What’s wrong with this argument?

[Chriliman]

I'm not aware of any Christian who would claim that God DOESN'T meet those criteria.

True, but theyd add that God enters the universe in the form of man(Jesus)

 

[Freodin]

The experience of thirst entails that there must exist some 'thing' which is the object of that want/need.

Even if you didn't know what water looked like or had no proof of its physical existence, you could deduce that - as a properly basic belief - there must be such a thing as would cause your thirst.

No matter how much of a skeptic you are, you will look for water based on the 'belief' that it exists.

Sorry, but that conclusion is false.

1. The existence of a "want" does not mean that there exists something that is the object of this "want". In fact, without already having established the existence of such an object, you wouldn't be able to identify this "want".
The feeling you know as "thirst" is only identified as that, because you know a priori that water would alleviate / change this feeling.
2. In that line, it is not the existence of the "want" that is evidence of the object... but in fact the NON-existence of the "want". Or, more precise, the experience of the change in this feeling of "want" by some object.

In that example, you don't conclude that water exists because you are thirsty... you exprience that the consumption of water changes the feeling of thirst.

 

[Lion IRC]

Aren't you just gainsaying my position?
You haven't explained why a thirsty person would or should ignore their intuition that there must be some 'thing' somewhere out there (as yet undiscovered/unproven) which exists and alleviates thirst.

 

[Freodin]

Aren't you just gainsaying my position?
You haven't explained why a thirsty person would or should ignore their intuition that there must be some 'thing' somewhere out there (as yet undiscovered/unproven) which exists and alleviates thirst.

Before I go further into this explanation, and my view of what your mistake it... could you explain to me why a person might use this intuition to conclude to the existence of this "thing"?

Trying to explain how this should work might give you an insight of why I don't think it works. But in any case, I will provide my explantion later.

 

[Lion IRC]

If I feel a stinging sensation in my toe, I will look down expecting to find a cause. A bee stinging me, a splinter of wood, a shard of glass. Even without knowing what the cause is, I will rationally deduce that there is a 'thing' which exists. (cause/effect)

A thing which does not exist cannot cause/alleviate thirst. A non-existent bee cannot stinging me.

 

[Freodin]

If I feel a stinging sensation in my toe, I will look down expecting to find a cause. A bee stinging me, a splinter of wood, a shard of glass. Even without knowing what the cause is, I will rationally deduce that there is a 'thing' which exists. (cause/effect)

A thing which does not exist cannot cause/alleviate thirst. A non-existent bee cannot stinging me.

So... if you don't feel a stinging sensation in your toe, you would assume that there would be some object that causes a lack of stinging sensations?

Kidding, sorry. But you might use this get to the real problem.

Cause and effect is indeed the point here... but that is exactly the problem. The "effect" of "thirst" is not causes by any object... it's caused by the lack of an object: water.

But the only reason why we know that, is because we do observe a different cause/effect situation: that the consumation of water alleviates thirst.

And that is the conclusion that you can make: water exists, because it alleviates thirst.

But without this experience - the alleviation of thirst - it is not possible to conclude from the existence of thirst to the existence of water. Without this first mentioned experience, it would be an equally valid conclusion to state: the experience of thirst simply is, and there might be no object to change it.

Was that understandable?

 

[Kylie]

If I feel a stinging sensation in my toe, I will look down expecting to find a cause. A bee stinging me, a splinter of wood, a shard of glass. Even without knowing what the cause is, I will rationally deduce that there is a 'thing' which exists. (cause/effect)

A thing which does not exist cannot cause/alleviate thirst. A non-existent bee cannot stinging me.

This is not quite true. Pain can be caused without something to stimulate the nerves to cause that pain. Indeed, people who have had amputations have reported pain in limbs that they no longer have. Managing Phantom Pain - Amputee Coalition

 

[Lion IRC]

Imaginary pain? Imaginary thirst? Imaginary hunger?

LOL. What if the pain, hunger, thirst etc are real but you're just imagining that they aren't?

 

[Kylie]

Imaginary pain? Imaginary thirst? Imaginary hunger?

LOL. What if the pain, hunger, thirst etc are real but you're just imagining that they aren't?

Is that what you'd say to someone who was experiencing phantom pain in a limb that had been amputated?

 

[Lion IRC]

You're the one who referred to it as 'phantom' pain.

You're the one undermining the reality of an actual cause of their pain. Not me.

My argument is that a real sensation (thirst) proves the existence of a real cause of that sensation. (Water).

Your rebuttal is what? Phantom thirst? That water doesn't really exist? That the thirsty person is just imagining it?

I would challenge you to consider the circular paradox you create when you propose the 'imaginary' sensory experience. You see, whereas you can assert they are merely imagining something which isn't real, I can easily gainsay that and propose to you that the experience is the thing which is actually real and that...imagining the experience was imaginary is all in your head.

 

[Lion IRC]

Skeptic : Hey Lion IRC, you're just imagining you saw a ghost.

Me : Nope, you're imagining that my experience was imaginary.

 

[HitchSlap]

Skeptic : Hey Lion IRC, you're just imagining you saw a ghost.

Me : Nope, you're imagining that my experience was imaginary.

Yet, at the end of the day, there needs to be a way to determine what's real, and what's imaginary.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sure.
But let's not have skeptics imagining that all miracles are imaginary.

 

[Lion IRC]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Well, the most extraordinary claim of all is the one made by skeptics who assert that EVERY SINGLE miracle/supernatural claim made throughout the entire course of human history are all fabrications. All lies, delusions, 'imagined' sensory experience.

For thousands and thousands of years, millions/billions of humans have reported and corroborated direct, shared, sensory evidence of something they sincerely think was a supernatural event. By contrast, a relatively minuscule number - a tiny percentage - of humans (called skeptics/atheists) make the extraordinary claim that we (theists) are all lunatics or liars.

...and they call themselves rational.
*rolls eyes*

 

[Lion IRC]

All imagining their experience?

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure.
But let's not have skeptics imagining that all miracles are imaginary.

So how should we demonstrate miracles are anything other than imaginary?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

If I feel a stinging sensation in my toe, I will look down expecting to find a cause. A bee stinging me, a splinter of wood, a shard of glass. Even without knowing what the cause is, I will rationally deduce that there is a 'thing' which exists. (cause/effect)

A thing which does not exist cannot cause/alleviate thirst. A non-existent bee cannot stinging me.

Oh, I drop the AC on my foot.

 

[Kylie]

You're the one who referred to it as 'phantom' pain.

I called it phantom pain because that is the actual term for it.

Phantom pain - Wikipedia

And it proves that one can feel pain even if no pain signal has been sent. In the case of phantom pain, it's impossible for such a signal to be sent, since the nerves required no longer exist!

You're the one undermining the reality of an actual cause of their pain. Not me.

How so?

My argument is that a real sensation (thirst) proves the existence of a real cause of that sensation. (Water).

Your rebuttal is what? Phantom thirst? That water doesn't really exist? That the thirsty person is just imagining it?

To be fair, you said cause/alleviate.

There are certain conditions that mean a person isn't capable of feeling full after eating, and they keep on eating.

I would challenge you to consider the circular paradox you create when you propose the 'imaginary' sensory experience. You see, whereas you can assert they are merely imagining something which isn't real, I can easily gainsay that and propose to you that the experience is the thing which is actually real and that...imagining the experience was imaginary is all in your head.

When did I say they were only imagining the phantom pain?

 

[Lion IRC]

So how should we demonstrate miracles are anything other than imaginary?

Sensory evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses.

 

[Lion IRC]

So... if you don't feel a stinging sensation in your toe, you would assume that there would be some object that causes a lack of stinging sensations?

WUT?

Why would something that ISNT happening require an explanation/cause?