Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8838 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2018 7:11 PM
251 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 832,151 Year: 6,974/29,783 Month: 1,198/1,708 Week: 89/474 Day: 89/57 Hour: 3/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
33Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Taq
Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 391 of 489 (827863)
02-02-2018 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by mike the wiz
02-02-2018 5:06 PM


mike the wiz writes:

According to the USUAL definition of a creator, (rather than the definition used by atheists, of, "nothing that exists", LOL) there is plentiful evidence of God, in all things which have order, specified complexity, genius solutions in nature, such as the aggregate eye obeying several very complex physical laws, neat formulas physicists largely tell us indicates theism rather than not, in other words, it is more reasonable to expect from a Godless world, a random chaotic mess, and where we find beautiful design, order, a well laid plan riddle with contingencies, whatever the usual designer thing is, we find evidence consistent with God.

Defining God into existence is little more than begging the question. I could define Thor as the creator of lightning, and then use lightning as evidence for Thor, but I doubt you would find it that compelling.

Why? Invisibility is not only shared with false things but also with true things. A higgs boson was believed, not "known", for a long time. In the same way we see the effects of a creation but not the required creator.

The Higgs Boson was not defined as being invisible as God is. That's the difference. Once again, you beg the question when you claim that a creation requires a supernatural deity.

The answer is because our imagination can create false things because false things can be invisible, therefore it is a tautology, that anything you can think up can be equal to God in God's invisibility.

Imagination is the most parsimonious answer. When there is no distinguishable observable difference between a claimed entity existing and not existing, then parsimony points to not existing as the best answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2018 5:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3167
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 392 of 489 (827915)
02-05-2018 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by mike the wiz
02-02-2018 5:06 PM


Claim vs. Knowledge
mike the wiz writes:

If you personally "know God doesn't exist", you can only go from your lack of knowledge as a personal matter, which is different from empirically proving knowledge or logically arriving at a sound conclusion. So then, yes, in a way you "know God doesn't exist" in the sense that God isn't part of your own reality, but only your own experience, since you argue based on that, largely.

But me knowing God doesn't exist isn't based on my personal experience.
It's based on the entire experience of all of humanity.

You're included.
If you know of any place where God exists, all you have to do is show it. If you do, I will be wrong.
If you don't, then I'll still be right... that I know God does not exist because everywhere we look He cannot be found.

...if others have experienced God and God's effects (which we have) based on God's agenda and will.

Except I'm not talking about claiming things.
I'm talking about knowing things.

From my first post in this thread:

quote:
How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

Notice that I don't say I look at the menu.
Nor do I say that you look at the menu.

I say that we look at the menu.
That is, I can do it, you can do it, we all can do it.
Clearly, if we look at the menu and I don't see Sharkfin soup, but you do... then something is going on.
Perhaps my eyes are bad (I can have them tested).
Perhaps I can't find it and missed it (you can point out to me exactly where I should look).
Perhaps it's actually not there... and you claiming it is there is exactly that... just a claim that is indistinguishable from imagination.

That's how I know things.

And that's how I know God does not exist.

Because you can't show that He does in a way that we can all review.
You can only do it in a way that only you claim is "real" except that it is indistinguishable from imagination.
And if that's all you have, then that doesn't count for knowing.

mike the wiz writes:

According to the USUAL definition of a creator, (rather than the definition used by atheists, of, "nothing that exists", LOL) there is plentiful evidence of God, in all things which have order, specified complexity, genius solutions in nature, such as the aggregate eye obeying several very complex physical laws, neat formulas physicists largely tell us indicates theism rather than not, in other words, it is more reasonable to expect from a Godless world, a random chaotic mess, and where we find beautiful design, order, a well laid plan riddle with contingencies, whatever the usual designer thing is, we find evidence consistent with God.

What you have done is listed many things where we have researched and looked for God... and never found Him. We've looked, He's not there.
Some people still claim He's there (like you just did). But those claims are always indistinguishable from imagination. Go figure.

Therefore, all these things are simply building the case that I know God doesn't exist.

But you can change it all. Just show us one place, your best place, where God is. We will all look. If you're right.. then I am wrong.
But if God isn't there, or if you are the only one that can find Him... then your best place for God remains indistinguishable from imagination. And then I still know that God doesn't exist.

I am attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with God existing.

No.

You are attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with the possibility of God existing.
That is not the same as attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with God existing.

One idea actually has data showing God exists.
The other idea is indistinguishable from God being only in your imagination, and remains nothing more than a baseless claim.

The other key point you seem to miss from my first post in this thread:

quote:
But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

I'm not claiming to know that the possibility of God doesn't exist.
I'm claiming to know that God does not exist.

The possibility is still there. Just as the possibility of Zeus, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is still there.
But... none of these sorts of possibilities are distinguishable from imagination.
None of them have any data to analyze concerning the actual existence of the idea. Just like God.

Therefore, I know that Zeus, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist.
Just as I know that God does not exist.

But you can still change that.
Just show some actual data, any data, that we can all review, that is distinguishable from imagination... and I'll be wrong.

Without that, I still know that God does not exist.

A higgs boson was believed, not "known", for a long time.

And then what?
Then we found actual evidence for the higgs boson that is distinguishable from imagination that we can all review.

Now I would be wrong if I said I knew that the higgs boson didn't exist.

But I'm still right about knowing that God does not exist unless you (or anyone else) can provide the same kind of data to the contrary.

I cannot presently see oxygen? So then for a long time oxygen couldn't be detected, or germs, does that mean we would compare them with santa? So then why do atheists choose to compare God to santa but never to things which would be invisible, but are possible existent?

Invisibility is irrelevant.
There are other methods to use where we can detect oxygen and germs.

So then, "santa" and, "multi-universes" or "bosons", all share SOME elements with God. The question is, do we, "know" all of the elements?

The question is, actually, do we "know" any of the elements?

We know some of the elements for the higgs boson exist... therefore, we know that the higgs boson exists.
We do not know any of the elements for Santa exist... therefore, we know that Santa does not exist.
We do not know any of the elements for God exist... therefore, we know that God does not exist.

The answer is because our imagination can create false things because false things can be invisible, therefore it is a tautology, that anything you can think up can be equal to God in God's invisibility.

I don't believe you have thought such things through.

The path to showing me wrong is still open to you.
It just takes more than your say-so.

Just find any element of God that is distinguishable from imagination that we can review.
We can do it one at a time.
Pick your best one, and we can go over it in fine detail for as long as you think it has merit.
If you want to discard it and move onto a different element you've learned might be better to distinguish from imagination, then feel free.
Please don't throw multiple baseless claims at the wall hoping one will stick, that only goes to show that you have no confidence in any of them.
Just pick one, your best one, until we go through the details on it.

Do that, and I'm wrong.
Don't do that... and I'll continue to know that God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2018 5:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:40 PM Stile has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10751
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 393 of 489 (827927)
02-05-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Stile
02-05-2018 11:22 AM


Re: Claim vs. Knowledge
stile writes:

And that's how I know God does not exist.

Because you can't show that He does in a way that we can all review.
You can only do it in a way that only you claim is "real" except that it is indistinguishable from imagination.
And if that's all you have, then that doesn't count for knowing.

Though you must admit that while you can declare that you know that God does not exist and that some of us also know, you can not conclude that *we* know that God does not exist.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Stile, posted 02-05-2018 11:22 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Stile, posted 02-05-2018 1:29 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3167
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 394 of 489 (827928)
02-05-2018 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Phat
02-05-2018 12:40 PM


Re: Claim vs. Knowledge
Phat writes:

Though you must admit that while you can declare that you know that God does not exist and that some of us also know, you can not conclude that *we* know that God does not exist.

Absolutely.

1 - It's quite possible that someone knows God exists and can show it to others for review.
Perhaps they just haven't told anyone else yet. Or, at a minimum, perhaps they just don't know about this forum and this thread.
I will quite happily change my position upon gaining such new information.

2 - My talk of we is not about whether or not we all follow the evidence where it leads. That's another discussion entirely.
My talk of we is only important towards the aspect of evidence existing in the first place. (If it's impossible for us to review it... then it's not actually evidence in the first place... it's just a claim).

For example:

-I know the earth is not flat
-I know that God does not exist

I admit that many people adamantly claim to know that the world is flat.
I admit that many people adamantly claim to know that God exists.

Therefore, I can't say that *we* know the world is not flat.
Therefore, I can't say that *we* know that God does not exist.

And yet, all these people have one thing in common with their claims of knowledge:

None of them can present any data that is distinguishable from imagination for us all to review about their adamant claims.

Can I be wrong?
Of course.

The minute I review data showing the world is, actually, flat... and I just thought it wasn't because "[insert data here]" then I will change my mind and start knowing that the world is flat.
But without that, I'll continue to know that the world is not flat.

The minute I review data showing that God, actually, exists... and I just thought He didn't because "[insert data here]" then I will change my mind and start knowing that God exists.
But without that, I'll continue to know that God does not exist.

There's no logical twist or linguistic persuasion to get around this detail.

quote:
I know that God does not exist.

There's only 1 way to show that I'm wrong:

Present some data that we can all review that can be distinguished from imagination showing that God exists.


It's not really a difficult request.

I can do it for trees, rocks, cardboard, computers, screwdrivers, pizza, the colour red... I can do it for anything and everything that actually exists.
We all do it millions of times a day for all the things surrounding our environment in our day-to-day lives.

Strange no one can do such a thing for God, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:40 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
AlexCaledin
Member
Posts: 41
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 395 of 489 (828687)
02-22-2018 2:07 PM


LOL

ahteists are damn great experts in making "straw gods" and disproving them . . .


Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2018 2:35 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 02-23-2018 11:20 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5668
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 396 of 489 (828694)
02-22-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by AlexCaledin
02-22-2018 2:07 PM


Alex writes:

ahteists are damn great experts in making "straw gods" and disproving them . . .

Is there any other form of god?

btw, no one - not even almight atheists - can disprove the existence of god. Did you mean something else?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by AlexCaledin, posted 02-22-2018 2:07 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2018 9:29 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 397 of 489 (828741)
02-23-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by AlexCaledin
02-22-2018 2:07 PM


AlexCaledin writes:

ahteists are damn great experts in making "straw gods" and disproving them . . .


Atheists look for straw gods and can't find them.

Theists look for straw gods and find them.

What's the difference?


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by AlexCaledin, posted 02-22-2018 2:07 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Phat, posted 02-23-2018 12:52 PM ringo has responded
 Message 399 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2018 9:01 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10751
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 398 of 489 (828745)
02-23-2018 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by ringo
02-23-2018 11:20 AM


A God By Any Other Name
What the heck is a Straw God?

tangle writes:

Is there any other form of god?

Our imagination is limitless! And who are we to say that the collective imagination of humanity gets close to an archetype of the actual? Or at worst potential?

One can argue that any God imagined or described is in fact made of straw, I suppose.

One can also argue that the collective archetype is possibly real?
Another way to describe it is to ask whose imagination we are talking about.

In my belief, He imagined us long before we had evolved to the point of imagining Him.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 02-23-2018 11:20 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by ringo, posted 02-24-2018 10:43 AM Phat has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 399 of 489 (828773)
02-23-2018 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by ringo
02-23-2018 11:20 AM


ringo writes:

quote:
Atheists look for straw gods and can't find them.

Theists look for straw gods and find them.

What's the difference?


Simple:

Atheists don't come up with the straw god. Theists do.

After all, that's the entire point behind being an atheist: You don't have any belief in gods. Thus, the only definitions of these "gods" are coming from the theists. Just as it is not up to the atheist to prove there is no god, it it isn't up to them to come up with a definition of god in the first place. That's why atheism is the default position. Burden of proof, ringo. You know this.

If theists are upset that atheists have knocked down their straw gods, that isn't the atheists' problem.

The theists should have come up with a better definition.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 02-23-2018 11:20 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 400 of 489 (828776)
02-23-2018 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Tangle
02-22-2018 2:35 PM


Tangle writes:

quote:
btw, no one - not even almight atheists - can disprove the existence of god.

Incorrect.

And you know this, Tangle. We've been over it plenty of times. You can easily prove a negative. People love to say you can't, but it simply isn't true.

Here, let me prove it to you (see...I'm about to prove the negative of "You can't prove a negative" by proving a negative. How meta!)

There is no largest prime number.

Assume there is. Let's call it p. Thus, we can generate an exhaustive list of all primes (Sieve of Eratosthenes will do):

2, 3, 5, ..., pn-2, pn-1, p

Construct q as follows:

q = 2 * 3 * 5 * ... * pn-2 * pn-1 * p + 1

Note, that q > p.

Question: Is q prime?

Well, if q is composite, it will necessarily be factorable. But every time we divide q by any of the primes on our list (which is exhaustive), we get a remainder of 1. Thus, we have a problem. Since q cannot be divided by any of the primes and since q > p, then one of the two scenarios must be true:

q is prime.

Or

Some number between p and q is prime.

But that contradicts our original assumption.

Therefore, our original assumption must be false. Instead, there is no largest prime.

See, it's trivial. People prove negatives all the time. In fact, that's the vast majority of scientific work: Most experiments fail. You come up with an hypothesis and come up with an experiment to try and show that it is consistent with reality. But your experiment likely fails, proving your hypothesis to be false. To be completely fair, it proves that your experiment is incapable of showing the effect proposed by the hypothesis, but the point remains: You've proven something to be false.

Science is brilliant at proving things false.

What it cannot do is prove something true. The best it can do is to prove something consistent. If you use 17th-century technology, Newtonian mechanics is consistent with the observations you're going to make. It's only when we started getting better technology and capable of making better observations that we found out that it's false.

And it is. Newtonian mechanics is false. At every level. The only reason we still use it is that for most scenarios, the error term between Newtonian mechanics and observed reality is so small as to be of no significant effect. You can't run your GPS on Newtonian mechanics, but that's the point.

So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god. All you need is a sufficient definition of "god."

Which, again, is something theists come up with. Atheists, not having any belief in god, don't define what "god" is. How could they? Instead, it's up to theists to come up with that definition.

If theists are upset that atheists have disproven god, that isn't a problem for the atheists. The theists should have come up with a better definition.

That's why the definition of god has become so nebulous for so many people: It's just a "presence." They are very careful not to proffer a definition that provides any way to test it. When your definition of god includes the claim that god created the universe about 6000 years ago with a worldwide flood killing all of humanity but 8 about 2250 BCE, then the fact that we can show the universe to be billions of years old and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago and that humanity didn't collapse to 8 individuals at that time does, indeed, disprove god.

If theists wish to change their definition, then they can do so. Of course, they run the risk of going afoul of the ad hoc fallacy, but the definition of god is their responsibility, not the atheists'. Burden of proof, and all that.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2018 2:35 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2018 3:55 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5668
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 401 of 489 (828786)
02-24-2018 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Rrhain
02-23-2018 9:29 PM


Rrhain writes:

Science is brilliant at proving things false. […] So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god.

Ok, so let's see you disprove the existence of god. Scientifically.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Rrhain, posted 02-23-2018 9:29 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Rrhain, posted 02-24-2018 11:47 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 402 of 489 (828793)
02-24-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Phat
02-23-2018 12:52 PM


Re: A God By Any Other Name
Phat writes:

In my belief, He imagined us long before we had evolved to the point of imagining Him.


In your imagination....

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Phat, posted 02-23-2018 12:52 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Phat, posted 02-24-2018 2:30 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10751
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 403 of 489 (828808)
02-24-2018 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by ringo
02-24-2018 10:43 AM


Re: A God By Any Other Name
And yet we were created in His imagination. When God imagines, He creates.

sez me.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by ringo, posted 02-24-2018 10:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2018 7:00 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 409 by ringo, posted 02-25-2018 1:26 PM Phat has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5668
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 404 of 489 (828820)
02-24-2018 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Phat
02-24-2018 2:30 PM


Re: A God By Any Other Name
Phat writes:

And yet we were created in His imagination. When God imagines, He creates.
sez me.

Doesn't it worry you at all how easily you can make these things up? All you have to do is imagine it and it becomes true for you.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Phat, posted 02-24-2018 2:30 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 405 of 489 (828825)
02-24-2018 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Tangle
02-24-2018 3:55 AM


Tangle responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Science is brilliant at proving things false. […] So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god.

Ok, so let's see you disprove the existence of god. Scientifically.

You know what the process is, Tangle. Didn't you read the post before you responded?

You need to tell me what you mean by "god." See, if I come up with the definition, you'll accuse me of using a "straw god." Burden of proof, and all that.

You need to tell us what is meant by "god" and then we'll go to work seeing if there's a disproof for it. If your definition is so vague as to be untestable, one will then wonder how one can claim existence of such a thing that has no effect that is tangible or detectable.

You have to go first.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2018 3:55 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2018 3:39 AM Rrhain has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
2829
...
33Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018