Frank Apisa wrote:fresco wrote:selfruled
I can categorically tell you you will get no change out of Frank on this one.
To start with, the wording of your question makes the same assumptions that Frank makes about "existence" and "proof" i.e. that of "naive realism" in which objective entities impinge on one of our five senses either directly or indirectly....these impingements being the result of "properties" which are said to be "possessed" by the entity. Frank argues (correctly) that since nobody will define such properties, then nobody "knows" how to "prove or disprove" whether gods are "real" (="exist").
The problem with all this is that it alludes to scientific procedure without the slightest appreciation of what scientists actually do or think about "existence". Firstly "objectivity" becomes meaningless when concepts like "electrons" or "quarks" cannot be observed directly by observers, and indeed can vary their "properties" according to the observation methods employed. (Heisenberg) Secondly such concepts remain "hypothetical entities" not "real" and their status is one of "explanatory utility" rather than "fact". There is no "proof" of the "existence" of these entities yet there is a mathematical and logical framework within which such entities play key roles. Our confidence in using them comes with the "control" the concepts give in the subsequent manipulation of what we call "reality".
Now if the term "hypothetical entity" is applied to "God" then most of the above paragraph can be applied as a "substantiation of God's existence".
All we need to do is tweak a few parameters like, forget the "mathematical framework" and substitute "social framework"....extend "control" to "God's ultimate control" of " a reality
which embraces this world and the next" ...etc.
In other words, arguments about deities which assume "objectivity" are entirely futile. All we can do is argue whether such a concept is useful or not, and unfortunately many still find that it is.
Don't even bother with this guy, Fresco...he doesn't have the brainpower for your kind of "explanations."
He came into the forum and, in effect, announced that he was here to humble everyone with his erudition and debating skills.
So far he has been a colossal failure.
He has asserted that there are no gods.
When I asked him for substantiation of that assertion...he offered, with great fanfare...
Quote:If any god existed there would be no need to prove otherwise.
In the other thread, I called his attention to the fact that this is a bumper sticker...not an argument or substantiation of any kind..
...he ran away.
Now he has started this thread purporting to show that "my god" does not exist.
Have a go at him if you want...but as I have said in past situations of this sort...you'd have better luck explaining quantum mechanics to a weasel.
You will have to produce proof that I in fact posted such comments including that I was here to humble everybody with my erudition and debating skills pops; otherwise from now on I will address you as "Frank lying pops Apisa".
Your style is not only vulgar and child-like; it reeks of resentment; the kind of resentment exposed so clearly by Robert Sheaffer; pick one of his books up Frank; you'll find your ficture on the back cover.
Somehow I feel that all the hours you spend at the golf course involve a lawnmower of some sort.
