According to your definition, only that which we can measure exists.
How do you measure faith? How do we measure if someone is really in love? How do you measure if someone is telling the truth (lie detectors are not reliable)?
How do you measure someone's intent, love, faith to a mathematical certainty?
How do you measure one person's pain or love versus another person's experiences of pain and love.
How do you know that when I look at some object I am seeing it exactly the same way you are seeing it? We may measure it in the same way, but that doesn't mean we are seeing it the same way.
A computer can measure something and report that data, but does the computer see it the way I see it?
How do you measure the subjective side of life, which does in fact exist?
"first ,obviously, you would need to define what you mean by god, then submit your evidence/argument/theory for critical analysis.
If you say there is no God, then that statement is intelligible only if you have a concept of what God is. Saying there is no mxlkueoysoidyury is unintelligible, as we have no working concept of what mxlkueoysoidyury is. If you define mxlkueoysoidyury as the Creator of the universe, then suddenly an unknown word becomes quite intelligible.
Lets say I make the following statement:
There is no
oiuwer7mva0873qw4r-.lasdf80%23498.
Is there anyway to confirm or deny the truth of my statement? Impossible without having some concept of what
oiuwer7mva0873qw4r-.lasdf80%23498 is.
So, please share with us what your working definition and concept of God is.
I am asking you to define what your concept of God is, and how you would either prove or disprove your concept of God to be true or false.
"You have the rhetoric of a new age crank,"
I am asking you to please, stop the name calling. Name calling has no place in civil discussions.
If you continue with the name calling, then the discussion is over, as you have decided to no longer be reasonable but instead surrender to emotionalism and logical fallacy.
If you continue this practice, it indicates you cannot win without these personal attacks, which reveals that your arguments of a purely reasonable objective and a non personal nature are not sufficient to win the argument.
Quote from LongShot:
GOD?
no god, no intelligence, no supernatural..
only that which we can measure EXISTS. everything else is
essentially bullshit, rank speculation.
PROOF?
first ,obviously, you would need to define what you mean by god, then submit your evidence/argument/theory for critical analysis.
however,
i agree with Carl Sagan,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Up to this point your arguments are capricious and lacking in substance. You have the rhetoric of a new age crank,
but if you truly have something lets see it.