God!  How nice it is to see you again.  Here is the link for those wondering if Cogito really said such a thing:

http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1928

I'm sorry God, but folks around here probably won't believe Cogito said such a thing unless we link to it.

See ya later!

Actually what Cogito. . . er, what I said, paraphrased, is this:

"This sentence is indisputable proof that that which is responsible for this sentence being here exists."

. . . and it is.

Your senses, assuming you can read that sentence, provide you with indisputable proof that that sentence exists.

Now the question becomes, how did the sentence get on your monitor?

This is an entirely different question and one that requires an inference from experience to find the most probable explanation.

Given sntjohnny's epistemology, the sentence quoted above is as likely as not to be the result of tiny invisible elves busily at work inside your computer.

His "theory" might run like this: Computers are not connected to the outside world at all. They are self-contained. What is believed by some to be communications coming into their computers from other people is actually only the work of little elves who live inside computers.

Rational folks, however, will not find sntjohnny's belief convincing. They are more likely to believe that the quoted sentence most likely was constructed by a human author who has access to the internet. This is an imminently more reasonable inference to draw from the facts of the situation as we know them and from our experience on earth.

To recap: From our observation of the sentence, "This sentence is indisputable proof that that which is responsible for this sentence being here exists," we know that the sentence exists because it appears on our monitors.

From there, based on our experience, we can easily infer the phenomenon most likely to be responsible for that sentence's appearance and for all the others attributed to "Cogito."

It could be chance, it could be a computer glitch, it could be tiny elves, it could be gods, it could be extraterrestrials, it could be a computer program, etc.

But, based on experience, it is virtually indisputable that a human being with access to the internet is responsible for the messages on this board that are attributed to "Cogito." [Given the progress made in AI in recent years, this inference may not be nearly as strong in the future as it is today.]  

Snjohnny and people who share his epistemology see no essential difference between possibility and probability. For them, the phrase "Well, it's possible, isn't it?" has real significance. In their mysterious world, it is as likely that an event happens due to the work of invisible elves and gods simply because "Well, it's possible, isn't it?" as it is that something more natural and much, much more probable is responsible for it.

Well, I'll jump in on one thing in order to make the point clear:

"This is an imminently more reasonable inference to draw from the facts of the situation as we know them and from our experience on earth."

A reasonable inference?  Maybe.  Indisputable?  Nope.  This was proved immediately as you disputed the existence of God based on the same type of evidence that you supplied for your own existence.

Who in his right mind would read ordinary posts on a bulletin board and infer that those posts were written by a supernatural being simply because the author of those posts uses the screenname "God" (which BTW is probably blasphemous in a number of religions)?

After having computers, the internet, discussion boards, etc., explained and demonstrated to him, is there anyone among us, other than the mentally deficient, who would continue to do so?

It is rational to infer that the posts written by "Cogito" that appear on this board are written by a very ordinary human being. It is irrational to an extreme to believe that the posts written by "God" that appear on this board are written by an omniscient omnipotent supernatural being.

"It is rational to infer that the posts written by "Cogito" that appear on this board are written by a very ordinary human being."

But not indisputably so.

"It is rational to infer that the posts written by "Cogito" that appear on this board are written by a very ordinary human being."

But not indisputably so.

Aw, I'm blushing. . .  

Thanks for the compliment, but trust me, I am a VERY ordinary human being. (Or if you don't trust me, talk to my wife, she's more than willing to vouch for my "ordinariness.")

. . . uh, that is what you meant, isn't it? . . . that my claim about being just an "ordinary" human being is not indisputable?

Hey God, why did you create allergies? And the flu? And the platypus, you had to be on some serious ayahuasca when you created that animal. And ayahuasca, for that matter. You must have been laughing your ass off the first time some poor South American native ingested that stuff.

I beat Satan to sntjohnny's forums. HA!

 

Good one.

As for this pointless bit of humor we're for conversational purposes calling a "thread topic..."

I'll leave it to you guys. Over and out!

Cogito, you go into a whole lot of blather only to concede the very point you are objecting to:

"Of course, it's possible that this is incorrect. 'Cogito' could be a computer program designed to respond to theist arguments on discussion boards. 'Cogito' could be a supernatural being who gets his jollies from responding to theist arguments on discussion boards. Or 'Cogito' could be a dolphin or a Martian or a computer glitch or about a zillion other things."

Or, to give another example that you raised- perhaps my eyes do deceive me, right?

Now, your problem is that you mix and match your arguments as you go.   In this post here you say:

" But you cannot rationally believe ... "

But this was not part of the conditions that started this whole thing.  What does rationality have to do with anything?  In regards to our discussions about the resurrection, you insisted on 'indisputable' evidence, without any reference to any notions that by 'indisputable' you eliminate 'irrational' possibilities in the category of 'indisputable.'  You are holding a double standard, and you are sinking so low to do it that you are making elementary philosophical mistakes.

What philosopher expects 'indisputable' evidence of anything?  Anything can be disputed.  You never said anything about the disputations being rational!  That is a post-hoc attempt to redeem your petty standard.  Despite the fact that anything can be disputed, indisputability is the standard you insist we judge the resurrection claims.  

I said that I might accept the indisputability standard if you could prove indisputably that you exist.  At that time, neither of us had included the caveat that the disputes be 'rational.'  Even so, in your very last post you provide for me several possibilities by which I can dispute your existence.  Now, for your existence, you demand that indisputability be contingent on rational possibilities!  However, you have only produced the same kind of evidence for your existence on this forum as God has!

If you consider that the existence of God is now indisputable, resting on the same type of evidence you have submitted for your own existence to me- which you deem 'indisputable,' I will change my tone.

An area of compromise might exist- I'd be more than happy to concede that not all beliefs are qualitatively the same.  In fact, that is my own view, and the view of practically every person on the planet that is not a vegetable.  So I'm not really bending over very far to make that compromise.

However, I do not think you are capable of making that compromise.  I think you much rather prefer to insist that I back up my claims with 'indisputable' evidence while you get to back up your claims only according to the measly standard that "you have good reason to believe it."

Or, to sum up the hypocrisy of it all in a single paragraph:  The standard you hold your own claims to for them to be rational is only "you have good reason to believe it."  For our claims, there must be 'indisputable' reasons for believing it before it becomes rational to believe them.  Its a double standard, its hypocrisy, and frankly... very funny.