Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-14-2018 9:09 PM
180 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar, Tanypteryx (4 members, 176 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,898 Year: 11,721/29,783 Month: 743/1,642 Week: 157/460 Day: 58/58 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
28293031
32
33Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Phat
Member
Posts: 10968
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 466 of 489 (829896)
03-16-2018 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by Rrhain
03-13-2018 8:27 PM


Rrhaining On Definitions
Rrhain writes:

You're the one saying that "god" cannot be disproven. Therefore, you're the one with the burden of proof on defining "god." Otherwise, you will claim "straw godding" (and rightfully so).

The fact that you refuse to define what you mean indicates that your claim is false since things without definition do not exist.

Not sure I agree with the claim that things without definition cannot exist. Take this response:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24572
Ask Philosophers writes:

(from the internet) I suspect you may be principally concerned with the problem of affirming that something (X) exists, and whether this affirmation is meaningful if we lack a definition of X. On the face of it, there would be a problem with someone claiming: "Call the reporters. There is something I will refer to as 'N,' but I have absolutely no idea or definition of what 'N' might be. It could be an animal or number or time of day, for I know." Such a claim would be as bizarre as what we find in Alice in Wonderland. Even so, I suggest that we should distinguish claims about meaningful speech and claims about what does or does not exist. Even if we cannot make claims about what does or does not exist without (at least vague) definitions, it is another thing to claim that there only exists things we can make meaningful claims about. Sadly, we can imagine the whole human species perishing from some force which we cannot comprehend (and thus we cannot define) That is such a grim thought to end this reply, let me change the example: we can imagine that cancer and depression might be eradicated by a force that we human beings cannot comprehend or define.

To me, this argument makes as much sense as your claim.

Edited by Phat, : clarification


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 457 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2018 8:27 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Rrhain, posted 03-18-2018 1:03 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 659
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 467 of 489 (829899)
03-16-2018 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Phat
03-16-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Gods attitude towards our "attitudes"
Phat, you responded to the minor aside of my post and seemed to have ignored the major point so let me ask you directly. Do you think less of a person if they don't believe in God or that they are evil or bad as the quote you linked to implies? This insinuation that quote makes it what ticks me off, much more than the mono vs poly aspect of the quote. Atheism != bad/evil person!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 11:54 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 12:47 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 468 of 489 (829901)
03-16-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Phat
03-16-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Gods attitude towards our "attitudes"
Phat writes:

Perhaps someone could have saved a lot of time,but what effort is wasted in belief?

Well, that depends on the person and the belief.

Some will not be very different one way or the other.
Others could be drastically different.

For example, we could have someone who worries over what God thinks of them and what they're doing all the time.
All this worry and possible anxiety would be wasted time and effort.
Can you imagine spending an entire life worrying over something and then finding out that the "something" didn't even exist and you never had to think twice about it in the first place? That can be a very big deal.

Instead of attempting to "please God" all that time and effort could be focused on attempting to create a good life for yourself and others.

Of course, some could say that "pleasing God" is creating a good life for themselves and others.
Whether or not the worrying/anxiety/pleasing affects a life one way or the other regardless of God existing is something only the individual can really know.

I ask myself what I would do that would lead to my life being any better than it is now?

My point was merely to suggest that the quote you brought up has this very same reaction from any non-believer that this quote attempts to imply as being "negative" in some way.

If you understand how the reverse doesn't really apply to you in any negative sense...
Then perhaps you can understand how the quote as-is doesn't really apply to anyone else in any negative sense...

The quote really does nothing more than to boost the ego of those who already support the quote.
And same in reverse... the way I said it doesn't really do anything other than to boost my own ego (because I already support it that way).
I'm a sucker for a good ego-boosting

Good point, unless Gods concern was not the belief itself but the attitude carried with it. Believers are as guilty of this as anyone.

Eh. Seems like you're just moving the un-specified-and-vague notion of "belief" onto another un-specified-and-vague-notion of "attitude."

What specific belief?
What specific attitude?

Get to the specifics and we can have a discussion.

Everyone has beliefs and attitudes. Even non-God-believers believe in other things... like maybe that tomorrow will be a good day, or that their sports team will win.

Certain beliefs/attitudes are good, others can be terrible.
It all depends on the specifics.

I don't see how "attitude" makes it any clearer than "belief."

If you intend to discuss a specific detail about a certain kind of belief or attitude, however... then you'll have to describe that detail.

This whole idea of trying to please everyone and not offend anyone is unrealistic. Everything that we as a society do is likely insulting to someone

Absolutely true. And my response to you basically comes down to two words: So what?

To me, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

We all try at various levels on how good we can be.
How much we can help others.
How much we attempt to please everyone, and not offend anyone.

And each and every one of us gets to judge everyone else on their efforts and personally-chosen levels of motivation.
8 billion currently-existing and in-your-face judges, remember?

Are you going to use "can't please everyone!" as an excuse to do nothing?
Or as motivation to try and please as many as you can and correct errors that you are capable of correcting?

That's the question, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 11:54 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10968
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 469 of 489 (829902)
03-16-2018 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by kjsimons
03-16-2018 12:33 PM


Re: Gods attitude towards our "attitudes"
Do you think less of a person if they don't believe in God or that they are evil or bad as the quote you linked to implies?
Upon reflection? No.

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 467 by kjsimons, posted 03-16-2018 12:33 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

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


Message 470 of 489 (829931)
03-18-2018 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Tangle
03-14-2018 3:42 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
My argument is that no-one has yet proven the non-existence of god, scientifically or otherwise.

And yet I have.

In two different ways.

You even provided one for yourself.

We've been through this before. Why do you keep persisting in something you know to be false?

You claim that it can't be done, so explain what the problem is or shut up. I'm not doing your work for you.


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 458 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:42 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 4:35 AM Rrhain has responded

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


Message 471 of 489 (829932)
03-18-2018 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Tangle
03-14-2018 3:00 PM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
I agree it’s a fool’s errand, unfortunately Rrhain said he could do it.

And I did.

In two different ways.

You even gave a disproof.

So why do you keep persisting in something you know to be false? If you want a discussion, then you need to defend your argument. If you don't like the definition of god given, if you think it's a "straw god," then your burden is to define what you mean by "god."

Until then, we are left with the null hypothesis and the truism that things without definition do not exist.

Get on with it.


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 460 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:00 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 472 of 489 (829933)
03-18-2018 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Phat
03-16-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Gods attitude towards our "attitudes"
Phat writes:

quote:
what effort is wasted in belief?

What do you mean by "belief"? That is, what are the effects of "belief." One can merely have the occasional, momentary thought here and there and that would hardly have any significant effect.

But belief has this amazing habit of turning into action. You engage in certain behaviours because of your beliefs. We went through this regarding your magic "water": It wastes your money. It leaves you gullible to the next scam that comes along...especially from those who conned you the first time. It is not "harmless."

This is leading straight toward Pascal's Wager: Better to believe and be wrong than to no believe and risk hell. We all know it's a crock. Which god are you supposed to believe? The various ones proffered are mutually exclusive. And that assumes we understand the mind of god which might put more value on those who tried to live independently rather than following a sketchy narrative that is clearly inadequate at best...or worse, just went through the motions in order to win a bet.

So we're back to where we started: Waiting on the believer to define what they mean by "god" and putting forward evidence that said god exists.

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 464 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 11:54 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 473 of 489 (829936)
03-18-2018 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Phat
03-16-2018 12:15 PM


Re: Rrhaining On Definitions
Phat responds to me:

quote:
Not sure I agree with the claim that things without definition cannot exist. Take this response:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24572

Ask Philosophers writes:

(from the internet) I suspect you may be principally concerned with the problem of affirming that something (X) exists, and whether this affirmation is meaningful if we lack a definition of X. On the face of it, there would be a problem with someone claiming: "Call the reporters. There is something I will refer to as 'N,' but I have absolutely no idea or definition of what 'N' might be. It could be an animal or number or time of day, for I know." Such a claim would be as bizarre as what we find in Alice in Wonderland. Even so, I suggest that we should distinguish claims about meaningful speech and claims about what does or does not exist. Even if we cannot make claims about what does or does not exist without (at least vague) definitions, it is another thing to claim that there only exists things we can make meaningful claims about. Sadly, we can imagine the whole human species perishing from some force which we cannot comprehend (and thus we cannot define) That is such a grim thought to end this reply, let me change the example: we can imagine that cancer and depression might be eradicated by a force that we human beings cannot comprehend or define.

To me, this argument makes as much sense as your claim.


The problem is that it changes the subject: We know that there is a thing called "cancer." We have a definition of it. We can see tissue without cancer, cancerous tissue, and watch the former turn into the latter. "Eradicated" means something that we understand. That the "force" is poorly understood, we still have a definition of it: It is the thing that "eradicated" the "cancer."

When people talk about "god," they have an idea of what it is they are talking about. It's why we have the word "god" at all.

It's related to a question I have often posed regarding Adam and Eve somehow knowing that they should have obeyed god and not the serpent, even though they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and thus didn't know good from evil yet. It's from an acting exercise I had when I was starting out:

Beetaratagang.

Clerendipity.

In the exercise, you are trying to get your partner to do something. One of these words is a "positive" means of persuasion while the other is "negative." Using only those words (and using them appropriately...you wouldn't scream one and be physically threatening if the word was supposed to be "positive"), get them to do what you want such as sit down or leave the room.

So here's the thing: Which is which? Which word is the positive one and which one is the negative one? You don't know what the definition is, but there is a definition. Would you even deign to say such words without knowing what you meant by them?

It isn't that the intentions behind those words don't exist just because you don't know what those words mean. There is a definition to be had.

So now remove even that. Those words don't mean anything. Not merely that you don't know what those words mean but that there isn't any meaning to be had (after all, perhaps I am an unreliable narrator...can you be certain that those words really do relate to what I claim they do? Perhaps they are just nonsense and don't mean anything.)

The point is, again, that people understand what they mean when they use words. When people talk about "god," they have an idea of what it is they mean.

Otherwise, it's merely a nonsense syllable.

Look at the example given: "We can imagine the whole human species perishing from some force." Um..."force"? That has a meaning. It can be nebulous and vague, but we have a concept. For example, it's a reference to an externality. The response is insisting that the definition must be crystal clear in order to exist and that simply isn't true.

We already do this with regard to science: "Dark matter" and "dark energy." We don't really have any idea what these things are, but we have a very diaphanous definition for them based upon real effects that we see: Something is causing the galaxies to rotate as if there were more gravity than can be accounted for by their visible mass. Something is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion. We don't know what's doing it, but we do know that something's going on and in order to have a way to communicate what we're talking about, we invented phrases that we can use to refer to those things.

Newton didn't know what caused objects to fall to earth, but he knew that something did and that it was called "gravity." He could describe how it happened, but he didn't know what it was (and even now we still have some questions about it.)

But back to what I have said repeatedly: There is a difference between not knowing the definition and there not being any definition to be had. To take the example given of the person reporting something, we can ask questions: Was it something that was seen? Heard? Smelled? Felt? Where? When? If thorough questioning indicates that there is no actual phenomenon of any kind, then we conclude that there was nothing there.

After all, how can something be declared to exist if it has absolutely no interaction of any kind with anything? The reporter is the one making the claim and thus carries the burden of defining just what it is that is being claimed. If the claim can't be described, then how can it exist?

And thus, we have the three positions I made before:

1) A definition exists which can be examined, possibly to conclude that it doesn't exist (as proving negatives is something that happens all the time.)

2) The definition is meaningless (such as being so vague as to describe an entity that has no effect of any kind) which indicates it doesn't exist.

3) The definition does not exist which necessarily means it doesn't exist.


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 466 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 12:15 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5961
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 474 of 489 (829938)
03-18-2018 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Rrhain
03-18-2018 12:00 AM


Rrhain writes:

And yet I have.....You even provided one for yourself.

Nope, what we both did was point out that an individual's beliefs about their god were wrong; not that their god does not exist. If I incorrectly claim that my sister is older than me, my sister doesn't vanish in a puff of pseudo-logic.

And, of course, that was only one delusion for one god. If you're going to take up this challenge I suggest you get started. Here's a provisional list of the god's you need to erradicate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities


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 470 by Rrhain, posted 03-18-2018 12:00 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Rrhain, posted 03-25-2018 8:00 PM Tangle has responded

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


Message 475 of 489 (830252)
03-25-2018 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Tangle
03-18-2018 4:35 AM


Tangle channels his inner kindergartener:

quote:
quote:
And yet I have.....You even provided one for yourself.

Nope

Yep.

quote:
what we both did was point out that an individual's beliefs about their god were wrong; not that their god does not exist. If I incorrectly claim that my sister is older than me, my sister doesn't vanish in a puff of pseudo-logic.

Do you truly not see the problem? It's been explained to you many times. Let's go back to the very first post I made to you about this (Message 400):

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.

Note the point: The definition of god "includes the claim." That is, the trait being proffered is part of the definition.

In your example, you're assuming the existence of your sister. The definition of "sister" does not include an age in relation to you, only a familial one.

If you were to say that your definition of "sister" were to include "a being who is two years older than me and was the child of my parents," then if we were to find that there is no such person, then we would rightly say that your "sister" does not exist. For you to bring forth someone who is younger does not mean you have a "sister" unless you then redefine what it is you mean by "sister" to correct that age discrepancy...such as by dropping any comment to age.

This is why it is important for you to define what you mean. You run the risk of changing the goalposts.

And, of course, you still haven't defined what you mean by "god." If you're going to complain about this, I suggest you get started with providing your definition. I don't need to eradicate someone else's definition of god. That would be "straw godding." I'm not looking to convince anybody else.

I'm looking to convince you.

And since you refuse to define what it is you mean by "god," we are left with the null hypothesis: There is no god by default. Things without definition do not exist.

Edited by Rrhain, : Typo


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 474 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 4:35 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 3:18 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5961
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 476 of 489 (830260)
03-26-2018 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Rrhain
03-25-2018 8:00 PM


Rrhain writes:

If you were to say that your definition of "sister" were to include "a being who is two years older than me and was the child of my parents,"

Obviously wrong. The age of my sister is irrelevant. Her existence or otherwise is a matter of fact that can be shown by observation. You disproving that my belief that she is older than me does nothing to disprove her existence. You can demonstrate her existence without worrying about her age.

The human belief that God created species as we see them today does not make that god disapear when it is proven that species evolve. It merely shows that particular belief to be wrong.

Even if you took every single belief about every single god, you could not 'prove using science' that a god did not exist. All you could do is prove that each diferent belief about a god was incorrect. But of course you can't even do that because the posible beliefs about god are infinite and the black swan will always exist as a posibility.

This is why it is important for you to define what you mean.

And that is why it is important for you to accept you can't do what you claim to be able to do.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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 475 by Rrhain, posted 03-25-2018 8:00 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2018 4:04 AM Tangle has responded

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


Message 477 of 489 (830261)
03-26-2018 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Tangle
03-26-2018 3:18 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
quote:
If you were to say that your definition of "sister" were to include "a being who is two years older than me and was the child of my parents,"

Obviously wrong.

Why? Did you provide a definition of what you meant by "sister"?

See, most people don't have a definition of "sister" that includes an age. You can have older sisters and younger sisters (and it is conceivable that two children could be delivered via C-section at the same time, though that would be highly unusual, and thus be the same age). Thus, your statement about your sister being older than you isn't really a definition of "sister" but rather a way to describe the specific person who happens to be your sister.

And here's the thing, if you insisted that "*my* sister is two years older than me" and we were to bring forward someone who is two years younger, there are a couple possible responses: One is that the person is not your sister. The other is that your definition of your sister is incorrect.

But let's suppose that your definition of "sister" is correct and that if you had one, she would be two years older than you. If we were to examine things and find that there is no person who is two years older than you, indeed that there never was any person two years older than you, then if we are going to insist upon your definition of "sister" as such, then we necessarily conclude that there is no "sister." For in order for there to be a sister, she must be two years older than you and since there is nobody who is two years older than you and never was, then there cannot be a "sister."

Unless, of course, you change the definition of "sister."

And thus, we're back to the crucial point you keep running away from:

How do you define "god"?

quote:
The human belief that God created species as we see them today does not make that god disapear when it is proven that species evolve.

It does if that's part of the definition of "god." It sounds like you have a definition of god that doesn't include it having anything to do with the diversity of life on this planet.

Are you truly having that much trouble with the contrapositive?

If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.

If there is a god, then it purposefully, consciously, and deliberately created the diverse species on the planet.
The species on the planet were not purposefully, consciously, and deliberately created.
Therefore, there is no god.

Notice the dependency: Y is dependent on X. You may not think that the diversity of life on this planet is dependent upon god, but other people do and that is part of their definition of "god."

This is why you need to provide the definition of "god." Anything else would be "straw godding." We need to know what the dependencies are and you're unwilling to give them. One almost gets the impression that you have no idea what the word "god" means.

Since a thing without definition doesn't exist, we are left with the null hypothesis: There is no god.

This is why it is important for you to accept that you screwed up, that I did do precisely what you claim couldn't be done, and that this is all just you spinning the merry-go-round.

So spin it again, Tangle.

C'mon...you know you want to.

SPIN IT!


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 476 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 3:18 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 5:45 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 479 by Phat, posted 03-26-2018 10:27 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5961
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 478 of 489 (830262)
03-26-2018 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Rrhain
03-26-2018 4:04 AM


Rrhain writes:

Did you provide a definition of what you meant by "sister"?

If you want to discuss the infinite number of definitions of god I suggest you open a new thread which I won't be joining.

Meanwhile my sister exists and can be proven to exist whether or not I'm incorrect about her age, her hair colour, her height her educational background, her husbands second name, her preference for ketchup over brown sauce or any other artifact you care to mention. Similarly god may or may not exist regardless of what you believe about him/her/it. And you, like everyone else there's ever been and ever will be are unable to disprove him/her/it.

I can only suggest you get on with writing your book destroying every god that every individual invents and has ever invented.


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 477 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2018 4:04 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 3:39 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10968
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 479 of 489 (830271)
03-26-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Rrhain
03-26-2018 4:04 AM


Assertions Open To Interpretation
Rrhain writes:

If there is a god, then it purposefully, consciously, and deliberately created the diverse species on the planet.
The species on the planet were not purposefully, consciously, and deliberately created.
Therefore, there is no god.

The whole problem with your line of reasoning is that it is Rrhain-centric. You may well be able to poof God out of existence in your own mind, and your logic may be impeccable, but if God exists, he needs no acknowledgment from an actor named Rrhain.

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 477 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2018 4:04 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:04 PM Phat has responded

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


Message 480 of 489 (830647)
04-04-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Tangle
03-26-2018 5:45 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
If you want to discuss the infinite number of definitions of god I suggest you open a new thread which I won't be joining.

Nope.

I just need to know the one *you* mean. I'm not out to convince anybody else except you. You've been running away from this the entire time. You're so certain that "god" cannot be disproven, but you refuse to define what it is you mean by "god."

One is left wondering if you even know what you mean when you use that word.

And if you don't, how can you possibly justify your claim? After all, you're the one making the claim. Therefore, it is your burden of proof. This entire ridiculousness has been your feeble attempts to shift the burden of proof.

quote:
Meanwhile my sister exists and can be proven to exist whether or not I'm incorrect about her age, her hair colour, her height her educational background, her husbands second name, her preference for ketchup over brown sauce or any other artifact you care to mention.

That's because the definition of "sister" doesn't include any of those things. We've been through this, Tangle. Do you really need to have it repeated to you every single time?

quote:
Similarly god may or may not exist regardless of what you believe about him/her/it.

Logical errors: Argument from ignorance. Red herring.

Just because we don't know doesn't mean anything is possible. Null hypothesis still applies. It is up to the one claiming the existence of god to prove that it exists, not the other way around. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show they don't equal 5.

And as has been stated repeatedly, this isn't about merely not knowing about the definition but rather whether a definition is even possible. Must everything be repeated to you every single time?

quote:
And you, like everyone else there's ever been and ever will be are unable to disprove him/her/it.

Except I have. In two different ways.

And even more inexplicably, YOU disproved god, too. You, who claims it cannot be done, did the very thing you're certain is impossible.

I can only suggest that you get on with writing up your definition of "god" so that we can get started.


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 478 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 5:45 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:10 PM Rrhain has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
28293031
32
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