If It Quacks Like a Duck

[Juma]

Presumably his extra one. The one that others don't have.

His own eyes and ears over the duck skeptic who doesn't accept whats in front of him ..

If it quacks (and walks) like a duck !

? Your post doesnt make sense.

 

[bigfield]

Well of course you don't have to prove the existence of ducks...but if you did, how hard would it be?

Pretty hard when the duck skeptic says...
"that's not a duck"
"that's not evidence"
"thousands of reported duck sightings are just hearsay/lies/delusions/argumentum ad populam"

You could always show them duck photos and videos, or take them to a duck pond.

Can't do that with your invisible friend.

why should I trust the duck skeptic over the direct evidence of my sensory perception?

Go on--tell us more about your personal Road-to-Damascus moment.

Why do I have to prove the existence...

Because unlike ducks, there is not a sound body of evidence that your god exists. There is also evidence that your belief in god is inspired by Christian doctrine, which includes the myths of Yahweh and Jesus, among other folk stories.

It's hard to convince a rationally-thinking person that a busted myth is true.

 

[bigfield]

If it quacks like a duck, flaps its wings like a duck, has a bill like a duck, feet like a duck, feathers like a duck, can fly like a duck, craps like a duck, walks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck, I believe it's a duck.

What are the biblegod equivalents of quacking, wing-flapping, bill, feet, feathers, flight, crapping, walking, and egg-laying that you have witnessed?

 

[abaddon]

why should I trust the duck skeptic over the direct evidence of my sensory perception?

You saw or heard or smelled God? Is that what "the direct evidence of my sensory perception" means? Or you do mean something else with the words?

Presumably his extra one. The one that others don't have.

His own eyes and ears over the duck skeptic who doesn't accept whats in front of him ..

Do you sense God with your eyes and ears? Do you, REALLY?

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

If I look at an inkblot and "see" a duck, does that count as a "sensory perception" of a duck?

I will have perceived something from sensory input that's not actually "there". Someone else would "see" something else, depending on the content of his mind.

Similarly, where someone sees a chair another might see a stepping-stool or a wooden four-legged base for a flower pot.

Their senses are picking up a colored and textured trapezoidal shape with some more quadrilateral shapes extending below it and perhaps above it also. That's what is "directly" sensed or "what's in front of him". Anything you apply to it like "chair" or "stool or "stand" or "firewood" is conceptual, and isn't clearcut the way some persons might try to make it seem.

So yet again God ends up being an idea in some folks' heads and not actually detectible and yet it's been 'sensorily perceived' and is 'right before everyone's eyes!' Somehow not seeing the duck in the inkblot is an atheistic fuck-up. So, with talk of how evident God is, actually it's just that the theists are stuck on the almighty significance of Belief.

 

[OLDMAN]

You saw or heard or smelled God? Is that what "the direct evidence of my sensory perception" means? Or you do mean something else with the words?

Presumably his extra one. The one that others don't have.

His own eyes and ears over the duck skeptic who doesn't accept whats in front of him ..

Do you sense God with your eyes and ears? Do you, REALLY?

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

If I look at an inkblot and "see" a duck, does that count as a "sensory perception" of a duck?

I will have perceived something from sensory input that's not actually "there". Someone else would "see" something else, depending on the content of his mind.

Similarly, where someone sees a chair another might see a stepping-stool or a wooden four-legged base for a flower pot.

Their senses are picking up a colored and textured trapezoidal shape with some more quadrilateral shapes extending below it and perhaps above it also. That's what is "directly" sensed or "what's in front of him". Anything you apply to it like "chair" or "stool or "stand" or "firewood" is conceptual, and isn't clearcut the way some persons might try to make it seem.

So yet again God ends up being an idea in some folks' heads and not actually detectible and yet it's been 'sensorily perceived' and is 'right before everyone's eyes!' Somehow not seeing the duck in the inkblot is an atheistic fuck-up. So, with talk of how evident God is, actually it's just that the theists are stuck on the almighty significance of Belief.

That is correct...somehow the creation is clearly detectable, yet the creator and the powers used are not even remotely discernible except as a "feeling" one has about the unseen.
Or perhaps it is the obvious and ancient people had no other explanations.

 

[Learner]

? Your post doesnt make sense.

It was aptly suited enough for your posts.

 

[Jobar]

why should I trust the duck skeptic over the direct evidence of my sensory perception?

If your perceptions are normal, then duck skeptic must lack normal perception, or be lying. Which is it, do you think?

The trouble is that so many report llamas, or kangaroos, or werekoalas, or one (or more) of an incredibly long list of things which duck skeptics also do not perceive. Do you think all those who see something other than a duck are lying or blind, too?

We who see no duck, or llama, or whatever, think that those who report one of a menagerie of creatures are delusional. We have consistent theories explaining why they claim to perceive those things. Do you have a consistent theory that explains why so very many people perceive things other than a duck- or nothing at all? Is it that everyone else is lying?