Proof of God

edge said:
If you were an atheist how would you know, how could you know?
Click to expand...
Being an atheist does not make someone nonhuman. Being an atheist means being a non-believer of something and that you want proof of something in order to consider it to be real. I’m sure that we all here are atheist about Peter Pan.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I will not lie to you. I'm a bit drunk right now. I'm drunk enough to know that anything I post in response to you right now will likely get me suspended if not banned. I will respond in the morning, or, as it is already technically 'morning' now, possibly tonight. When I sober up at any rate.

I would, however, like to ask the other posters here - does anyone else in this thread feel as though arguing with a brick wall would be MORE productive than what is occuring? I mean, I've really tried to explain this, and it just doesn't seem to be gelling. Do I need to work on my posts? Are they not clear enough? I'm really near to running out of ways to explain this!
 
Does this help "THERE IS NO GOD" and "THERE IS NO NEED FOR A GOD".

Paul

:) :) :)
 
And a GOD does not tell you how anything works and is therefore useless.

Paul

:) :) :)

Unless you just can't grow up.
 
Mobyseven said:
I will not lie to you. I'm a bit drunk right now. I'm drunk enough to know that anything I post in response to you right now will likely get me suspended if not banned. I will respond in the morning, or, as it is already technically 'morning' now, possibly tonight. When I sober up at any rate.

I would, however, like to ask the other posters here - does anyone else in this thread feel as though arguing with a brick wall would be MORE productive than what is occuring? I mean, I've really tried to explain this, and it just doesn't seem to be gelling. Do I need to work on my posts? Are they not clear enough? I'm really near to running out of ways to explain this!
Click to expand...
I'd suggest taking a break. There's no shame in regrouping and trying again tomorrow, especially since this "brick wall" has been around for thousands of years.
 
Paulhoff said:
And a GOD does not tell you how anything works and is therefore useless.

Paul

:) :) :)

Unless you just can't grow up.
Click to expand...
From a practical standpoint, what is the difference between "God" and "no God", besides sleeping in on Sunday and/or losing the excuses to hate other people that religious folks cling to so tightly?
 
BillyJoe said:
:D


I know the thread is long, but if you are going to contribute you have no choice but to read it through.
Come back when you are up to scratch.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I have been following from the start.

I will admit to some slight confusion as to exactly what position it is you are proposing. From some of the other responses, I'm not alone.

If you don't believe in god, then I apologise for suggesting that you do.

However, the thrust of your arguments seems to be that the non-existence of god cannot be proved. For some reason, though, you seem to be arguing that god has some special attribute that means that while you are happy to agree with the proposition that unicorns, for example, do not exist, based on lack of any evidence, the same is not true for god. Because of that, I was guilty of the assumption that you were arguing from a position of faith, since there didn't seem to be anything else that might explain this apparent discrepancy. Perhaps you could explain exactly why you view god as different from unicorns?

ETA: I think this site renders the question moot. :D
 
Last edited:
D'rok the Lacone said:
I consider this passage to be conclusive evidence for one of the following two claims:

1. You have not read Mobyseven's posts
2. You have read but failed to understand Mobyseven's posts

I consider claim 2 to be the most likely.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately I understand exactly what he says.

The point is he is either self-contradictory or inconsistent in what he says. This is what he did not understand at first, although I believe, now, with his retreat to the claim of "conventional conversation", I think he can no longer claim he does not understand. What you say by convention does not make it true.

Anyway, you need to offer your own arguments.
Statements of support are of no value.
 
volatile said:
That's exactly what we've been trying to explain - with formal logic, with analogy and with discussions of falsifiability. We all know that we can't prove or disprove God, and indeed that's entirely at the basis of what M7 and I have been going over in post after post. You're so nearly there. Yes, we are saying the same thing - that God can't be proven or disproven.
Click to expand...


Well I think we have been so close right form the start.
It's that little bridge overe a little stream that you all refuse to cross.
It's not that scary really.

volatile said:
Where we differ is on what conclusions we can draw from this imprecision - and if you'd just re-read anything MobySeven or I have said in this thread, you'd see that its precisely the nature of the doubt which must, logically, lead us to conclude more strongly towards the "not exist" than "exist" position.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I don't need to re-read anything, I read everything and re-read everthing as I go along. I understand exactly what he has said. It's not exactly new territory. My concern is with his, and your, certainty.

But I see you now understand is as well as Mobyseven.
Mobyseven has his "conventional conversation", you have your "imprecision", "doubt" and "more strongly towards".

I think the two of you need to chew on those words for a while.
 
Hehe. Paul, the Fallacy Man!
Paulhoff said:
Does this help "THERE IS NO GOD" and "THERE IS NO NEED FOR A GOD".
And a GOD does not tell you how anything works and is therefore useless.
Click to expand...
Naturalistic Fallacy. (1900)
Is-Ought-Fallacy. (1750)

You're on the run for Committer of the oldest, best-known fallacy. Keep going, man!

:D

Let me try also. It's so cushy, I like that:

Belief in God is abundant. Therefore belief in God is useful!
Herzblut
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
I will not lie to you. I'm a bit drunk right now. I'm drunk enough to know that anything I post in response to you right now will likely get me suspended if not banned. I will respond in the morning, or, as it is already technically 'morning' now, possibly tonight. When I sober up at any rate.
Click to expand...


You can only get banned if you are reported.
I have never reported anyone.

I was drunk as well last night when I wrote in here at about 4 am. But it still sounds coherent this morning. I'd just been to a 30th birthday fancy dress party where I'd gone as Maurice Gibb, the Beegees less celebrated brother. Not sure why. I think I just had the clothes at hand I suppose. Unfortunately everyone thought I went as a pimp. Fancy that!

:D (true but)

Mobyseven said:
I would, however, like to ask the other posters here - does anyone else in this thread feel as though arguing with a brick wall would be MORE productive than what is occuring? I mean, I've really tried to explain this, and it just doesn't seem to be gelling. Do I need to work on my posts? Are they not clear enough? I'm really near to running out of ways to explain this!
Click to expand...


Oh, they are all with you Mobyseven (jesus I wish your name was Mobydick :(), that circle jerk of yours. :D
 
zooterkin said:
Thank you, I have been following from the start.
Click to expand...


Then your problem must lie elsewhere. ;)

zooterkin said:
I will admit to some slight confusion as to exactly what position it is you are proposing. From some of the other responses, I'm not alone.
Click to expand...


It's called jumping to conclusions.

zooterkin said:
If you don't believe in god, then I apologise for suggesting that you do.
Click to expand...


Would I need an apology if you jumped to the conclusion that I was a homosexual?

zooterkin said:
However, the thrust of your arguments seems to be that the non-existence of god cannot be proved.
Click to expand...


With which you all seem to agree.
How small a step can it be from there to "you cannot say there is no god"

zooterkin said:
For some reason, though, you seem to be arguing that god has some special attribute...
Click to expand...


That special attribute being that believers posit god as the answer to the ultimate questions of our existence.

zooterkin said:
...that means that while you are happy to agree with the proposition that unicorns, for example, do not exist, based on lack of any evidence, the same is not true for god.
Click to expand...


Because these characters have no similar atribute: no one claims they do anything, let alone answer the ultimate questions of our existence.
(questions, which, by the way, science has seemingly no hope of answering)


Because of that, I was guilty of the assumption that you were arguing from a position of faith, since there didn't seem to be anything else that might explain this apparent discrepancy. Perhaps you could explain exactly why you view god as different from unicorns
Click to expand...


See above.
 
Mobyseven said:
I will not lie to you. I'm a bit drunk right now. I'm drunk enough to know that anything I post in response to you right now will likely get me suspended if not banned. I will respond in the morning, or, as it is already technically 'morning' now, possibly tonight. When I sober up at any rate.

I would, however, like to ask the other posters here - does anyone else in this thread feel as though arguing with a brick wall would be MORE productive than what is occurring? I mean, I've really tried to explain this, and it just doesn't seem to be gelling. Do I need to work on my posts? Are they not clear enough? I'm really near to running out of ways to explain this!
Click to expand...

There really is nothing you can do or say to this poster to change anything. No fault of your own. The best you can hope for is that some of the lurkers here will actually get and learn something. Keep them in mind when debating.

To the believers,
If you want to stick with a belief in God in general science can never speak directly against you by the very definition of science. What does show extreme intellectual dishonesty is to pretend that your particular interpretation of your religion trumps science and that science should submit to your version. It's more than dishonest it is deceitful. Like Behe lying in court for in his imagination the greater good. Even the Pope has conceded this. The apostle Paul would seem to also agree when he said;
"For as much as by God's design the world failed to know God by means of its wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe in him through the foolishness of Holy Scripture."
Apostle Paul in letters to many churches of his time. (Bold mine).
Click to expand...
Do you also wish to deny us learning of "God's design the world"? If as edge says
edge said:
Knowledge that God exists comes from belief. Once you have belief you have that knowledge.
Click to expand...
Why then would you even consider demanding that science should deny evidence to support your belief. Believe what you will but your insistence that the evidence is not evidence belies your lack of faith.
 
my_wan said:
There really is nothing you can do or say to this poster to change anything.
Click to expand...


My name is BillyJoe. :cool:

my_wan said:
No fault of your own. The best you can hope for is that some of the lurkers here will actually get and learn something. Keep them in mind when debating.
Click to expand...


That is all I can hope for it seems.
Mobyseven has plenty right here to list amongst his circle of friends. :D

my_wan said:
To the believers,

If you want to stick with a belief in God in general science can never speak directly against you by the very definition of science. What does show extreme intellectual dishonesty is to pretend that your particular interpretation of your religion trumps science and that science should submit to your version. It's more than dishonest it is deceitful. Like Behe lying in court for in his imagination the greater good. Even the Pope has conceded this. The apostle Paul would seem to also agree when he said;

Do you also wish to deny us learning of "God's design the world"? If as edge says

Why then would you even consider demanding that science should deny evidence to support your belief. Believe what you will but your insistence that the evidence is not evidence belies your lack of faith.
Click to expand...


Well, there's a lot to agree with here. :)
You are preaching to the converted though....
....in more ways than one. ;)
 
JoeEllison said:
You might need a break as well.
Click to expand...


You will not believe this, but I'm just about to set off for my sunday walk through the Dandenongs with Ralph (Milly can't go because she has ruptured her cruciate ligament - for which I still hold Skeptigirl personally responsible, by the way, if you are out there Skeptigirl :mad:).

We'll be back in about four hours or so.


I hope you'll have all sobered up by then. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom