Proof of God

[Belz...]

I see you got my point.

Indeed I did. You can't defend your opinions.

Now, instead of cheap one-liners, please explain how you arrived at them.
That would be a good start.

Cheap one-liners are better than long texts that you won't read.

First of all, you might care to read what I wrote.
(hint: one of your sentences falsely states what I said)

Does it, now ? How can I state falsely what you said if I don't refer to what you said ??

Of course, you did say that:

How do get something from nothing? or
How do you explain time/space without beginning?

So, again, who ever said somethin came from nothing ? Why would time/space have a beginning ?

Why don't you supply a reason why not?

Sorry, it's not my burden to prove your theory wrong. You're the one making the claim.

Instead of just saying so, you could identify my confusion and better inform me.

Again, it's not my burden to educate you. A few minutes of Google will do, just the same.

Except when It is an exercise in logic.
Then, you need logical argument.
Get that?

All the logic in the world fails against evidence.

 

[andyandy]

Is this thread still going? I thought it would die with Dustin's exit around post 400....

i've just skimmed through the past couple of pages, and it seems that everyone actually agrees and the only thing sustaining the argument is different posters using different definitions of the different terms in question....

just my humble opinion

 

[Herzblut]

It's irrelevant to reality.

How I deem rain likely or unlikely obviously affects whether I carry an umbrella or not, which is part of "reality" in the sense of being an empirical observation.

You're claim "That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant" is blatantly wrong.

You are done and dusted.

Herzblut

 

[Damien Evans]

Is this thread still going? I thought it would die with Dustin's exit around post 400....

i've just skimmed through the past couple of pages, and it seems that everyone actually agrees and the only thing sustaining the argument is different posters using different definitions of the different terms in question....

just my humble opinion

That, and no one will change their mind or admit they might be wrong, making this a total waste of time

 

[BillyJoe]

i've just skimmed through the past couple of pages, and it seems that everyone actually agrees and the only thing sustaining the argument is different posters using different definitions of the different terms in question....

Not really.

I have said that god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie, but others disagree.
(Because, I suspect, they have read "The God Delusion" and Richard Dawkin's has said so )
Also I haven't seen a rebuttal of my rebuttal of the "can't prove a negative" argument in support of "there is no god".
(If you can follow that )

Apart from that we're on song.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

That, and no one will change their mind or admit they might be wrong, making this a total waste of time

I'm trying hard but they just won't budge. <-

 

[Paulhoff]

You should, if you haven't, watch Star Trek TNG "Who Watches the Watchers"

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68410.html

Paul

 

[Mobyseven]

Also I haven't seen a rebuttal of my rebuttal of the "can't prove a negative" argument in support of "there is no god".

Your kidding, right? I've spent f***ing hours responding to your posts, and you haven't 'seen' them?

If your referring to your most recent one, I just went back to look for it. It may have been easier to find had it not been entirely inside a quote box, I skipped over it originally because I thought you were just making a one line comment about a massive post.

Your rebuttal essentially boils down to, "I define god as being completely unobservable. Therefore..."

Well, I couldn't quite figure out what your conclusion was from that, but I have one for you: If god is completely unobservable and undetectable, then god cannot have created the universe, QED.

If you had a different conclusion in mind, I would certainly like to hear it.

 

[BillyJoe]

You can't defend your opinions.

They're all there.
If you're too lazy to go back and read them, it's not my fault.
If you decide to put in an effort and show me where you think I've gone wrong, I will be happy to consider it. Really I will.

Cheap one-liners are better than long texts that you won't read.

I have read all of mobyseven and volatile's long posts and I will take the opportunity now to say that I have found them very well written (much more so than I could have done), if not illuminating (only because it is old territory for me - but I am sure others have found them very much so).

Does it, now ? How can I state falsely what you said if I don't refer to what you said ?

Obviously I meant "not read properly".

Of course, you did say that:
"How do get something from nothing?" or
"How do you explain time/space without beginning?"

So, again, who ever said somethin came from nothing ? Why would time/space have a beginning ?

Perhaps I'll just correct your question and be done with it:

Billyjoe, can you please explain why it has to be either "something from nothing" OR "time/space without beginning"?

Get it now?
(I'm not saying I necessarily have this right, but please read properly what I have written. There's really no point in telling me something I have not written is wrong)

Sorry, it's not my burden to prove your theory wrong. You're the one making the claim.

It's not a theory.
All I am asking you to do is show why it is not the case that it is either "something from nothing" OR "time/space without beginning".
To me it's a self evidently true statement.
But that's me.
Show me why I'm wrong, if you think so.

Again, it's not my burden to educate you [about the current theories]. A few minutes of Google will do, just the same.

You say I am confused about the current theories, but you won't even tell me which theories I'm supposed to be confused about, let alone how I have them wrong! That being the case, what do you propose I put into google?
In any case, I have a fair knowledge of the current theories. Whether it's as good as yours I actually have no way of knowing, seeing as you're so constrained in your replies.

All the logic in the world fails against evidence.

Not when it is a logical argument.
Not when there is no evidence.
But show me how I'm wrong, I'm happy to learn.
(And the lurkers are absolutely salivating for your words of wisdom. )


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Your kidding, right? I've spent f***ing hours responding to your posts, and you haven't 'seen' them?

Aw, and I just got through giving you and volatile a big compliment.
And I meant it too.

If your referring to your most recent one, I just went back to look for it. It may have been easier to find had it not been entirely inside a quote box, I skipped over it originally because I thought you were just making a one line comment about a massive post.

Sorry about that.
I thought it would read better that way.
Give me this - I have very rarely, if ever, given one line comments to any post, certainly not to large posts (even when they are not considered and not well written ones like Belz's )

Your rebuttal essentially boils down to, "I define god as being completely unobservable. Therefore...".

First of all, "I define god as being completely unobservable" was volatile's definition from wikipedia. The exact quote was: "If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation."

The deistic god is unobservable.
Therefore one could not disprove his existence by observation.
Seems pretty straight forward.

Well, I couldn't quite figure out what your conclusion was from that...

Here it is again:
(I have expanded my third reply to make it easier to see the reasoning - hopefully!)

Volatile:
"If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation.

BillyJoe:
But also:
If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not prove his existence by observation.

Volatile:
The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God.

BillyJoe:
But also: The assertion 'God exists' would be unverifiable because of the nature of God.

Volatile:
On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

BillyJoe:
But, if the existence of God is unverifiable, then you cannot "demonstrate the existence of God" and therefore the assertion "god does not exist" is not falsifiable.


Volatile:
We can thus discard 'God exists' as our base hypothesis, as, being unfalsifiable, is useless in determining the 'truth' of God's existence. "God does not exist", however, is falsifiable, and thus useful as a hypothesis to start our investigations with.

BillyJoe:
I disagree because "god does not exist is not falsifiable

Do you disagree with this and why?
(Please accept that I am not being pig headed here, I just don't get the argument)

...but I have one for you: If god is completely unobservable and undetectable, then god cannot have created the universe, QED.

Really?
I don't get that either!
The deistic god is supposed to have created the universe complete with a few physical laws and just p!$$ed o##. Why should we be able to observe or detect him?

 

[Z]

Then such a god is irrelevant and can be disregarded entirely.

 

[Paulhoff]

When a religion has a magical so-called god, a so-called god that is only based on religious faith, that so-called god can be anything that religion what’s it to be, so in truth that so-called god is irrelevant to anyone outside that religion.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Then such a god is irrelevant and can be disregarded entirely.

Wrong. The relevence of a religious belief depends on the quantity of believers, social impact etc. Not on the scientific verifiability of its transcentental claims.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Wrong. The relevence of a religious belief depends on the quantity of believers, social impact etc. Not on the scientific verifiability of its transcentental claims.

Herzblut

And whom pray tell, makes this determination?

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

And whom pray tell, makes this determination?

Paul

I honestly don't understand your question.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

quantity of believers

You stated it, I would think you would know what you mean by it.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

You stated it, I would think you would know what you mean by it.

Paul

Yes, by "quantity of believers" I mean "number of believers", "number of adherents of a certain religion".

Where's your point?

Herzblut

 

[cyborg]

I think he might want a number.

Non-arbitrary mind.

 

[andyandy]

Then such a god is irrelevant and can be disregarded entirely.

but "relevance" is irrelevant to the question of existence or proof.

*i'm going to stop now, i can feel myself being dragged back into this*

Must. Resist.

 

[Herzblut]

but "relevance" is irrelevant to the question of existence or proof.

Of course. That's what I said in #913.

*i'm going to stop now, i can feel myself being dragged back into this*

Must. Resist.

No, no, andy, you must not. I am tired flagging logical flaws without really progressing the subject. I am pretty certain you can do that better than I.

Herzblut