The Winding Path – 126

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

Wick Samuael (responding to Max Doubt) – “define ‘objective evidence'”.

Max Doubt – “Why don’t you tell me what grade you’re in there at school, and maybe I can explain it to you in a way that’s simple enough for you to understand.”

Was that your definition? Seemed more like you are stalling for time.

I suppose it would be rather difficult to provide objective evidence of God.

In that God can’t actually be objectively removed from the All. And to whom and by whom would the the evidence be provided?

So why would you ask for it?

2015-04-05 16:17

Wick Samuel (responding to Max Doubt) – “most atheists take the same approach, engage in ad-hominem instead of dealing with the argument, gesticulate, insult, scream and yell, but whatever you do, dont engage with the argument.”

That has been my experience as well. Though usually not so patently enfeebled as this fellow.

The pattern you described also applies to certain strata of theists.

It’s psychology we’re dealing with here, not specifically intelligence or lack of it.

Max Doubt – “We have some closely related, reasonably well supported explanations for the origin of the universe as we know it. To ask what created it carries with it the implicit claim that something created it. The burden would be on those who make that claim to demonstrate that something created it, because without that, it’s not even meaningful to ask what that something was.”
It exists. It’s scope and depth completely unknown and unknowable by the means you insist on. Rules that make it “meaningless” to even contemplate it.

The universe is created and sustained. The nature of that phenomena is the point.

All you are doing is ridiculing other peoples ways of thinking about it.We call it God. Pointing at thousands of gods believed, by billions of people, over tens of thousands of years, is just evidence that you are not getting it. Those names and ideas can only be considered as approximations of the actual God. Maybe you call it Reality. But that is no closer to the Truth. (and no further from it).

Max Doubt – “Given that I wrote exactly what I meant, it seems you may have a little trouble understanding plain English, too. Want me to keep it dumbed down a bit for you, too?”

Excellent….never question your own comprehension, and always assume that you are the smart one in the room.You should go far.

As for providing objective evidence of God…

“It may just be impossible considering nobody has ever done it.”
Certainly not using your criteria. But, another season in the minors will do you good. A chance to get some of the attitude out of your system.
“You can rename gods or make any undefinable imaginary connections you like, but you’re still talking about something that can’t be shown to actually exist.”

Consider that we are talking about apples and oranges.Not likely to yield results of any use.

Good luck to you.

Max Doubt – “You have no way to differentiate your god thing from any other figment of your imagination. As far as anyone outside your head can tell, it exists only in your head.”

I was talking about the universe (should have been clear from the quotation above it) why are you back on this “gods” fixation?

Try just listening for a change.

I mean, I got your point from the get go. Just found it oddly (though predictably) irrelevant to the actual question under consideration.

As for finding other people fair game for ridicule, that is an even more debilitating handicap. But I’m sure I couldn’t convince you about why it might be so. At least not at this juncture.

(Responding to Max Doubt)
The existence of the universe is precisely the evidence you require. Your difficulty in perceiving it as such, is the result of your “imagined” need of something outside to have created it.The REASONABLE way to understand what may REASONABLY be referred to as God, is that the phenomena of existence, the thing that exists and the potential to exist are all part and parcel. Nothing is outside or inside. The universe is not large or small.

Evidence that this is true, requires the transcendence of (or better, emancipation from) the objective/subjective perspective.

None of this is new. Perhaps if you read more widely I wouldn’t have to belabor the basics.

If you still need to keep beating that dead “objective evidence” horse, I’ll leave you to it.

Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.