I didn't 'claim' anything. I STATED that the posters were using the same machine, and therefore it was a resonable assumption that they were the same person.
What you claim to be able to see or not see is irrelevant, since you are not a member of staff and therefore have no access to the information used in such decisions and no input into staff decisions on such matters. Neither are such decisions any of your business.
I was prepared to put up with this nonsense for a while, but it is now beginning to distract from more important things and I've had quite enough of it. This thread is now locked, as is the topic.
Dialogist must have invested hours of quality posts at Frihost. Right from the beginning. However, threats and intimidation first irritated him and then exasperated him and he finally gave up. Towards the end he made a decision to only continue posts for hosting purposes. But looks as though he has departed Frihost. The two posts below are of his earlier posts in the Phil&Rel Forum. Bikerman claimed publicly that Dialogist was a second account of Pentangeli's, but I see no resemblance between this style of writing and Pentangeli's, particularly after my recent re-reading of Pentangeli's posts:
Thread: Provide evidence of the Supernatural (God et al.)
"My father was a watch maker. He abandoned it when Einstein discovered time is relative. I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man." - Watchmen (2009)
That quote is not really relevant to anything. I just really like it.
Isn't asking for physical evidence of something which lacks materia like asking what color music is? Or what a smell tastes like? You can record music but it has no physical body. It's evidential credibility lays in your experience of it. Can you explain explain a specific color to a blind man? I mean by very definition, isn't asking for natural attributes of a supernatural entity somewhat of a impossibility? And doesn't it therefore belie the fact that if there is evidence then there must be a paradigm for no evidence? I'm trying to avoid semantic answers but I feel the criteria is already paradoxically semantic in this respect.
Like you can say that you definitely have 5 senses and some people lay claim to a sixth. Most lay claim to it actually. There's not really evidence of deja vu or any metaphysical perception or already widely accepted phenomenon to back up these claims, but people still plan for their pension years anyway. And seem to have some kind of faith in ever reaching 70 years old. I guess the whole premise of believing in something requires just that. Or accepting the study of the mind as some sort of lesser pseudoscience and paying a psychiatrist thousands of dollars for the privilege of calling him doctor.
The only evidence which can be offered of something which, by very 'nature', has no evidence, must be non-evidential unnatural evidence. So by that reasoning, I'd have to use nature itself as natural evidence of the supernatural ("super" -natural meaning (to me) nature on acid, rather than not existing). In that, if there is no such 'thing' as a supernatural, then a) what are you defining nature by? and b) is nature the only thing in this universe (and out of it) which doesn't adhere to Newton's "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"?
Sorry I couldn't offer more but I think in asking for physical evidence of metaphysical property, my attempt is about as natural as the criteria allows for.
The theist may claim that everything single thing you can point to inner or outer the realm of anything you have experience of is evidence.
You could use inductive reasoning to determine that the chance of this all being "chance" requires a leap of faith far greater than that of a controlled hand. It isn't solid evidence but it has as much solid evidence as its contrary opposes does and this alternatively lends itself to the same mathematical induction that suggests that the universe is here and working well and often inexplicably without any guidance. Explaining how it does, isn't the same as explaining why it did initially or does today. And even in explaining how it does, do we not do so using the same mathematical induction to test for a series of continuous validates to formulate a theory, not always of verifiable fact or solid hard evidence? Isn't all theory reasoning? Even deductive arguments support the logic of everything is here so something had to put it here.
I think the theist can claim to have evidence as much as the atheist can claim that there is none. Although I do think that the very life source which the atheist possesses and the universe he does so in is all evidence; but scientifically, I'm not allowed to say that. Philosophically, I just did and it felt valid.
Deanhills raised an interesting point on this and naturally it will be invalidated by the extraordinary nature of his assertion, and thus requiring proof. However, is this all being some serendipitous perfect mistake of chemical chance not more extraordinary? And if not, isn't it just as extraordinary? And if not, doesn't it require some faith/proof to write a creator out of this equation of something definitely created, rather than merely presuming, from the very definite and physical evidential material of all and everything that is, that until a suitable reasoning is found to replace it; the magic man in the sky is slightly more palatable than nothing at all?
It's not a semantic argument. It seeks to suggest that a painting on your wall required a painter. It's a logical assessment. And it's more evidential, reasonably valid and logically sound that it 'might of started from a damp blotch of mildew that mutated on the wet wallpaper over billions of years. Which, from looking at this beautiful, inimitable, irreplicable, irreplaceable, often impossible and priceless painting, I personally have a hard time stomaching this kind of "belief", "theory" and "assertion" that requires a boat-load of evidence (to me). When did we start taking the indescribable phenomena of life itself for granted? Isn't the proof in the pudding anymore? See, this is where I am at. Slightly to the left on this whole 'we understand it so its not magic' thing. It's truly bananas pie-in-the-sky stuff and I've never been too convinced that knowledge equates capability.
1 blog comments below
Bikerman on Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:13 pm