Is God real?

snipped

Post by Bill
Why does he permit a non believer like me to continue to enjoy a happy and
prosperous life while punishing many believers with serious diseases,
handicaps and early death? Where is there ANY objective evidence that
believers live any longer, healthier, wealthier or enjoyable lives?
It would seem there is no god that mets out punishments and rewards in any
fair or reasonable manner.
The evidence is rather strong that god does not exist; that god did not
create man but that man created god.
Bill

The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Al Klein

2004-12-18 04:30:20 UTC

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Almost as mysteriously as a god that didn't exist.

--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->

2004-12-18 05:32:31 UTC

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Or sometimes the words "blah, blah, blah" serve them for an answer.
However, there is no evidence that God does not exist, at least none
beyond circumstantial evidence. It is philosophically impossible to
prove a negative. It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com

Denis Loubet

2004-12-18 08:37:00 UTC

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30 foot dragon
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move mountains, then that god
doesn't exist.

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to exist, then
that's disconfirming evidence.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Rump Ranger

2004-12-18 12:30:31 UTC

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30 foot dragon
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

What if the dragon is invisible? Proving an *existential* negative is
virtually impossible (not necessarily philosophically). Negatives can
be proven in mathematics and maybe on small very specific claims (like
yours), but when you're talking about whether such a thing exists in
the whole universe (or even outside of it), you're not going to be able
to do it unless you claim you know *everything.*

Hence, why it's impossible to prove a supreme being outside creation
doesn't exist.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move mountains, then that god
doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous "test." What if praying for something specific is
something that god ignores? I've met a lot of Christians and Buddhists
who told me they pray not for things or specific tasks, but rather to
feel better or feel more in tune with the universe. They claim it
works. It's not that prayer "can't move mountains" (why would a
supreme being with all that entails do requests which are little more
than demands from lesser beings) which has me lacking faith in a
Christian God. It's that the Bible is logically incoherent and that a
God which allows the suffering of it's people for appearently no reason
can't be IMO a good being worth praying to.

YMMV, of course.

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to exist, then
that's disconfirming evidence.

To quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of proof is not proof of absence."
You're making a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance, which cuts
two ways:

1. That because we can't prove a thing doesn't exist, it must exist.
2. That because we can't prove a thing does exist, it can't exist.

Heretic is correct. It's accurate to say there is no credible evidence
to suggest that God exists.

Denis Loubet

2004-12-19 00:08:59 UTC

Post by bbb
wrote in

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh,

soon

Post by SM
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Or sometimes the words "blah, blah, blah" serve them for an answer.
However, there is no evidence that God does not exist, at least

none

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
beyond circumstantial evidence. It is philosophically impossible

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
prove a negative.

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30 foot

dragon

Post by Denis Loubet
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

What if the dragon is invisible?

Did I say it was? No? Then that's not part of the scenario, is it?

Post by bbb
Proving an *existential* negative is
virtually impossible (not necessarily philosophically).

I can prove to you no *NON-INVISIBLE* 30 foot dragon exists in my garage.
Just take a look.

Post by bbb
Negatives can
be proven in mathematics and maybe on small very specific claims (like
yours),

So now you're agreeing that negatives can be proven, right?

Science falsifies a hypothesis if observations are not congruent with the
hypothesis. Science cannot be certain that a theory is correct since future
data can always overturn it, but it CAN be certain that a given hypothesis
is wrong if the facts don't support it.

The bible presents a plethora of very specific claims that can be falsified.

Post by bbb
but when you're talking about whether such a thing exists in
the whole universe (or even outside of it), you're not going to be able
to do it unless you claim you know *everything.*

No. You're wrong. If, for instance, followers are supposed to be able to
drink poison without ill effect, and they can't, then that specific god does
not exist. Period. Some other god could still exist, one that does not make
that promise, or one that applies conditions to it, but not the one that
made the promise as stated.

Post by bbb
Hence, why it's impossible to prove a supreme being outside creation
doesn't exist.

That's only the case if no claims are made that can be tested.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move mountains, then

that god

Post by Denis Loubet
doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous "test."

Why?

Post by bbb
What if praying for something specific is
something that god ignores?

Then the specific god that answers specific prayers as claimed does not
exist. Some other god that applies conditions to it's promise might exist,
but not the one that made the claim as stated.

Post by bbb
I've met a lot of Christians and Buddhists
who told me they pray not for things or specific tasks, but rather to
feel better or feel more in tune with the universe.

Irrelevant. If the specific god in question says you can move a mountain by
prayer, and you can't, then that specific god does not exist.

Post by bbb
They claim it
works. It's not that prayer "can't move mountains" (why would a
supreme being with all that entails do requests which are little more
than demands from lesser beings)

Because it said it would by issuing the promise.

Post by bbb
which has me lacking faith in a
Christian God. It's that the Bible is logically incoherent and that a
God which allows the suffering of it's people for appearently no reason
can't be IMO a good being worth praying to.

Granted.

Post by bbb
YMMV, of course.

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to

exist, then

Post by Denis Loubet
that's disconfirming evidence.

To quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Nothing says Carl can't be wrong. Are you going to insist that I might still
have a 30 foot *NON-INVISIBLE* dragon in my garage even if you look in my
garage and see no sign of one? That seems rather silly.

Post by bbb
You're making a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance, which cuts
1. That because we can't prove a thing doesn't exist, it must exist.
2. That because we can't prove a thing does exist, it can't exist.

I've never said either of those things.

Post by bbb
Heretic is correct. It's accurate to say there is no credible evidence
to suggest that God exists.

And there's no credible evidence that I don't have a 30 foot *NON-INVISIBLE*
dragon in my garage?

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Rump Ranger

2004-12-19 05:33:36 UTC

Post by bbb
wrote in

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:07:01 GMT, "SM"

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh,

soon

Post by SM
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Or sometimes the words "blah, blah, blah" serve them for an answer.
However, there is no evidence that God does not exist, at least

none

beyond circumstantial evidence. It is philosophically

impossible

Post by bbb
to

prove a negative.

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30 foot

dragon

Post by Denis Loubet
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

What if the dragon is invisible?

Did I say it was? No? Then that's not part of the scenario, is it?

You didn't say he was visible either.

Be more specific, please.

Post by bbb
Proving an *existential* negative is
virtually impossible (not necessarily philosophically).

I can prove to you no *NON-INVISIBLE* 30 foot dragon exists in my garage.
Just take a look.

It's a very small specific claim. Not an existential one involving the
universe or beyond.

Post by bbb
Negatives can
be proven in mathematics and maybe on small very specific claims (like
yours),

So now you're agreeing that negatives can be proven, right?

In some limited cases, but your "argument" against Heretic is a
fallacy.

Post by Denis Loubet
Science falsifies a hypothesis if observations are not congruent with the
hypothesis. Science cannot be certain that a theory is correct since future
data can always overturn it, but it CAN be certain that a given hypothesis
is wrong if the facts don't support it.
The bible presents a plethora of very specific claims that can be falsified.

Just means the Bible isn't literally true. Doesn't mean "God doesn't
exist."

Post by bbb
but when you're talking about whether such a thing exists in
the whole universe (or even outside of it), you're not going to be able
to do it unless you claim you know *everything.*

Depends. The God of the Bible is whatever the Roman Catholic church
and the ancient Hebrews says it is. Afterall, they purged anything
they didn't agree with. That just means the followers are believing
the wrong things, not necessarily said God doesn't exist.

Post by bbb
Hence, why it's impossible to prove a supreme being outside

creation

Post by bbb
doesn't exist.

That's only the case if no claims are made that can be tested.

Some do make claims that can be tested.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move mountains, then

that god

Post by Denis Loubet
doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous "test."

Why?

I already said why.

Post by bbb
What if praying for something specific is
something that god ignores?

Then the specific god that answers specific prayers as claimed does not
exist. Some other god that applies conditions to it's promise might exist,
but not the one that made the claim as stated.

AFAIK, the Bible is written in the third person (rather than the first
person perspective of the Qu'ran). It's entirely logical to believe
the Bible was written by human hands and said God had nothing to do
with it.

Post by bbb
I've met a lot of Christians and Buddhists
who told me they pray not for things or specific tasks, but rather to
feel better or feel more in tune with the universe.

Irrelevant. If the specific god in question says you can move a mountain by
prayer, and you can't, then that specific god does not exist.

It's not "irrelevant" if said Christian doesn't believe the Bible is
inerrant and must be taken Sola Scriptora.

Post by bbb
They claim it
works. It's not that prayer "can't move mountains" (why would a
supreme being with all that entails do requests which are little more
than demands from lesser beings)

Because it said it would by issuing the promise.

It's a self-serving promise that the faithful would like to believe,
don't you think? Why would a supreme being give into the demands of a
lesser one?

Granted.

Post by bbb
YMMV, of course.

It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to

exist, then

Post by Denis Loubet
that's disconfirming evidence.

To quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of proof is not proof of

absence."

Post by Denis Loubet
Nothing says Carl can't be wrong. Are you going to insist that I might still
have a 30 foot *NON-INVISIBLE* dragon in my garage even if you look in my
garage and see no sign of one? That seems rather silly.

I never said Carl Sagan can't be wrong. In this case, he's just taking
the more accurate and logical stance.

I've never said either of those things.

Post by bbb
Heretic is correct. It's accurate to say there is no credible evidence
to suggest that God exists.

And there's no credible evidence that I don't have a 30 foot

*NON-INVISIBLE*

Post by Denis Loubet
dragon in my garage?

I'm not in your garage. All I have is your word for it which would
rely on me having faith that you're telling the truth.

Denis Loubet

2004-12-19 22:52:10 UTC

Post by bbb
wrote in

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:07:01 GMT, "SM"

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a

sigh,

Post by bbb
soon

Post by SM
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Or sometimes the words "blah, blah, blah" serve them for an

answer.

However, there is no evidence that God does not exist, at least

none

beyond circumstantial evidence. It is philosophically

impossible

Post by bbb
to

prove a negative.

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30

foot

Post by bbb
dragon

Post by Denis Loubet
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

What if the dragon is invisible?

Did I say it was? No? Then that's not part of the scenario, is it?

You didn't say he was visible either.
Be more specific, please.

Yeah, sure. It was just your transparent attempt to avoid the point.

Post by bbb
Proving an *existential* negative is
virtually impossible (not necessarily philosophically).

I can prove to you no *NON-INVISIBLE* 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
Just take a look.

It's a very small specific claim.

The size of the claim is irrelevant. It disproves the claim that it's
impossible to prove negatives.

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
Not an existential one involving the
universe or beyond.

It's a small existential claim. It disproves your bogus rule. I note that
you demand that I be more specific, yet your claim that negatives are
impossible to prove specifies no size or jurisdiction.

There's a word to describe those that criticize in others what they
themselves do, and you're treading on its heels.

I fail to see what "the universe or beyond" has to do with anything
concerning the point being made.

Post by bbb
Negatives can
be proven in mathematics and maybe on small very specific claims

(like

Post by bbb
yours),

So now you're agreeing that negatives can be proven, right?

In some limited cases, but your "argument" against Heretic is a
fallacy.

So your answer to my question would be a yes. Excellent.

Now we can start disproving the existence of specific gods.

Post by Denis Loubet
Science falsifies a hypothesis if observations are not congruent with

the

Post by Denis Loubet
hypothesis. Science cannot be certain that a theory is correct since

future

Post by Denis Loubet
data can always overturn it, but it CAN be certain that a given

hypothesis

Post by Denis Loubet
is wrong if the facts don't support it.
The bible presents a plethora of very specific claims that can be

falsified.
Just means the Bible isn't literally true. Doesn't mean "God doesn't
exist."

It means the god AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE doesn't exist. You are agreeing
with that when you agree the bible isn't literally true.

Interesting, that's a view we share.

Post by bbb
but when you're talking about whether such a thing exists in
the whole universe (or even outside of it), you're not going to be

able

Post by bbb
to do it unless you claim you know *everything.*

No. You're wrong. If, for instance, followers are supposed to be able

Post by Denis Loubet
drink poison without ill effect, and they can't, then that specific

god does

Post by Denis Loubet
not exist. Period. Some other god could still exist, one that does

not make

Post by Denis Loubet
that promise, or one that applies conditions to it, but not the one

that

Post by Denis Loubet
made the promise as stated.

Depends.

No. No dependency. Brutal logic.

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
The God of the Bible is whatever the Roman Catholic church
and the ancient Hebrews says it is. Afterall, they purged anything
they didn't agree with. That just means the followers are believing
the wrong things, not necessarily said God doesn't exist.

This is irrelevant. It means the god AS DESCRIBED doesn't exist. A god of a
different description may exist, however unlikely that may be.

Post by bbb
Hence, why it's impossible to prove a supreme being outside

creation

Post by bbb
doesn't exist.

That's only the case if no claims are made that can be tested.

Some do make claims that can be tested.

And those can be disproved depending on the results of the test.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move mountains,

then

Post by bbb
that god

Post by Denis Loubet
doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous "test."

Why?

I already said why.

No. You've said I can't disprove gods in general, but you have not explained
why I can't disprove specific gods. You've already agreed that negatives can
be proved, and that some gods make claims that can be tested. Thus some
specific gods can be disproven depending on the results of the test.

The prayer can move mountains experiment is just an example. There are other
claims in the bible that can be tested. If, on the chance, that all the
claims fail their tests, will you excuse them all by the claim that the
bible is not literally true?

Couldn't that be considered a dishonest catch-all ad hoc excuse applied
after the fact to protect a preconceived conclusion?

Post by bbb
What if praying for something specific is
something that god ignores?

Then the specific god that answers specific prayers as claimed does

not

Post by Denis Loubet
exist. Some other god that applies conditions to it's promise might

exist,

Post by Denis Loubet
but not the one that made the claim as stated.

This is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the god AS DESCRIBED.

Post by bbb
I've met a lot of Christians and Buddhists
who told me they pray not for things or specific tasks, but rather

Post by bbb
feel better or feel more in tune with the universe.

Irrelevant. If the specific god in question says you can move a

mountain by

Post by Denis Loubet
prayer, and you can't, then that specific god does not exist.

It's not "irrelevant" if said Christian doesn't believe the Bible is
inerrant and must be taken Sola Scriptora.

The belief of the Christian is utterly irrelevant. The god that keeps its
word, and is described as making a blanket statement that prayer can move
mountains, cannot exist if prayer cannot move mountains. Period.

Another different definition of god may accurately describe a god that may
actually exist. But not that one.

Post by bbb
They claim it
works. It's not that prayer "can't move mountains" (why would a
supreme being with all that entails do requests which are little

Post by bbb
than demands from lesser beings)

Because it said it would by issuing the promise.

It's a self-serving promise that the faithful would like to believe,
don't you think? Why would a supreme being give into the demands of a
lesser one?

The motives of the god or it's followers are irrelevant. If it's said to
keep its word, and then is said to issue promises that are not kept, then
that's a direct contradiction, and a god of that description does not exist.
It's simple logic. The sets don't intersect.

Now this does not disprove a god described as making promises it does not
intend to keep. That god may actually exist.

Post by bbb
which has me lacking faith in a
Christian God. It's that the Bible is logically incoherent and

that a

Post by bbb
God which allows the suffering of it's people for appearently no

reason

Post by bbb
can't be IMO a good being worth praying to.

Granted.

Post by bbb
YMMV, of course.

It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to

exist, then

Post by Denis Loubet
that's disconfirming evidence.

To quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of proof is not proof of

absence."

Post by Denis Loubet
Nothing says Carl can't be wrong. Are you going to insist that I

might still

Post by Denis Loubet
have a 30 foot *NON-INVISIBLE* dragon in my garage even if you look

in my

Post by Denis Loubet
garage and see no sign of one? That seems rather silly.

I never said Carl Sagan can't be wrong. In this case, he's just taking
the more accurate and logical stance.

Which you fail to defend with logic. You continually dodge my dragon example
with ad hoc conditions and feeble excuses.

Post by bbb
You're making a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance, which

cuts

Post by bbb
1. That because we can't prove a thing doesn't exist, it must

exist.

Post by bbb
2. That because we can't prove a thing does exist, it can't exist.

I've never said either of those things.

Post by bbb
Heretic is correct. It's accurate to say there is no credible

evidence

Post by bbb
to suggest that God exists.

And there's no credible evidence that I don't have a 30 foot

*NON-INVISIBLE*

Post by Denis Loubet
dragon in my garage?

I'm not in your garage. All I have is your word for it which would
rely on me having faith that you're telling the truth.

This is a feeble and transparent excuse to dodge my analogy by pretending
it's not a hypothetical. Please address the point.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 16:38:56 UTC

<nospam#^%&%------------->

Post by bbb
wrote in

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:07:01 GMT, "SM"

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a

sigh,

Post by bbb
soon

Post by SM
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Or sometimes the words "blah, blah, blah" serve them for an

answer.

However, there is no evidence that God does not exist, at least

none

beyond circumstantial evidence. It is philosophically

impossible

Post by bbb
to

prove a negative.

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30

foot

Post by bbb
dragon

Post by Denis Loubet
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

What if the dragon is invisible?

Did I say it was? No? Then that's not part of the scenario, is it?

You didn't say he was visible either.
Be more specific, please.

Yeah, sure. It was just your transparent attempt to avoid the point.

Nonsense. I was just pointing out that invisbility of said dragon was
possible why I couldn't see it.

Don't blame me for your lack of accuracy.

Post by bbb
Proving an *existential* negative is
virtually impossible (not necessarily philosophically).

I can prove to you no *NON-INVISIBLE* 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
Just take a look.

It's a very small specific claim.

The size of the claim is irrelevant. It disproves the claim that it's
impossible to prove negatives.

Heretic never said it was impossible to prove a negative in general.
He said it was impossible to disprove an existential negative (maybe
not outright, but that's *obviously* what he meant).

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
Not an existential one involving the
universe or beyond.

It's a small existential claim. It disproves your bogus rule. I note that
you demand that I be more specific, yet your claim that negatives are
impossible to prove specifies no size or jurisdiction.

You're coming close to gross dishonesty here. I never said negatives
were impossible to prove (I specifically pointed out it can be done in
mathematics and in small, specific claims).

Post by Denis Loubet
There's a word to describe those that criticize in others what they
themselves do, and you're treading on its heels.

If I was doing what you accuse me, which I'm not. I'll chalk this one
up to your lack of attention to detail. Next time you'll dispel all
doubt in my mind about your character (you're being corrected here
about what I've actually claimed).

Post by Denis Loubet
I fail to see what "the universe or beyond" has to do with anything
concerning the point being made.

That existential negatives are impossible to prove (BTW- your example
is not an existential negative in the true sense- just because the 30
foot dragon doesn't sit in your garage *doesn't* mean you can prove
it's non-existence in the universe at large).

An existential claim is saying something exists. Period. It's
impossible to prove a negative in that regard unless you know
*everything.*

Post by bbb
Negatives can
be proven in mathematics and maybe on small very specific claims

(like

Post by bbb
yours),

So now you're agreeing that negatives can be proven, right?

In some limited cases, but your "argument" against Heretic is a
fallacy.

So your answer to my question would be a yes. Excellent.

Seeing as how I never said you can't prove negatives, you're
disintegrating *fast.*

I said *existential* negatives.

Pay attention, please.

Post by Denis Loubet
Now we can start disproving the existence of specific gods.

Post by Denis Loubet
Science falsifies a hypothesis if observations are not congruent with

the

Post by Denis Loubet
hypothesis. Science cannot be certain that a theory is correct since

future

Post by Denis Loubet
data can always overturn it, but it CAN be certain that a given

hypothesis

Post by Denis Loubet
is wrong if the facts don't support it.
The bible presents a plethora of very specific claims that can be

falsified.
Just means the Bible isn't literally true. Doesn't mean "God doesn't
exist."

It means the god AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE doesn't exist. You are agreeing
with that when you agree the bible isn't literally true.
Interesting, that's a view we share.

Indeed. I never claimed otherwise.

Post by bbb
but when you're talking about whether such a thing exists in
the whole universe (or even outside of it), you're not going to be

able

Post by bbb
to do it unless you claim you know *everything.*

No. You're wrong. If, for instance, followers are supposed to be able

Post by Denis Loubet
drink poison without ill effect, and they can't, then that

specific

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
god does

Post by Denis Loubet
not exist. Period. Some other god could still exist, one that does

not make

Post by Denis Loubet
that promise, or one that applies conditions to it, but not the one

that

Post by Denis Loubet
made the promise as stated.

Depends.

No. No dependency. Brutal logic.

No "logic" if you're not taking all possiblities into account.

believing

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
the wrong things, not necessarily said God doesn't exist.

This is irrelevant. It means the god AS DESCRIBED doesn't exist. A god of a
different description may exist, however unlikely that may be.

That's my whole point.

Post by bbb
Hence, why it's impossible to prove a supreme being outside

creation

Post by bbb
doesn't exist.

That's only the case if no claims are made that can be tested.

Some do make claims that can be tested.

And those can be disproved depending on the results of the test.

Depends on how you conduct said tests.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move

mountains,

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
then

Post by bbb
that god

Post by Denis Loubet
doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous "test."

Why?

I already said why.

No. You've said I can't disprove gods in general, but you have not explained
why I can't disprove specific gods. You've already agreed that

negatives can

Post by Denis Loubet
be proved, and that some gods make claims that can be tested. Thus some
specific gods can be disproven depending on the results of the test.

First of all, I'd like to see evidence that some gods actually made
claims. The *believers* of said gods make claims, but I don't really
know (or believe) said gods themselves make claims.

Post by Denis Loubet
The prayer can move mountains experiment is just an example. There are other
claims in the bible that can be tested. If, on the chance, that all the
claims fail their tests, will you excuse them all by the claim that the
bible is not literally true?

It all depends on if the Bible is written by God (highly unlikely). It
was written by followers (it's in the third person for the most part)
so it just means the believers made ridiculous claims.

Post by Denis Loubet
Couldn't that be considered a dishonest catch-all ad hoc excuse applied
after the fact to protect a preconceived conclusion?

Depends on how you want to take it.

Post by bbb
What if praying for something specific is
something that god ignores?

Then the specific god that answers specific prayers as claimed does

not

Post by Denis Loubet
exist. Some other god that applies conditions to it's promise might

exist,

Post by Denis Loubet
but not the one that made the claim as stated.

AFAIK, the Bible is written in the third person (rather than the first
person perspective of the Qu'ran). It's entirely logical to

believe

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
the Bible was written by human hands and said God had nothing to do
with it.

This is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the god AS

DESCRIBED.
By the followers, not the god itself.

Post by bbb
I've met a lot of Christians and Buddhists
who told me they pray not for things or specific tasks, but rather

Post by bbb
feel better or feel more in tune with the universe.

Irrelevant. If the specific god in question says you can move a

mountain by

Post by Denis Loubet
prayer, and you can't, then that specific god does not exist.

It's not "irrelevant" if said Christian doesn't believe the Bible is
inerrant and must be taken Sola Scriptora.

The belief of the Christian is utterly irrelevant. The god that keeps its
word, and is described as making a blanket statement that prayer can move
mountains, cannot exist if prayer cannot move mountains. Period.
Another different definition of god may accurately describe a god that may
actually exist. But not that one.

Only if said Christian reads the Bible as literally as you do (which
most don't BTW). Heck, most Christians don't even bother to read the
Bible in the first place.

Post by bbb
They claim it
works. It's not that prayer "can't move mountains" (why would a
supreme being with all that entails do requests which are little

Post by bbb
than demands from lesser beings)

Because it said it would by issuing the promise.

It's a self-serving promise that the faithful would like to

believe,

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
don't you think? Why would a supreme being give into the demands of a
lesser one?

It's only if "prayer can move mountains" at the merest whim of the
believer, which I don't recall ever seeing in the Bible (I recall a lot
of miracles, but never seeing anything about every prayer getting
instant gratification).

Post by Denis Loubet
Now this does not disprove a god described as making promises it does not
intend to keep. That god may actually exist.

Could be metaphor too.

Post by bbb
which has me lacking faith in a
Christian God. It's that the Bible is logically incoherent and

that a

Post by bbb
God which allows the suffering of it's people for appearently no

reason

Post by bbb
can't be IMO a good being worth praying to.

Granted.

Post by bbb
YMMV, of course.

It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to

exist, then

Post by Denis Loubet
that's disconfirming evidence.

To quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of proof is not proof of

absence."

Post by Denis Loubet
Nothing says Carl can't be wrong. Are you going to insist that I

might still

Post by Denis Loubet
have a 30 foot *NON-INVISIBLE* dragon in my garage even if you look

in my

Post by Denis Loubet
garage and see no sign of one? That seems rather silly.

I never said Carl Sagan can't be wrong. In this case, he's just taking
the more accurate and logical stance.

Which you fail to defend with logic. You continually dodge my dragon example
with ad hoc conditions and feeble excuses.

It's because you're not thinking with your dragon example. Heretic was
talking about *existential* negatives. To bring up irrelevant examples
is pointless. You could just as easily brought up negatives being
proven in mathematics, but it would be just as either dishonest and/or
irrelevant to his post.

Post by bbb
You're making a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance, which

cuts

Post by bbb
1. That because we can't prove a thing doesn't exist, it must

exist.

Post by bbb
2. That because we can't prove a thing does exist, it can't exist.

I've never said either of those things.

Post by bbb
Heretic is correct. It's accurate to say there is no credible

evidence

Post by bbb
to suggest that God exists.

And there's no credible evidence that I don't have a 30 foot

*NON-INVISIBLE*

Post by Denis Loubet
dragon in my garage?

I'm not in your garage. All I have is your word for it which would
rely on me having faith that you're telling the truth.

This is a feeble and transparent excuse to dodge my analogy by

pretending

Post by Denis Loubet
it's not a hypothetical. Please address the point.

Given how you so horribly *missed* his point, why should I address your
irrelevancy in any fashion other than what it is?

Denis Loubet

2004-12-22 20:05:03 UTC

Post by Meteorite Debris
<nospam#^%&%------------->

Post by bbb
wrote in

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:07:01 GMT, "SM"

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
sigh,

Post by bbb
soon

Post by SM
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Or sometimes the words "blah, blah, blah" serve them for an

answer.

However, there is no evidence that God does not exist, at

least

Post by bbb
none

beyond circumstantial evidence. It is philosophically

impossible

Post by bbb
to

prove a negative.

Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
foot

Post by bbb
dragon

Post by Denis Loubet
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

What if the dragon is invisible?

Did I say it was? No? Then that's not part of the scenario, is

it?

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
You didn't say he was visible either.
Be more specific, please.

Yeah, sure. It was just your transparent attempt to avoid the point.

Nonsense. I was just pointing out that invisbility of said dragon was
possible why I couldn't see it.

Still avoiding the point I see.

Post by Meteorite Debris
Don't blame me for your lack of accuracy.

If I had said I was trying to disprove an INVISIBLE dragon in my garage,
then your complaint would be valid, but I didn't, so your complaint is
bullshit.

You're still dodging the point.

Post by bbb
Proving an *existential* negative is
virtually impossible (not necessarily philosophically).

I can prove to you no *NON-INVISIBLE* 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
Just take a look.

It's a very small specific claim.

The size of the claim is irrelevant. It disproves the claim that it's
impossible to prove negatives.

Heretic never said it was impossible to prove a negative in general.

He said: "It is philosophically impossible to prove a negative."

I'd say that's the very essence of unconditional, wouldn't you? Specific or
general, he's saying it's impossible.

Allow me to quote you: "I'll chalk this one up to your lack of attention to
detail."

Post by Meteorite Debris
He said it was impossible to disprove an existential negative (maybe
not outright, but that's *obviously* what he meant).

Allow me to quote you: "Don't blame me for your lack of accuracy."

The existential claim is a 30 foot dragon exists in my garage. The common
definition of dragon is understood to be big, scaley, often fire-breathing,
and not invisible. The existential claim can be proved or disproved by a
simple glance inside the garage.

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
Not an existential one involving the
universe or beyond.

It's a small existential claim. It disproves your bogus rule. I note

that

Post by Denis Loubet
you demand that I be more specific, yet your claim that negatives are
impossible to prove specifies no size or jurisdiction.

You're coming close to gross dishonesty here. I never said negatives
were impossible to prove (I specifically pointed out it can be done in
mathematics and in small, specific claims).

Well, since you appeared to be defending Heretic, I naturally assumed you
agreed with his position. My mistake.

Post by Denis Loubet
There's a word to describe those that criticize in others what they
themselves do, and you're treading on its heels.

You seemed to be arguing against me, so I assumed you were taking a contrary
position.

Post by Denis Loubet
I fail to see what "the universe or beyond" has to do with anything
concerning the point being made.

That existential negatives are impossible to prove

What? Now you're saying they ARE impossible to prove?

Post by Meteorite Debris
(BTW- your example
is not an existential negative in the true sense- just because the 30
foot dragon doesn't sit in your garage *doesn't* mean you can prove
it's non-existence in the universe at large).

The existential claim is a 30 foot dragon in my garage. Since I have no
other garage in the universe, you only have to look in the one I have to
determine if the dragon in my garage exists or not. The universe at large is
irrelevant to this existential claim.

I fail to see what the universe at large has to do with existential
negatives anyway. I suppose general claims like a planet made of cheese
would be difficult to disprove given no further information, but if you said
the cheese planet was orbiting earth's moon at a distance of 100 km above
the surface, then suddenly the existential claim is easy to prove or
disprove.

I don't understand why additional information is suddenly supposed to turn
an existential claim into something else, it only affects the difficulty of
proving or disproving the claim.

Besides, a Christian who believes God is omniscient can't make the claim
that negatives are impossible to prove since he's already positing a being
who CAN inspect the whole universe to prove or disprove the claim.

Post by Meteorite Debris
An existential claim is saying something exists. Period.

Why? Why does specifying a location suddenly make the claim non-existential?
Both the dragon and garage are part of a single existential claim, as far as
I'm concerned.

Post by Meteorite Debris
It's
impossible to prove a negative in that regard unless you know
*everything.*

So, is it philosophically impossible to know everything?

Post by bbb
Negatives can
be proven in mathematics and maybe on small very specific

claims

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
(like

Post by bbb
yours),

So now you're agreeing that negatives can be proven, right?

In some limited cases, but your "argument" against Heretic is a
fallacy.

So your answer to my question would be a yes. Excellent.

Seeing as how I never said you can't prove negatives, you're
disintegrating *fast.*

Huh? No, I'm just stating things for the record.

Post by Meteorite Debris
I said *existential* negatives.

Yeah, I heard.

Post by Meteorite Debris
Pay attention, please.

Uh huh.

Post by Denis Loubet
Now we can start disproving the existence of specific gods.

Post by Denis Loubet
Science falsifies a hypothesis if observations are not congruent

with

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
the

Post by Denis Loubet
hypothesis. Science cannot be certain that a theory is correct

since

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
future

Post by Denis Loubet
data can always overturn it, but it CAN be certain that a given

hypothesis

Post by Denis Loubet
is wrong if the facts don't support it.
The bible presents a plethora of very specific claims that can be

falsified.
Just means the Bible isn't literally true. Doesn't mean "God

doesn't

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
exist."

It means the god AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE doesn't exist. You are

agreeing

Post by Denis Loubet
with that when you agree the bible isn't literally true.
Interesting, that's a view we share.

Indeed. I never claimed otherwise.

Excellent.

Post by bbb
but when you're talking about whether such a thing exists in
the whole universe (or even outside of it), you're not going to

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
able

Post by bbb
to do it unless you claim you know *everything.*

No. You're wrong. If, for instance, followers are supposed to be

able

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
to

Post by Denis Loubet
drink poison without ill effect, and they can't, then that

specific

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
god does

Post by Denis Loubet
not exist. Period. Some other god could still exist, one that

does

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
not make

Post by Denis Loubet
that promise, or one that applies conditions to it, but not the

one

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
that

Post by Denis Loubet
made the promise as stated.

Depends.

No. No dependency. Brutal logic.

No "logic" if you're not taking all possiblities into account.

What other possibilities?

believing

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
the wrong things, not necessarily said God doesn't exist.

This is irrelevant. It means the god AS DESCRIBED doesn't exist. A

god of a

Post by Denis Loubet
different description may exist, however unlikely that may be.

That's my whole point.

What is? That I'm not disproving all gods? I never said I could disprove all
gods.

Post by bbb
Hence, why it's impossible to prove a supreme being outside

creation

Post by bbb
doesn't exist.

That's only the case if no claims are made that can be tested.

Some do make claims that can be tested.

And those can be disproved depending on the results of the test.

Depends on how you conduct said tests.

Sure.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's the same with god claims. If prayer can't move

mountains,

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
then

Post by bbb
that god

Post by Denis Loubet
doesn't exist.

That's a ridiculous "test."

Why?

I already said why.

No. You've said I can't disprove gods in general, but you have not

explained

Post by Denis Loubet
why I can't disprove specific gods. You've already agreed that

negatives can

Post by Denis Loubet
be proved, and that some gods make claims that can be tested. Thus

some

Post by Denis Loubet
specific gods can be disproven depending on the results of the test.

First of all, I'd like to see evidence that some gods actually made
claims. The *believers* of said gods make claims, but I don't really
know (or believe) said gods themselves make claims.

Sigh. Yes, you can be obscurantic and pedantic. You've already demonstrated
these qualities.

Unlike you, I'm sure the other readers know exactly what I mean.

Post by Denis Loubet
The prayer can move mountains experiment is just an example. There

are other

Post by Denis Loubet
claims in the bible that can be tested. If, on the chance, that all

the

Post by Denis Loubet
claims fail their tests, will you excuse them all by the claim that

the

Post by Denis Loubet
bible is not literally true?

It all depends on if the Bible is written by God (highly unlikely). It
was written by followers (it's in the third person for the most part)
so it just means the believers made ridiculous claims.

Yes, and we can disprove those claims, and thus disprove that description of
god.

Post by Denis Loubet
Couldn't that be considered a dishonest catch-all ad hoc excuse

applied

Post by Denis Loubet
after the fact to protect a preconceived conclusion?

Depends on how you want to take it.

Granted.

Post by bbb
What if praying for something specific is
something that god ignores?

Then the specific god that answers specific prayers as claimed

does

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
not

Post by Denis Loubet
exist. Some other god that applies conditions to it's promise

might

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
exist,

Post by Denis Loubet
but not the one that made the claim as stated.

AFAIK, the Bible is written in the third person (rather than the

first

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
person perspective of the Qu'ran). It's entirely logical to

believe

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
the Bible was written by human hands and said God had nothing to do
with it.

This is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the god AS

DESCRIBED.
By the followers, not the god itself.

Irrelevant. We are disproving that description of the god. If we succeed,
then that god cannot exist.

Post by bbb
I've met a lot of Christians and Buddhists
who told me they pray not for things or specific tasks, but

rather

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
to

Post by bbb
feel better or feel more in tune with the universe.

Irrelevant. If the specific god in question says you can move a

mountain by

Post by Denis Loubet
prayer, and you can't, then that specific god does not exist.

It's not "irrelevant" if said Christian doesn't believe the Bible

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
inerrant and must be taken Sola Scriptora.

The belief of the Christian is utterly irrelevant. The god that keeps

its

Post by Denis Loubet
word, and is described as making a blanket statement that prayer can

move

Post by Denis Loubet
mountains, cannot exist if prayer cannot move mountains. Period.
Another different definition of god may accurately describe a god

that may

Post by Denis Loubet
actually exist. But not that one.

Only if said Christian reads the Bible as literally as you do (which
most don't BTW). Heck, most Christians don't even bother to read the
Bible in the first place.

Irrelevant. We have disproved that description of the god. That god cannot
exist.

Post by bbb
They claim it
works. It's not that prayer "can't move mountains" (why would

Post by bbb
supreme being with all that entails do requests which are

little

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
more

Post by bbb
than demands from lesser beings)

Because it said it would by issuing the promise.

It's a self-serving promise that the faithful would like to

believe,

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
don't you think? Why would a supreme being give into the demands

of a

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
lesser one?

The motives of the god or it's followers are irrelevant. If it's said

Post by Denis Loubet
keep its word, and then is said to issue promises that are not kept,

then

Post by Denis Loubet
that's a direct contradiction, and a god of that description does not

exist.

Post by Denis Loubet
It's simple logic. The sets don't intersect.

Irrelevant. The god described by the literal interpretation is disproved.

Post by Denis Loubet
Now this does not disprove a god described as making promises it does

not

Post by Denis Loubet
intend to keep. That god may actually exist.

Could be metaphor too.

We disproved the non-metaphorical interpretation. That god does not exist.

Post by bbb
which has me lacking faith in a
Christian God. It's that the Bible is logically incoherent and

that a

Post by bbb
God which allows the suffering of it's people for appearently

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
reason

Post by bbb
can't be IMO a good being worth praying to.

Granted.

Post by bbb
YMMV, of course.

It is more accurate to say that there is no
credible evidence to suggest that God exists.

If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were

Post by bbb
exist, then

Post by Denis Loubet
that's disconfirming evidence.

To quote Carl Sagan: "The absence of proof is not proof of

absence."

Post by Denis Loubet
Nothing says Carl can't be wrong. Are you going to insist that I

might still

Post by Denis Loubet
have a 30 foot *NON-INVISIBLE* dragon in my garage even if you

look

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
in my

Post by Denis Loubet
garage and see no sign of one? That seems rather silly.

I never said Carl Sagan can't be wrong. In this case, he's just

taking

Post by Heretic <nospam#^%&%------------->
the more accurate and logical stance.

Which you fail to defend with logic. You continually dodge my dragon

example

Post by Denis Loubet
with ad hoc conditions and feeble excuses.

It's because you're not thinking with your dragon example. Heretic was
talking about *existential* negatives.

I fail to see why the simple inclusion of location suddenly voids an
existential claim. The existence of the dragon in my garage depends on my
garage. Without the garage, the claim is altered.

Post by Meteorite Debris
To bring up irrelevant examples
is pointless. You could just as easily brought up negatives being
proven in mathematics, but it would be just as either dishonest and/or
irrelevant to his post.

If I claim earth exists, do we have to search the whole universe? No, we say
it exists because we already have location information and we only have to
look in one place, under our feet. So the dragon is in my garage, I'm only
including the same kind of locational information that we would apply to the
claim of earth existing. You only have to look in one place.

Post by bbb
You're making a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance, which

cuts

Post by bbb
1. That because we can't prove a thing doesn't exist, it must

exist.

Post by bbb
2. That because we can't prove a thing does exist, it can't

exist.

Post by Denis Loubet
I've never said either of those things.

Post by bbb
Heretic is correct. It's accurate to say there is no credible

evidence

Post by bbb
to suggest that God exists.

And there's no credible evidence that I don't have a 30 foot

*NON-INVISIBLE*

Post by Denis Loubet
dragon in my garage?

I'm not in your garage. All I have is your word for it which would
rely on me having faith that you're telling the truth.

This is a feeble and transparent excuse to dodge my analogy by

pretending

Post by Denis Loubet
it's not a hypothetical. Please address the point.

Given how you so horribly *missed* his point, why should I address your
irrelevancy in any fashion other than what it is?

Inability to address the point noted.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Heretic

2004-12-18 17:44:40 UTC

Post by Denis Loubet
If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to exist, then
that's disconfirming evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, certainly. I'm just interested in accuracy.
Atheists as rational beings should try to remain intellectually
disciplined in order to set ourselves apart from the religious
loonies.

http://www.unrealitycheck.com/

jwk

2004-12-20 00:19:16 UTC

Post by Heretic

Post by Denis Loubet
If there's an absence of things we should see if the god were to exist, then
that's disconfirming evidence.

OK, fine, but there are plenty of positive claims about the Chritian
god that can be tested. All such tests fail (such as a true believer
living through ingestion of a fatal dose of poison). Therefore there
is "disproof of a positive". You can take "intellectual disciplin" to
ridiculous levels.

jwk

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-21 18:07:52 UTC

Denis Loubet wrote:

< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30 foot dragon
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

Dang! I was hoping I could pet your dragon.

And, no, I didn't mean that as innuendo. For once.

< snip >

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

stoney

2004-12-22 20:21:00 UTC

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:07:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Why do people keep saying this? I can prove I'm not keeping a 30 foot dragon
in my garage. All you have to do is look in my garage.

Dang! I was hoping I could pet your dragon.

It headed off for the drag strip.....

Post by Tukla Ratte
And, no, I didn't mean that as innuendo. For once.
< snip >

--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.

Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.

America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP

stoney

2004-12-18 20:42:39 UTC

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:32:31 GMT, Heretic

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

What's a g-o-d?

The question gets asked to resounding silence.

Meteorite Debris

2004-12-19 22:58:54 UTC

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:32:31 GMT the ET form known as Heretic
<nospam#^%&%------------->***@unrealitycheck.com><Heretic
<nospam#^%&%------------->***@unrealitycheck.com>> sent a radio
signal across the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.-
-._.

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Which puts your god in the same category as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny,
Tooth Fairy and the IPU.

Q. Which of the following can not be disproven?
a) the xian god
b) Santa Claus
c) the East Bunny
d) the IPU
e) all of the above

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<S C R O L L D O W N >>>>>>>>

A. e) all of the above
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism

Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.

-Mencken

bob young

2004-12-18 11:12:11 UTC

Post by SM
snipped

Absolutely correct. Someone here with a Major in Common Sense

Post by SM

Post by Bill
Bill

The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

stoney

2004-12-18 20:43:37 UTC

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:12:11 +0800, bob young

Post by bob young

Post by SM
snipped

Absolutely correct. Someone here with a Major in Common Sense

Sadly, "Common Sense" isn't.

Meteorite Debris

2004-12-19 22:51:42 UTC

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:07:01 GMT the ET form known as
SM<***@smworlddomination.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

Post by SM
The fundie answer to all of the above usually starts with a sigh, soon
followed by "sometimes God works in mysterious ways!"

Mysterious ways is a pollyfill to plug the cracks in the god of the
gaps. The real problem of the god that works in mysterious ways is
that it looks exactly the same as a god that doesn't work at all. If a
doctor guilty of malpractice said to a medical licensing board
"sometimes I work in mysterious ways" then such a doctor would be
indistinguishable from an incompetent doctor or a lay person who
never studied medicine.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism

Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.

-Mencken

bbb

2004-12-18 04:22:42 UTC

"Bill" <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:%KLwd.1113412$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

<snip>

<snip>

Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will change your
mind. As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist, there
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some form,
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of fancy. In fact,
I am a very logical person.

I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove his
non-existence. I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence of God.)
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people and the
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts with mine.

Not a real fundie, but I play one on TV.

bbb

Denis Loubet

2004-12-18 08:52:47 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will change your
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter WHAT
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by bbb
As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist, there
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some form,
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of fancy. In fact,
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove his
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove that one.
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison without ill
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that caused a
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood, then that
god doesn't exist either.

But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine cocktail, or
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have established
your point.

So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we can prove
it doesn't the same way.

So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the world in
SOME way?

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence of God.)

No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people and the
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance? Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts with mine.

Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Post by bbb
Not a real fundie, but I play one on TV.

Hmmm...

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Rump Ranger

2004-12-18 12:45:15 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents. I have
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have

driven

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered

from

Post by Denis Loubet
this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will change your
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter WHAT
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by Denis Loubet
fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove his
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's likely).
That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've seen.
The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is that prayer
is not about getting anything specific. It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has developed a
deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If one
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something (which is a
demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give into
every demand of lesser beings?

Don't build strawmen.

Post by Denis Loubet
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison without ill
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that caused a
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood, then that
god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence" doesn't
follow that said thing "doesn't exist." It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for it and
placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's possible. But,
using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally true.
Duh. It doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist (remember, what
passes for the Bible right now was basically the books the Roman
Catholic church decided to print. They very well could have distorted
everything Christ had said for their own political aims. Many
Christians in fact believe this).

Post by Denis Loubet
But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

Post by Denis Loubet
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

Post by Denis Loubet
your point.
So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we can prove
it doesn't the same way.
So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the world in
SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism) or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism). Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the ability
to detect it. It's logically possible.

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence

Post by Denis Loubet
God.)
No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people

and

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance? Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts with mine.

Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on everything, the
world would be awfully boring.

stoney

2004-12-18 20:49:27 UTC

[]

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove
his non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's likely).

Then the words of "Jesus" (and the Bible) is worthless.

[]

Rump Ranger

2004-12-19 05:19:34 UTC

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove
his non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's likely).

Then the words of "Jesus" (and the Bible) is worthless.

In your opinion, sure.

Bill

2004-12-19 22:29:56 UTC

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by bbb
his non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to

Post by Rump Ranger
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Post by stoney
Then the words of "Jesus" (and the Bible) is worthless.

In your opinion, sure.

Yes and based on objective evidence.

Bill

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 16:15:52 UTC

On 18 Dec 2004 04:45:15 -0800, "Rump Ranger"
[]

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by bbb
his non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can

disprove

Post by Denis Loubet
that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to

Post by Rump Ranger
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Then the words of "Jesus" (and the Bible) is worthless.

In your opinion, sure.

Yes and based on objective evidence.

In your opinion. Others don't find the Bible worthless.
There's nothing "objective" in your post.

stoney

2004-12-20 02:38:43 UTC

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by bbb
his non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to

Post by Rump Ranger
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Post by stoney
Then the words of "Jesus" (and the Bible) is worthless.

In your opinion, sure.

No opinion involved. It is a simple if/then statement. It the
claimed words and text in the Bible can't be counted on then it is of
zero worth.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:07:10 UTC

On 18 Dec 2004 04:45:15 -0800, "Rump Ranger"
[]

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by bbb
his non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can

disprove

Post by Denis Loubet
that one.

No you can't. Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to

Post by Rump Ranger
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Then the words of "Jesus" (and the Bible) is worthless.

In your opinion, sure.

No opinion involved. It is a simple if/then statement. It the
claimed words and text in the Bible can't be counted on then it is of
zero worth.

No, it's your opinion (despite your protests to the contrary). Fact
is, a lot of people find the Bible to be a book of worth. You don't
(which is obvious) but that doesn't mean much.

Deal with it.

Denis Loubet

2004-12-19 00:33:26 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents.

I have

Post by Bill
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have

driven

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered

from

Post by Denis Loubet
this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will change

your

Post by bbb
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter WHAT
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by bbb
As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist,

there

Post by bbb
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some

form,

Post by bbb
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of fancy.

Post by Denis Loubet
fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

By what you say.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove

that one.
No you can't.

Yes I can.

Post by Bill
Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's likely).

Maybe that specific god exists, but the one that made a general promise that
you can, without similar ad hoc conditions, does not.

Post by Bill
That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've seen.

You've got to admit it's concise.

Post by Bill
The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is that prayer
is not about getting anything specific.

Then the god that would keep that promise as stated does not exist.

Post by Bill
It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has developed a
deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If one
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something (which is a
demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give into
every demand of lesser beings?

It would have to if it is supposed to keep it's word.

If we change the definition of the god to one that places ad hoc conditions
upon its promises, then that god might exist. But the one that is defined as
keeping its word, and issuing such a promise, does not.

Post by Bill
Don't build strawmen.

You'll have to point to the straw.

Post by Denis Loubet
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison without

ill

Post by Denis Loubet
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that caused

Post by Denis Loubet
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood, then

that

Post by Denis Loubet
god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence" doesn't
follow that said thing "doesn't exist."

Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my garage.
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my garage is
non-existant. Period.

Post by Bill
It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for it and
placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's possible. But,
using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

So the evidence is not present for a worldwide flood, and so one did not
happen.

Post by Bill
Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally true.

Yes, I think that.

Post by Bill
Duh. It doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist (remember, what
passes for the Bible right now was basically the books the Roman
Catholic church decided to print.
They very well could have distorted
everything Christ had said for their own political aims. Many
Christians in fact believe this).

So you have no idea what you believe?

Post by Denis Loubet
But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

Post by Denis Loubet
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

Post by Denis Loubet
your point.
So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we can

prove

Post by Denis Loubet
it doesn't the same way.
So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the

world in

Post by Denis Loubet
SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism)

Well, it interacted when it wound up the universe, didn't it?

Post by Bill
or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism).

Thus the god is supposedly interacting all the time.

Post by Bill
Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the ability
to detect it. It's logically possible.

Is it?

But anyway, the god we're talking about is not defined that way is it? It
supposedly answers prayers and makes all kinds of specific and testable
claims.

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence

Post by Denis Loubet
God.)
No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap

about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people

and

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance?

Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts

with mine.

Post by Denis Loubet
Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on everything, the
world would be awfully boring.

I hold truth to be more important than entertainment.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Rump Ranger

2004-12-19 05:52:45 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and

accidents.

Post by Bill
I have

Post by Bill
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have

driven

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully

recovered

Post by Bill
from

Post by Denis Loubet
this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will change

your

Post by bbb
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter WHAT
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by bbb
As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist,

there

Post by bbb
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some

form,

Post by bbb
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of fancy.

Post by Denis Loubet
fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

By what you say.

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.

Pay attention, please.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove

that one.
No you can't.

Yes I can.

Do so.

Post by Bill
Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's likely).

Maybe that specific god exists, but the one that made a general promise that
you can, without similar ad hoc conditions, does not.

It's entirely possible the believers decided to add that line in to
keep the faith. It could be metaphor.

Post by Bill
That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've seen.

You've got to admit it's concise.

Concise in the grade-school kind of way, I'd gather. There's far more
convincing evidences against God than the fact that "God doesn't give
in to mortal demands (which should be a logical belief)."

Post by Bill
The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is that prayer
is not about getting anything specific.

Then the god that would keep that promise as stated does not exist.

Only if said believer believes said "promise" is literally true.

Post by Bill
It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has

developed a

Post by Bill
deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If one
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something (which is a
demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give into
every demand of lesser beings?

It would have to if it is supposed to keep it's word.
If we change the definition of the god to one that places ad hoc conditions
upon its promises, then that god might exist. But the one that is defined as
keeping its word, and issuing such a promise, does not.

Please look up the word metaphor and allegory. You're reading the
Bible more literally then most Christians do.

Post by Bill
Don't build strawmen.

You'll have to point to the straw.

I have. Namely that the only way to practice Christianity is to
believe the Bible is inerrant and Sola Scriptora. Few of them actually
adhere to both positions and it's already obvious they're pretty
illogical.

Post by Denis Loubet
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison

without

Post by Bill
ill

Post by Denis Loubet
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that caused

Post by Denis Loubet
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood, then

that

Post by Denis Loubet
god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence" doesn't
follow that said thing "doesn't exist."

Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my garage.
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my garage is
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal. Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be. All I got is your word, which while I've no
reason to doubt it, still takes a degree of faith on my part to
believe.

Post by Bill
It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for it and
placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's possible.

But,

Post by Bill
using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

So the evidence is not present for a worldwide flood, and so one did not
happen.

Doesn't follow. It's possible it did but for some crazy reason or
other said diety wiped all evidence out. Occam's Razor simply means to
believe it didn't happen because it's more simple without needlessly
complicating it.

Post by Bill
Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally true.

Yes, I think that.

As do a lot of Christians I've met.

So you have no idea what you believe?

Indeed. I'm a freethinker who doesn't hold beliefs too strongly when
it comes to religion (or lack of it). Fact is, I just don't know so
I'll take all positions on their merits.

Post by Denis Loubet
But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

Post by Denis Loubet
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

Post by Denis Loubet
your point.
So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we can

prove

Post by Denis Loubet
it doesn't the same way.
So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the

world in

Post by Denis Loubet
SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism)

Well, it interacted when it wound up the universe, didn't it?

Doesn't follow God was in the universe when it did it.

Post by Bill
or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism).

Thus the god is supposedly interacting all the time.

Indeed. And according to pantheism, it's kinda pointless to ask for
proof because the universe is proof. God would theoretically be
interacting by the natural laws of physics.

Post by Bill
Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the ability
to detect it. It's logically possible.

Is it?

Yup. It's logically possible that in the center of the moon there are
intelligent pieces of cheesecake which fire out gamma rays and control
our every move. They're planning for an invasion and 911 was just the
first strike (the USG blame Arabs but the truth is glazed donuts
hijacked the plane). It's possible but not probable. In fact, since
no evidence suggests such a thing, there's no reason to believe it's
true.

Post by Denis Loubet
But anyway, the god we're talking about is not defined that way is it? It
supposedly answers prayers and makes all kinds of specific and

testable

Post by Denis Loubet
claims.

Only if you believe the Bible is inerrant.

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the

non-existence

Post by Bill
of

Post by Denis Loubet
God.)
No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap

about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people

and

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance?

Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts

with mine.

Post by Denis Loubet
Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on everything, the
world would be awfully boring.

I hold truth to be more important than entertainment.

Of course, your opinions are no more the indisputable truth than a
Christian's are. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

Denis Loubet

2004-12-20 01:07:43 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and

accidents.

Post by Bill
I have

Post by Bill
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I

have

Post by Bill
driven

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully

recovered

Post by Bill
from

Post by Denis Loubet
this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will

change

Post by Bill
your

Post by bbb
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter

WHAT

Post by Denis Loubet
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by bbb
As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist,

there

Post by bbb
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some

form,

Post by bbb
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of

fancy.

Post by Bill
In

Post by Denis Loubet
fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

By what you say.

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.
Pay attention, please.

You're both illogical.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by Bill
his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove

that one.
No you can't.

Yes I can.

Do so.

Very well, I shall ask a Christian to move a mountain with prayer.

What do you think the likely result will be if they attempt it?

Post by Bill
Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Post by Denis Loubet
Maybe that specific god exists, but the one that made a general

promise that

Post by Denis Loubet
you can, without similar ad hoc conditions, does not.

It's entirely possible the believers decided to add that line in to
keep the faith. It could be metaphor.

Irrelevant. If that's the case, then it is proof that the god literally
described in the bible does not exist. The one that relies on metaphore may
still be possible, but we've eliminated the literally interpreted god. THAT
one has been disproved.

One down...

Post by Bill
That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've

seen.

Post by Denis Loubet
You've got to admit it's concise.

Concise in the grade-school kind of way, I'd gather. There's far more
convincing evidences against God than the fact that "God doesn't give
in to mortal demands (which should be a logical belief)."

You're comfortable applying logic to the whims of a supreme being whose
motives are commonly held to be incomprehensible to mankind? You're a brave
man.

Post by Bill
The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is that

prayer

Post by Bill
is not about getting anything specific.

Then the god that would keep that promise as stated does not exist.

Only if said believer believes said "promise" is literally true.

THAT specific god doesn't exist, yes. You seem to agree with me. We have
successfully disproved the existence of the literally interpreted god of the
bible.

One down...

See? It's easy.

Post by Bill
It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has

developed a

Post by Bill
deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If one
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something (which

is a

Post by Bill
demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give into
every demand of lesser beings?

It would have to if it is supposed to keep it's word.
If we change the definition of the god to one that places ad hoc

conditions

Post by Denis Loubet
upon its promises, then that god might exist. But the one that is

defined as

Post by Denis Loubet
keeping its word, and issuing such a promise, does not.

Please look up the word metaphor and allegory. You're reading the
Bible more literally then most Christians do.

Irrelevant. I'm disproving the literally interpreted god.

This establishes that I CAN disprove a god.

You actually seem to agree with me that this is possible now.

Post by Bill
Don't build strawmen.

You'll have to point to the straw.

You seem to ignore the fact that I am disproving SPECIFIC gods. The one
described by a literal interpretation has just bit the dust. I am NOT
resorting to straw men, as some Christians claim to believe in that god.

One down...

Post by Denis Loubet
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison

without

Post by Bill
ill

Post by Denis Loubet
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that

caused

Post by Bill
a

Post by Denis Loubet
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood,

then

Post by Bill
that

Post by Denis Loubet
god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence" doesn't
follow that said thing "doesn't exist."

Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

These irrelevant objections are a transparant attempt to dodge the analogy.
The common definition of dragon does not include invisibility, personal
blindness, nor incomporeality. Please address the analogy.

Post by Bill
Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be. All I got is your word, which while I've no
reason to doubt it, still takes a degree of faith on my part to
believe.

Now you're pretending that this is not a thought experiment in order to
again dodge the analogy. If you are unable to address my point without
surrendering your position, just say so.

Post by Bill
It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for it

and

Post by Bill
placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's possible.

But,

Post by Bill
using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

So the evidence is not present for a worldwide flood, and so one did

not

Post by Denis Loubet
happen.

Yes, the world-wide flood test is not as absolute as the moving mountains
one in that a contradiction can be avoided by the use of omnipotence. But if
there's a description of god that says it does not go to efforts to mislead
mortals and caused a worldwide flood, but there's no evidence of one, then
THAT god is disproved.

Post by Bill
Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally true.

Yes, I think that.

As do a lot of Christians I've met.

Then they have specific gods that I've not disproved yet.

Post by Bill
Duh. It doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist (remember,

what

Post by Bill
passes for the Bible right now was basically the books the Roman
Catholic church decided to print.
They very well could have distorted
everything Christ had said for their own political aims. Many
Christians in fact believe this).

So you have no idea what you believe?

Indeed. I'm a freethinker who doesn't hold beliefs too strongly when
it comes to religion (or lack of it). Fact is, I just don't know so
I'll take all positions on their merits.

Ok. I can only disprove god definitions that present direct contradictions,
either internally or externally.

Post by Denis Loubet
But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

Post by Denis Loubet
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

Post by Denis Loubet
your point.
So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we

can

Post by Bill
prove

Post by Denis Loubet
it doesn't the same way.
So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the

world in

Post by Denis Loubet
SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism)

Well, it interacted when it wound up the universe, didn't it?

Doesn't follow God was in the universe when it did it.

Creating and winding up the universe is one hell of an interaction,
internally or externally.

Post by Bill
or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism).

Thus the god is supposedly interacting all the time.

Indeed. And according to pantheism, it's kinda pointless to ask for
proof because the universe is proof. God would theoretically be
interacting by the natural laws of physics.

Yeah, that would be a tough one to disprove. There are lots of easier ones.

Post by Bill
Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the

ability

Post by Bill
to detect it. It's logically possible.

Is it?

In principle though, we DO have the ability to detect it. It's just their
control that prevents us.

Ok, I'll surrender that point. Efforts to prevent detection could prevent us
from detecting things. That could make several sinister god definitions
difficult to disprove. It's also tantamount to a retreat to solipsism.

Post by Denis Loubet
But anyway, the god we're talking about is not defined that way is

it? It

Post by Denis Loubet
supposedly answers prayers and makes all kinds of specific and

testable

Post by Denis Loubet
claims.

Only if you believe the Bible is inerrant.

Irrelevant. I'm disproving THAT definition of god.

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the

non-existence

Post by Bill
of

Post by Denis Loubet
God.)
No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap

about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do

people

Post by Bill
and

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance?

Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts

with mine.

Post by Denis Loubet
Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on everything,

the

Post by Bill
world would be awfully boring.

I hold truth to be more important than entertainment.

Of course, your opinions are no more the indisputable truth than a
Christian's are. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

Are you denying we can detect, and draw conclusions from, an external
reality?

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-21 18:34:49 UTC

< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

Furthermore, how is claiming that the dragon is invisible and intangible
any different from admitting it doesn't exist? I've never heard of a
non-existent thing that *wasn't* invisible and intangible.

Post by Denis Loubet
Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be.

Oh, for chrissake. Fine. There's a 30-foot dragon *right behind* you,
R.R. Better start running!

< snip >

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

Denis Loubet

2004-12-21 19:32:14 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

Note that Rump Ranger is suddenly invisible and intangible.

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:45:11 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

These irrelevant objections are a transparant attempt to dodge the
analogy.
The common definition of dragon does not include invisibility, personal
blindness, nor incomporeality. Please address the analogy.

Note that Rump Ranger is suddenly invisible and intangible.

Indeed. As are all of us on the internet.

stoney

2004-12-22 20:22:17 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

Note that Rump Ranger is suddenly invisible and intangible.

(wince) RR became lunch.

He does have an interesting nom-de-kybd though.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:41:14 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by Denis Loubet
Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

Furthermore, how is claiming that the dragon is invisible and

intangible

Post by Tukla Ratte
any different from admitting it doesn't exist? I've never heard of a
non-existent thing that *wasn't* invisible and intangible.

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Post by Tukla Ratte

Post by Denis Loubet
Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be.

Oh, for chrissake. Fine. There's a 30-foot dragon *right behind* you,
R.R. Better start running!

That requires me to have faith, don't it?

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:04:41 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and

accidents.

Post by Bill
I have

Post by Bill
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I

have

Post by Bill
driven

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully

recovered

Post by Bill
from

Post by Denis Loubet
this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will

change

Post by Bill
your

Post by bbb
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter

WHAT

Post by Denis Loubet
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by bbb
As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist,

there

Post by bbb
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some

form,

Post by bbb
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of

fancy.

Post by Bill
In

Post by Denis Loubet
fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

By what you say.

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.
Pay attention, please.

You're both illogical.

QED.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by Bill
his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove

that one.
No you can't.

Yes I can.

Do so.

Very well, I shall ask a Christian to move a mountain with prayer.
What do you think the likely result will be if they attempt it?

Prove the Christian God made that claim. How do you know it wasn't
some metaphor a Christian put in the Bible? Or something a believer
made up?

I want *evidence* that said god made such a claim.

Post by Bill
Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Post by Denis Loubet
Maybe that specific god exists, but the one that made a general

promise that

Post by Denis Loubet
you can, without similar ad hoc conditions, does not.

It's entirely possible the believers decided to add that line in to
keep the faith. It could be metaphor.

Irrelevant. If that's the case, then it is proof that the god

literally

Post by Denis Loubet
described in the bible does not exist. The one that relies on

metaphore may

Post by Denis Loubet
still be possible, but we've eliminated the literally interpreted god. THAT
one has been disproved.
One down...

No shit, Sherlock. You read the Bible more literally than most
Christians do and then procede to attack the strawman you've
constructed.

Most X-tians believe it's metaphor. Period.

Post by Bill
That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've

seen.

Post by Denis Loubet
You've got to admit it's concise.

Concise in the grade-school kind of way, I'd gather. There's far more
convincing evidences against God than the fact that "God doesn't give
in to mortal demands (which should be a logical belief)."

You're comfortable applying logic to the whims of a supreme being whose
motives are commonly held to be incomprehensible to mankind? You're a brave
man.

Assuming God does exists for a moment, why would he/she/it give us the
ability to use reason and logic without us using it to determine
whether faith in it is warranted or not? I believe as far as back as
Augustine that reason was to be used in matters of religion.

That's what the whole concept of "free will" is about.

Post by Bill
The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is that

prayer

Post by Bill
is not about getting anything specific.

Then the god that would keep that promise as stated does not exist.

Only if said believer believes said "promise" is literally true.

THAT specific god doesn't exist, yes. You seem to agree with me. We have
successfully disproved the existence of the literally interpreted god of the
bible.
One down...

If you want to read the Bible like a few drooling fundies do, then I
guess you've knocked down their ridiculous beliefs. So what?

Post by Denis Loubet
See? It's easy.

It's also easy to see you're burning a strawman.

Post by Bill
It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has

developed a

Post by Bill
deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If one
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something (which

is a

Post by Bill
demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give into
every demand of lesser beings?

It would have to if it is supposed to keep it's word.
If we change the definition of the god to one that places ad hoc

conditions

Post by Denis Loubet
upon its promises, then that god might exist. But the one that is

defined as

Post by Denis Loubet
keeping its word, and issuing such a promise, does not.

Please look up the word metaphor and allegory. You're reading the
Bible more literally then most Christians do.

Irrelevant. I'm disproving the literally interpreted god.

Doesn't mean anything if it's allegory or metaphor though.

I'll give you an A for effort on attacking your strawman though.

Post by Denis Loubet
This establishes that I CAN disprove a god.

Only if said Bible is literally true and not metaphor/allegory.

Post by Denis Loubet
You actually seem to agree with me that this is possible now.

I've always agreed reading the Bible literally was stupid. Much like
attacking strawmen are.

Post by Bill
Don't build strawmen.

You'll have to point to the straw.

*Some* do, but that means jack shit, really. Many seem to hold the
Bible as a book of metaphor.

You've built a strawman and continue to attack it irrelevant to what
I've said.

Post by Denis Loubet
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison

without

Post by Bill
ill

Post by Denis Loubet
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that

caused

Post by Bill
a

Post by Denis Loubet
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood,

then

Post by Bill
that

Post by Denis Loubet
god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence" doesn't
follow that said thing "doesn't exist."

Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

These irrelevant objections are a transparant attempt to dodge the analogy.
The common definition of dragon does not include invisibility,

personal

Post by Denis Loubet
blindness, nor incomporeality. Please address the analogy.

As soon as you can show how your analogy has any relevance to whether
one can disprove the existence of God.

Post by Bill
Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be. All I got is your word, which while I've no
reason to doubt it, still takes a degree of faith on my part to
believe.

Now you're pretending that this is not a thought experiment in order to
again dodge the analogy. If you are unable to address my point

without

Post by Denis Loubet
surrendering your position, just say so.

It's irrelevant. Why bother treating it seriously?

Post by Bill
It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for it

and

Post by Bill
placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's

possible.

Post by Bill
But,

Post by Bill
using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

So the evidence is not present for a worldwide flood, and so one did

not

Post by Denis Loubet
happen.

Doesn't follow. It's possible it did but for some crazy reason or
other said diety wiped all evidence out. Occam's Razor simply means to
believe it didn't happen because it's more simple without

needlessly

Post by Bill
complicating it.

Only if said God didn't alter the evidence (think about this for a
moment: if said God is omnipotent, it very well could have altered all
evidence showing a world-wide flood and still be literally true. It's
possible however unlikely).

Post by Bill
Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally true.

Yes, I think that.

As do a lot of Christians I've met.

Then they have specific gods that I've not disproved yet.

So why do you keep harping on a literalist view of the Bible?

Post by Bill
Duh. It doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist

(remember,

Post by Bill
what

So you have no idea what you believe?

Indeed. I'm a freethinker who doesn't hold beliefs too strongly when
it comes to religion (or lack of it). Fact is, I just don't know so
I'll take all positions on their merits.

Ok. I can only disprove god definitions that present direct

contradictions,

Post by Denis Loubet
either internally or externally.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say that a literalist belief in
the Bible is illogical. It is. It's when you talk about
"proof/disproof" I take issue. Those are stronger terms (at least
philosophically) then you'd imagine.

Post by Denis Loubet
But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

Post by Denis Loubet
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

Post by Denis Loubet
your point.
So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we

can

Post by Bill
prove

Post by Denis Loubet
it doesn't the same way.
So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the

world in

Post by Denis Loubet
SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism)

Well, it interacted when it wound up the universe, didn't it?

Doesn't follow God was in the universe when it did it.

Creating and winding up the universe is one hell of an interaction,
internally or externally.

But it doesn't interact with the world. At least in any way which can
be observed.

Post by Bill
or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism).

Thus the god is supposedly interacting all the time.

Indeed. And according to pantheism, it's kinda pointless to ask for
proof because the universe is proof. God would theoretically be
interacting by the natural laws of physics.

Yeah, that would be a tough one to disprove. There are lots of easier ones.

Pantheism isn't nearly as illogical as say X-tianity, but then again,
if God is everything, then the term is kinda meaningless.

Post by Bill
Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the

ability

Post by Bill
to detect it. It's logically possible.

Is it?

In principle though, we DO have the ability to detect it. It's just their
control that prevents us.
Ok, I'll surrender that point. Efforts to prevent detection could prevent us
from detecting things. That could make several sinister god

definitions

Post by Denis Loubet
difficult to disprove. It's also tantamount to a retreat to

solipsism.
Not solipsism (which is where one believes only their mind exists and
no others). Proof is a pretty strong term in philosophy. As is
stating something as logically impossible.

Occam's Razor is simply used to rule out the really improbable or
unnecessarily complicated beliefs.

Post by Denis Loubet
But anyway, the god we're talking about is not defined that way is

it? It

Post by Denis Loubet
supposedly answers prayers and makes all kinds of specific and

testable

Post by Denis Loubet
claims.

Only if you believe the Bible is inerrant.

Irrelevant. I'm disproving THAT definition of god.

Knock yourself out beating that dead horse.

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the

non-existence

Post by Bill
of

Post by Denis Loubet
God.)
No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap

about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do

people

Post by Bill
and

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance?

Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts

with mine.

Post by Denis Loubet
Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on

everything,

Post by Bill
the

Post by Bill
world would be awfully boring.

I hold truth to be more important than entertainment.

Of course, your opinions are no more the indisputable truth than a
Christian's are. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

Are you denying we can detect, and draw conclusions from, an external
reality?

What do you mean by "external reality"? If you're asking me whether we
can draw conclusions about the observable universe, of course we can.
If you're asking me whether we can make 100% guesses about things we
can't observe (like a diety which sits outside of it's creation) then
I'd say no. Truth is, we'll probably never know for certain whether
God exists or not (we might find out upon death, but it's kind of
irrelevant to us who still live).

The jury's still out.

Denis Loubet

2004-12-22 21:09:27 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and

accidents.

Post by Bill
I have

Post by Bill
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I

have

Post by Bill
driven

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in

Post by Bill
accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully

recovered

Post by Bill
from

Post by Denis Loubet
this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will

change

Post by Bill
your

Post by bbb
mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no

matter

Post by Bill
WHAT

Post by Denis Loubet
happened, wouldn't you.

Post by bbb
As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not

exist,

Post by Bill
there

Post by bbb
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in

some

Post by Bill
form,

Post by bbb
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of

fancy.

Post by Bill
In

Post by Denis Loubet
fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

By what you say.

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.
Pay attention, please.

You're both illogical.

QED.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

Post by Bill
his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can

disprove

Post by Bill
that one.
No you can't.

Yes I can.

Do so.

Very well, I shall ask a Christian to move a mountain with prayer.
What do you think the likely result will be if they attempt it?

Prove the Christian God made that claim.
How do you know it wasn't
some metaphor a Christian put in the Bible? Or something a believer
made up?
I want *evidence* that said god made such a claim.

Since prayer doesn't move mountains, the god described as issuing that
promise does not exist.

Post by Bill
Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Post by Denis Loubet
Maybe that specific god exists, but the one that made a general

promise that

Post by Denis Loubet
you can, without similar ad hoc conditions, does not.

It's entirely possible the believers decided to add that line in to
keep the faith. It could be metaphor.

Irrelevant. If that's the case, then it is proof that the god

literally

Post by Denis Loubet
described in the bible does not exist. The one that relies on

metaphore may

Post by Denis Loubet
still be possible, but we've eliminated the literally interpreted

god. THAT

Post by Denis Loubet
one has been disproved.
One down...

No shit, Sherlock. You read the Bible more literally than most
Christians do and then procede to attack the strawman you've
constructed.

Hey, you said "most", so obviously you think some Christians believe that
literal interpretation, so it's not a strawman after all is it.

Post by Denis Loubet
Most X-tians believe it's metaphor. Period.

And by "most" you mean some DON'T believe it's metaphore.

I'm disproving that god right now.

Post by Bill
That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've

seen.

Post by Denis Loubet
You've got to admit it's concise.

Concise in the grade-school kind of way, I'd gather. There's far

Post by Bill
convincing evidences against God than the fact that "God doesn't

give

Post by Bill
in to mortal demands (which should be a logical belief)."

You're comfortable applying logic to the whims of a supreme being

whose

Post by Denis Loubet
motives are commonly held to be incomprehensible to mankind? You're a

brave

Post by Denis Loubet
man.

Assuming God does exists for a moment, why would he/she/it give us the
ability to use reason and logic without us using it to determine
whether faith in it is warranted or not? I believe as far as back as
Augustine that reason was to be used in matters of religion.
That's what the whole concept of "free will" is about.

There are Christians who would disagree with you.

Post by Bill
The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is

that

Post by Bill
prayer

Post by Bill
is not about getting anything specific.

Then the god that would keep that promise as stated does not

exist.

Post by Bill
Only if said believer believes said "promise" is literally true.

THAT specific god doesn't exist, yes. You seem to agree with me. We

have

Post by Denis Loubet
successfully disproved the existence of the literally interpreted god

of the

Post by Denis Loubet
bible.
One down...

If you want to read the Bible like a few drooling fundies do, then I
guess you've knocked down their ridiculous beliefs. So what?

One down.

Post by Denis Loubet
See? It's easy.

It's also easy to see you're burning a strawman.

You've already admitted it's NOT a strawman by saying "If you want to read
the Bible like a few drooling fundies do"

If a few drooling fundies read it like that, then it's not a strawman.

Post by Bill
It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has

developed a

Post by Bill
deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If

one

Post by Bill
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something

(which

Post by Bill
is a

Post by Bill
demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give

into

Post by Bill
every demand of lesser beings?

It would have to if it is supposed to keep it's word.
If we change the definition of the god to one that places ad hoc

conditions

Post by Denis Loubet
upon its promises, then that god might exist. But the one that is

defined as

Post by Denis Loubet
keeping its word, and issuing such a promise, does not.

Please look up the word metaphor and allegory. You're reading the
Bible more literally then most Christians do.

Irrelevant. I'm disproving the literally interpreted god.

Doesn't mean anything if it's allegory or metaphor though.

Good grief! So what? I'm not attacking that interpretation yet.

Post by Denis Loubet
I'll give you an A for effort on attacking your strawman though.

And I'll suggest you go learn what strawman means.

Post by Denis Loubet
This establishes that I CAN disprove a god.

Only if said Bible is literally true and not metaphor/allegory.

What part of *a* did you not understand?

Post by Denis Loubet
You actually seem to agree with me that this is possible now.

I've always agreed reading the Bible literally was stupid. Much like
attacking strawmen are.

You shouldn't accuse people of attacking a strawman if you don't know what
it means.

Post by Bill
Don't build strawmen.

You'll have to point to the straw.

I have. Namely that the only way to practice Christianity is to
believe the Bible is inerrant and Sola Scriptora. Few of them

actually

Post by Bill
adhere to both positions and it's already obvious they're pretty
illogical.

You seem to ignore the fact that I am disproving SPECIFIC gods. The

one

Post by Denis Loubet
described by a literal interpretation has just bit the dust. I am NOT
resorting to straw men, as some Christians claim to believe in that

god.

Post by Denis Loubet
One down...

*Some* do, but that means jack shit, really.

Ah, because you say so! Excellent.

On the contrary, that's the crux of your idiotic strawman accusations. And
here again you show that I'm not attacking a strawman, while insisting that
I'm attacking a strawman.

Post by Denis Loubet
Many seem to hold the
Bible as a book of metaphor.

Fine. I'll get to that interpretation later.

Post by Denis Loubet
You've built a strawman and continue to attack it irrelevant to what
I've said.

FUNDIES built the "strawman" you accuse me of building. As such, it's not a
strawman.

Post by Denis Loubet
Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison

without

Post by Bill
ill

Post by Denis Loubet
effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that

caused

Post by Bill
a

Post by Denis Loubet
worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide

flood,

Post by Bill
then

Post by Bill
that

Post by Denis Loubet
god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence"

doesn't

Post by Bill
follow that said thing "doesn't exist."

Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in

Post by Bill
garage.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

Post by Denis Loubet
non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch

where

Post by Bill
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

These irrelevant objections are a transparant attempt to dodge the

analogy.

Post by Denis Loubet
The common definition of dragon does not include invisibility,

personal

Post by Denis Loubet
blindness, nor incomporeality. Please address the analogy.

As soon as you can show how your analogy has any relevance to whether
one can disprove the existence of God.

I never said one can disprove the existence of god.

I said one can disprove the existence of *A* god.

Now address my analogy.

Post by Bill
Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be. All I got is your word, which while I've

Post by Bill
reason to doubt it, still takes a degree of faith on my part to
believe.

Now you're pretending that this is not a thought experiment in order

Post by Denis Loubet
again dodge the analogy. If you are unable to address my point

without

Post by Denis Loubet
surrendering your position, just say so.

It's irrelevant. Why bother treating it seriously?

It establishes that existential claims can be disproved.

Post by Bill
It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for

Post by Bill
and

Post by Bill
placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's

possible.

Post by Bill
But,

Post by Bill
using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

So the evidence is not present for a worldwide flood, and so one

did

Post by Bill
not

Post by Denis Loubet
happen.

Doesn't follow. It's possible it did but for some crazy reason or
other said diety wiped all evidence out. Occam's Razor simply

means to

Post by Bill
believe it didn't happen because it's more simple without

needlessly

Post by Bill
complicating it.

Yes, the world-wide flood test is not as absolute as the moving

mountains

Post by Denis Loubet
one in that a contradiction can be avoided by the use of omnipotence.

But if

Post by Denis Loubet
there's a description of god that says it does not go to efforts to

mislead

Post by Denis Loubet
mortals and caused a worldwide flood, but there's no evidence of one,

then

Post by Denis Loubet
THAT god is disproved.

Sigh. What part of "it does not go to efforts to mislead mortals" didn't you
understand?

Post by Bill
Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally

true.

Post by Denis Loubet
Yes, I think that.

As do a lot of Christians I've met.

Then they have specific gods that I've not disproved yet.

So why do you keep harping on a literalist view of the Bible?

Because that's the easiest and simplest one to deal with so that I can
establish a precedent.

If I can disprove one, I can disprove others.

Post by Bill
Duh. It doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist

(remember,

Post by Bill
what

Post by Bill
passes for the Bible right now was basically the books the

Roman

Post by Bill
Catholic church decided to print.
They very well could have distorted
everything Christ had said for their own political aims. Many
Christians in fact believe this).

So you have no idea what you believe?

Indeed. I'm a freethinker who doesn't hold beliefs too strongly

when

Post by Bill
it comes to religion (or lack of it). Fact is, I just don't know

Post by Bill
I'll take all positions on their merits.

Ok. I can only disprove god definitions that present direct

contradictions,

Post by Denis Loubet
either internally or externally.

That's certainly possible.

I'm curious, is it impossible to prove an existential POSITIVE?

Post by Denis Loubet
But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

Post by Denis Loubet
show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

Post by Denis Loubet
your point.
So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence,

and we

Post by Bill
can

Post by Bill
prove

Post by Denis Loubet
it doesn't the same way.
So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with

the

Post by Bill
world in

Post by Denis Loubet
SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism)

Well, it interacted when it wound up the universe, didn't it?

Doesn't follow God was in the universe when it did it.

Creating and winding up the universe is one hell of an interaction,
internally or externally.

But it doesn't interact with the world. At least in any way which can
be observed.

Argh. The creating and winding up IS the interaction. Everything that
follows is a direct consequence of that interaction.

Post by Bill
or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism).

Thus the god is supposedly interacting all the time.

Indeed. And according to pantheism, it's kinda pointless to ask

for

Post by Bill
proof because the universe is proof. God would theoretically be
interacting by the natural laws of physics.

Yeah, that would be a tough one to disprove. There are lots of easier

ones.
Pantheism isn't nearly as illogical as say X-tianity, but then again,
if God is everything, then the term is kinda meaningless.

Granted.

Post by Bill
Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the

ability

Post by Bill
to detect it. It's logically possible.

Is it?

Yup. It's logically possible that in the center of the moon there

are

Post by Bill
intelligent pieces of cheesecake which fire out gamma rays and

control

Post by Bill
our every move. They're planning for an invasion and 911 was just

the

Post by Bill
first strike (the USG blame Arabs but the truth is glazed donuts
hijacked the plane). It's possible but not probable. In fact,

since

Post by Bill
no evidence suggests such a thing, there's no reason to believe

it's

Post by Bill
true.

In principle though, we DO have the ability to detect it. It's just

their

Post by Denis Loubet
control that prevents us.
Ok, I'll surrender that point. Efforts to prevent detection could

prevent us

Post by Denis Loubet
from detecting things. That could make several sinister god

definitions

Post by Denis Loubet
difficult to disprove. It's also tantamount to a retreat to

solipsism.
Not solipsism (which is where one believes only their mind exists and
no others). Proof is a pretty strong term in philosophy. As is
stating something as logically impossible.

That's what I don't get. Why do you think an existential negative is
impossible to prove? Because one would have to know everything to prove it?
So what? Is there a logical law that says everything can't be known?

And why does additional information about the thing being posited, such as
location, invalidate the claim as existential? What if location is a
fundamental part of the thing being posited?

If I say the earth does not exist, do we have to examine the whole universe?
What if the definition of earth is a planet that orbits Sol at one
astronomical unit? Now we only have a limited area to search. Suddenly it
becomes possible to prove or disprove the existence of the earth.

And if you start saying "well what if you don't see the earth in its orbit
because it's invisible" can't the same type of arguments be used to make
existential positives impossible to prove? For example: "My son exists" "No!
What if he was destroyed and replaced with an exact duplicate?" ANY claim
can be countered by an ad hoc rationalization, which leaves us nowhere.

Post by Denis Loubet
Occam's Razor is simply used to rule out the really improbable or
unnecessarily complicated beliefs.

Like dragons being invisible and intangible?

Post by Denis Loubet
But anyway, the god we're talking about is not defined that way

Post by Bill
it? It

Post by Denis Loubet
supposedly answers prayers and makes all kinds of specific and

testable

Post by Denis Loubet
claims.

Only if you believe the Bible is inerrant.

Irrelevant. I'm disproving THAT definition of god.

Knock yourself out beating that dead horse.

Well, at least you've dropped the stupid strawman accusation.

Post by bbb
I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons

for

Post by bbb
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the

non-existence

Post by Bill
of

Post by Denis Loubet
God.)
No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout

crap

Post by Bill
about gods.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so

Post by Bill
people

Post by Bill
and

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from

chance?

Post by Bill
Impressive.

Post by bbb
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it

conflicts

Post by Bill
with mine.

Post by Denis Loubet
Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on

everything,

Post by Bill
the

Post by Bill
world would be awfully boring.

I hold truth to be more important than entertainment.

Of course, your opinions are no more the indisputable truth than a
Christian's are. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

Are you denying we can detect, and draw conclusions from, an external
reality?

What do you mean by "external reality"? If you're asking me whether we
can draw conclusions about the observable universe, of course we can.

Would you call conclusions that don't contradict what we observe in the
universe more accurate than those that do?

If so, then we have a basis for declaring one set of opinions closer to the
truth than another.

Post by Denis Loubet
If you're asking me whether we can make 100% guesses about things we
can't observe (like a diety which sits outside of it's creation) then
I'd say no. Truth is, we'll probably never know for certain whether
God exists or not (we might find out upon death, but it's kind of
irrelevant to us who still live).
The jury's still out.

There's no body, no incriminating evidence, no witnesses, no trial, yet
somehow the jury is out.

Hmmm...

--
Denis Loubet
***@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet

bob young

2004-12-18 11:15:56 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

If you were delusional you may well not be aware of it. Superstitious you
certainly are.

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove his
non-existence. I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence of God.)

Wrong. Atheists simply do not accept any gods, no 'faith' is needed.

see below for 'faith'

Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any
rate, they hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that
all faiths do harm. We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for
which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.'
We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round.
We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
[Bertrand Russell]

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people and the
world and the Tivo... and on and on.
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts with mine.
Not a real fundie, but I play one on TV.
bbb

thomas p

2004-12-18 11:49:49 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Christians certainly love that lie.

You do not respect it enough to tell the truth about it.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-18 12:50:20 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered from this.
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

Christians certainly love that lie.

You do not respect it enough to tell the truth about it.

He's reffering to the definition which is found in most dictionaries.
It doesn't make him a "liar" but maybe not nearly as versed as to what
is or is not atheism according to most atheist sites, philosophical
texts, and alt.atheism.

Benign ignorance != dishonesty.

thomas p

2004-12-18 23:10:18 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents.

I have

Post by Bill
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have

driven many

Post by Bill
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered

from this.

Post by Bill
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>
Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will change

your

Post by bbb
mind. As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist,

there

Post by bbb
are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some form,
including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of fancy.

In fact,

Post by bbb
I am a very logical person.
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence. I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your

reasons for

Post by bbb
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence

of God.)

Post by thomas p
Christians certainly love that lie.

Post by bbb
Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do people

and the

Post by bbb
world and the Tivo... and on and on.
I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts with

mine.

Post by thomas p
You do not respect it enough to tell the truth about it.

He has been around long enough. He knows the definition used here,
and, furthermore, the definition he uses is not the only one found in
dictionaries. He is equivocating, and that equals lying.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-18 11:56:51 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered from this.
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

While one can be logical and believe in God, one can't *logically
prove* existence of such a being.

Actually, atheism need not be a faith. Many atheists simply don't
believe God exists but don't necessarily believe God doesn't exist.
There is a difference. Not believing such a being exists due to lack
of evidence is passive and requires no more faith than not believing
that there are pink monkeys on Mars controlling us. Believing God
doesn't exist and such a being is impossible *is* an active belief
based upon faith because non-existence of said being can't be proved
either (it's nearly impossible to prove an existential negative in any
case). I agree some atheists out there turn their atheism into a form
of faith in which they wish to convert Christians and other religious
folks to their line of thinking. They often become blinded by logic
and refuse to entertain the idea that others might find it logically
plausible to believe in some religions.

stoney

2004-12-18 20:54:29 UTC

[]

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Post by bbb
Many atheists simply don't
believe God exists but don't necessarily believe God doesn't exist.
There is a difference.

Not really. Both are a lack of belief.

Post by bbb
Not believing such a being exists due to lack
of evidence is passive and requires no more faith than not believing
that there are pink monkeys on Mars controlling us. Believing God
doesn't exist and such a being is impossible *is* an active belief
based upon faith because non-existence of said being can't be proved
either (it's nearly impossible to prove an existential negative in any
case).

Errorneous. The statement "God does not exist" can be made, and
supported. No 'faith' involved. Such can be done via several
different avenues utilizing the tools, hopefully, theists use in all
other aspects of their lives.

Post by bbb
I agree some atheists out there turn their atheism into a form
of faith in which they wish to convert Christians and other religious
folks to their line of thinking. They often become blinded by logic
and refuse to entertain the idea that others might find it logically
plausible to believe in some religions.

Errr...."logically plausible to believe" does not involve logic.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-19 05:22:30 UTC

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Some atheists turn their "lack of faith" into a very strong belief.

Post by bbb
Many atheists simply don't
believe God exists but don't necessarily believe God doesn't exist.
There is a difference.

Not really. Both are a lack of belief.

And one is an active belief in a positive assertion.

If you've got evidence "God does not exist" why not show it? I thought
the burden of proof was on the theist to prove their God existed
because they made an assertion.

You're using grade-school logic.

Post by bbb
I agree some atheists out there turn their atheism into a form
of faith in which they wish to convert Christians and other

religious

Post by bbb
folks to their line of thinking. They often become blinded by logic
and refuse to entertain the idea that others might find it logically
plausible to believe in some religions.

Errr...."logically plausible to believe" does not involve logic.

You don't know what you're talking about. Logical possibility doesn't
mean it's probable.

thomas p

2004-12-19 08:24:34 UTC

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Some atheists turn their "lack of faith" into a very strong belief.

Some atheists like chocolate. Liking chocolate is not atheism.

snip

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 16:14:24 UTC

On 18 Dec 2004 03:56:51 -0800, "Rump Ranger"
[]

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Some atheists turn their "lack of faith" into a very strong belief.

Some atheists like chocolate. Liking chocolate is not atheism.

Do you have anything coherent to say?

thomas p

2004-12-22 20:57:38 UTC

On 18 Dec 2004 03:56:51 -0800, "Rump Ranger"
[]

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Some atheists turn their "lack of faith" into a very strong belief.

Some atheists like chocolate. Liking chocolate is not atheism.

Do you have anything coherent to say?

The point was quite clear. If you need it to be explained, just say
so.

stoney

2004-12-20 02:52:03 UTC

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Some atheists turn their "lack of faith" into a very strong belief.

Really? How interesting. A 'lack of hair' becomes hair, according to
you.

Post by bbb
Many atheists simply don't
believe God exists but don't necessarily believe God doesn't exist.
There is a difference.

Not really. Both are a lack of belief.

And one is an active belief in a positive assertion.

No. It is a statement of fact that can be supported in one way. In
another way it is no different than saying Leprechauns don't exist or
Christians indicated all the other deity constructs they lack belief
in don't exist. The theist makes the mistake of considering their
superstition to have any importance to those outside it.

any

Post by bbb
case).

If you've got evidence "God does not exist" why not show it?

Childs play.

1) The verbage generally advertised as a 'definition' for 'god' begs
many questions, handwaves furiously and provides zero information.
There is literally nothing to look for or consider.

2) The 'creator' claim begs the question the universe was not only
manufactured, but that it gets the 'credit.'

There is zero objective evidence the universe was manufactured.
Further if things must have a creator then the question also applies
to the 'creator.' This leads to a never-ending regression of
'creators.' Such is unacceptable to Christians as it eliminates their
imaginary buddy so they toss in a bunch of 'exemption bullshit' not
thinking the 'door' is opened for the universe to 'step through.'

3) Omni-characteristics self-destruct on their own.

4) The contrary attributes in the Bible.

5) The flat lies, errors, and bronze age ignorance in the Bible.

Post by Rump Ranger
I thought
the burden of proof was on the theist to prove their God existed
because they made an assertion.

It is, if they expect those outside their supersition to pay attention
to it.

Post by Rump Ranger
You're using grade-school logic.

Not at all. I'm covering a couple different tangents.

Post by bbb
I agree some atheists out there turn their atheism into a form
of faith in which they wish to convert Christians and other

religious

Post by bbb
folks to their line of thinking. They often become blinded by logic
and refuse to entertain the idea that others might find it logically
plausible to believe in some religions.

Errr...."logically plausible to believe" does not involve logic.

You don't know what you're talking about. Logical possibility doesn't
mean it's probable.

Really? Some examples of such 'logically plausible' for which
specific religions would be?

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:27:13 UTC

On 18 Dec 2004 03:56:51 -0800, "Rump Ranger"
[]

Post by bbb
(Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence
of God.)
Actually, atheism need not be a faith.

Isn't. Period.

Some atheists turn their "lack of faith" into a very strong belief.

Really? How interesting. A 'lack of hair' becomes hair, according to
you.

Why do you try to distort what I say?

Post by bbb
Many atheists simply don't
believe God exists but don't necessarily believe God doesn't exist.
There is a difference.

Not really. Both are a lack of belief.

And one is an active belief in a positive assertion.

If "God does not exist" is a statement of fact, I want your observable
evidence to show it's true. Now, before you fall back on your old saw
of "I don't need to prove my claim" (or some varient thereof) remember
you're making the claim in the positive.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Post by bbb
Not believing such a being exists due to lack
of evidence is passive and requires no more faith than not

believing

Post by bbb
that there are pink monkeys on Mars controlling us. Believing God
doesn't exist and such a being is impossible *is* an active belief
based upon faith because non-existence of said being can't be proved
either (it's nearly impossible to prove an existential negative in

any

Post by bbb
case).

If you've got evidence "God does not exist" why not show it?

This statement is *meaningless*, really. Just because different people
provide different answers to what God is just means that people have
different opinions on the subject.

Post by stoney
2) The 'creator' claim begs the question the universe was not only
manufactured, but that it gets the 'credit.'

I don't see how it "begs the question" if it's attributed to be the
First Cause/Prime Mover. Virtually all definitions of god has it being
an uncaused cause so asking "what created god" is irrelevant posturing
on your part.

Post by stoney
There is zero objective evidence the universe was manufactured.
Further if things must have a creator then the question also applies
to the 'creator.' This leads to a never-ending regression of
'creators.' Such is unacceptable to Christians as it eliminates their
imaginary buddy so they toss in a bunch of 'exemption bullshit' not
thinking the 'door' is opened for the universe to 'step through.'

In other words, your "proof" for a god's non-existence is a *logical
fallacy* by simply missing the point. If one accepts a god (as a
creator) then there is no "infinite regress of creators." The regress
ends at their god. No ammount of twisting on your part changes that
part of their belief.

Post by stoney
3) Omni-characteristics self-destruct on their own.

Only if believer believes their god has all the omni characteristics.

Post by stoney
4) The contrary attributes in the Bible.

Only if the believer believes in a purely literalist view of the Bible.

Post by stoney
5) The flat lies, errors, and bronze age ignorance in the Bible.

Has nothing to do with deism, pantheism, or many other theistic
religions.

Let's see, Your 5 "proofs" of God's nonexistence score up as follows:

1 is meaningless, 2 is a deliberate attempt to miss what first cause in
relation to what a god is all about, 3 relies on omni characteristics
which many Christians don't believe (doctrine of middle knowledge is
popular these days in Christian theological circles), 4 only relies on
a literalist view of the Bible (not shared by a majority of
Christians), and 5 is irrelevant to the majority of theists out there.

Not all that convincing, really.

Post by Rump Ranger
I thought
the burden of proof was on the theist to prove their God existed
because they made an assertion.

It is, if they expect those outside their supersition to pay

attention

Post by stoney
to it.

Exactly. OTOH, if you want to claim all gods can't exist, I'll need
your proof before I believe you. To ask for anything more is special
pleading on your part.

Post by Rump Ranger
You're using grade-school logic.

Not at all. I'm covering a couple different tangents.

Post by bbb
I agree some atheists out there turn their atheism into a form
of faith in which they wish to convert Christians and other

religious

Post by bbb
folks to their line of thinking. They often become blinded by logic
and refuse to entertain the idea that others might find it

logically

Post by bbb
plausible to believe in some religions.

Errr...."logically plausible to believe" does not involve logic.

You don't know what you're talking about. Logical possibility doesn't
mean it's probable.

Really? Some examples of such 'logically plausible' for which
specific religions would be?

Logically possible? All of them. If you want to prove something
logically impossible, you'll need to cover *every* tangent and
possibility. Formal logic is a systematic thing which is why
philosophy books are so "wordy." They will conver every possibility
before making a logical argument. Can get boring at times to read too
because percision and accuracy of thought often times requires for the
process to be quite redundant.

stoney

2004-12-18 20:46:02 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>

Obviously not, I'm sorry to say as you demonstrate below.

What is a g-o-d?

Post by bbb
I cannot prove God's existence to you

So much for logic.

Post by bbb
any more than you can prove his
non-existence. I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the non-existence of God.)

Liar. "Bald is not a hair colour" no matter how much you insist it
is.

Dell User

2004-12-19 04:05:00 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove his
non-existence.

I assert that there are no ET aliens visiting Earth.
I cannot prove it but I think I do not have to.
I also think that if we require hard evidence for the
existence of extraterrestrials we should require no less
for God (or god, or G-d).
A side question: some people believe in both ET and God,
how can they manage it, these beliefs are not compatible?
Bible says about creating Earth, man etc and nothing about
life elsewhere.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-19 05:55:44 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove his
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?

If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Bill

2004-12-19 22:38:41 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Say what???

stoney

2004-12-20 20:15:03 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Say what???

What???

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-21 18:43:37 UTC

[piggybacking]
< snip >

Post by Rump Ranger
A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

So why doesn't God update his book? College students don't continue to
use their grade-school math books when they *do* take Calculus. They
use books about Calculus.

Or are Christians still as ignorant about the universe as the ancient
Hebrews?

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:42:42 UTC

Post by Tukla Ratte
[piggybacking]
< snip >

Post by Rump Ranger
A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it

logical

Post by Tukla Ratte

Post by Rump Ranger
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews

wouldn't

Post by Tukla Ratte

Post by Rump Ranger
have understood it.

So why doesn't God update his book? College students don't continue to
use their grade-school math books when they *do* take Calculus. They
use books about Calculus.
Or are Christians still as ignorant about the universe as the ancient
Hebrews?

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians don't practice the
doctrine of Sola Scriptora, don't you?

stoney

2004-12-22 20:22:49 UTC

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:43:37 -0600, Tukla Ratte

Post by Tukla Ratte
[piggybacking]
< snip >

So why doesn't God update his book? College students don't continue to
use their grade-school math books when they *do* take Calculus. They
use books about Calculus.
Or are Christians still as ignorant about the universe as the ancient
Hebrews?

Proponents of the ICR and ID are.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 16:16:52 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it

logical

wouldn't

Post by Rump Ranger
have understood it.

Say what???

Get an adult to explain it to you if it's too complicated.

stoney

2004-12-20 02:53:18 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Yeah, but the lack of an update in two millenia is a real
'non-starter.'

Greg

2004-12-20 05:24:20 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Yeah, but the lack of an update in two millenia is a real
'non-starter.'

maybe thats because the basic human society has changed little in two
thousand years.

stoney

2004-12-20 20:20:55 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Yeah, but the lack of an update in two millenia is a real
'non-starter.'

maybe thats because the basic human society has changed little in two
thousand years.

Immaterial, irrelevant and not the point I was raising. Words,
languages, and concepts have changed vastly. If the 'WOG' is
eternally critical and to be followed then it has to be in a readilly
discerable and understandable form. Such can be with either static
language or kept current with regular updates which automatically
update each Bible 'on the fly.'

As for 'understanding,' it would have been easy to simply order the
boiling of water before ingestion and washing your hands after
elimination 'without the camp' and before eating. One wouldn't need
to go into germ theory.

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-21 18:48:39 UTC

stoney wrote:

< snip >

Post by stoney
As for 'understanding,' it would have been easy to simply order the
boiling of water before ingestion and washing your hands after
elimination 'without the camp' and before eating.

</me furiously scribbles notes>

Is this going to be on the test?

< snip >

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

stoney

2004-12-22 20:23:21 UTC

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:48:39 -0600, Tukla Ratte

Post by Tukla Ratte
< snip >

Post by stoney
As for 'understanding,' it would have been easy to simply order the
boiling of water before ingestion and washing your hands after
elimination 'without the camp' and before eating.

</me furiously scribbles notes>
Is this going to be on the test?
< snip >

You never know......

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:08:58 UTC

Post by bbb
<snip>
I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can prove

his

Post by bbb
non-existence.

A grade-school math book says nothing about calculus. Is it logical
for a grade school child learning addition to believe calculus doesn't
exist?
If one believes God exists and the Bible is true, it can be said God
simply didn't put that in there because the ancient Hebrews wouldn't
have understood it.

Yeah, but the lack of an update in two millenia is a real
'non-starter.'

Only if one accepts the very rare dogma of Sola Scriptora. Fact is,
the vast majority of Christians don't and accept science and other
fields as acceptable for knowledge.

Carlos Trevino

2004-12-18 05:17:31 UTC

Post by Bill
I am now turning 80 years of age and have been an atheist for about 65 of
those eighty years. I have promoted atheism for all of those years. I have
declared that god does not exist for all of those years.
If god exists why does he not directly inform me of his existence? Man, a
creation of god, can communicate with almost everyone in the world via
satellite TV, cell phones and radio. Why doesn't god, who created man,
communicate clearly his wishes and commands directly with his subjects?
I have had religious friends that have died and suffered painful illnesses
and death over these many years.
I served for almost three years in the Army during W.W.II and saw many
highly religious types killed and wounded. I survived W.W.II without a
scratch.
Why didn't god smite me for my atheism?
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents. I have
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have driven many
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an accident?
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered from this.
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?
If god created heaven and earth and is all good, why does he permit babies
to be still born or born with serious deformities and permanent handicaps
when they are too young to have committed any sins?
Why does he permit a non believer like me to continue to enjoy a happy and
prosperous life while punishing many believers with serious diseases,
handicaps and early death? Where is there ANY objective evidence that
believers live any longer, healthier, wealthier or enjoyable lives?
It would seem there is no god that mets out punishments and rewards in any
fair or reasonable manner.
The evidence is rather strong that god does not exist; that god did not
create man but that man created god.
Bill

First of all Bill, you are a blessed man to live past 70. I guess to put
things in prospective God is letting us live life without enforcing
righteousness on us, telling us what to do, so we can learn from our own
mistakes. Anyways, man has never listened to God and appearing to us again
would only prolong our suffering. He will intervene when we are on the brink
of self destruction and realize that we can not solve our problems without
guidence from the One who designed us.
The reason I believe in God is that I believe the Bible, I believe in the
Word of God. In the Bible it says that when we are near destruction of our
own civilization one of the symptoms will be an increase of knowledge. You
an 80 year old man has seen with your own eyes how much progress we have
made in science and technology that it's mind boggling. The last 100 years
of human progress is simply amazing considering man has been on earth for
more than 6,000 years, even more amazing if you are atheist and man has been
evolving millions of years.

Carlos Trevino
--
Religion is a politically correct word for saying, "I do not
understand God but this is what I think He means." To
understand God is not through religion but through philosophy,
His Philosophy. We do not understand His Philosophy
because our mind is hostile, yet His Philosophy is
so simple that a child can grasp it, Love One Another.

phi·los·o·phy: Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means
and moral self-discipline. Investigation of the nature, causes,
or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical
reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-18 12:16:39 UTC

without a

Post by Bill
scratch.
Why didn't god smite me for my atheism?
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents. I have
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have driven many
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

Post by Bill
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered from this.
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?
If god created heaven and earth and is all good, why does he permit babies
to be still born or born with serious deformities and permanent handicaps
when they are too young to have committed any sins?
Why does he permit a non believer like me to continue to enjoy a happy and
prosperous life while punishing many believers with serious

diseases,

Post by Bill
handicaps and early death? Where is there ANY objective evidence that
believers live any longer, healthier, wealthier or enjoyable lives?
It would seem there is no god that mets out punishments and rewards in any
fair or reasonable manner.
The evidence is rather strong that god does not exist; that god did not
create man but that man created god.
Bill

Why would he wait to do that? How much destruction is enough?
Seriously, the idea of a Christian God sitting in Heaven sending down
help in our darkest hour makes good fiction but doesn't seem to have
much in reality. WWII was by far the worst thing humanity has ever
seen and God didn't seem to come down and stop the suffering. It still
goes on. It's more likely either that A. God doesn't care or B. that
what goes on here is only a "lesson" for us to learn so our suffering
has an ultimate point. In that case, it's highly unlikely God will
ever intervene here.

Post by Carlos Trevino
The reason I believe in God is that I believe the Bible, I believe in the
Word of God. In the Bible it says that when we are near destruction of our
own civilization one of the symptoms will be an increase of

knowledge. You

Post by Carlos Trevino
an 80 year old man has seen with your own eyes how much progress we have
made in science and technology that it's mind boggling. The last 100 years
of human progress is simply amazing considering man has been on earth for
more than 6,000 years, even more amazing if you are atheist and man has been
evolving millions of years.

Are you a young earth creationist? Homo Sapians have been on earth for
a lot longer than 6000 years (it's been awhile since I took college bio
but I believe our species has been around at least 20,000 years with
other humanoids like Neanderthals being around 200,000 years ago).

The knowledge is amazing. It's probably impossible to learn all that
the human race knows (I'm trying and have only scratched the surface in
30 years).

BTW- We're on the verge of destruction because of our knowledge: we've
turned it into weapons of war which can obliterate our planet. The US
alone has enough nukes to destroy the world something like 6 times over
(it could be more but that's irrelevant because once is all it takes).

Ron Baker, Pluralitas!

2004-12-18 08:13:56 UTC

Amen brother. You are an inspiration.

--
Ron Baker, atheist # 2187

Rump Ranger

2004-12-18 11:47:16 UTC

subjects?
Because there wouldn't be much of a choice on whether to have faith in
it or not. Yeah, that's standard theist apologia on the subject, but
it would be understandable if said being wants people to love him/her
by choice. By showing direct evidence, faith would be destroyed.

Another possibility is that since a supreme being is by definition
impossible for us to fathom, we wouldn't be able to recognize it if we
saw it.

It could also be a blind watchmaker of sorts who was an Aristotlean
prime mover who set things into motion but doesn't interact with it's
creation in any way.

There are probably other answers a person could give you, but those are
probably the best ones I've heard theists/deists give for it.

Post by Bill
I have had religious friends that have died and suffered painful illnesses
and death over these many years.
I served for almost three years in the Army during W.W.II and saw many
highly religious types killed and wounded. I survived W.W.II without a
scratch.
Why didn't god smite me for my atheism?

Why would he? Let's look at it from the perspective of a supposedly
omniscient, omnibenevolent being. Would said being give you a choice
to believe or not believe in it, provide no evidence, and then smite
you for your choice to not believe? That'd be as pointless a freedom
to give someone as any, I'd imagine.

Post by Bill
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents. I have
flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have driven many
thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an accident?
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered from this.
Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?
If god created heaven and earth and is all good, why does he permit babies
to be still born or born with serious deformities and permanent handicaps
when they are too young to have committed any sins?

That's as good an argument as any against why faith in an
omnibenevolent diety is unwarranted. There are some rather complex
answers to it, from the systematically logical arguments of William
Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, to the more laymen type of C.S. Lewis in
the Problem of Pain. Then there are works like Dosteovsky's Brothers
Kharamazov in which he never bothers to refute the atheist argument
about the problem of suffering but instead brings up the wonder and awe
of life itself. Then there are the William James's who say if it works
for you, go with it.

Simply put, there is no easy answer and I've been unable to embrace any
specific religion because it never accounts for this to my
satisfaction.

Most religions are most likely man-made, I'm inclined to agree.
Doesn't mean God (as in a singular diety outside of creation) doesn't
exist. It makes it unlikely in some cases but more likely such a being
either:

A. Doesn't care what happens here.

B. That this is just the "school" for our souls where we learn what
God wants us to learn and all will make sense upon our passing. This
is kinda where Buddhists and Hindus get their idea of reincarnation.

At least, these are the more plausible ideas I've picked up on reading
theology.

H Dickmann

2004-12-18 14:22:47 UTC

Would you worry if a man is very sick for one minute in his lifetime? Your
lifetime is less than a milli second of eternity.

Fred Stone

2004-12-18 15:26:58 UTC

Post by H Dickmann

Post by Bill
I am now turning 80 years of age and have been an atheist for about 65 of
those eighty years. I have promoted atheism for all of those years. I
have declared that god does not exist for all of those years.
If god exists why does he not directly inform me of his existence?
Man, a creation of god, can communicate with almost everyone in the
world via satellite TV, cell phones and radio. Why doesn't god, who
created man, communicate clearly his wishes and commands directly
with his subjects?
I have had religious friends that have died and suffered painful
illnesses and death over these many years.
I served for almost three years in the Army during W.W.II and saw
many highly religious types killed and wounded. I survived W.W.II
without a scratch.
Why didn't god smite me for my atheism?
I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and accidents. I
have flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I have
driven many thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in
an accident?
About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully recovered from
this. Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?
If god created heaven and earth and is all good, why does he permit
babies to be still born or born with serious deformities and
permanent handicaps when they are too young to have committed any
sins?
Why does he permit a non believer like me to continue to enjoy a
happy and prosperous life while punishing many believers with serious
diseases, handicaps and early death? Where is there ANY objective
evidence that believers live any longer, healthier, wealthier or
enjoyable lives?
It would seem there is no god that mets out punishments and rewards
in any fair or reasonable manner.
The evidence is rather strong that god does not exist; that god did
not create man but that man created god.
Bill

Would you worry if a man is very sick for one minute in his lifetime?
Your lifetime is less than a milli second of eternity.

But here and now I am alive.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.

chibiabos

2004-12-19 01:49:50 UTC

In article

[snip]

Wow. All I've got to say is, here's to 80 more ;)

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

Meteorite Debris

2004-12-19 22:43:00 UTC

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:30:35 GMT the ET form known as
Bill<***@worldnet.att.net> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

The contradiction of the omni attributes. If God is omnipotent then
evil in the world suggests a god that is not omnibenevolent. If God is
omnibenevolent then evil in the world suggests a god that is not
omnipotent and/or omniscient. If God is omniscient then evil in the
world suggests a god that is not omnibenevolent and/or omnipotent.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism

Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.

-Mencken

Greg

2004-12-20 05:22:14 UTC

God has not smitten you because God is love. God does not smite people.
You seem to have a fixation on the idea that God dictates justice, and
chooses those who are worthy over those who are not. He does no such
thing. Because God is love in the first place, there are no conditions
or limits to his love for us. Who says that God isn't communicating
directly with us is wrong. God communicates with us directly through
the kindness and love of the caring people around us. If you would like
to argue the existence of miracles, than (putting all supernatural
events aside) your very existence itself is a miracle, let alone the
existence of the universe. Finally, if you want to be REALLY cynical,
than I will bring up Pascals Wager.

From:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm#A%20Reason%20for%20Believing%20in%20God

A Reason for Believing in God

There are two kinds of argument for theism. Traditional, epistemic
arguments hold that God exists; examples include arguments from
cosmology, design, ontology, and experience. Modern, pragmatic arguments
hold that, regardless of whether God exists, believing in God is good
for us, or is the right thing to do; examples include William James's
will to believe and Blaise Pascal's wager.

Pascal -- French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability
theorist (1623-1662) -- argues that if we don't know whether God exists
then we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry. The argument
comes in three versions (Hacking 1972), all of them employing decision
theory.
For those who are unfamiliar with decision theory, the idea can be
illustrated by considering a lottery. Suppose there are 100 tickets at
$1 each and a jackpot of $1000. Is it rational to play? If you total the
earnings and the expenses for all the tickets ($1000 - $100), then
divide by the number of tickets, you find that on average each ticket
nets $9. In comparison, not playing involves zero expense and zero
payoff. Since $9 is preferable to $0, it is rational to play.
Alternately, suppose there are 1000 tickets costing $2 each, a grand
prize of $1000, and a consolation prize of $500. Then the total earnings
and expenses ($1500 - $2000), divided by the number of tickets, yields a
net loss of fifty cents for the average ticket. In this case, unless you
have some reason to believe that a given ticket is not average, playing
the game is irrational.

To put the matter more generally: a given action (say, buying a ticket)
is associated with a set of possible outcomes (say, winning the grand
prize, winning the consolation prize, or losing); each outcome has a
certain value or "utility" (the utility of winning might be the value of
the prize minus the cost of the ticket); the "expectation" for each
outcome is equal to its utility multiplied by the probability of its
happening; the expectation for a given action is the sum of the
expectations for each possible associated outcome. The course of action
having the maximum expectation is the rational one to follow.

The expectation for believing in God = positive infinity x ½ plus
something finite x ½ = positive infinity; the expectation for not
believing = negative infinity x ½ plus something finite x ½ = negative
infinity. Hence it is rational to believe in God.

Basically, If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing,
but if you believe in God and he does exist, you gain everything.
Rather cynical, but VERY logical.

Bill

2004-12-20 16:59:56 UTC

Your statements are pure nonsense. If god is "love" why does he permit
children to young to have ever sined or even thought of sinning to be still
born or born with serious and disabling and punishing deformaties. Why
permit the birth of children without limbs, fingers, eye sight, hearing
malfunctioning brains etc.?

Does your god "love" to torture innocent children?

Finally, if you want to be REALLY cynical,

Post by Greg
than I will bring up Pascals Wager.

Pascals wager is pure nonsense.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm#A%20Reason%20for%20Believing%20in%20God

Post by Greg
A Reason for Believing in God
There are two kinds of argument for theism. Traditional, epistemic
arguments hold that God exists; examples include arguments from
cosmology, design, ontology, and experience. Modern, pragmatic arguments
hold that, regardless of whether God exists, believing in God is good
for us, or is the right thing to do; examples include William James's
will to believe and Blaise Pascal's wager.
Pascal -- French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability
theorist (1623-1662) -- argues that if we don't know whether God exists
then we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry. The argument
comes in three versions (Hacking 1972), all of them employing decision
theory.
For those who are unfamiliar with decision theory, the idea can be
illustrated by considering a lottery. Suppose there are 100 tickets at
$1 each and a jackpot of $1000. Is it rational to play? If you total the
earnings and the expenses for all the tickets ($1000 - $100), then
divide by the number of tickets, you find that on average each ticket
nets $9. In comparison, not playing involves zero expense and zero
payoff. Since $9 is preferable to $0, it is rational to play.
Alternately, suppose there are 1000 tickets costing $2 each, a grand
prize of $1000, and a consolation prize of $500. Then the total earnings
and expenses ($1500 - $2000), divided by the number of tickets, yields a
net loss of fifty cents for the average ticket. In this case, unless you
have some reason to believe that a given ticket is not average, playing
the game is irrational.
To put the matter more generally: a given action (say, buying a ticket)
is associated with a set of possible outcomes (say, winning the grand
prize, winning the consolation prize, or losing); each outcome has a
certain value or "utility" (the utility of winning might be the value of
the prize minus the cost of the ticket); the "expectation" for each
outcome is equal to its utility multiplied by the probability of its
happening; the expectation for a given action is the sum of the
expectations for each possible associated outcome. The course of action
having the maximum expectation is the rational one to follow.
The expectation for believing in God = positive infinity x œ plus
something finite x œ = positive infinity; the expectation for not
believing = negative infinity x œ plus something finite x œ = negative
infinity. Hence it is rational to believe in God.
Basically, If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing,
but if you believe in God and he does exist, you gain everything.
Rather cynical, but VERY logical.

Greg

2004-12-20 20:57:14 UTC

If God isnt love than why do you exist? Why does the human race exist
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so incredibly
full of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it all?

Secondly as a 16 year old teen with a case of severe ADD, I can honestly
say that I dont feel shafted by God at all. Neither does a friend of
mine who was born with a deformed left arm. Both of us are missing
something that makes us "the same as everyone else" but we have both
gained a great amount too. Even though my grades are far lower than
what they should be due to ADD, I am incredibly gifted in other areas of
my life and so is my friend with the deformed arm. Another few friends
of mine are diabetics, and while they miss out on some things due to
their malfunctioning pancreas, they also have an ubundance of skills in
other areas of their own lives. I am willing to bet that there are
areas in your life that you are far more skilled at than others.

Your comments betray that you see the issue of God from your side only
and not the people whom you list. The people without limbs, fingers,
eye sight, hearing, and *ahem* malfunctioning brains. I can assure you
that my brain does not "feel" like it is malfunctioning at any point in
my life. You argue for me and all the oters with disabilites, and that
may or may not be our view. Very few of us feel "shafted by God".

My mother works for the DD (developmentaly disabled) and those people
are FAR less fortunate than I am. I regularly say hi to 60+ year old
men who have the understanding of a third grader. Those people are far
happier than you or I could ever be. They are fed, cared for, and
loved, and they teach the people around them far more than we can teach
them. God made some poeple with greater imperfections than others in
order to allow the healthier people (us) to serve those who are less
fortunate.

Finally, dont say that "pascals wager is pure nonsense" without some
statements to back it up. Tell me WHY its nonsense so that I can try to
refute your arguments. Such blaise statements are not gentlemanlike.

Thanks for your time, I probably wont be able to change a man who has
held an opinion for most of his life, but the discussions we have been
having have been helping me to discover more about my own faith.

TCS

2004-12-20 21:05:56 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Didn't anybody ever explain procreation (read: fucking) to you?
No wonder you're so confused.

Robibnikoff

2004-12-20 21:14:35 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control. You?

Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so incredibly full
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it all?

Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important things
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

Mark K. Bilbo

2004-12-21 02:38:52 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control. You?

You know...

The pill was introduced in 1960. It was immediately popular with women and
was adopted pretty damn fast but even by '65 was only being taken by about
5 million. Our age group is rather in that period of the pill going from
new to ubiquitous. We're kind of the last "oops" generation. <G>

Not that unplanned pregnancies don't still happen but it used to be the
*rule rather than the exception. We're among the last "accidents."

(Okay, mom said "happy accident" but moms do have to say things like that.
I think it's the law or something.)

Hey, I have an idea. Let's split off from the Boomers (never liked those
people anyway and they'll eat all the Social Security before *we get
there) and dub ourselves...

The Unplanned!

(Sounds kinda sinister doncha think?)

--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:38:53 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it all?

Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important things
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Christopher A. Lee

2004-12-22 17:46:44 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 18:18:54 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

Never said that. But the *name* of the holiday has the word Christ in
it. Originally it was made up as a day to celebrate *Christ's*
birthday (I understand he was supposedly born in spring). Stands to
reason that if you're not a Christian, then celebrating Christmas is
kinda pointless (I don't do it by choice. My wife makes me because she
celebrates it).

Christopher A. Lee

2004-12-22 18:30:21 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

It was implied by your question.

Have you been following the responses to Diana?

Plenty of people celebrate it as a totally secular holiday.

Do you ignore Wednesday because it is Waoden's day?

My family has celebrated it as a secular holiday

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 18:51:33 UTC

On 22 Dec 2004 09:38:53 -0800, "Rump Ranger"

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more

important

Post by Greg
things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

It was implied by your question.
Have you been following the responses to Diana?

Who?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Plenty of people celebrate it as a totally secular holiday.

It's secular now but it has a Christian significance.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do you ignore Wednesday because it is Waoden's day?

Irrelevant. I don't celebrate Wednesday. Wednesdays have no
significance to me whatsoever, but Christmas is an important day to
many people.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
My family has celebrated it as a secular holiday

Yeah, but the holiday originally was religious. No matter how you want
to slice it, you're still celebrating Christ's day (even if you do it
secularly). I have an excuse: my wife and her family does it. If I
didn't show up, she'd be mad and that means no sex for me for a long
time afterwards. In marriage you gotta make compromises.........

Christopher A. Lee

2004-12-22 18:57:56 UTC

On 22 Dec 2004 09:38:53 -0800, "Rump Ranger"

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth

control.

Post by Greg
You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom

Post by Greg
all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more

important

Post by Greg
things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

Never said that. But the *name* of the holiday has the word Christ

Post by Rump Ranger
it. Originally it was made up as a day to celebrate *Christ's*
birthday (I understand he was supposedly born in spring). Stands to
reason that if you're not a Christian, then celebrating Christmas is
kinda pointless (I don't do it by choice. My wife makes me because

she

Post by Rump Ranger
celebrates it).

It was implied by your question.
Have you been following the responses to Diana?

Who?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Plenty of people celebrate it as a totally secular holiday.

It's secular now but it has a Christian significance.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do you ignore Wednesday because it is Waoden's day?

Irrelevant. I don't celebrate Wednesday. Wednesdays have no
significance to me whatsoever, but Christmas is an important day to
many people.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
My family has celebrated it as a secular holiday

It was a pre-Christian midwinter festival that Christianity hijacked.
All cultures have festivals around the solstices and equinoxes.

AND NO, I AM NOT "CELEBRATING CHRIST'S DAY" OUTSIDE THE FANTASIES OF
THE IGNORANT.

jesshc

2004-12-22 19:03:54 UTC

On 22 Dec 2004 10:18:54 -0800, "Rump Ranger"

Post by Rump Ranger
Never said that. But the *name* of the holiday has the word

Christ

Post by Rump Ranger
in

because

Post by Rump Ranger
she

Post by Rump Ranger
celebrates it).

It was implied by your question.
Have you been following the responses to Diana?

Who?

Plenty of people celebrate it as a totally secular holiday.

It's secular now but it has a Christian significance.

And it was co-opted from the pagans.

Do you ignore Wednesday because it is Waoden's day?

Irrelevant. I don't celebrate Wednesday. Wednesdays have no
significance to me whatsoever, but Christmas is an important day to
many people.

Including non-christians.

My family has celebrated it as a secular holiday

Yeah, but the holiday originally was religious.

No, the holiday was originally pagan.

Post by Rump Ranger
No matter how you want to slice it, you're still celebrating
Christ's day (even if you do it secularly).

Or, if not that, the winter solstice.

Post by Rump Ranger
I have an excuse: my wife and her family does it. If I
didn't show up, she'd be mad and that means no sex for me for a long
time afterwards. In marriage you gotta make compromises.........

As in life.

jwk

2004-12-22 19:05:26 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

I celebrate Christmas for the same reasons early Christians celebrated
the winter solstice - it's fun. They weren't pagans, but the church
couldn't stop them from joining in on the best celebration of the year.
I'm not christian, but it's fun to celebrate christmas.

As far as the name goes, well, I still say "god damn it" even though I
don't believe in gods. It's a cultural expression. So is the term
"christmas". If I called it "winter solstice" many people wouldn't
know what I meant, and others would be likely to throw things.

jwk

Mark K. Bilbo

2004-12-23 02:35:28 UTC

In our last episode

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Here's another: why do you imagine Christmas has to be a religious
festival for everybody?

Never said that. But the *name* of the holiday has the word Christ in it.
Originally it was made up as a day to celebrate *Christ's* birthday (I
understand he was supposedly born in spring). Stands to reason that if
you're not a Christian, then celebrating Christmas is kinda pointless (I
don't do it by choice. My wife makes me because she celebrates it).

No, originally it's a pagan holiday with a thin veneer of "christian"
slathered on it...

jesshc

2004-12-22 18:59:21 UTC

Post by Rump Ranger
Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate
Christmas?

Because we like festivity.

Mark K. Bilbo

2004-12-23 02:34:29 UTC

In our last episode

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate Christmas?

Because.

Mark K. Bilbo

2004-12-23 02:34:50 UTC

In our last episode

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate Christmas?

Actually, the real question is why do Christians celebrate a pagan holiday?

2004-12-23 05:17:02 UTC

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
In our last episode

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Because one night, my very young parents forgot the birth control.

You?

Post by Robibnikoff
Why does the human race exist

Post by Greg
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so

incredibly full

Post by Greg
of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it

all?

Post by Robibnikoff
Don't know, don't care. Now, excuse me while I do more important

things

Post by Robibnikoff
like making Xmas cookies with my daughter.

Here's a question: if you're an atheist, why do you celebrate Christmas?

Actually, the real question is why do Christians celebrate a pagan holiday?

And why do they adopt pagan symbols like bunnies?

--
m2

Christopher A. Lee

2004-12-20 23:09:29 UTC

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:57:14 -0800, Greg <***@9y.com> wrote:

Didn't your father tell you about the birds and the bees?

[rest of this sermonising ignorance snipped]

thomas p

2004-12-21 18:38:23 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Don't you have sex education where you come from?

snip

Tukla Ratte

2004-12-21 19:05:23 UTC

Greg wrote:

< snip >

Post by Greg
Finally, dont say that "pascals wager is pure nonsense" without some
statements to back it up. Tell me WHY its nonsense so that I can try to
refute your arguments. Such blaise statements are not gentlemanlike.

Pascal's Wager assumes you have only two choices: believe in the
Christian God, or don't believe in the Christian God.

But what about all the other possible gods? There is a potentially
infinite number of gods, each with varying attributes. What if the
Muslims are right? Then choosing to worship the Christian god will
still get you sent to Hell. What if the Jewish god is the real one?
Then there isn't any Hell to begin with. What if God is malevolent?
Then you can't trust him to abide by his promises after you die. What
if God just keeps reincarnating you, and it's only your behavior that
determines what you get reborn as, not what you believe? What if God is
the God of Deism and doesn't interact with his Creation anymore? Do you
see where this is going?

In short, Pascal's Wager contains a huge False Dichotomy fallacy.

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

stoney

2004-12-21 21:23:00 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist?

Please provide objective supporting evidence 'God' is necessary.
Of course, that would be after you provide a coherant defintion for
the g-o-d letter string.

I take it you don't know anything about human biology and
reproduction.

Post by Greg
Why does the human race exist at all?

Please provide objective supporting evidence the question 'why'
applies.

Post by Greg
Why is the universe, the world that we live in so incredibly
full of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it all?

Please provide objective supporting evidence the question 'why'
applies.

We've fathomed one heck of a lot about it.

[]

A little consideration of the matter would be sufficient. However,
the below link deals with it nicely. If you have a question after
reading the article, please ask it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2front91.html

Post by Greg
Thanks for your time, I probably wont be able to change a man who has
held an opinion for most of his life, but the discussions we have been
having have been helping me to discover more about my own faith.

"Faith" is only required when either there is no evidence or the
evidence shows the assertion is false.

Please keep in mind most US based atheists were once theist. In the
main, they were of one, or more, of the Christian sects.

Rump Ranger

2004-12-22 17:37:36 UTC

Post by Greg
If God isnt love than why do you exist? Why does the human race exist
at all? Why is the universe, the world that we live in so incredibly
full of mystery and beauty that there is no way that we can fathom it all?

That doesn't mean God did it. It could be explained by a naturalistic
theory.

Post by Greg
Secondly as a 16 year old teen with a case of severe ADD, I can honestly
say that I dont feel shafted by God at all. Neither does a friend of
mine who was born with a deformed left arm. Both of us are missing
something that makes us "the same as everyone else" but we have both
gained a great amount too. Even though my grades are far lower than
what they should be due to ADD, I am incredibly gifted in other areas of
my life and so is my friend with the deformed arm. Another few friends
of mine are diabetics, and while they miss out on some things due to
their malfunctioning pancreas, they also have an ubundance of skills in
other areas of their own lives. I am willing to bet that there are
areas in your life that you are far more skilled at than others.

That's kinda irrelevant when children are being burned alive in Iraq or
little girls are having their arms chopped off in Sierre Leone. There
are atrocities which happen in this world that seem to indicate that at
the very least God doesn't care. The problem of suffering may not
prove God doesn't exist, but why does he *allow* such suffering to
continue if he's all about love?

Post by Greg
Your comments betray that you see the issue of God from your side only
and not the people whom you list. The people without limbs, fingers,
eye sight, hearing, and *ahem* malfunctioning brains. I can assure you
that my brain does not "feel" like it is malfunctioning at any point in
my life. You argue for me and all the oters with disabilites, and that
may or may not be our view. Very few of us feel "shafted by God".
My mother works for the DD (developmentaly disabled) and those people
are FAR less fortunate than I am. I regularly say hi to 60+ year old
men who have the understanding of a third grader. Those people are far
happier than you or I could ever be. They are fed, cared for, and
loved, and they teach the people around them far more than we can teach
them. God made some poeple with greater imperfections than others in
order to allow the healthier people (us) to serve those who are less
fortunate.
Finally, dont say that "pascals wager is pure nonsense" without some
statements to back it up. Tell me WHY its nonsense so that I can try to
refute your arguments. Such blaise statements are not gentlemanlike.

My main problem with Pascal's Wager is this: if God doesn't exist, I've
wasted a lot of my life going to church and believing in something
which isn't true. There are other logical faults with the argument and
I'm sure someone will cite them, but from a personal point of view I
don't find it convincing.

Nobody changes religions based on Usenet discussions. As it's been
said, those who want to believe will find a reason to believe. Those
who don't want to believe will find a reason not to believe.

In many respects, it's a matter of personal taste (if undeniable
evidence was forthcoming either way, people would all believe one thing
like nobody denies the laws of physics).

jwk

2004-12-22 19:17:03 UTC

However, in AA at least, the explaination of Pascal's Wager is given so
often that we just assume everyone knows about it. The only reason to
mention it then is to point out that someone is using it.

I'm not the best choice to explain this, so I would suggest doing a
google search in alt.atheism for pascal's wager. You'll get a few
thousand hits.

Basically it is the argument that playing the game is safer that being
true to yourself. (My take on it.) Would you really worship a god who
was so easily taken in? I'd rather stand on my own two feet and be
true to myself.

Besides, Pascal's Wager assumes that there are only two choices -
atheist or Christian. Would you expect Muslims and Jews to convert,
just in case, as well? Of course not.

jwk

2004-12-23 05:20:52 UTC