God isn't like a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle. Neither are unicorns, centaurs, fortune-tellers or lizard people for that matter.
Printable View
God isn't like a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle. Neither are unicorns, centaurs, fortune-tellers or lizard people for that matter.
I don't just voice subjective personal opinions. That is false. Laughable coming from someone of the opinion that the words "reason" and "rationalization" have the same meaning. Good effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Ah, but God could be like a 4-sided triangle. That could hardly prove that it doesn't exist. God could even be a volumetric plane. Are you trying to be funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
You're assuming that. Much is involved in the concept of God - a maximally-great being. There's a lot to unpack. It's not unreasonable to think that there might be a contradiction lurking somewhere. Anyway, you asked how we can disprove God. Well, that's how. Find an incoherence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
The impossible is the contradictory. (The possible, on the other hand, is the non-contradictory.) Four-sided triangles are contradictory and thus impossible. If God is contradictory, too, then he is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
This is all supposing that atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god, or that we should provide evidence of his non-existence if we want to remain atheists. It's unnecessary. I could set about attempting to disprove all things imagined and invisible, but why should I? The burden is not on the atheist to provide proof or else embrace delusion.
Premise - conclusion - happy?
Well, you haven't put forward an argument. That's what I'm waiting for. You think God doesn't exist. OK. Do you have any arguments, deductive or inductive, that argue to that end? I'm not asking you to tell me why you're an atheist. (That's all very interesting, though, no doubt.) What I'm after is arguments against God. Again, here's an example of a deductive argument against God:Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
"All that which exists is that which is empirically verifiable (premise 1). God is not that which is empirically verifiable (premise 2). Therefore God is not that which exists (conclusion)."
Now, this argument has clear enough terms, and valid reasoning. But premise 1 is false. And so the argument fails.
But do you have something along these lines - a logical argument?
I didn't see this before my last post. Now I better understand your position. So, you don't have arguments against God, and you don't think you need any. OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
The burden of proof is on the theists!
I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: you don't need logical certainty to justify disbelief. A dozen times I've mentioned that there's no logical argument against unicorns, centaurs, ect. Varenne stated that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Its true. Give me some evidence. Not just an argument but some hard evidence of God's existence. You'd think an all-powerful being would leave some trace, some foot-print. In the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe. Without a logical argument I may not be able to uphold the impossibility of God, but I can sure maintain His unlikelihood.
I guess we should try to ask the question, is it impossible for there to be a supernatural entity that is able to create beyond the natural laws. If there is one who chooses not to believe that there is a God, but would at least concede that there may be a possibility of such an entity, it could easily be accepted. However, most of the atheists at this site choose to disbelieve AND demand that anyone who would believe MUST be an idiot for such unreasonable considerations.
I disagree. There is but one problem that science does not reasonably answer. Since it is proven that matter is not eternal, therefore it must have a beginning. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means. Then something Supernatural must of created matter at the point that it was created. This seems fairly simple. Those in the scientific community try to explain this by using incomprehensible jargon and so-called logic that would take more faith to believe than if one would just choose to believe in a Supernatural Creator in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I'll offer something else, though it seems rather redundant to do so. God cannot be observed. It cannot be tested. It cannot be replicated. I will not put faith into something that does not exist in this reality. Does that mean no gods exist? No. Do I believe in something unseen? No. If someone creates a fantasy, that fantasy does not automatically become fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Go ahead and critique. :)
This is also true with evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I bet that you believe in many things that no one has seen.Quote:
Do I believe in something unseen?
Evolution can most certainly be observed Bien. The amount of data corroborating evolution is staggering.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Sorry, I believe that claim as much as you believe the claim that there is evidence that supports the Bible and its claims. Those who believe in evolution often spout that claim of evidence, but never produces anything concrete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
In the last thread in which this subject arose JuniperWoolf laid out much of the evidence for evolution. I'll post links if you want. Its all out there for anyone who wants it though. At this point denying evolution is almost akin to denying genetics or Newtonian physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
And like denying the evidence out there that shows that other cultures had witnessed dinosaurs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
What evidence would that be? Those fabricated stones which also show pictures of ancient astronauts?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I don't see how it could easily be acceptable with infinite other possibilities to consider. Those infinite other possibilities make your singular possibility highly improbable. It is acceptable that you believe in your singular unsubstantiated idea. It is not acceptable to attempt to force that idea as fact in everyone's reality. It is not acceptable to teach the fantasy in schools or enact laws that revolve around its supposed rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I don't presume to know whether you are an idiot. You do believe in highly improbable ideas and you seem to seek a feeling of validation through the opinions and acceptance of peers. That's the downside and the upside to fantasy. On the upside, you can have whatever fantasy you wish. On the downside, if you take your fantasy public that public might not embrace it. It is an error to try to force others to accept a fantasy position as universal reality.
God is not unsubstantiated. There are not an infinite amount of other possibilities, in fact, the one other possibility is unsubstantiated. I don't try to force my belief, but it is a fact that the fantasy of evolution in forced into the school system. I wish that it wasn't. We should really just leave the unsubstantiated philosophies out of science class. Let's just teach what we know and leave the unknown subjectivity of origins out of school altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I don't think you realize that thousands of men and women have devoted their lives to studying the natural world and that the theory of evolution best explains all that they've observed. When you call the theory fantasy you are essentially saying that you know better than all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Again, you seem to be thinking that you have some explaining to do about how logic, argument, and debate work. We'll do this one more time. As I mentioned, it is not that the reductio had no right to be absurd. However, if your formulation is beside the point and silly, and based on arbitrarily altered premises, it is merely bobbing and weaving (to put it charitably) for you to claim that that silliness is due to it being a reductio ad absurdum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
The moreover is unnecessary, since this is what is being objected to. You are (and this is sophistry in its purest form) asserting that people tieing atheism to lack of belief (merely a lack of belief in god, and not a belief in the non-existence of god) have left an opening for the inclusion of rocks and dogs into their camp. As OrphanPip pointed out earlier, this would be banal at best. It certainly wouldn't undermine the particular shorthand definition's validity (a definition introduced in its shorthand by you) as a stance that people might take. They would still be people who have no beliefs in god(s)--whether you tie their position on the issue to rocks or dogs or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Like you, though, I think that it would fairly be considered absurd to call a rock an atheist. But the problem (the absurdity) is that you have, for no useful reason, decided to suddenly omit personhood from your re-definition. Now we have a bunch of nonsense where you seem to think you need to explain what agents are, and perhaps want to bring, along with people, cats and E.T. entities into the discussion or something? Just so you can do some "explaining" now?
Because, try as you might, a person can fairly describe themself as having no belief in god(s) without any absurd consequences. The position that cats and rocks might be taking on the issue (or failing to take) is beside the point, and your jokey thought-experiment simply created a sideshow. Do you see how it is inappropriate to defend it by explaining over and over again things you have learned by studying logic?
Perhaps it would help you get the bigger picture here if I told you that there has been no need to clear up what a reductio ad absurdum is for me--perhaps you are stuck on that possibility. I am looking at the application of your argument. I'm not going to dig out my old transcripts for this, but I have had at least 15 hours of study of logic/symbolic logic, including two courses at the graduate level (one in a U.S. Top 10 Computer Science Department and one in the same school's Philosophy Department, and yes the grades were quite good).
Just because there is a belief among the masses doesn't make it true. I bet that you would have joined with the flat earth and the geocentric people if you lived in that time....yeah, you seem the type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Supposed eye witness accounts mean very little.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I witnessed Jesus Christ in a department store yesterday. He was a red haired man with freckles wearing a purple pimp suit and hat. I can even draw a picture of him. He told me we should all go live in the ocean and only eat pomegranates that grow on the fjords of Norway, the chosen land of blessed food. We should follow his teachings, right? You believe me, right? Not believing me would mean that you are insensitive and insulting to my beliefs. Not getting in the ocean immediately is like calling me an idiot, right?
Individual eye witness accounts without physical evidence mean absolutely nothing. A drawing is not usable evidence.
There were many eye witness accounts of Christ. They are written down too. But those are just cast aside. Oh...and many many very reputable witnesses at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
What do you think those things are?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
People in desert cultures eating shrooms and peyote without the benefits of greater education.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Do you discount ancient Chinese traditions and teachings? How or why do you think Christianity is any more valid?
That is where my faith comes in, just as you use your faith to believe in a chaotic big bang that produced intricate order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
This is silly. Individual eye witness accounts are admissable in courts of law, which consider very carefully what does and what does not constitute "evidence". I don't doubt that eye witness accounts are not certain "proof" -- but why do they "mean absolutely nothing"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." -- G.K. Chesterton, noted Catholic and Christian apologist. Logical proofs are merely restatements of the postulates, in different words.
Well if that's not projection I don't know what is. Bien, denying evolution at this point is a mere step away from affirming the geocentric model. And I don't think learned experts who dedicate years to research should be dismissed as "the masses."Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
On one hand we have thousands of biologists with phds who've gathered mounds of evidence, and on the other we have you.
Some of the eye witness accounts in the bible have been discredited. Some were stories taken from pagans. Most were taken from Judaism. Many Jews stated over and over that these were fables used to raise children with decent morals. Fables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Where are the eye witness accounts today? Dead people don't testify. Would a person claiming to be a prophet be taken seriously in a court of law today? Absolutely not. People lie. People write stories. People attempt to collect followers for personal and financial gain.
Read my other posts. My eye witness account of a pimped out Jesus sounds like nonsense, right? I certainly hope no one turns my nonsense into a religion.
Bottom line, theism does not HAVE to be believed. It is an attack to attempt to deny atheists the freedom to shun your fantasies.
Ah, but God could be very powerfully impossible, contradictory, and anything you'd like in existence and being. Are you blind? Don't you see that everyday? I think you are still trying to be funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
I didn't suggest that eye witness accounts were proof, but that they constitute "evidence".Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Let me ask you: Would you believe your own eyes?
I usually call him Jesupiter because of the unmistakable parallel with Socrates, although the latter occurred under the hegemony of an Olympian state. Crucifixion was not popular; hemlock was the menace. In those days the magnum testament farts still came from oracles. Jesupiter could not apologize to the state because the state makes him appear as God in a man’s form. But, like Socrates, Jesupiter marches voluntarily to trial and the cross, equivalent to the hemlock but more violent and public.
There was however a problem with responsibility regarding Socrates. For what God of the Olympian collection could have taken the authorship of his creation? Well, there was the chief, Jupiter, but he did not have absolute authority. So the ultimate responsibility for the assassination of Socrates had to be taken by the state. That was not a pleasant aspect of the divine comedy of the day, and it was not effective torture in the satirical makeup of propositions. It was necessary for the state to pass judgment.
Then came the conquest of the Jews and the study of their religion. They had been able to postulate messianic democracy and had been able to sell it well. The result was a civilization superior to anyone previously undertaken by any state. The Romans figured that if the Jews were able to sell the possible coming, they should be able to sell the actual one. The difference between Socrates and the new guest was that the latter was an act of God the father. And he was sold as God the son.
Master Jesus had unsurpassable abilities. He could cure the paraplegics better than Oral Roberts, and even restore sight to the psychosomatic blind. He was not only a mustard seed that could move mountains, but also an expert in the dynamics of density. He was the first case to realize that density changed with impact. It is a mistake to think that he walked on water because there were unseen rocks under the surface. He could have done easily because he had x-ray vision far more advanced than Clark Kent. But he also had the ability to trot with supersonic speed, turning water into a firm wall without the use of some medium such as starch to make it denser before proceeding. He would have been better in travelling through swamps, and much faster than the Pygmies of the forests of Africa, as Isabel Allende depicted in her Forest of the Pygmies. No one could beat Jesus at anything, because no one went to the father except through him. No one could compete against him in any extraordinary event, not even marching voluntarily and superdignified to the cross.
There would have to be very convincing proof. Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I frequently believe my own eyes or, rather, I trust them when they're viewing things easily viewed by the whole of the world. Ocean waves, for example. I've seen them many times. I've felt the water and the push and pull of the sea. I've ridden on boats. The water has been photographed and filmed above and below. I don't think there are many people who would tell you that oceans don't exist.
There are many people who would tell you we have never seen god. In saying this, I'm not saying there isn't a god, but he didn't make himself known, he didn't tell us who to hate and who to love and how to live. If he had, he still could. He could come back and give us refresher courses that would fit our changing world.
See "The Tree of Life" movie if you want to better understand that stories of man, while very special, are too small to be relevant to our universal situation. It made me want to be more kind to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No she's not. You posted pictures of stones that were supposed to be compelling evidence, and when people pointed out that they were false, you either outright ignored them, or said they were wrong and should prove it, even though you're the one that posted the pictures. And then you blab about people needing to post good evidence for evolution when all you've done is posted a link to an underwhelming video and pictures of fraudulent stones. It's laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Except when it comes to Jesus, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
And the first ad hominem goes to . . . BienvenuJDC! :hurray: Bravo, sir!Quote:
I bet that you would have joined with the flat earth and the geocentric people if you lived in that time....yeah, you seem the type.
"Tree of Life", was far from suggesting that "stories of man, while very special, are too small to be relevant to our universal situation." I would say that "Tree of Life" suggested that stories of man are both very special and revealing of universal truths.
The first? I don't think so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Oh, and I posted the pics, others made undocumented claims that they weren't authentic. Is it my responsibility to verify their claim? Again...I don't think so...