| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael" |
| Date: |
26 Nov 2007 12:37:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:27:10 -0800, JessHC wrote:
If you had a large family, say a bunch of kids who just got back from a summer off somewhere herding
snakes, you might have to make some special rules, whereas with a different bunch of kids who'd been
with you all year you might want to make different rules.
The funny thing is, most parents don't hide from their children. Most
parents don't leave cryptic messages, or no messages at all, for their
children to follow.
You seem to know a lot about what most parents do or do not.
Also, your response does not seem to be addressing the paragraph above it,
as if you have things you want to write and you just need a place to put
it.
.
|
|
| User: "Bernd Schmitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
26 Nov 2007 01:09:06 PM |
|
|
On 26.11.2007 19:37, Michael wrote:
Also, your response does not seem to be addressing the paragraph above it,
as if you have things you want to write and you just need a place to put
it.
You are writing to an atheism group.
Why do you do so?
You want to convince people, doing the typical missionare.
You and the likes of you are saying nothing new, nothing which gives
evidence or proof or anything which has a slightes chance to convince.
Repitition does not help, too.
People here do not need a god.
Do you get that? Read it twice.
Can you stand that? Learn to do so.
Do atheists go to your church to convince you?
They do not, because they tolerate your wrong way of thinking.
Maybe we should start doing this missionary thing, too, but I doubt that
the reaction of people like you were like love & peace. History shows,
that religious believers like to start wars for their believe. That is a
fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
28 Nov 2007 07:06:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:37:55 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:27:10 -0800, JessHC wrote:
If you had a large family, say a bunch of kids who just got back from a summer off somewhere herding
snakes, you might have to make some special rules, whereas with a different bunch of kids who'd been
with you all year you might want to make different rules.
The funny thing is, most parents don't hide from their children. Most
parents don't leave cryptic messages, or no messages at all, for their
children to follow.
You seem to know a lot about what most parents do or do not.
It is something that you tend to notice, having parents, having
friends with parents, being a parent, knowing other parents.
Nothing mysterious or difficult about it.
Also, your response does not seem to be addressing the paragraph above it,
Are you suggesting that children/families do not have parents, or that
the xtian teaching that we are all "God's" children, and that "God" is
our father in heaven, is either false, or irrelevant to your "family"
reference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
29 Nov 2007 04:53:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:06:31 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:37:55 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:27:10 -0800, JessHC wrote:
If you had a large family, say a bunch of kids who just got back from a summer off somewhere herding
snakes, you might have to make some special rules, whereas with a different bunch of kids who'd been
with you all year you might want to make different rules.
The funny thing is, most parents don't hide from their children. Most
parents don't leave cryptic messages, or no messages at all, for their
children to follow.
Also, your response does not seem to be addressing the paragraph above it,
Are you suggesting that children/families do not have parents, or that
the xtian teaching that we are all "God's" children, and that "God" is
our father in heaven, is either false, or irrelevant to your "family"
reference.
Strictly speaking I have concluded my participation in this thread, but
I'll answer the question since it is dangling.
The two top paragraphs speak to children but that is about all they have
in common. The top paragraph speaks to one possible reason, using
families as the example, where one would reasonably give different rules
at different times, either to the same people or different people. The
ten commandments were one set of rules, and the thousand commandments that
accompany are one set of rules, but there is little evidence they pertain
to mankind today or for that matter after Jesus superceded the whole kit
with the two great commandments.
The response paragraph speaks to parents hiding from children and leaving
cryptic messages. They do not seem to be very much related, the response
does not seem to be a response, at least not to the paragraph under which
it appears. In the case of parents playing hide-and-seek, treasure hunt
or some similar thing, parents will do exactly as it is proposed they will
not do. In the case of a scoutmaster and his Scouts, or a Navy Chief and
his sailors, or God and his creation, hiding and cryptic messages are
entirely appropriate and obligatory. I use the words he is using, not
because they are my words, but it seems he does not understand when I use
my words, so I must use his. If I use my words, which I already have,
then I must repeat myself and go into a lesson on leadership training, but
that is a different topic for a different day.
The purpose in my story is to illustrate that I feel no burden to defend a
religion that has largely been superceded (Judaism) or claim a god who is
defined by that religion. Full disclosure: I do believe that the God of
Abraham et al is *the* God, but I believe we waste too much time picking
nits; or as the good book says, "strain at gnats but swallow a camel."
I suppose I am pleased that you strain at gnats *and* camels :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
30 Nov 2007 07:57:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:53:44 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:06:31 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:37:55 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:27:10 -0800, JessHC wrote:
If you had a large family, say a bunch of kids who just got back from a summer off somewhere herding
snakes, you might have to make some special rules, whereas with a different bunch of kids who'd been
with you all year you might want to make different rules.
The funny thing is, most parents don't hide from their children. Most
parents don't leave cryptic messages, or no messages at all, for their
children to follow.
Also, your response does not seem to be addressing the paragraph above it,
Are you suggesting that children/families do not have parents, or that
the xtian teaching that we are all "God's" children, and that "God" is
our father in heaven, is either false, or irrelevant to your "family"
reference.
Strictly speaking I have concluded my participation in this thread, but
I'll answer the question since it is dangling.
The two top paragraphs speak to children but that is about all they have
in common. The top paragraph speaks to one possible reason, using
families as the example, where one would reasonably give different rules
at different times, either to the same people or different people. The
ten commandments were one set of rules, and the thousand commandments that
accompany are one set of rules, but there is little evidence they pertain
to mankind today or for that matter after Jesus superceded the whole kit
with the two great commandments.
I would suggest that you read your bible again.
The commandments which Jesus gave, did not supercede, anything, they
were additions.
The response paragraph speaks to parents hiding from children and leaving
cryptic messages. They do not seem to be very much related, the response
does not seem to be a response, at least not to the paragraph under which
it appears. In the case of parents playing hide-and-seek, treasure hunt
or some similar thing, parents will do exactly as it is proposed they will
not do. In the case of a scoutmaster and his Scouts, or a Navy Chief and
his sailors, or God and his creation, hiding and cryptic messages are
entirely appropriate and obligatory. I use the words he is using, not
because they are my words, but it seems he does not understand when I use
my words, so I must use his. If I use my words, which I already have,
then I must repeat myself and go into a lesson on leadership training, but
that is a different topic for a different day.
I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse in this, for
surely no one can be, by nature, so bereft of understanding.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
26 Nov 2007 04:02:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:47:55 -0800, JessHC wrote:
The funny thing is, most parents don't hide from their children. Most parents don't leave
cryptic messages, or no messages at all, for their children to follow.
You seem to know a lot about what most parents do or do not.
Well, I'm a parent, and I don't hide from my child, nor do I leave
cryptic messages, or no messages at all, and then punish my child
because he didn't follow my instructions. Neither did my parents do
those things. Neither does my sister, who is also a parent. Neither
does my dad's eleven siblings. Neither does any parent I've ever
met. Maybe you can explain why your deity would be less loving and
responsible than me or any parent I've ever known, but I doubt it.
Were you the one complaining about "argumentum ad populum"? If I cannot
use my witnesses, you cannot use yours ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
27 Nov 2007 07:59:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:28:40 -0800, JessHC wrote:
...I'm asking you to explain how it is MORE loving and responsible to
completely abdicate any parenting responsibilies, particularly when the
consensus is that abdicating parental responsibilies is LESS loving.
I suspect we would become hopelessly mired in what you mean by "loving"
and "responsible".
If by parents you mean a view of God as a parent, no purpose is served by
arguing properties of a being you think does not exist *except* in a
theoretical way which you have shown no interest in pursuing.
If you are speaking of human parenting, that is a very large topic that
needs to be separated from this topic.
Now, if you've got "witnesses" who can demonstrate that what they've
"experienced" could not possible have had any other explanation than
deity, and have actual evidence for those claims, please, trot them out.
But if you can't do that, at the very least please stop with these
childish tactics.
Here we go again. What exactly do you mean by "demonstrate"? What do you
mean by "childish tactics?" I write well and clearly.
Which brings to mind an interesting religious item -- 2,000 years ago the
people of Judea were so accustomed to being devious in their speaking,
that plain talk was incomprehensible. Jesus was compelled to speak in
riddles and parables, which in his day probably decoded okay but using
modern ideas on ancient parables produced strange results.
I do not yet know how you decode words. I certainly do not know how other
readers decode words, so I can do one thing only -- the best I can at
using words with their "real" meanings, which is of course the meanings
that I have learned for them, and I have learned it by reading from a very
large number of books in addition to the usual quality public education.
Providing proof is easy. I can mail you a rock, call it "god" and you can
hold the proof in your hand. Undeniable, verifiable and objective --
every thing you have asked for, in your hand. Touch it, smell it. Who
are you to say that it is NOT God?
Ah hah, a trap -- to say that it is not God implies that you now what God
*is* in order to know that the rock is *not*, and that creates the strange
situation of you having definitions for things that do not exist.
Well, that's okay -- I've learned many defintions for "dragon" even though
hardly anyone seriously thinks they existed or ever existed. Every word
needs a definition (or many). Eventually I'll find out what you think God
is, and very likely I will agree with you that such a God does not exist.
Where does that leave your argument? Nowhere.
A seeker of truth -- and many exist, just not very often drawn to
alt.atheism -- will invite evidence, however circumstantial the evidence
may turn out to be. Many sciences require many observations, some of
which are "outliers" and not very useful. Proof may not exist, proof may
not EVER exist, as for things like the Big Bang.
I am your observation. I am the witness. You take what I say, when I get
around to actually making a claim that is, and you combine it with ten
thousand other claims, and you let it tell you a story. Most of the
observations will cancel out, they are "noise"; but if there's a God, even
if he is trying to hide, meta-analysis should discover him (and his
opposite number, so don't overdo the analysis or God and his opposite will
also cancel leaving you with absolutely nothing). Basically I suppose
you'd do two analyses one for a positive god and one for a negative god.
I don't need to do that to discover existence, but I may need to do that
to discover more properties of God. I have a list, of course, but it
would be interesting to see if the list can be validated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
29 Nov 2007 04:48:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:28:40 -0800, JessHC wrote:
...I'm asking you to explain how it is MORE loving and responsible to
completely abdicate any parenting responsibilies, particularly when the
consensus is that abdicating parental responsibilies is LESS loving.
I suspect we would become hopelessly mired in what you mean by "loving"
and "responsible".
Wouldn't that be a convenient way out for you?
If by parents you mean a view of God as a parent, no purpose is served by
arguing properties of a being you think does not exist *except* in a
theoretical way which you have shown no interest in pursuing.
But we are not discussing what we don't believe, we are discussing
what you *do* believe.
If you are speaking of human parenting, that is a very large topic that
needs to be separated from this topic.
No it doesn't.
You are mixing it with your superstitious drivel, why should we not do
as much.
That doesn't mean that what you write is not childish.
Now, if you've got "witnesses" who can demonstrate that what they've
"experienced" could not possible have had any other explanation than
deity, and have actual evidence for those claims, please, trot them out.
But if you can't do that, at the very least please stop with these
childish tactics.
Here we go again. What exactly do you mean by "demonstrate"?
Produce testable evidence, that your "experiences" are the result of
divine intervention, and could not possibly be anything else.
What do you
mean by "childish tactics?"
I have not seen what went before, but your first paragraph here, is a
good example of a childish tactic.
I write well and clearly.
Which brings to mind an interesting religious item -- 2,000 years ago the
people of Judea were so accustomed to being devious in their speaking,
that plain talk was incomprehensible. Jesus was compelled to speak in
riddles and parables,
That is not the explanation that the bible gives.
Matthew 13:34-35 34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude
in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: 35 That it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will
open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept
secret from the foundation of the world.
Mark 4:10-11 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with
the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto
you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto
them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mark 4:33-34 33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto
them,, as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable spake
he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to
his disciples.
Luke 8:9-10 9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this
parable be? 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that
seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
which in his day probably decoded okay but using
modern ideas on ancient parables produced strange results.
I do not yet know how you decode words.
Generally, into English, referencing a common usage dictionary, should
there be doubt.
I certainly do not know how other
readers decode words, so I can do one thing only -- the best I can at
using words with their "real" meanings, which is of course the meanings
that I have learned for them, and I have learned it by reading from a very
large number of books in addition to the usual quality public education.
All of which is nothing more than a straw man.
Providing proof is easy. I can mail you a rock, call it "god" and you can
hold the proof in your hand. Undeniable, verifiable and objective --
every thing you have asked for, in your hand. Touch it, smell it. Who
are you to say that it is NOT God?
So you think that a rock fits the biblical descriptions of the
judeo/xtian, God?
Interesting.
Ah hah, a trap -- to say that it is not God implies that you now what God
*is* in order to know that the rock is *not*, and that creates the strange
situation of you having definitions for things that do not exist.
The world has many definitions of things which do not exist, why
should your god be treated any differently?
Well, that's okay -- I've learned many defintions for "dragon" even though
hardly anyone seriously thinks they existed or ever existed. Every word
needs a definition (or many). Eventually I'll find out what you think God
is, and very likely I will agree with you that such a God does not exist.
Where does that leave your argument? Nowhere.
What we think gods are, is irrelevant. If you come here to discuss
them, then it is your definition which has to be supported.
We will accept any definition of a god, for which there is solid,
objective, evidence.
A seeker of truth -- and many exist, just not very often drawn to
alt.atheism -- will invite evidence,
We do not "invite" evidence, we *demand* it, cold, solid, testable,
objective evidence.
however circumstantial the evidence
may turn out to be.
It might work for a philosopher, they will swallow almost as much
tripe, as a theist, but it won't cut any ice here.
Circumstantial evidence is how you got the world into this
superstitious mess, in the first place.
Johnny goes for a pee, and shakes hid *****, once too often.
Johnny has sinned.
Johnny gets hit by lightning/a-train/a-truck/a-stray-bullet/whatever.
All circumstantial, but to some, proof positive that God, was upset
with Johnny's sinning.
You put milk out for faeries, and in the morning, it is gone.
Proof positive that there are faeries.
Sorry son, but circumstantial, don't cut it either.
Many sciences require many observations, some of
which are "outliers"
Please enlarge: What are "outliers"?
and not very useful. Proof may not exist, proof may
not EVER exist, as for things like the Big Bang.
I suggest that your understanding of science, leaves something to be
desired.
I am your observation. I am the witness.
But a biased one, therefore somewhat less than reliable.
You take what I say, when I get around to actually making a claim that is,
and you combine it with ten thousand other claims,
All equally biased, and therefore, all equally invalid.
and you let it tell you a story.
It does; Just not the story that you want us to hear.
Most of the
observations will cancel out, they are "noise"; but if there's a God, even
if he is trying to hide, meta-analysis should discover him
meta- (also met- before a vowel or h)
n combining form
1 denoting a change of position or condition: metamorphosis.
2 denoting position behind, after, or beyond: metacarpus.
3 denoting something of a higher or second-order kind:
metalanguage.
4 Chemistry denoting substitution at two carbon atoms
separated by one other in a benzene ring: metadichlorobenzene. Compare
with ortho- and para-1.
ORIGIN
from Greek meta 'with, across, or after'.
In what form are you using the prefix?
(and his
opposite number, so don't overdo the analysis or God and his opposite will
also cancel leaving you with absolutely nothing).
So, God only exists while you believe in it: Is that it?
Basically I suppose
you'd do two analyses one for a positive god and one for a negative god.
You might, but atheists wouldn't
Would you search your coal-cellar, in the dark, for a black cat, when
there has never been any evidence of such a creature?
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
29 Nov 2007 05:54:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:48:30 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
I suspect we would become hopelessly mired in what you mean by "loving"
and "responsible".
Wouldn't that be a convenient way out for you?
I never got "in" that one ;-)
If by parents you mean a view of God as a parent, no purpose is served
by arguing properties of a being you think does not exist *except* in a
theoretical way which you have shown no interest in pursuing.
But we are not discussing what we don't believe, we are discussing what
you *do* believe.
Usually we are doing both at the same time, allowing for some differences
of what I believe exists from what you believe does not exist.
Now, if you've got "witnesses" who can demonstrate that what they've
"experienced" could not possible have had any other explanation than
deity, and have actual evidence for those claims, please, trot them
out.
But if you can't do that, at the very least please stop with these
childish tactics.
Here we go again. What exactly do you mean by "demonstrate"?
Produce testable evidence, that your "experiences" are the result of
divine intervention, and could not possibly be anything else.
I do not believe this can be done and I have written so quite a few times.
I am now more equipped to explain.
Your logic is flawed, a "straw man" and possibly a tautology. A
definition of God (hardly the only one) includes that he communicates
by spirit. A definition of spirit includes that it is intangible. In my
particular experiences, this is exactly the case.
Therefore there cannot be physical, testable evidence of divine
intervention; but because of your bad logic, this fails to rule out
intangible, untestable intervention.
The logic is flawed and cannot be used to prove or disprove any kind of
God that uses intangible methods of intervention. It CAN be used to
disprove a kind of God that (1) Always intervenes and (2) Always uses
tangible methods. I will stipulate that this kind is indeed disproven.
When I said "childish" I mean these kinds of games. When YOU said
"childish" you were projecting your strategy as if it were my strategy.
Specifically, it is common, at least with my children, to play a game only
if the player can win. My older boy set up a bicycle race; himself versus
little sister on training wheels. The outcome was guaranteed but not much
fun for him or anyone. My challenge to him was "what did you win? Show
me the prize." No prize, but whatever intangible thing he gets out of
setting up his own guaranteed win is a powerful force.
Providing proof is easy. I can mail you a rock, call it "god" and you
can hold the proof in your hand. Undeniable, verifiable and objective
-- every thing you have asked for, in your hand. Touch it, smell it.
Who are you to say that it is NOT God?
So you think that a rock fits the biblical descriptions of the
judeo/xtian, God?
Nope, and it would seem neither do you. But it seems YOU are imposing
limits, conditions, expectations on what God must be.
Who is the atheist here I wonder?
The world has many definitions of things which do not exist, why should
your god be treated any differently?
Indeed, as my next paragraph shows...
Well, that's okay -- I've learned many defintions for "dragon" even
though hardly anyone seriously thinks they existed or ever existed.
What we think gods are, is irrelevant. If you come here to discuss them,
then it is your definition which has to be supported.
What you think gods are is the heart of the whole matter. You have quoted
scripture to me. Your entire approach to this discussion is based on YOUR
belief in God, not my belief! That's just amazing.
We will accept any definition of a god, for which there is solid,
objective, evidence.
Really? Then the rock should be your god, for it is more solid and
objective than many other things in which you believe.
Would you search your coal-cellar, in the dark, for a black cat, when
there has never been any evidence of such a creature?
No; but that is not relevant to my experience, for I *do* have evidence of
the kind of creature who is sometimes titled "God". You don't. Whether
you will ever get that evidence is not for me to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
30 Nov 2007 12:39:31 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.11.29.23.54.28.616882@orneveien.org...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:48:30 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
snip
Produce testable evidence, that your "experiences" are the result of
divine intervention, and could not possibly be anything else.
I do not believe this can be done and I have written so quite a few times.
I am now more equipped to explain.
Your logic is flawed, a "straw man" and possibly a tautology. A
definition of God (hardly the only one) includes that he communicates
by spirit. A definition of spirit includes that it is intangible. In my
particular experiences, this is exactly the case.
Therefore there cannot be physical, testable evidence of divine
intervention; but because of your bad logic, this fails to rule out
intangible, untestable intervention.
The logic is flawed and cannot be used to prove or disprove any kind of
God that uses intangible methods of intervention. It CAN be used to
disprove a kind of God that (1) Always intervenes and (2) Always uses
tangible methods. I will stipulate that this kind is indeed disproven.
There is no need to disprove any god. Without testable evidence there is no
reason to believe in any.
When I said "childish" I mean these kinds of games. When YOU said
"childish" you were projecting your strategy as if it were my strategy.
Specifically, it is common, at least with my children, to play a game only
if the player can win. My older boy set up a bicycle race; himself versus
little sister on training wheels. The outcome was guaranteed but not much
fun for him or anyone. My challenge to him was "what did you win? Show
me the prize." No prize, but whatever intangible thing he gets out of
setting up his own guaranteed win is a powerful force.
The comparison is valid. It is childishly easy to show that there is no
reason to believe in your god; you yourself say that its existence cannot be
demonstrated with any testable evidence.
Providing proof is easy. I can mail you a rock, call it "god" and you
can hold the proof in your hand. Undeniable, verifiable and objective
-- every thing you have asked for, in your hand. Touch it, smell it.
Who are you to say that it is NOT God?
So you think that a rock fits the biblical descriptions of the
judeo/xtian, God?
Nope, and it would seem neither do you. But it seems YOU are imposing
limits, conditions, expectations on what God must be.
Who is the atheist here I wonder?
He imposed no limits. He asked you for testable evidence. You admit that
there is none. Conclusion: there is no objective reason to believe you.
The world has many definitions of things which do not exist, why should
your god be treated any differently?
Indeed, as my next paragraph shows...
Well, that's okay -- I've learned many defintions for "dragon" even
though hardly anyone seriously thinks they existed or ever existed.
What we think gods are, is irrelevant. If you come here to discuss them,
then it is your definition which has to be supported.
What you think gods are is the heart of the whole matter. You have quoted
scripture to me. Your entire approach to this discussion is based on YOUR
belief in God, not my belief! That's just amazing.
It is amazing that you make such a claim.
We will accept any definition of a god, for which there is solid,
objective, evidence.
Really? Then the rock should be your god,
No, if that is your definition, it is your god; and we will accept that your
god exists.
for it is more solid and
objective than many other things in which you believe.
Oh?
Would you search your coal-cellar, in the dark, for a black cat, when
there has never been any evidence of such a creature?
No; but that is not relevant to my experience, for I *do* have evidence of
the kind of creature who is sometimes titled "God". You don't. Whether
you will ever get that evidence is not for me to say.
You have already admitted that you have no testable evidence. You are
perfectly free to believe whatever you want, but it is completely reasonable
to not believe in your god because of that lack of evidence. There is no
need to disprove its existence, it is sufficient to show (as you have by the
way) that there is no objective reason to believe in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
30 Nov 2007 10:30:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:39:31 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
There is no need to disprove any god. Without testable evidence there is no
reason to believe in any.
That is your personal opinion. All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God. The logic I have
discussed, and to which you respond, is faulty; it cannot say whether God
exists.
You lack a reason to believe in God; I lack a reason to NOT believe in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
01 Dec 2007 01:22:44 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.11.30.16.30.14.765334@orneveien.org...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:39:31 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
There is no need to disprove any god. Without testable evidence there is
no
reason to believe in any.
That is your personal opinion.
No, that is reality. There is no reason for people to believe that there
are underground factories on Mars, even though they cannot prove that they
do not exist. We do not have to nor can we disprove a negative. I suspect
that you are very aware of that, since you keep avoiding it.
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
The logic I have
discussed, and to which you respond, is faulty; it cannot say whether God
exists.
Nor does it try. That is the point you keep ignoring. Do you believe in
everything that you cannot disprove? Of course you don't. Why should we
treat the proposal that there is a god any differently? Show a little
courage and honesty; address that question.
You lack a reason to believe in God; I lack a reason to NOT believe in
God.
Both of us lack any objective reason to believe in a god. You have already
admitted that. That is a perfectly good reason to lack a belief in a god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
01 Dec 2007 01:49:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 01:10:19 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.12.01.19.49.20.991665@orneveien.org...
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
And you continue to evade. Just cannot face reality can you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 01:55:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:10:19 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.12.01.19.49.20.991665@orneveien.org...
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
And you continue to evade. Just cannot face reality can you?
Nope.
That is precisely why he is a theist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 09:03:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:49:22 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
We can also agree with Thomas P, and I think you will find that the
majority of us, do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 09:12:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:03:57 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:49:22 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
We can also agree with Thomas P, and I think you will find that the
majority of us, do.
I certainly do.
And I want to know what "Michael" imagines he achieves by lying about
us to our faces, inventing positions we don't hold about something
irrelevant that is only special to theists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 05:34:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:12:10 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:03:57 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:49:22 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
We can also agree with Thomas P, and I think you will find that the
majority of us, do.
I certainly do.
And I want to know what "Michael" imagines he achieves by lying about
us to our faces, inventing positions we don't hold about something
irrelevant that is only special to theists.
I don't think that even he actually knows why he lies and deceives and
fabricates as though it were a compulsion.
I think the theist meme is using him like a meat hand puppet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 05:57:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:04:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:12:10 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:03:57 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:49:22 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
You have been told what our position is. What is the point of trying to
tell us it is something else?
There is no "our". There is you, there is me, everyone else can speak for
themselves.
We can also agree with Thomas P, and I think you will find that the
majority of us, do.
I certainly do.
And I want to know what "Michael" imagines he achieves by lying about
us to our faces, inventing positions we don't hold about something
irrelevant that is only special to theists.
I don't think that even he actually knows why he lies and deceives and
fabricates as though it were a compulsion.
I think the theist meme is using him like a meat hand puppet.
They have allowed Religion to control their lives
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
03 Dec 2007 11:28:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:57:46 +0000, les_on_usenet wrote:
They have allowed Religion to control their lives
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
By the way, I applaud the BBC series "Last of the Summer Wine"; that is
truly beautiful country up that way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
03 Dec 2007 11:27:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:57:46 +0000, les_on_usenet wrote:
They have allowed Religion to control their lives
What controls yours?
If you study Rosseau, you realize his thesis is that nearly everyone's
lives is controlled by something; either a transcendental god or a human
god (or both).
It is a nice thing when a nation's morals and laws are predictable and
stable, based on a religion whose God might not actually exist, but is
believed to exist.
When that is not the case, each of you make your own god, is controlled by
unknown forces, and national morality is unstable and fickle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
01 Dec 2007 02:19:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
The logic I have
discussed, and to which you respond, is faulty; it cannot say whether God
exists.
Nor does it try. That is the point you keep ignoring. Do you believe in
everything that you cannot disprove? Of course you don't. Why should we
treat the proposal that there is a god any differently? Show a little
courage and honesty; address that question.
I do not know why you treat the proposal that there is a god
differently than other proposals that may be similar. Do you resist as
vigorously a claim that fairies, dragons and trolls exist? If I scour the
2.6 million messages here, how many will be about the non-existence of God
versus the non-existence of any other thing believed to not exist?
As to *why* you *might* treat it differently -- some of these claims are
presented as fact and have significant rewards attached. The number of
grown humans presenting dragons, trolls or fairies as "fact" seems rather
low (I have met none whatever), nor does much benefit attach to finding
out.
Thus we see that a claim of God is different than a claim of any other
thing you believe does not exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 01:23:31 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.12.01.20.19.02.938716@orneveien.org...
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
The logic I have
discussed, and to which you respond, is faulty; it cannot say whether
God
exists.
Nor does it try. That is the point you keep ignoring. Do you believe in
everything that you cannot disprove? Of course you don't. Why should we
treat the proposal that there is a god any differently? Show a little
courage and honesty; address that question.
I do not know why you treat the proposal that there is a god
differently than other proposals that may be similar. Do you resist as
vigorously a claim that fairies, dragons and trolls exist? If I scour the
2.6 million messages here, how many will be about the non-existence of God
versus the non-existence of any other thing believed to not exist?
Just can't get the courage to face the question can you? Instead you, once
again, go for a diversion. No surprise there.
As to *why* you *might* treat it differently -- some of these claims are
presented as fact and have significant rewards attached. The number of
grown humans presenting dragons, trolls or fairies as "fact" seems rather
low (I have met none whatever), nor does much benefit attach to finding
out.
Thus we see that a claim of God is different than a claim of any other
thing you believe does not exist.
No it is not. You do not believe in fairies for the same reason that I do
not believe in the deity you propose. You cannot disprove the existence of
fairies, yet that does not stop you from not believing in them. In
reference to your attempted diversion above, we do not spend a lot of time
talking about the belief in fairies etc.; because those who do believe in
such things do not insist that people who do not share their beliefs are
immoral or should not be considered citizens of their country, or insist
that we go to war in the name of fairydom. Making believe that all we do is
talk about a god we do not believe in is just another attempted diversion on
your part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
03 Dec 2007 11:25:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:23:31 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
Thus we see that a claim of God is different than a claim of any other
thing you believe does not exist.
No it is not. ...
we do not spend a lot of time
talking about the belief in fairies etc.; because those who do believe in
such things do not insist that people who do not share their beliefs are
immoral or should not be considered citizens of their country, or insist
that we go to war in the name of fairydom.
And thus you prove my point that I made above and which you denied, but
then explain even better than I why a claim of God is different than a
claim of any other thing you believe does not exist.
You seem to be blinded, however, by the fact that this is a two-way
street; atheists are also a political force and impose *their* morality
upon the religious.
It would be nice if we could all be libertarian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bernd Schmitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
03 Dec 2007 06:25:53 PM |
|
|
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> writes:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:23:31 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
You seem to be blinded, however, by the fact that this is a two-way
street; atheists are also a political force
atheists reject rules established by a clergy.
this is political for sure.
[atheists...] impose *their* morality upon the religious.
you try to turn around facts.
atheists are defending their freedom which is threatened by religious
lobbying.
It would be nice if we could all be libertarian
what a farce ...
stop to evangelize here and everywhere - that would be a start.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
02 Dec 2007 09:10:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
The logic I have
discussed, and to which you respond, is faulty; it cannot say whether God
exists.
Nor does it try. That is the point you keep ignoring. Do you believe in
everything that you cannot disprove? Of course you don't. Why should we
treat the proposal that there is a god any differently? Show a little
courage and honesty; address that question.
I do not know why you treat the proposal that there is a god
differently than other proposals that may be similar.
We don't.
All such proposals are treated equally, be it, gods,(yours or anyone
else's) faeries, Santa, unicorns, dragons, whatever.
Do you resist as
vigorously a claim that fairies, dragons and trolls exist?
Indeed.
You make such an assertion, you must have objective, verifiable
evidence to support it.
If I scour the
2.6 million messages here, how many will be about the non-existence of God
versus the non-existence of any other thing believed to not exist?
Only the ones in threads started by theists, or in threads started in
reply to theists.
As to *why* you *might* treat it differently -- some of these claims are
presented as fact and have significant rewards attached. The number of
grown humans presenting dragons, trolls or fairies as "fact" seems rather
low (I have met none whatever), nor does much benefit attach to finding
out.
Irrelevant.
Thus we see that a claim of God is different than a claim of any other
thing you believe does not exist.
That conclusion/assertion does not follow from anything that you said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
01 Dec 2007 03:24:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:22:44 +0100, "thomas p." <gudloos@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:pan.2007.11.30.16.30.14.765334@orneveien.org...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:39:31 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
There is no need to disprove any god. Without testable evidence there is
no
reason to believe in any.
That is your personal opinion.
No, that is reality. There is no reason for people to believe that there
are underground factories on Mars, even though they cannot prove that they
do not exist. We do not have to nor can we disprove a negative. I suspect
that you are very aware of that, since you keep avoiding it.
The pathetic lying weasel is keenly aware of it, but is stuck in a rut
where if he admits it to himself, his feeble justification for his
entire adult life gets flushed straight down the gurgler, and he does
not have the intestinal fortitude to go down the path of reality.
Sad.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
30 Nov 2007 07:22:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:30:15 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:39:31 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
There is no need to disprove any god. Without testable evidence there is no
reason to believe in any.
That is your personal opinion.
No sunshine, it is cold common sense.
All people are welcome to personal
opinions. Alt.atheism exists not to welcome personal opinion, but to
publish the possibly false opinion that there is no God.
Actually, alt.atheism, exists as a platform for atheists to discuss
things which are of concern to us.
Things like American presidents who state that atheists should be
stripped of their citizenship, and imprisoned.
....Or xtians who want to destroy the American constitution, and
install a theocracy on Capital Hill.
Then there are the xtians who want to bring back witch hunts, and
burnings.
But there are so many self righteous little xtian prigs, coming in
here, and telling us what we are, and what we think, not to mention
what we SHOULD think.
Then lying about us, insulting us, talking through their arses about
us and demanding that we believe their superstitions, without evidence
and then when we require that they produce evidence of their gods,
they try to lie their way out of producing it by claiming that it is
we who must prove the negative.
That we rarely get the opportunity to.
The logic I have
discussed, and to which you respond, is faulty; it cannot say whether God
exists.
You lack a reason to believe in God; I lack a reason to NOT believe in God.
And that is logic?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
30 Nov 2007 07:06:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:54:39 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
But we are not discussing what we don't believe, we are discussing what
you *do* believe.
Usually we are doing both at the same time, allowing for some differences
of what I believe exists from what you believe does not exist.
The thread title, is "Evidence for the existence of God".
The existence of God, is what you believe.
Now, if you've got "witnesses" who can demonstrate that what they've
"experienced" could not possible have had any other explanation than
deity, and have actual evidence for those claims, please, trot them
out.
But if you can't do that, at the very least please stop with these
childish tactics.
Here we go again. What exactly do you mean by "demonstrate"?
Produce testable evidence, that your "experiences" are the result of
divine intervention, and could not possibly be anything else.
I do not believe this can be done and I have written so quite a few times.
I am now more equipped to explain.
So what evidence do you base your belief on?
Your logic is flawed,
I don't think so, but if you can demonstrate it...
a "straw man"
Again, If you think you can demonstrate that, please do so.
and possibly a tautology.
I have found that tautology is often necessary when talking to xtians.
A definition of God (hardly the only one) includes that he
communicates
by spirit. A definition of spirit includes that it is intangible. In my
particular experiences, this is exactly the case.
Therefore there cannot be physical, testable evidence of divine
intervention; but because of your bad logic, this fails to rule out
intangible, untestable intervention.
So if it is untestable, and intangible, how do you know it is divine
intervention?
The logic is flawed
Certainly, someone's logic is flawed.
and cannot be used to prove or disprove any kind of
God that uses intangible methods of intervention. It CAN be used to
disprove a kind of God that (1) Always intervenes and (2) Always uses
tangible methods. I will stipulate that this kind is indeed disproven.
No, it can't.
When I said "childish" I mean these kinds of games. When YOU said
"childish" you were projecting your strategy as if it were my strategy.
Ah. I see.
"I'm not, but you are", such an intellectual argument.
Specifically, it is common, at least with my children, to play a game only
if the player can win. My older boy set up a bicycle race; himself versus
little sister on training wheels. The outcome was guaranteed but not much
fun for him or anyone. My challenge to him was "what did you win? Show
me the prize." No prize, but whatever intangible thing he gets out of
setting up his own guaranteed win is a powerful force.
Relevance?
Providing proof is easy. I can mail you a rock, call it "god" and you
can hold the proof in your hand. Undeniable, verifiable and objective
-- every thing you have asked for, in your hand. Touch it, smell it.
Who are you to say that it is NOT God?
So you think that a rock fits the biblical descriptions of the
judeo/xtian, God?
Nope, and it would seem neither do you. But it seems YOU are imposing
limits, conditions, expectations on what God must be.
Oh no. It is your book which describes it, it is your book which
limits it.
Who is the atheist here I wonder?
The world has many definitions of things which do not exist, why should
your god be treated any differently?
Indeed, as my next paragraph shows...
Well, that's okay -- I've learned many defintions for "dragon" even
though hardly anyone seriously thinks they existed or ever existed.
What we think gods are, is irrelevant. If you come here to discuss them,
then it is your definition which has to be supported.
What you think gods are is the heart of the whole matter. You have quoted
scripture to me.
Where?
All I said was that your definition of God, was not the judeo/xtian
one; I don't think that qualifies as "quoting scripture"
Your entire approach to this discussion is based on YOUR
belief in God, not my belief! That's just amazing.
Now that is an example of what we mean by "childish games".
We will accept any definition of a god, for which there is solid,
objective, evidence.
Really?
Yes, really.
Then the rock should be your god, for it is more solid and
objective than many other things in which you believe.
And the evidence that it is a god, is where?
Would you search your coal-cellar, in the dark, for a black cat, when
there has never been any evidence of such a creature?
No; but that is not relevant to my experience, for I *do* have evidence of
the kind of creature who is sometimes titled "God".
No, you don't.
Evidence can be measured and tested, your warm fuzzies, cannot.
You don't. Whether
you will ever get that evidence is not for me to say.
Now that is the interesting thing.
You see, once, I did have, more than you can dream of.
But it wore off, and I got better.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
29 Nov 2007 04:04:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:48:30 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
:
Basically I suppose
you'd do two analyses one for a positive god and one for a negative god.
You might, but atheists wouldn't
Would you search your coal-cellar, in the dark, for a black cat, when
there has never been any evidence of such a creature?
My guess is that he actually would, if "promised" that it was a magic
cat.
It seems that he will fall for any old tripe PROVIDED that it has no
shred of evidence whatsoever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence for the Existence of God |
30 Nov 2007 05:58:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:34:59 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:48:30 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:59:18 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
:
Basically I suppose
you'd do two analyses one for a positive god and one for a negative god.
You might, but atheists wouldn't
Would you search your coal-cellar, in the dark, for a black cat, when
there has never been any evidence of such a creature?
My guess is that he actually would, if "promised" that it was a magic
cat.
Prolly would.
It seems that he will fall for any old tripe PROVIDED that it has no
shred of evidence whatsoever.
The less evidence, the better, it would seem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
