The Arborist Plays Charades

bigthinker

Well-known member
And yet it hasn't.

Here it is again:

Fire engines are red.
Stevie Wonder cannot have that DEMONSTRATED to him.
Nevertheless, fire engines are red.

Stevie is not so dumb as to claim:

"Since you cannot DEMONSTRATE to me that fire engines are red, THEREFORE red fire engines are IMAGINARY."
Yeah, debunked. Done.
What about it?
It shows how you are wrong.
And yet it does. Your alleged big thinking cannot cure your spiritual blindness.
Your inability to demonstrate the existence of your God outside of your imagination is failure on your part.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
So basically you're using a metaphor to say that you cannot demonstrate that God actually exists?
Not at all. One cannot prove that what they are seeing is red. Red must first be defined, and agreed upon. Whatever one may define as god is god to them. Atheists will quite frequently present evidence that would be sufficient for them to believe that God exists which is about the most contradictory thing imaginable.

I always point out that whatever miraculous event would prove that God exists to them, could just as easily be a fraud. How would they know they haven't been deceived?

Lewis and Clark say, "That's red. Therefore, we will call it 'Redbud' " Someone else comes along and points out that while there is red pigment in the bud, there's another word that more closely represents the actual color. That color is purple. So either Lewis and Clark were ignorant of the name of that color, or they couldn't see it.

The point here is that words are a loose approximation to begin with. Our perceptions are also a loose approximation. Everything is derivative. The world "out there" is simulated subjectively in one's mind, and that simulation is not what it represents. Empirically, and by definition; it can't be.

When we come up with words, and define them in such a way as to preclude the possibility of a referent, this is a GIVEN. No demonstration necessary. There cannot be anything to demonstrate which is why the only thing more incoherent and contradictory than theism is atheism.

By definition, nothing can't exist. The atheist comes along, and asks for some demonstration, or evidence which is blatantly asinine.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Not at all. One cannot prove that what they are seeing is red. Red must first be defined, and agreed upon.
Once red is defined, one can objectively demonstrate that what they are seeing is red. Are you familiar with colorimetry?
Here (from wikipedia):

Colorimetry is "the science and technology used to quantify and describe physically the human color perception."[1] It is similar to spectrophotometry, but is distinguished by its interest in reducing spectra to the physical correlates of color perception, most often the CIE 1931 XYZ color space tristimulus values and related quantities.[2]

Whatever one may define as god is god to them. Atheists will quite frequently present evidence that would be sufficient for them to believe that God exists which is about the most contradictory thing imaginable.

I always point out that whatever miraculous event would prove that God exists to them, could just as easily be a fraud. How would they know they haven't been deceived?

Lewis and Clark say, "That's red. Therefore, we will call it 'Redbud' " Someone else comes along and points out that while there is red pigment in the bud, there's another word that more closely represents the actual color. That color is purple. So either Lewis and Clark were ignorant of the name of that color, or they couldn't see it.

The point here is that words are a loose approximation to begin with. Our perceptions are also a loose approximation. Everything is derivative. The world "out there" is simulated subjectively in one's mind, and that simulation is not what it represents. Empirically, and by definition; it can't be.

When we come up with words, and define them in such a way as to preclude the possibility of a referent, this is a GIVEN. No demonstration necessary. There cannot be anything to demonstrate which is why the only thing more incoherent and contradictory than theism is atheism.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. How is that incoherent?
By definition, nothing can't exist.
And yet the glass can be empty, lacking water.
And mathematically we have both the null set and zero.
That is what we are talking about. With regards to the word nothing -we are talking about the nothing to which the word nothing refers.
The atheist comes along, and asks for some demonstration, or evidence which is blatantly asinine.
Of course the atheist is aware of the lack of evidence for the existence of God. We ask for demonstration to make the point (to demonstrate) the futility of believing that Gods exist.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Once red is defined, one can objectively demonstrate that what they are seeing is red.
Sure, but that's beside the point.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. How is that incoherent?
I just gave you a prime example. Why don't you address that example? Here it is again:

"When we come up with words, and define them in such a way as to preclude the possibility of a referent, this is a GIVEN. No demonstration necessary. There cannot be anything to demonstrate which is why the only thing more incoherent and contradictory than theism is atheism."
And yet the glass can be empty, lacking water.
Empty is not nothing. Emptiness requires a container, and is easily proven, or demonstrated. Nothing, or nothingness can never be demonstrated or proven.

Empty: "containing nothing; not filled or occupied.
"the room was empty of furniture" · 

synonyms: vacant · unoccupied · uninhabited · untenanted · clear · free · bare · desolate · deserted · abandoned · containing nothing · without contents"

Nothing: "not anything; no single thing.

synonyms: not a thing · not a single thing · not anything · nothing at all · nil · zero · nowt · nought · naught"

And mathematically we have both the null set and zero.
Conceptually as well.
That is what we are talking about. With regards to the word nothing -we are talking about the nothing to which the word nothing refers.
We are talking about a concept that precludes the possibility of existence.
Of course the atheist is aware of the lack of evidence for the existence of God.
The atheist has an idea in their mind, one which is incoherent and probably contradictory.
We ask for demonstration to make the point (to demonstrate) the futility of believing that Gods exist.
Again, you might as well be asking for demonstrations that nothing exists. Otherwise, you're just making up fake or fraudulent gods to see if they meet your own fabricated definition.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Sure, but that's beside the point.
It IS the point.
I just gave you a prime example. Why don't you address that example? Here it is again:

"When we come up with words, and define them in such a way as to preclude the possibility of a referent, this is a GIVEN. No demonstration necessary. There cannot be anything to demonstrate which is why the only thing more incoherent and contradictory than theism is atheism."

Empty is not nothing. Emptiness requires a container, and is easily proven, or demonstrated. Nothing, or nothingness can never be demonstrated or proven.

Empty: "containing nothing; not filled or occupied.
"the room was empty of furniture" · 

synonyms: vacant · unoccupied · uninhabited · untenanted · clear · free · bare · desolate · deserted · abandoned · containing nothing · without contents"

Nothing: "not anything; no single thing.

synonyms: not a thing · not a single thing · not anything · nothing at all · nil · zero · nowt · nought · naught"


Conceptually as well.

We are talking about a concept that precludes the possibility of existence.

The atheist has an idea in their mind, one which is incoherent and probably contradictory.
Yes, the idea is the believer's idea -the one they hold in their minds. The idea (of God) exists (in the mind) the object God does not appear to exist.
Again, you might as well be asking for demonstrations that nothing exists.
Sure. That works as well. It doesn't need to be as convoluted as you seem to prefer.
Otherwise, you're just making up fake or fraudulent gods to see if they meet your own fabricated definition.
In the sense that all Gods are fake or fraudulent, that is true.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
It IS the point.
No. The point is that we're defining what we see FIRST. We give it a name. It's no different than the story of Adam giving names to whatever animal he sees.
Yes, the idea is the believer's idea
It's the atheist's idea as well. Again, this is why atheism is so contradictory.
-the one they hold in their minds. The idea (of God) exists (in the mind) the object God does not appear to exist.
It's defined in such a way as to preclude existence as a possibility.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
No. The point is that we're defining what we see FIRST. We give it a name. It's no different than the story of Adam giving names to whatever animal he sees.
We are defining what is.
It's the atheist's idea as well. Again, this is why atheism is so contradictory.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
Use that definition and point out the contradiction.
If you prefer a different definition of atheism feel free to share it if you'd like but any input from me would be conjecture.
It's defined in such a way as to preclude existence as a possibility.
Unfortunately, the believer doesn't seem to care about that.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
We are defining what is.
More to the point, we're defining what can't exist as well.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
No one has forgotten your definition of atheism. Repeating this doesn't advance the discussion in the slightest.
Use that definition and point out the contradiction.
I just did. I wasn't ignoring your definition.
Unfortunately, the believer doesn't seem to care about that.
More importantly, neither do you, or most unbelievers.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Evidently, you can't.
lol...
I have, you just don't seem able to see it yet.
Yep, I am not seeing it. I have yet to see where you've pointed out the contradiction.
You're creating these feeble gods which effectively makes you a theist.
Um no. Neither is true.
You then ask others to demonstrate their existence.
Not then. I'm happy to discuss any believer's God. While I can imagine gods myself, what good would it do to argue against the existence of that?
No, I am interested in the god the believer serves or believes in.
Again, there's only one thing that could possibly make a theist look sensible; an atheist.
Again, wrong.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
lol...

Yep, I am not seeing it. I have yet to see where you've pointed out the contradiction.
The theist has an injunction to refrain from worshipping whatever they can imagine. You come along and simply ignore that injunction by redefining the idol as if it is now their god. Idols are worshipped as if they are gods, but the fact is that they aren't. By definition,

idol (n.)​

mid-13c., "image of a deity as an object of (pagan) worship," from Old French idole "idol, graven image, pagan god" (11c.), from Latin idolum "image (mental or physical), form," especially "apparition, ghost," but used in Church Latin for "false god, image of a pagan deity as an object of worship." This is from Greek eidolon "mental image, apparition, phantom," also "material image, statue," in Ecclesiastical Greek," a pagan idol," from eidos "form, shape; likeness, resemblance" (see -oid).

You're simply redefining the term, and pretending that you have an argument. You don't.
While I can imagine gods myself,
Which makes you an idolater. All idolaters are theists.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
The theist has an injunction to refrain from worshipping whatever they can imagine. You come along and simply ignore that injunction by redefining the idol as if it is now their god. Idols are worshipped as if they are gods, but the fact is that they aren't. By definition,

idol (n.)​

mid-13c., "image of a deity as an object of (pagan) worship," from Old French idole "idol, graven image, pagan god" (11c.), from Latin idolum "image (mental or physical), form," especially "apparition, ghost," but used in Church Latin for "false god, image of a pagan deity as an object of worship." This is from Greek eidolon "mental image, apparition, phantom," also "material image, statue," in Ecclesiastical Greek," a pagan idol," from eidos "form, shape; likeness, resemblance" (see -oid).

You're simply redefining the term, and pretending that you have an argument. You don't.

Which makes you an idolater. All idolaters are theists.
how obtuse!
 
Top