24 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyOCD may indeed be fairly common, but it most certainly 'is' a mental illness. (Though as you indicated, there are different levels of severity). Sorry to hear that you have a mild version yourself, but that really should give you insight into the condition and not be throwing it around as forum fodder.
Repeatedly singling out irrelevant portions of commentary and asking questions about them while ignoring the rest, is a pattern of behavior I have come across countless times in these types of discussions. It is my humble opinion that this pattern of behavior is usually due to either one being obtuse, or having an issue with obsession or compulsion. Of ...[text shortened]... t call OCD a mental illness. It's a common disorder, and I have it myself, though not severely.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYeah, let’s not troll around with something like that 🙄
OCD may indeed be fairly common, but it most certainly 'is' a mental illness. (Though as you indicated, there are different levels of severity). Sorry to hear that you have a mild version yourself, but that really should give you insight into the condition and not be throwing it around as forum fodder.
I wonder if obsessively thumbing down posts is a sign of OCD or just immaturity.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey"I would not agree that the nonexistence of God has been, or ever will be, proven."
I would not agree that the nonexistence of God has been, or ever will be, proven. If that happened, the world would become atheists in no time. By definition (God in the spirit realm, mankind in a physical universe) we don't and won't ever have the instruments to peer outside our reality. It would be like a fish in a fish bowl peering outside the hous ...[text shortened]... ware game) gaining self awareness and seeing into your world outside the monitor. Can't happen.
It would be an incorrectly defined God, if its existence could be disproven.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemBecause:
Why?
It is up to the believer to define the true propositions about God. No proposition P that is believed about God (taking God to mean the Christian God) can be true if that belief logically implies His nonexistence. Instead, P is false or the logic is faulty.
Agreeing on these tenets will improve the dialogue.
24 May 18
Originally posted by @js357But definitions aren't the same thing as propositions. Definitions need agreement and input from both sides to ensure everyone is clear about what's being argued.
Because:
It is up to the believer to define the true propositions about God. No proposition P that is believed about God (taking God to mean the Christian God) can be true if that belief logically implies His nonexistence. Instead, P is false or the logic is faulty.
Agreeing on these tenets will improve the dialogue.
Once that's accomplished, propositions can be put forth.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem“But definitions aren't the same thing as propositions. Definitions need agreement and input from both sides to ensure everyone is clear about what's being argued.“
But definitions aren't the same thing as propositions. Definitions need agreement and input from both sides to ensure everyone is clear about what's being argued.
Once that's accomplished, propositions can be put forth.
OK, and I suggest that the party asserting the existence of a thing should propose its definition.
25 May 18
Originally posted by @js357But where does that leave reductio type arguments? If skeptics can't assert a commonly-held definition, we can't use those.
“But definitions aren't the same thing as propositions. Definitions need agreement and input from both sides to ensure everyone is clear about what's being argued.“
OK, and I suggest that the party asserting the existence of a thing should propose its definition.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 May 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemAnyone can specify a definition and then destroy it if there is a reduction flaw to be found. It can be done as a hypothetical.
But where does that leave reductio type arguments? If skeptics can't assert a commonly-held definition, we can't use those.
25 May 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIn my experience (and this subject is a hobby of mine) you are wrong. Never met an atheist who would deny evidence. Evidence needs to be evaluated and interpreted, of course. We've done that for your bible.
If an atheist simply lacks belief in the existence of God it means they have no beliefs whatsoever about God's existence. But we all know they actually do believe that God doesn't exist. The real atheists at least.
If god made me, then I have a brain for a reason.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
25 May 18
Originally posted by @apathist<<Evidence needs to be evaluated and interpreted, of course. We've done that for your bible.>>
In my experience (and this subject is a hobby of mine) you are wrong. Never met an atheist who would deny evidence. Evidence needs to be evaluated and interpreted, of course. We've done that for your bible.
If god made me, then I have a brain for a reason.
Really? Explain the Messianic prophecy in Daniel chapter 9. You think a prophecy that detailed was fulfilled by chance? You think all the other Messianic prophecies were fulfilled by chance?
25 May 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Not by chance, but on purpose. Comes from hearing the prophecy! And then intending to fulfill it.
<<Evidence needs to be evaluated and interpreted, of course. We've done that for your bible.>>
Really? Explain the Messianic prophecy in Daniel chapter 9. You think a prophecy that detailed was fulfilled by chance? You think all the other Messianic prophecies were fulfilled by chance?
Which kinda makes the prophecy right.