnt.
im afraid that a quick google would show you the available research on metaphysical arguments. unless your back to physicalism. then the universe doesnt explain its own existence does it?
you can keep acting like there is no evidence but as you have qouted it several times i know your ignoring it. are you by chance a no-see-um? in other words are you saying that you want to see some physical evidence beyond the universe itself? like a sign that says “here i am, G-d”?
i dont care about apostrophes, and i only capitilize important words. like G-d, Catholic, and Moses. how did you not catch that?
ah, so now you believe in something for which the is no evidence. dissonance again?
which parts are important enough to comment on, that i didnt? asserting it may arise from other traits isnt the same as making the argument. the sky may be red too, but simply saying it is possible doesnt mean a thing without reasons to accept it. tell me why it may be a by product? evidence seems to be your cry until its applied to you.
indeed in a deterministic universe there shouldnt be, so why would you ask about intent?
and i refer you back to where i told him i dont believe it makes a difference, im not embarrassed, i simply dont think it will matter if we get into the differnt technicalities of love. however he is free to choose one to demonstrate his point, but doing it for him isnt my job.
indeed it is about the individual, evolution takes place over a great many individuals, yet all individuals. groups dont mutate all together all at once, an “individual” organism is where mutation begins. thats hardly a misunderstanding, it isnt some great mystery.
oh there is precedence for the chemical activity, but not for homosexual “love” one doesnt equate to the other, surely youve had relations with a woman you didnt love? there is a big difference between the too.
contradictory may be the wrong word. but there still isnt a connection as above.
um…yes it does, the individual is selected out or not. that may be transmitted to a great number of individuals, but it doesnt happen en masse simutaneously. it generally begins with an individual.
your the one always asking for evidence, whats good for the goose and all that.
they havent been answers, they have been dodges, in your case you asserted a possibility and then didnt follow up.
i expect if you claim to be an atheist, that you know the arguments. or at least look them up. and again, your just ignoring the evidence thats been given. how about addressing it as opposed to ignoring it?
what did you think it was when you said “X just happens”? thats denying the PSR.
i dont use it, but most do, pick the search engine of your choice.Well you clearly like Google.
you said it was outmoded, im pointing out that nothing has changed but the social experience. unless you have some evidence for animal emotions?
ive listed some evidence, you refuse to even address it.
fair enough
before now did you ever question why love exists? thats one of the things i just dont get, suffering is of interest, but not love.
? they can use different scanning technologies to watch the brain in action, i took an anatomy class for fun last year and it was quite interesting seeing some of the neuroanatomy studies. but yes, those arent good enough for our purposes.
im not a platonist. as i said before, but existence is a predicate for being. without that you have nothing. which doesnt seem to exist.That’s simply an artifact of language, as you mention later in your post regarding nothingness. If objects (entities that are given form by their qualities) require existence to exist, then existence would just be another quality that would require existence to exist.
OMG INFINITE LOOP!
sure i can, those things called contingent beings? their essence isnt to exist. so they need a cause.
that leap is made made theologically, in my case i use the mathematics of Messianic Prophecies to draw out the identity of first cause.
objects? qualities? i know you thinnk im a platonist, but ive never said that. nor is nothingness a possibility, it isnt anything, even putting it in a null set makes it something, nothingness alone simply doesnt exist. its nothing.
you asked what i meant, i told you. though why do you think an infinite being couldnt be described? thats what the very word infinite does.
indeed they dont, but yes i have refutations both of my own and those borrowed, not simply borrowed from others.
i think its an adequate explanation, im just pointing out that the same thing applies to scientific explanations as well.
true.
now why couldnt wanstronian give that argument? that said, love can be detrimental to passing offspring, it of course usually isnt but it also isnt the most beneficial way either. people die for love sometimes, and it can lead to a choice of less than an optimum mate, so its universality is a little puzzling under those conditions.
I read your conjecture. Evidence has to be empirical. Yours isn’t. Therefore it’s not evidence.
Another arbitrary assertion on your part, with no justification.
If you are comparing cardinal numbers with hypothetical entities from a precedence point of view, then your claim of ‘evidence’ becomes even more laughable.
No it’s not. You might say that I have ‘faith’ that physical things exist – but I would prefer, for reasons of accuracy, to call it ‘knowledge.’ We can observe them, they can be empirically tested. The same cannot be said for God, so there’s no reason to believe he exists. Atheism is not about believing there is a physical world - there definitely is. This is not ‘faith.’
I think you’re tying yourself in knots - I originally made a statement that I claimed was irrefutable, you responded that I just don’t know what the refutations are. I encourage you now to provide those refutations. Your refutations of my assertion.
And you are twisting my words, please try and be honest. Your statement, “as to what the first contingent being is we are back to necessity and the maximal state of being. existence itself.” is pure conjecture. Or actually, garbled conjecture!
And what does it have to do with multiple universes? You stated that there are many different possible universes, I pointed out that, if you can prove it, you’re a shoo-in for a Nobel.
If your desperate personal attack on me is based on the fact that I didn’t know what an acronym stood for, then you are being incredibly infantile. And my logic is fine, thank you very much.
The only cost is repeatedly pointing out the gaping holes in your ‘proofs,’ although I admit it does get rather draining when you deny the most basic logical premises and continually present hypothesis as fact. I somehow doubt you are so irrational on any other subject… except perhaps animal emotion, and that’s clearly linked to your theism.
I’m not seeking truth, I’m asking for theists who stridently claim that our universe is contingent on a God, to provide evidence. I’m still waiting. I’ll listen to arguments, but I won’t go reading theological works because I don’t believe they will be any less conjectural than the tripe I read here. To paraphrase Dawkins - “Why, without evidence of fairies, would I bother to read up on fairy-ology?”
So now you are accusing me of lying? That I haven’t reached my conclusions on my own? Do you ‘know’ this in the same way you ‘know’ that God exists? You have some sort of divine insight? If you want to apologise for calling me a liar then that would be appropriate. If you don’t, then you show yourself to be even more infantile than previously demonstrated.
It’s easy. “Please provide evidence that God exists.” There you go! Atheism in a nutshell.
This in no way answers the question I posed. Let me rephrase it: Based on your own contingency argument, how do you know where the backstop is? How do you know it’s God? How do you know that the backstop isn’t 43 entities down the line? Where is your evidence??
So what caused God? Or did God cause himself? Or did something else happen? Is your get-out-of-logic-free card the assertion that, “God has always existed?”And where’s the evidence for your argument?
Ah, the good old “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Nice work.
Metaphysics cannot be empirically documented, therefore any research holds zero value in a rational argument. Evidence MUST be empirical, otherwise it’s not evidence, it’s anecdote.
Do you believe that by quoting your comments, I am somehow accepting them as evidence that I then choose to ignore? Or are you simply choosing to ignore my repeated observations that your ‘evidence’ is actually mere supposition?
Well, I no-see any evidence for God. But that’s not by choice, but by inevitability. You can’t see something that doesn’t exist.
Well, ignoring your loaded words implying that the universe itself is evidence of God, then yes. I would like to see empirical evidence. This is the only evidence that matters.
That wouldn’t be very convincing - I’m sure I could make one of those, and I’m not God.
Indeed - nail on the head. We can observe them by their effects. Repeated, consistent, independently verifiable effects. Observation by experiment. Exactly what you CAN’T do with God.
I thought you were either lazy or illiterate. It turns out that you just consider yourself above such trivial matters as proper sentence structure, spelling accuracy etc.
I can’t identify one, because I don’t know. I’m happy not to know, and not so arrogant and ignorant that I feel the need to fill the gap with superstition.
The part where I suggested love may be a by-product.
And suggesting isn’t the same as asserting – a distinction which appears to continually elude you.
What a vacuous comparison. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
And yet again, you are ignoring the most basic of facts - that I am not asserting what love is, I am only offering a theory. The reason I am not asserting it is because there is no proof. And for precisely the same reason, theists who assert a God are being logically dishonest. And, incidentally, denying the PSR which you hold so dear.
I didn’t, I responded to your assertion that the absence of a “why” – in an intentional sense – is a dismissal of the PSR. You seem to have interpreted ‘reason’ in the sense of ‘intent’ rather than it’s correct sense – ‘cause.’
Okay, well if you selectively ignore the things that show your naivety then there’s not much point holding the discussion, is there?
If you truly believe that the non-survivalist actions of the individual affect the propagation of the species as a whole, then you are woefully uninformed. By your standard, we should get rid of extreme sports, non-essential plane flights and car journeys, space and ocean exploration, and so on. It’s a nonsensical argument born of your ignorance of how evolution works.
Yes, and I’ve covered both aspects of love – both the physical – or chemical – urge, and the intellectual attraction. In fact, I’ve shown that from an objective point of view, there is no substantial difference between hetero- and homosexual love.
I never implied causality. I explained one theory for how homosexual love occurs. Essentially in the same way as heterosexual love.
You seriously need to read up on evolution. You’re being far too simplistic. But even if we ignore your ignorance of this matter and take your statement at face value – how will the ‘homosexuality’ gene (if such a thing were to exist) propagate among the species?
Rephrasing your original fallacy doesn’t make it less fallacious. If you truly think the theist has good cause to ask the atheist for proof that God doesn’t exist, then you misunderstand atheism. Which is quite ironic given your criticism of me as a ‘wannabe!’
How can you assert a possibility? You’re talking nonsense. I haven’t dodged anything.
I have addressed it, by pointing out that bare assertion does not qualify as evidence. Just because you believe something, that doesn’t make it evidence.
I’ve explained this. Please have the courtesy to read my posts (in this case, Post #52) before you dismiss them. If the best you can do to refute me is repeat an unjustified chant, then you’re wasting your own time as much as everybody else’s.
Fair enough – I don’t know which search engine you used – let’s block this side-alley now.
It is outmoded, you don’t need evidence to change zeitgeist.
I have a troupe of pixies living in my sock drawer. What, you don’t believe me? But I just told you it’s true, stop denying the evidence!!
No, I haven’t. I suspect that this is because the question of suffering is one more commonly posed by philosophers. I don’t know, but I believe that neither question would have occurred to me if left to my own devices, as I don’t believe there is a “why” (in the context of intent) to either of them. Of course, they are not of the same genre either – asking why people suffer is not the same as, for example, asking why people experience despair. Suffering is the cause of emotion, whereas love is the emotion itself.
Yes, they can monitor brain activities, but these are in very general terms. Like using nothing but blurry X-rays to determine how every part of the knee joint works… but with a factored increase in complexity.
you made up your own definition of evidence!! no wonder! hey, how about we stick with the actual definitions of the words instead of the ones you make up so you dont have to adress actual evidence?
i expect you to know the arguments, its not assertion you are ignorant of the field. research is your job.
2 things,
and you accept the empirically unobservable position that there is a scientific explanation for said universe–FAITH.
and how does this relieve you from the responsibility of doing your own research? now i encourage you to do your own research.
not conjecture, another argument you refuse to do you research on. hint, try out lokking at a book called the summa
wow…what else to say other than wow?.., this is the third time now that you have displayed a glaring ignorance of some of the most basic philosophical underpinnings of these arguments. you are completely unarmed and only bleating for a standard of evidence that you dont follow yourself. why dont you actually look up possible world semantics. if you knew enough to be embarrased, this would leave you hiding in the closet:blush:
look up possible world semantics and modal logic. you dont know enough to know soem of the basics, so id say your logic wasnt fine at all.
why is asking for evidence of animal emotions linked to my theism? there is either valid evidence or there is not. nor have i rejected basic logical premises, though given your redefinition of evidence, maybe you have a personal definition of that too.
and they keep giving you evidence, you just ignore it under some personal definition of the word. further, do you know the difference between theology, logic, philosopy and science? , how do you avoid reading the appropriate philosophy? and if you ignore theological works also, then arent you excluding possible evidence on grounds of an assumption? namely that it is conjecture? dawkins is a brilliant biologist, and an extrememly poor philosopher, and scientist in general. as there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe, what does evolution matter? none. he is a one trick pony, a trick only 13.7 billion years too late.
yet you have reached the exact same conclusions as any atheist site on the web, but you dont know what the PSR is, or Modalism, or possible world semantics. on top of that you dont even follow your own standard of evidence, im not making an accusation, you are and apparently dont know it.