Smart Kid

[BillyJoe]

Another option would be to remain agnostic instead of choosing one way or the other.

Are you talking about god or santa claus?

Seriously, though, if you can say this about god, but not about santa claus, you are admitting that the question of god's existence is not equivalent to the question of santa claus' existence.

 

[rcronk]

My point was that if there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other, why not be agnostic rather then choosing to believe one way or the other? In any case, God, Santa, whatever, remain agnostic until sufficient evidence points your in a direction, then lean that way.

 

[wolfgirl]

Would you also prefer to say:

"I don't know there's no santa claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

If not, then you will have to admit that the question of god's existence is not on par with the question of santa claus' existence.

Ummmm...that's exactly what I would say about Santa Claus. Let me try it out...I don't know there's no Santa Claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is. Yup, that's pretty much right. Also insert the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the invisible purple unicorn, or anything else that I or anyone else can imagine might possibly exist.

Isn't that how you feel about Santa Claus? Am I missing something here?

 

[wolfgirl]

My point was that if there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other, why not be agnostic rather then choosing to believe one way or the other? In any case, God, Santa, whatever, remain agnostic until sufficient evidence points your in a direction, then lean that way.

But don't we all have an opinion, a leaning, a belief one way or the other about almost everything? We choose to believe based on the weight of the evidence, not on the certainty of it.

Surely you aren't agnostic on the subject of Santa Claus, are you? You have a certain amount of knowledge about him which leads you to conclude that he very, very probably doesn't exist, though there is always that tiny possibility. Because there is that slim possibility, can you honestly say, if someone asks you if you believe in Santa, that your answer is "I'm not sure"? You either believe in Santa or you don't. The only truly Santa-agnostics are probably kids who are starting to question the truth of it, but haven't quite decided yet.

That's how I feel about gods. Yeah, okay, there is a tiny possibility that a god or gods might conceivably exist. But the knowledge I have on the subject leads me to lean in favor of not believing in any, so I don't go around calling myself an agnostic about gods any more than I call myself an agnostic about Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in gods. Same thing, to me.

 

[BillyJoe]

Ummmm...that's exactly what I would say about Santa Claus. Let me try it out...I don't know there's no Santa Claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is. Yup, that's pretty much right. Also insert the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the invisible purple unicorn, or anything else that I or anyone else can imagine might possibly exist.

Isn't that how you feel about Santa Claus? Am I missing something here?

Let me try it out:

"I don't know there's no Santa Claus, but until someone proves there is, I choose not to believe there is."

Well, I don't know about you, but I DO know that there is no santa claus.
I don't remember ever believing in santa claus, but, if I did, I'm sure proof against santa claus would have reached me by now!

I'm not sure how you could have missed it all these years.
(oops, I'm sorry, I don't even know your age )

 

[BillyJoe]

Surely you aren't agnostic on the subject of Santa Claus, are you? You have a certain amount of knowledge about him which leads you to conclude that he very, very probably doesn't exist, though there is always that tiny possibility. Because there is that slim possibility, can you honestly say, if someone asks you if you believe in Santa, that your answer is "I'm not sure"? You either believe in Santa or you don't. The only truly Santa-agnostics are probably kids who are starting to question the truth of it, but haven't quite decided yet.

Hmmm....this seems to contradict your previous post.
I guess you're hanging on to the "very, very probably doesn't exist, though there is always that tiny possibility"
Let me assure you that I have absolutely no doubt that santa claus does not exist. (Is the Earth flat?)

That's how I feel about gods. Yeah, okay, there is a tiny possibility that a god or gods might conceivably exist. But the knowledge I have on the subject leads me to lean in favor of not believing in any, so I don't go around calling myself an agnostic about gods any more than I call myself an agnostic about Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't believe in gods. Same thing, to me.

But my feeling about god is roughly the same as yours.

We have not answered the question of "Why something rather than nothing", and my reaction to the revelations of relativity and quantum theory is something along the lines of "weird, bizarre, shocking". Until we can answer all such questions, we have to allow a possibility that god exists. At the very least, god cannot be disproven.

IMO, those other three characters are just not in the same league.

 

[volatile]

IMO, those other three characters are just not in the same league.

So, the more extreme and absurd a "character"'s powers, the more likely you are to believe in them?

Seems like you have things the wrong way up, if you're basing your opinions of whether something exists or not by assigning "leagues"!

This is nothing more than a base argument from incredulity, really...

 

[The Grave]

Evidence first... theory second.... truth third....

My point was that if there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other, why not be agnostic rather then choosing to believe one way or the other? In any case, God, Santa, whatever, remain agnostic until sufficient evidence points your in a direction, then lean that way.

Yes the holy-trinity!

1. Evidence.... of a phenomena worthy of explanation. {There is no evidence of god; ergo IT is not worthy of an explanation}
2. Theory.... a set of ideas to explain and test the theory. {you faithers can come up with NONE. To have a theory you need to test it. You criticise evolution one this very point... ironically enough!}
3. Truth.... proof! You have none. QED.

To address your point:"...there's not sufficient evidence one way or the other..."


What utter rubbish; yet what an astounding scientific observation to totally annihilate your theory!

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

Yet it's astoundingly correct... that there IS no evidence! Therefore there is no god which needs to be explained!

Hope that helps you faithers sleep tonight! I mean knowing your wrong!

Griff... Zzzzz....

 

[The Grave]

Attributes?

Some versions of god, or some attributes of god can be disproved, but not all attributes can be (see above). Santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie are easily dispensed with by discovering that your parents supply the things attributed to them.

Name and shame:

Tell us oh wise one.... which attributes can not be disproved?

Griff...

 

[BillyJoe]

volatile,

I see you nominated wolfgirl's post.

So, the more extreme and absurd a "character"'s powers, the more likely you are to believe in them?

No. If there is no evidence for or against a "character", I neither believe it exists nor believe that it doesn't exist.
Example: god.

On the other hand:
The more evidence against a "character", the more likely I am to believe that it doesn't exist.
Examples: santa claus, easter bunny, tooth faerie.

Seems like you have things the wrong way up, if you're basing your opinions of whether something exists or not by assigning "leagues"!

All I am saying is that god has no evidence for or against, whereas the other "characters" have incontrovertible evidence against. They're in different leagues, categories, groups, call it what you will.

This is nothing more than a base argument from incredulity, really...

I'm simply saying that they cannot be grouped together.

 

[BillyJoe]

Name and shame:

Tell us oh wise one.... which attributes can not be disproved?

Griff...

I am not wise as you have so cleverly discerned.
And so derogatorily noted.

In fact, I probably misused that word "attribute".
I am merely referring to god as that purported being who has always existed and who created everything else.

But if you insult me again, I'm going home to mummy.

 

[BillyJoe]

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a god hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander:

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

Is that what you want to say?
(Oh wise one.)

 

[The Grave]

Correct!

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander:

It's utter rubbish because if there's not evidence to support a string hypothesis...Then IT is non-existent! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!

Is that what you want to say?
(Oh wise one.)

I would be the first to say that some geniuses in the past have made scientific 'leaps' beyond known {experimental} knowledge, but they were still applying 'rules'; they simply took those rules to their logical conclusion on paper rather than in practice... they were proved later.

String theory is not like that... it has a long way to go. Not that I've read up on it lately {got bored} but I have to say that to explain particle creation with a complicated set of 'strings' requires faith on a par with godly faith.

To replace a reasonably complicated thing with a much more complicated string-thing is usually wrong {can't say 100% - cos I donts knows every-ting}.

And I never really try to insult anybody... I let them do that for themselves.

Griff...

 

[BillyJoe]

polaristutoring,

So, strings are non-existent are they, because, at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for their existence?
And, if proof of strings is found next century, do they suddenly spring into existence?

At least wolfgirl quit while she thought she was ahead.

 

[cyborg]

So, strings are non-existent are they, because, at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for their existence?
And, if proof of strings is found next century, do they suddenly spring into existence?

Human decisions about what abstractions to use for phenomena have an affect on the nature of the phenomena. You are talking as if definitive absolute answers about such issues are possible.

 

[Lonewulf]

polaristutoring,

So, strings are non-existent are they, because, at the moment, there is absolutely no evidence for their existence?
And, if proof of strings is found next century, do they suddenly spring into existence?

At least wolfgirl quit while she thought she was ahead.

So, prove that there's a chinese teapot orbiting the sun. Oh, you can't yet, but we should expend vast resources trying to find it...

My astronomy instructor wasn't very happy with string theory. Until there becomes something falsifiable or predictable with it, it's just a nice idea.

They're currently building particle accelerators that could potentially prove some aspects of String Theory, and I will find it interesting if they discover anything. However, your claim of, "Well, they haven't proven it YET, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that it exists!" is faulty at best.

Furthermore, there's more "evidence" for string theory than there is for God, that's for damned sure.

 

[volatile]

No. If there is no evidence for or against a "character", I neither believe it exists nor believe that it doesn't exist.
Example: god.

On the other hand:
The more evidence against a "character", the more likely I am to believe that it doesn't exist.
Examples: santa claus, easter bunny, tooth faerie.

All I am saying is that god has no evidence for or against, whereas the other "characters" have incontrovertible evidence against. They're in different leagues, categories, groups, call it what you will.

What's the incontrovertible evidence against Santa Claus? How is this better than the evidence against God?

I'm simply saying that they cannot be grouped together.

Why not? Your categorisation seems to be based squarely on the fact that the God character is is more powerful than the others...

 

[BillyJoe]

For some reason I'm no longer receiving email alerts for this thread.
I wonder if maybe that's why wolf girl dropped out of the discusion.
(If so, apologies to her for my comment above)
I just remembered this thread before going to bed.
Sorry I can't answer tonight.

 

[kinkymagic]

What's the incontrovertible evidence against Santa Claus? How is this better than the evidence against God?

I can prove that Santa Claus exists if you like.

"Santa Claus exists if I am not mistaken. This sentence is certainly true and hence, I am not mistaken and therefore Santa Claus exists."

 

[Tanstaafl]

Well, I must admit, that proof is up to biblical standards...