I Know That God Does Not Exist

You may be honest here too when you try to psychoanalyze me - but being honest doesn't make you right. We know you see what you want to see.

You prefer to be humble and wrong to smug and right?

Tangle runs away:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. What I want are physical traits that can be compared against reality to determine if there are contradictions for if there are, then that means god does not exist.

---

Then I suggest you get on with it. Do what you claimed to be able to do, else stfu. I'm not going to do your work for you.

---

Already done.In three different ways (Message 400, Message 405, Message 422).And posted here multiple times (Message 407, Message 414, Message 434).You even repeated one of them (Message 430).So it appears you did do my work for me after I showed you how to do it.If you disagree with the disproofs, it would behoove you to be specific as to why. Is the definition of "god" incorrect? If so, how? What is the correct definition of "god"? You're the one saying that god cannot be disproven, therefore it is your burden to define what is meant by "god."Spin the merry-go-round, Tangle. I'm sure you'll get something new.C'mon...you know you want to.SPIN IT!

Phat writes:

quote:

---

Which I think speaks volumes.

---

Indeed...the silence coming from you regarding my response to your "god" does speak volumes.By the way: I have never said I was an atheist. It's very telling of you to presume that.And I'll leave your self-indulgence regarding "humility" at that.

Phat responds to me:

quote:

---

But that's the essence of belief. The definition is not based on logic or fact.It is based on belief.

---

Irrelevant. I never said the definition was based on logic or fact. I merely said it existed. Are you honestly saying that believers in god don't have any conceptualization of what it is they believe in? No concept at all? That "god" is a meaningless term that they spend their time and energy in devotion to? It doesn't matter where it comes from or how it is constructed. The vending machine doesn't care if the quarter you stick into it came from the Denver or the Philadelphia mint. So long as it is the right shape, weight, etc. it is considered a "quarter."It doesn't matter where your definition of "god" comes from so long as there is a definition.

quote:

---

To actually make up one's own story in order to define the God in whom they believe seems a bit far-fetched.

---

And yet that's what lots of people are doing. They aren't happy with the definitions of "god" that they are getting from organized religion and yet they can't shake the idea that "something" is out there ("Look-around-you"-ism), so they define "god" on their own terms. For crying out loud, even members of a particular sect have this. You don't honestly think that all the Catholics in the world, all 1.2 billion of them, have the same understanding of what "god" is, do you? Protestants and Catholics certainly don't agree on everything ascribed to "god" despite both claiming to be "Christian"...to the point that certain Protestants claim that Catholics aren't Christian and the official position of the Catholic church is that the Protestants are misguided. And that ignores how the Orthodox fit into it.

If you need to get into a Monty Python definitional debate about what words mean, you've failed before you've begun.If your entire point is that people have many different ideas of what god is, well, hoozah! Who knew? But you claimed you could disprove god using science. Let's see you disprove them all one by one followed by the general concept of God itself. Off you go. Get back to me when your book is published.

Tangle runs away:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is the definition of "god" incorrect? If so, how?

---

If you need to get into a Monty Python definitional debate about what words mean, you've failed before you've begun.

---

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.

quote:

---

If your entire point is that people have many different ideas of what god is

---

Nope. That isn't it at all. Try again. If you had been paying attention to the posts to which you are responding, you would know this.Hint: Does the phrase "ad hoc" mean anything to you? What about "null hypothesis"?Let me give you a more nuanced response: Believers are already certain that other people's "gods" don't exist (exercise for the reader: How? What arguments are used by believers?) Thus, we're only looking at one definition. That's why we need the person who is claiming that god cannot be disproven to define what it is they mean by "god."

quote:

---

But you claimed you could disprove god using science. Let's see you disprove them all one by one followed by the general concept of God itself.

---

What do you mean by a "general concept of god itself"? Such a definition would necessarily be acceptable to all who believe in god, wouldn't it? 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.Off you go. Get back to me when you have decided to justify your own argument.

My argument is that no-one has yet proven the non-existence of god, scientifically or otherwise. That's non-contraversial. You claim you can, so get on with it or shut up. I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm with Rrhain on this, which god where has ever really been defined? There are stories of gods galore, but no real usable definition of one. Everyone seems to have their own personal definition of what god is which seems to point to each of us creating our own nonexistent personal god. Without a clear god to disprove, it would be a fool's errand to even try.

I agree it’s a fool’s errand, unfortunately Rrhain said he could do it.Now if he wants a discussion about what a God is he’s quite welcome to start a new thread; I won’t be joining it. Meanwhile, he’s left himself the large job of not only disproving all the individual theistic gods we’ve made up for all of our religions but also the deistic disinterested gods that made the soil we stand on and usually everything else as well but seemingly take no further interest. Worthy of a book or two I think.

My only problem with this logic trail is that it serves to put God in a box, so to speak...insisting that without our ability to define something it then follows that something doesn't exist.By the way, what do you think of this oft-quoted logic?
Update Your Browser | Facebook

The faulty logic here is basically assuming that "living as if God doesn't exist" is a bad and evil thing. I live my life as a human which means I have empathy for my fellow humans and try to help out the less fortunate to the best of my abilities and to enjoy my existence without harming others, you know, the golden rule. Believing in God would only mean that I would be following the tenets of my faith, whatever that may be. The quote is also biased toward monotheism, which is a slap in the face to any polytheistic religious followers. It's a quote of a small minded person.In short, the quote is insulting.Edited by kjsimons, : missing backslash

quote:

---

I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die and find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.

---

This only makes sense if you think God would be a dick and think negatively about someone who doesn't believe in God when there is no evidence of God.if you think God is at least normal (not even "good") then there's no reason to suggest God would think negatively about someone who doesn't believe in God when there is no evidence of God.Therefore, if you think God is at least normal, it makes much more sense this way around: I'd rather live my life as if there is no God and die to find out there is, than live my life as if there is and die to find out there isn't.In this scenario let's look at the first part:Person leads a good life not believing in God.
Person dies.
Person finds out God actually exists.
God isn't a dick, though, God is at least normal and God's reaction is: Ha ha, funny, eh? I do exist! Nice life, though... you did fine, I'll treat you as well as any believer.And the second part:Person leads a good life believing in God.
Person dies.
Person finds out God actually did not exist.
Therefore, all the time and effort put into "believing in God" was completely wasted and could have been focused on living an even better "good life."So, we have to balance between two things:1 - No loss at all, outcome is what it would be anyway.
2 - Waste of time and energy while alive.The choice seems obvious to me.The only way believing-in-God-just-in-case-God-exists-over-Him-not-existing makes sense to gamble for is if you think God is a dick. Otherwise, there's nothing to worry about anyway.

Not sure I understand... Perhaps someone could have saved a lot of time,but what effort is wasted in belief? I ask myself what I would do that would lead to my life being any better than it is now? Good point, unless Gods concern was not the belief itself but the attitude carried with it. Believers are as guilty of this as anyone. 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

quote:

---

"I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die and find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

---

If there was no God, would you help the poor?There isn't, and I still do.