romansh

This of course is an assumption on the part of those that prophesize this particular view. Those that claim this, must have a perception of God and a perception of what others can perceive. Theirs is an opinion as some might point out. Perhaps my perception of God is spot on? Back from holiday

I use reason daily. I am sure you do but you did not answer my question.

Is it an opinion that others disagree? What actually gets us nowhere is simply saying others disagree therefore it can be considered not worthy of further examination. For example do you think what I said is accurate and what are the reasons for you thinking so? If I wanted this apocryphal other's opinion I would speak to this other.

Well I mean data that supports a particular position. Proof does not exist in my opinion, and it is a nonsensical misdirection for those arguing that it exists or does not. With the exception of courtroom proceedings, mathematical proofs, logic proofs and alcoholic proofs. Then why do you believe in a god so to speak? Did you use reason for this or is it just made up? I agree when we don't have evidence then some caution is warranted. But then again if we agreed with Pascal's wager we would all be Catholics. But we can use reason to pick apart Pascal's wager and find the flaw(s) in his assumptions. Not sure what you mean by God IS, but it is clear you do not have any evidence for this God IS. What causes you to believe it? In older dictionaries we tend to find atheism defined as an active (or positive) disbelief in god and in more modern use it is a lack of belief (negative) or the positive version. What is the incoherent bit that God and the universe are one? Ah but those Greek Gods work in mysterious ways. So when people tried to look seriously at Sheldrake's morphic resonance they could not find the predicted effects. What would you take away from this? After all scientists are still looking at things like relativity and find the appropriate responses for various bits of this universe? I'll be out of town for a month or so

OK just to be clear some believe in things that we have no evidence for. Very few people even amongst atheists actually say this. They may disavow literal Abrahamic Gods much in the same way most of us do not believe in Roman Gods etc. Yes, but it is a coherent belief … no extras needed. Exactly Any thoughts? ???? And I still don't have a clear sense of whether you think anaesthetics are evidence for materialism, and if not why not?

Just to be clear is anaesthetics evidence in support of materialism, although some might contest it? OK I don't recall this one. But I'll let it pass. So you have no evidence for this I AM, but you believe it anyway? I agree beliefs and traditions exist, but these are not Gods by any stretch of the imagination as the word is commonly used. Just out of interest what is your evidence to say Roman gods never existed and we can state it as a fact? Are you claiming materialism is not verifiable … if this an opinion what is it based on? How much evidence in support of materialism would you require? And if you are asking the reverse of me … how the consciousness manipulates matter would be a good place to start. If you were to argue the pantheist position I would agree there is plenty of evidence for the universe, and by tradition we could say this is god, but we would still have a debate on the properties of the universe.

I have to be a little ignostic here. Do you mean a deistic god or a personal God that actually comes down and plays with us? Are suggesting there is no evidence against Abrahamic gods. there is no evidence against these in the same way there is no evidence against Roman Gods.

Well it would seem it depends on whether we can verify (bring [sufficient] evidence to bear) on the matter whether something is an opinion or fact. So who is the arbiter of whether sufficient evidence has been brought to bear? You seem to deny that anaesthetics is even evidence that is in favour of materialism, I don't see, how one even you, could do this? What is your rationale for doing this and who said anaesthetics are not evidence for materialism. I am not debating whether that evidence is sufficient or not, only that it is evidence.

Any thoughts?

In your world can one opinion be more accurate than another?

Anaesthetics are corroborating evidence but not proof.

Is it your opinion that there are no Roman Gods or is that a statement like Warsaw is the capital of Poland? But people question the evidence that the Earth is not flat. Or is it your opinion that position is beyond the pale? If so how do we decide what opinions are beyond the pale?

never claimed otherwise This is a more accurate statement, and it is still a matter of luck. ???? … on topic

There is a difference between defending a position and believing it. There is a difference between defending a position and believing it. I actually simply asked a question here. Burl actually accuses me of not stating my position and asking questions. But you do appear to dismiss arguments as "opinion". But without evidence? I am talking about love how ever it is experienced.

See you avoided again … did you notice Egnor's errors? You may have found the presentation enjoyable, but a blanket statement that it is enjoyable is false.

If I recall correctly Joseph suggested something like acceptance rather than love, but I could be wrong here. I could argue it is no less opinion than Warsaw is the capital of Poland. And yet is this not going after me? But in a sense I agree with you. I do think our ideas, beliefs and opinions are extensions of ourselves. So when I or someone suggests an opinion or belief is hopelessly wrong, then the holder of that opinion can feel as though they have been gone after. You are absolutely right here. I lack evidence regarding theological opinions. And despite repeatedly asking for this evidence for these theological opinions all I get is someone else's opinion. Feel free to bring on the evidence. Personally I can't see it. But again feel free. Having said that, as a whole I am more distrustful of my experience of feelings than evidence. I am quite happy to go with love. But things like greed, hate and fear are definitely not to be trusted in a philosophical and quite often a practical sense. In terms of the experience of the feeling of love, to this date I have been lucky. But then looking around my immediate universe others have not been as lucky. You get points for avoiding 😉 Here's a question. Without looking up the answer is this an opinion: Timbuktu is in Mali? Just wondering?

OK fair enough. God is Love. http:// Just as a curiosity … did you note Egnor's errors and why did you not tell Burl … that's Egnor's opinion. Instead of:

Thormas The problem with opinion (for me) as you use it is … Thormas does not have to bring anything to the table. It's not interesting to me [thormas], Rom's expressing an opinion, I don't care about the evidence supporting his opinion, I don't have any to bring. Yet I will take the odd pot shot, like "Materialism is an opinion." At least when Joseph defends the God is Love he brings some evidence to the table … eg people think they experience it.

A shortish essay on agnosticism … from myblog

Who was Einstein in early 1905?

If you don't have the capability to debate the evidence, say so thormas. Otherwise keep posting Egnor rules! It demonstrates your capability.

#3 ...Because we don't have seizures of the intellect we materialism is possibly refuted? This is of course nonsense. Lennox Gaustaut syndrome causes severe reduction of this so called intellect. My son had this. #4 is a really good example of materialism being true. Unless our good Egnor is claiming fMRI pick up the immaterial. #5 So that we have not been able to predict ahead of time the "won't" aspect means we have free will? Really?

So if we have scientific types the deny human caused climate change then, anthropogenic climate change becomes opinion? Rather than arguing/debating the evidence of say materialism, one avoids, simply by saying it is opinion and one doesn't have to do any heavy lifting. Apologies to Joseph, I started replying to you and ended up arguing with thormas in my last post.

Then perhaps Egnor should use his qualifications. Would you care to address the first two points?

I am not saying it is not beyond dispute. Joseph picked up on the very reason I chose Warsaw … Krakow. So Warsaw as the capital of Poland for those of us travelling at similar velocities is an accepted fact. Not a problem Materialism by and large is an accepted fact in the science community. There are those of a flat earth type of devotion to dualism who do not accept this. And they have an opinion that is by and large unsubstantiated. It's not a problem. But the point of this thread is, calling a point of view an opinion. in no way negates that opinion. You yourself have demonstrated that with Warsaw and flat Earth.