[q]
so yes then since you've seen them assert things WITHOUT evidence repeatedly and you've seen them assert things CONTRARY to evidence repeatedly[/q]
You'll have to provide some examples. Bear in mind I've already qualified things such as young-earth as creationism as deluded, and my comments have been pretty much directed to the root theology, i.e. the proposed supernatural.
[q]
Which would be finding the theological/philosophical assertion that you can have something exist, but not be able to be measured invalid. Or more properly: moot. If something exists, yet doesn't interact with our universe (any interaction makes it observable) than for all purposes that thing doesn't exist in our universe.
because the definition existance and non-existance don't rely on you knowing everything! If something exists it interacts with our universe and is therefore part of it and observable, if something inobservable: therefore meaning it does not interact, it effectively does not exist.
[/q]
But in making that conclusion, you would have to be able to define all interactions both taking place, taken place, and possible of taking place in order in order to assert there has been no supernatural interaction.
Furthermore, the root proposition behind religion has been rooted in a diety which resides outside our universe, i.e would not be expected to exist in our universe. Largely because said diety tends to be credited for the creation of the universe.
[q]
argumentum ad ignorantium[/q]
Can be applied conversely. Neither existence nor non-existance can be proven, that's the whole nature of the problem, and in terms of factual evidence neither position can claim to be anything beyond ignorant.
[q]You're shifting the burdeon of proof - burdeon is always on the person ASSERTING something. I am asserting that they're acting in a manner consistent with the definition of the word delusional and I am providing logical arguments and empirical evidence (which you have seen your self on this board) that they are doing so.
They are asserting that god exists so the burdeon of proof for that lies on them. You cannot prove the negative.[/q]
You are asserting they are wrong, ergo God does not exist. Therefore you also have a burden of proof in proving your own statement correct in order to qualify the accusation. The problem is that in order to prove delusion you need to prove wrong. All you have been able to demonstrate, frankly IMO, the possibility of being wrong because there is a lack of evidence either way. Whilst I am aware of the epistemological difficulties of an arguement about the supernatural, I would say it's pretty bloody impolite to call someone delusional when you can't provide any sort of factual evidence to contradict them.
You will note there have been multiple citations of the meaning of the word delusional, of course, with small yet crucial semantic differences. I, for example, just pasted the top 3 out of the google 'define' result, and you found one with which to contradict that.
Of course, the psychological definition really refers to real life situations (i.e. that can occur in reality, but do not and are imagined by the patient), so I don't think that applies (this is just an aside BTW).
[q]
then you are speculating it's purpose is to make you be delusional. believing in the unprovable/unsupportable satisfies definition 2 of delusional THAT YOU POSTED YOURSELF [/q]
Speculating, yes. Stating it as fact, no, because you missed the gist of the statement. Namely, that religious belief is intended and has a manifest purpose of support by faith, so it selects what is in effect an unknown. Not true, not false, but unknown. It's important to note this when calling people delusional, because the whole purpose of religious belief is based upon the absence of evidence either way. i.e. someone who is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc, is or should be fully aware of the difficulties of evidence and that the entire point of a belief structure is the belief. If they were delusional, they'd claim evidence in x, y, and z that could be contradicted by a,b, and c.
[q]I already have: I have provided you with sufficient logical proofs (which you have yet to falsify) that they are satisfying the definition of the word, and you have yourself seen them so do so you have the empirical evidence.
You however fail to acknowledge it (For whatever reason I will not speculate) it and simply keep trying to commit a shifting of the burdeon of proof fallacy on me by trying to shift proof THEY are responsible for on my shoulder by demanding a counterproof to their assertion.
You're harping on about definition 1 which requires counterproof when I'm talking about definition 2 which does not, but ALSO pointing out situations in which BOTH 1 and 2 are satisified (their position is unfounded AND counterevidence is available)[/q]
You've provided a personal definition of existence which manifestly sits outside the very obvious parameters of a supernatural diety or dieties. If you want accuse people of delusion, you need to prove the basis of your arguement; not cite your own opinion on what constitutes the burden of proof for non-existence. I am not interested in trying to falsify your personal 'proofs' any more than I am trying to form a disproof of God, because it's rather obvious the concept itself is designed to be an unknown and unknowable.
[q]no i've asserted that "Supernatural" is linguistically equivalent to "non-existant". The realm of science and logic is all existance, everything that exists can be detected, measured, quantified, and analyzed. If something is not observable it does not exist. So when you specifiy something to be "supernatural" (beyond nature, beyond existance) you are admitting RIGHT THERE that you are talking about fairytail magic voodoo l33tness that doesn't exist.
[/q]
Again, you miss the point, which is that the whole concept of religion is based on the observable universe not being the only form of existence. You have to disprove that possibility as part of disproving God, and it's simply impossible. It may be designed that way for obvious belief propagation, of course, but it still applies if you want to conclude people are wrong you need to evidence it.
[q]
NO YOU DON'T you posted the very definition which DISPROVES their false assertion YOURSELF
The level if intellectual dishonesty you are displaying is absolutely appauling.
Posted BY YOURSELF on Page 6
[/q]
Oh crap, you've only been un-monkeyed for a day and the dread big red text o doom appears. Nevermind.
Ok, let me think here. you need to prove this is unfounded. To prove it is unfounded, you need to address the factual basis for it. The problem is, God as a belief is, shall we say, designed to be based on an intangible. The basis of belief is the understanding of that and that faith is required in the unknown. For that to be on a delusional basis, I believe you'd have to prove that unknown is actually known.
[q]
Bullocks - something either exists or it doesn't. [/q]
In hard physical terms perhaps. In human philosophical terms, not really. We have a lot of things that are open within the terms of human thought. Are we the only intelligent life in the universe, for example. Within the concept of our societal knowledge, than answer is either. All unknown things are 2 state until we discover them. May exist, may not. Shroedingers' cat being the perfect example of an unknown.
And when we come to the domain of a postulative supernatural diety, we have a domain that is expressly outside the bounds of evidence.
