[aldo_14]

[q]not at all - the elegance of the definition is you DON'T need this knowledge in advance, if you learn of a form of interaction you previously didn't know about the definition is broad enough to accept the new information without a hitch.

Taking place, taken place and possible are all OBSERVABLE.

You are trying to assert that it is impossible to define existance-nonexistance.  Well independantly you cannot - non-existance is easy to define because it is the contrapositive of existance.  Existance is EASY to define

All objects that can be observed (which means they interact w/ e/o) can be said to exist. [/q]

Answer this.

Do I have a bowl of cottage cheese?

[q]
hence adding to the bull**** factor of religion[/q]

In your opinion, perhaps.  But you can't actually disprove it either.

[q]
No it cannot be applied consersely - i'm not stating that something exists merely because it cannot be disproven.  My positive assertion is that "people who believe in things without evidence and despite evidence fit the dictionary definition of delusional" and I have cited support of that.


There is absolutely no evidence to support the existance of dieties - yet people believe in them.  This satisifies definition 2 of delusional.  We're arguing SEMANTICS and my statement has already been established true because it's a ****ing tautology!
[/q]

you have to prove it is unfounded, when it is founded upon belief in an intangible.

[q]
Incorrect - I am stating that they have not provided ANY evidence and therefore their position is unfounded.

Don't use non-equivolant words as standings for creating straw man arguments.
[/q]

you've not provided evidence either, just a personal definition of where you'd expect to find evidence (i.e. the observable universe) for something that expressely resides as a concept outside that area.

[q]Incorrect based upon previous assertion being false.[/q]

you believe.

[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU FIVE TIMES DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND


This argument is completely over

i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument

(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)[/q]

Can you prove you're not delusional?

Stop taking the huff.  What are you, 12?  I thought you did debating at school - did you run away and hide in a corner (shouting along the way, PRESUMABLY) every time you were challenged?

[Kazan]

Splitted for Emphasis

The problem is that in order to prove delusion you need to prove wrong.

NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND


This argument is completely over

i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument

(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)

# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea;

unfounded
un·found·ed   Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-foundd)
adj.

   1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
   2. Not yet established.

[aldo_14]

[q]NO I ****ING DON'T WHAT PART DEFINITION TWO WHICH I HAVE QUOTED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES AFTER YOU INTIALLY POSTED IT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND


This argument is completely over

i'm not answering ANYTHING else you post until you balls up and admit you're incorrect and stop ignoring definition two so that you can carry on with your straw man argument

(note: i didn't read any of the rest of your post, i'm not going to read any of your posts until the first thing you do in a post is acknowledge definition two)
[/q]

Tsch, giving up?  I thought you were a master debater, too.

[Kazan]

Aldo forfeits the argument, commited argumentum ad hominem.

[Kazan]

Tsch, giving up?  I thought you were a master debater, too.

You cannot argue with someone who is IGNORING evidence for their opponant that said person posted themself

# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea;

unfounded
un·found·ed   Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-foundd)
adj.

   1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
   2. Not yet established.

[aldo_14]

Aldo forfeits the argument, commited argumentum ad hominem.

Y'know, you can't actually declare yourself a winner in any sort of debate.   Rather obvious why, really.

[Kazan]

Stop ignoring this or you tacitlysurrender

Tsch, giving up?  I thought you were a master debater, too.

You cannot argue with someone who is IGNORING evidence for their opponant that said person posted themself

# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea;

unfounded
un·found·ed   Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-foundd)
adj.

   1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
   2. Not yet established.

[aldo_14]

Stop ignoring this or you tacitlysurrender

Can't define the 'rules', either.  That's another thing I thought you'd have encountered before.

You can't keep shouting the same thing in different combinations of bold and capitals, either.  Looks like you have some strange form of internet dyslexia.

[Kazan]

Aldo i'm not the one resorting to personal attacks because their opponant pointed out that they are ignoring evidence for their opponant.


Stop ignoring definition two - you're commiting straw man fallacy by trying to restrict definition two from consideration after I have repeatedly pointed out that I am speaking of any situation that satisifies either or both of definition 1 and 2.

I will not continue to respond to a straw man argument and off topic argumentation.



I assert again: People who believe in religion are delusional and satisfy one or both of the following definitions of delusional: (as posted by you)

Definition 1: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
Definition 2: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea

I have provided examples and evidence of both.  All religion satisfies definition 2 until such a time as a member of that religion provides evidence to support their poisiton or logical arguments (free of fallacies) which demostrate the necessity of a deity existing.

(Definition 1 is actually Definition 3 and 2 is 2 in American Heritage 4th Edition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion )

[aldo_14]

Aldo i'm not the one resorting to personal attacks because their opponant pointed out that they are ignoring evidence for their opponant.


Stop ignoring definition two - you're commiting straw man fallacy by trying to restrict definition two from consideration after I have repeatedly pointed out that I am speaking of any situation that satisifies either or both of definition 1 and 2.

I will not continue to respond to a straw man argument and off topic argumentation.



I assert again: People who believe in religion are delusional and satisfy one or both of the following definitions of delusional: (as posted by you)

Definition 1: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
Definition 2: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea

I have provided examples and evidence of both.  All religion satisfies definition 2 until such a time as a member of that religion provides evidence to support their poisiton or logical arguments (free of fallacies) which demostrate the necessity of a deity existing.

(Definition 1 is actually Definition 3 and 2 is 2 in American Heritage 4th Edition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion )

  I guess iyou'll keep posting the same bloody post until the end of the world if I don't come back and reiterate myself.

Ok.  Let's see.

Religion ultimately boils down to a belief in a supernatural - beyond observable - being or beings who are responsible for creating and tending to the universe.  The basis - foundation - for religious belief lies within the belief structure itself, usually defined by a holy book or books.   This structure enforces the concept that said deity/dieties (I'll use God for shorthand) exist without the observable universe (because they created it), and are unknowable.  This leads to the key concept of faith.

So, anyways, we have religion acting as a support for itself.  Religious followers (and ergo religion) know and accept that their faith is based around this God concept that exists in a wilfully inobservable manner.  The foundation therefore is not based upon evidence - expressly so - but the act of belief itself.  Now, we have a foundation for this idea, namely that there exists (the possibility of) some thing that, abstracted down, is beyond human comprehension.  So the act of belief is taken in the knowledge it is not about evidence either way (because you don't expect any), and in fact it's about the spite of the evidence.  Most religions, I believe, value the act of faith rather than explicit knowledge.

Now, we have the issue of evidence to the contrary / mistaken.  Now, you can't disprove it as being a wrong belief, because religion defines the criteria as being in essence unknowable.  All contradiction you can find is from a) the observable universe and b) contradicts your personal belief of what would be necessary to prove or contradict God (such as the expectation that there is no universe beyond observable and that we can observe enough of the universe in order to conclude there is sufficient inprobability).  If you want to prove religion wrong you can't redefine the tenets of the religion in order to do so.

This is, of course, noting that religion itself is 'designed' to be undisprovable (and unproveable).  That may seem like a cheat, but the very definition of whether it is a cheat is subjective upon personal belief of the validity of that religion.  Again, that's kind of the point; faith.

You'll note, I hope, this is by an aetheist who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't believe we should treat people as idiots for believing in something that is unknown in all honest rational terms.

[Ford Prefect]

actually no - my "ontology" if you want to invoke -ogolies not worthy of the suffix is that something either exists or it doesn't and something only exists if it interacts with our universe

See, that's all well and good, but when you make assertions like that, you have to realize that each individual word in the statement has great implications. Questions of existence are heavily dependent on grammar-- particularly nouns and their referents. There is no universally accepted definition of existence, because no matter what parameters you use, a logical problem will emerge. You can't just come strolling in and say, "Hey, what are you all arguing about? Existence is just such-and-such. The end." It's not simple. Nothing is simple. There are no simple questions, simple answers, or finite debates. You're effectively claiming that 2500 years' worth of philosophy has just been missing the obvious.

Warning - while you were typing 11 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Haha.

[Kazan]

Aldo you have still failed to address my assertion, and you have yet again ignored definition 2, or you simply don't understand the definition of the word "unfounded" upon which definition two rests.  Definition two does not require counter evidence.  Period.

You are off topic and your apologizing for the blatently self contradictory assertion that something can both exist and be unobservable is an attemp to distract

-----------------------------------------



Ford: no i'm claiming that 2500 years worth of philosophy should have already established that something doesn't exist if it doesn't interact with our universe as there is no possible way to support it's existance, and since it doesn't affect anything in our universe it doesn't exist. 

Things that exist interact. 

[aldo_14]

Aldo you have still failed to address my assertion, and you have yet again ignored definition 2, or you simply don't understand the definition of the word "unfounded" upon which definition two rests.  Definition two does not require counter evidence.  Period.

You are off topic and your apologizing for the blatently self contradictory assertion that something can both exist and be unobservable is an attemp to distract

You're dodging the issue.  I covered definition 2 in the 2nd paragraph, including the word 'foundation' twice (as in unfounded, yes?). 

i'm not apologizing for anything; shame on you for trying to mischarecterise me (I mean, I presume you understood me, so it must be deliberate....).  The concept of what exists but we do not know is a rather basic philosophical one; it's only contradictory if you assume we know everything that there is and that there can be observed.

Now, you can go on about the burden of proof or whatnot, but you know you cannot disprove God if you use the religious definition of it.  You can contend the definition, but that's again a matter of theology and philosophy.  You're dealing with a concept that the human psyche has (most likely created, but again that's philosophical) used for centuries to define the inexplicable, after all.

Ford: no i'm claiming that 2500 years worth of philosophy should have already established that something doesn't exist if it doesn't interact with our universe as there is no possible way to support it's existance, and since it doesn't affect anything in our universe it doesn't exist. 

Things that exist interact. 

So you are claiming that 2500 years' worth of philosophy has just been missing the obvious?

[Ford Prefect]

Kazan, 2500 years of philosophy has not definitively established anything's existence! It is a bloody hard question. You're just spouting off these parameters and saying, "There! Problem solved!" But you don't even have to dig into a university library to find how mind-boggling this problem is. You could probably just type "existence" in frigging Wikipedia and you'd see that your answers are nowhere near as definitive as you think they are.

[Kazan]

The basis - foundation - for religious belief lies within the belief structure itself, usually defined by a holy book or books.   

this does not constitute a foundation in the sense used in the definition

The concept of what exists but we do not know is a rather basic philosophical one; it's only contradictory if you assume we know everything that there is and that there can be observed.

i am unable to grasp where you keep pulling this "you must know everything" out of.

Let me state this more simply

Givens:*
I) Everything that exists interacts
II) Everything that interacts can be measured
III) If something does not interact it cannot be said to exist as it doesn't fall within the bounds of our universe

Claims:
A) $DIETY exists
B) $DIETY cannot be measured


B Contradicts I+II+A, I+II+B contradicts A

I do not have to disprove something for it to be unfounded if they cannot present evidence/logic it is unfounded.  Any claim otherwise is an attempt to shift the burdeon of proof.

[Kazan]

Kazan, 2500 years of philosophy has not definitively established anything's existence! It is a bloody hard question. You're just spouting off these parameters and saying, "There! Problem solved!" But you don't even have to dig into a university library to find how mind-boggling this problem is. You could probably just type "existence" in frigging Wikipedia and you'd see that your answers are nowhere near as definitive as you think they are.

I don't care how difficult some people find the problem, I find it somewhat simple.  I do find language somewhat limiting in how to express the idea.

let's start with the easier of the two to define

Non-existance: Anything that doesn't interact (cannot be observed by any means) with our universe doesn't exist
Existance: anything that can/does cause/receive an interaction

the only difficulty here is to define the "polarity". 

[aldo_14]

[q]
this does not constitute a foundation in the sense used in the definition[/q]

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a dictionary.  All the definitions a cursory check reveals seem to include things like "basis" and similar concepts.  but I guess they must be wrong, then, eh?

[q]am unable to grasp where you keep pulling this "you must know everything" out of.

Let me state this more simply

Givens:*
I) Everything that exists interacts
II) Everything that interacts can be measured
III) If something does not interact it cannot be said to exist as it doesn't fall within the bounds of our universe

Claims:
A) $DIETY exists
B) $DIETY cannot be measured


B Contradicts I+II+A, I+II+B contradicts A

I do not have to disprove something for it to be unfounded if they cannot present evidence/logic it is unfounded.  Any claim otherwise is an attempt to shift the burdeon of proof.[/q]

You defined the givens to prove your arguement.  Surely you know any statement is useless if you pick the rules & statements in such a way as to be sure to determine the outcome how you want it?

I'll  note, again, that disproof of B) assumes II), but II) is false owing to the bounds of human knowledge.  I) is also an unproveable assumption, and III) ignores the whole crux of the arguement, which is the existence of something outwith our universe.

I don't care how difficult some people find the problem, I find it somewhat simple.  I do find language somewhat limiting in how to express the idea.

let's start with the easier of the two to define

Non-existance: Anything that doesn't interact (cannot be observed by any means) with our universe doesn't exist
Existance: anything that can/does cause/receive an interaction

the only difficulty here is to define the "polarity". 

This is another 'Kazan tells the world how to think' thing, isn't it?

[NGTM-1R]

Based upon physics alone, the argument that things that exist must interact is unfortunately utter bull****. There about 2 million neutrinos streaming through your body right now, the vast majority of which have not interacted and will never interact with anything. Regardless, they are presumed to exist by almost every noteworthy physicist alive today. Or go look up WIMPs? The existence of something that does not interact is not ruled impossible by phyiscal laws as we understand them. Indeed, many theories of the Big Bang assert that such things almost certainly do exist.

Therefore to assert the existance of something that does not interact is an impossible also means that you wish to deny the combined brains of modern physics and all of human philosophy.

This leads two possible assumptions: either you are being facecious Kazan, or you really do think you are smarter then ALL of them. Both make excellent reasons to dismiss anything you say out of hand.

[Ford Prefect]

ngtm1r: We have observed neutrinos, and even caught them, thus affecting their behavior, so I think that the interaction parameter holds up for them.

Kazan: Does logic exist?

[Kazan]

Nice snarky dictionary comment aldo, too bad that being able to describe something with the word "foundation" doesn't always make that a LOGICAL/REASONABLE/RATIONAL foundation for something which is what Definition 2 of Delusional is making reference too by using the word

un·found·ed   Audio pronunciation of "unfounded" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-foundd)
adj.

   1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
   2. Not yet established.

which I already quoted to you before to preempt this very fallacious line of argumentation.

You defined the givens to prove your arguement.  Surely you know any statement is useless if you pick the rules & statements in such a way as to be sure to determine the outcome how you want it?

good, now you're getting the idea - i almost typed a freaking hint in there to direct you to actually attacking the right thing instead of continuing your straw man argument.

II) is false owing to the bounds of human knowledge

bullocks.

i know this is a named logical fallacy i just cannot remember which one

it's related to the fact that: just because we cannot measure it at this moment doesn't mean it cannot be measured, it however DOES mean that it is as of YET not established as interacting

hence why i leave myself open to the possibility that IN THE FUTURE evidence may be found, but until evidence is found a then a claim without evidence remains exactly that an is therefore unfounded.


III is merely the contrapositive of II,

I is a definition - ontology as you and fred like keeping to bring up

This is another 'Kazan tells the world how to think' thing, isn't it?

insultive tone doesn't help your argument

this is another "Kazan states his position" "thing"

------------------------

There about 2 million neutrinos streaming through your body right now, the vast majority of which have not interacted and will never interact with anything.

BULLOCKS

neutrinos DO interact otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure them.  They may interact so weakly that it is DIFFICULT to measure them, but we KNOW they DO interact.

Regardless, they are presumed to exist by almost every noteworthy physicist alive today

they're not presumed they've been detected (THEY INTERACTED)


the rest of your post is rendered moot by the fact that they have been detected and therefore they did interact (with the detection device)