NationStates Jolt Archive

meh. it went from a discussion on the classification of a religion, to what makes a god, does/can god exist, to where ever the hell we are now...


Topics the evolve are fun.

evolution is the debil's crafty lie.

I was under the understanding that there is no such thing as evil. However, if there is evil, I don't think there is need for an "avatar" of evil, beings can be evil without something forcing it. Satan is bad. People are bad. Cats are bad. What's the need for God to have to force someone with free will to do something? can't they just do it?

I went over the "evil is not absence of good" thing earlier in this topic, I don't know how many pages back. Basically: No, evil is something that exists. It's malice. It's intent.

There's no 'need' for an avatar, per se, but such an element would have one if the universe was created by God. If Satan is anything, he's the avatar of evil - if he's not that, then he simply does insanely evil things and lives for encouraging others to do evil as well. That... pretty much sums up the avatar thing: Satan embodies evil. He's the enforcer, the symbol, the source, the salesman. Evil is the one thing Satan can be the avatar of, and the one thing that, (one way or the other) arguably, God could not be. God is the avatar of everything - he's the avatar of Earth, creation, time, fire, weather, everything! He is the enforcer of, the symbol of, the source of, and the regulator of everything in the universe, if you believe in the Christian God. He's the symbol of everything, except evil. When you think 'evil', you don't think 'God' - if anything, you think 'Satan'.

Now, that is assuming Satan has free will. If he does, he does all those things by his own wish, and with his own evil intent. If he doesn't, then he does those things by the wishes of God, and with God's evil intent.

meh. it went from a discussion on the classification of a religion, to what makes a god, does/can god exist, to where ever the hell we are now...


Topics the evolve are fun.

Yes but the original topic was never actually resolved, so it's -not- fun. :p

The only answer that can be is, "both or either," as the question depends on how we "see it."

Right! And I'm asking people how they see it! Which one do they believe? I'm not hoping for some empirical, finalized answer that we can prove logically - I want opinions.

I went over the "evil is not absence of good" thing earlier in this topic, I don't know how many pages back. Basically: No, evil is something that exists. It's malice. It's intent.

There's no 'need' for an avatar, per se, but such an element would have one if the universe was created by God. If Satan is anything, he's the avatar of evil - if he's not that, then he simply does insanely evil things and lives for encouraging others to do evil as well. That... pretty much sums up the avatar thing: Satan embodies evil. He's the enforcer, the symbol, the source, the salesman. Evil is the one thing Satan can be the avatar of, and the one thing that, (one way or the other) arguably, God could not be. God is the avatar of everything - he's the avatar of Earth, creation, time, fire, weather, everything! He is the enforcer of, the symbol of, the source of, and the regulator of everything in the universe, if you believe in the Christian God. He's the symbol of everything, except evil. When you think 'evil', you don't think 'God' - if anything, you think 'Satan'.

Now, that is assuming Satan has free will. If he does, he does all those things by his own wish, and with his own evil intent. If he doesn't, then he does those things by the wishes of God, and with God's evil intent.

Of course Satan has free will. He couldn't have rebelled without free will.

You are under the impression that Satan is the originator of all evil? That Satan is responsible for every "bad" thing?

and if there is evil does that mean you believe in objective morality?

No argument there. We're not even talking about the initial subject anymore, are we? We should probably get back to it.

oh yeah, the original subject....

2 corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ

1 john 5:18-19
We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

colossians 1:13
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves

ephesians 2:1-2
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.


satan is totally a god

Of course Satan has free will. He couldn't have rebelled without free will.

You are under the impression that Satan is the originator of all evil? That Satan is responsible for every "bad" thing?

and if there is evil does that mean you believe in objective morality?

There are those that insist that the rebellion was just a metaphor. Really, if it wasn't, then one of two things is true: Satan is an idiot, or God isn't eternal and could've been overthrown.

What I'm under the impression of or what I believe isn't the point - If you really want to know, I'll tell you, but as far as being on-topic is concerned, Satan now represents all things evil in the mind of the average Christian, so it doesn't matter if he created it or not, because now he bought it, perfected it, and sells it on the side of the highway for five cents a bag.

Objective morality is irrelevant in the case of Satan - if he does evil, and intends on doing what he considers to be evil, then whether or not someone else considers it evil doesn't apply.

There are those that insist that the rebellion was just a metaphor. Really, if it wasn't, then one of two things is true: Satan is an idiot, or God isn't eternal and could've been overthrown.

What I'm under the impression of or what I believe isn't the point - If you really want to know, I'll tell you, but as far as being on-topic is concerned, Satan now represents all things evil in the mind of the average Christian, so it doesn't matter if he created it or not, because now he bought it, perfected it, and sells it on the side of the highway for five cents a bag.

Objective morality is irrelevant in the case of Satan - if he does evil, and intends on doing what he considers to be evil, then whether or not someone else considers it evil doesn't apply.

the thing is, if Satan even exists, is that he (satan) is doing his own thing and it's not God's thing. You either do God's thing your you don't, and if you do you are good and if you don't you are not good.

Anyone not doing God's thing is doing the bad thing (not to be confused with The Bad Thing (tm)) You don't need Satan to tempt you to do "the bad thing" because you will do it anyway, it's in your nature as a flawed being, and every being is flawed except the Sovereign God........because He is holy, and He alone is worthy of praise and when all hell breaks loose (metaphorically or literally) He will be right, because He is God.

the thing is, if Satan even exists, is that he (satan) is doing his own thing and it's not God's thing. You either do God's thing your you don't, and if you do you are good and if you don't you are not good.

Right. Free will, in control of his own actions, deciding to specifically do and propogate evil.

Anyone not doing God's thing is doing the bad thing (not to be confused with The Bad Thing (tm)) You don't need Satan to tempt you to do "the bad thing" because you will do it anyway, it's in your nature as a flawed being, and every being is flawed except the Sovereign God........because He is holy, and He alone is worthy of praise and when all hell breaks loose (metaphorically or literally) He will be right, because He is God.

There's a difference between doing "the bad thing" and doing true evil, so when you get drunk and sleep with your friend's wife, you're not doing evil, you're just fucking up - unless you specifically did it with the intent of hurting your friend. Then it might be evil. We, as a species, are tainted, but we're not pure evil.

But, it could be argued that Satan really is the source of evil, or the source of our flaw - if you believe he was the snake in the garden, then he made it so we would be flawed. He temped us into doing evil, and now we are somewhat evil beings by nature.


I feel like I should say something more in this post, but I think I replied to the points well enough as is - I still have that feeling that I need to elaborate on something. Lemme know if I'm not being clear enough in my points, I don't want us to have two different ideas in our heads about what I'm saying.

Right. Free will, in control of his own actions, deciding to specifically do and propogate evil.
yep, pretty much.


There's a difference between doing "the bad thing" and doing true evil, so when you get drunk and sleep with your friend's wife, you're not doing evil, you're just fucking up - unless you specifically did it with the intent of hurting your friend. Then it might be evil. We, as a species, are tainted, but we're not pure evil.
well, there is the standard by which all are judged and it's pretty damn high, so basically if you aren't doing God's thing, you are doing the bad thing, it's not so much a range as an either/or. Mitigating factors are a human rationalization, it's not a God thing. Either you are perfect and holy or you aren't, and......we aren't.

But, it could be argued that Satan really is the source of evil, or the source of our flaw - if you believe he was the snake in the garden, then he made it so we would be flawed. He temped us into doing evil, and now we are somewhat evil beings by nature.
I think that by nature of having free will we already had the propensity to do bad things, if we didn't, we wouldn't have free will. I also think that the whole garden story is a parable of sorts anyway, so it doesn't matter who the snake is, whether Satan or just our subconscious. The fact is, you can rationalize yourself into trouble.


I feel like I should say something more in this post, but I think I replied to the points well enough as is - I still have that feeling that I need to elaborate on something. Lemme know if I'm not being clear enough in my points, I don't want us to have two different ideas in our heads about what I'm saying.

:p same over here.

Right! And I'm asking people how they see it! Which one do they believe? I'm not hoping for some empirical, finalized answer that we can prove logically - I want opinions.

Well, it'd be my opinion that you shouldn't take mythology so literally, but that's probably just me.

well, there is the standard by which all are judged and it's pretty damn high, so basically if you aren't doing God's thing, you are doing the bad thing, it's not so much a range as an either/or. Mitigating factors are a human rationalization, it's not a God thing. Either you are perfect and holy or you aren't, and......we aren't.

Which is why there's Jesus. He knows you're not perfect, can't get it together, can't follow every last detail of the law, can't be pure, etc.

So instead of saying, "I built the system, and it's going to screw you!"
he's handing out invitations to the afterlife with him.

"Want to party forever? Drop me a prayer."

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

Good post Smunkeeville.

To Nihelm: The NT says that God is the "One True God". Maybe not the only 'god', but the only one that isn't false and an extension of Satan's plan to snare people. However, the prime enemy people have fought most of the time isn't demons and Lucifer, but their own perverse flesh. All the Devil really has to do is get your mind off of God just long enough for you to become intangled in your own carnality.

well, there is the standard by which all are judged and it's pretty damn high, so basically if you aren't doing God's thing, you are doing the bad thing, it's not so much a range as an either/or. Mitigating factors are a human rationalization, it's not a God thing. Either you are perfect and holy or you aren't, and......we aren't.

But "not perfect" and "not holy" is, by a longshot, not the same thing as "evil incarnate". Whether or not we're up to the standard isn't really the issue, because we're all below the supposed standard, but I think it's important to realize that we're not, as faulty as we are, purely evil beings such as Satan is portrayed to be. Sure, we still fail the test just like he does, but he fails the test on purpose.

I think that by nature of having free will we already had the propensity to do bad things, if we didn't, we wouldn't have free will. I also think that the whole garden story is a parable of sorts anyway, so it doesn't matter who the snake is, whether Satan or just our subconscious. The fact is, you can rationalize yourself into trouble.

That kind of goes against the "God created us as perfect beings" thing. Unless God created us with the intent that we'd be imperfect things, something caused us to be broken by manipulating our free will.

Either we were created perfect and, metaphor or not, the snake convinced us to become tainted, or we were born to break, and whether the snake was there or not, we'd become broken, because God wanted us to break.

If we were born to break, born to be tainted, born to make bad decisions, then we open up a whole new can of heretical worms and blasphemous soda pop that would take us way off-topic.


Well, it'd be my opinion that you shouldn't take mythology so literally, but that's probably just me.

Logically, yes, but it's just so fun.

That kind of goes against the "God created us as perfect beings" thing. Unless God created us with the intent that we'd be imperfect things, something caused us to be broken by manipulating our free will.

...in which case we may well be perfectly imperfect.

But "not perfect" and "not holy" is, by a longshot, not the same thing as "evil incarnate". Whether or not we're up to the standard isn't really the issue, because we're all below the supposed standard, but I think it's important to realize that we're not, as faulty as we are, purely evil beings such as Satan is portrayed to be. Sure, we still fail the test just like he does, but he fails the test on purpose.
Satan has to have some good or he wouldn't have been a servant of God to begin with (going with the rebellion story)



That kind of goes against the "God created us as perfect beings" thing. Unless God created us with the intent that we'd be imperfect things, something caused us to be broken by manipulating our free will.

Either we were created perfect and, metaphor or not, the snake convinced us to become tainted, or we were born to break, and whether the snake was there or not, we'd become broken, because God wanted us to break.

If we were born to break, born to be tainted, born to make bad decisions, then we open up a whole new can of heretical worms and blasphemous soda pop that would take us way off-topic.

I never said we were created perfect. We were created to glorify God, we are either in service or out of service, we are never perfect, we can't be.

Satan has to have some good or he wouldn't have been a servant of God to begin with (going with the rebellion story)

satan wasnt "pure evil" after his fall either. if I remember right when he asked god for permission to "test" Job, didn't he enter heaven to talk with god "face to face"? (i could be completely off and the fall happens after Job)



The "pure evil" satan is the view, as far as I can tell, the most christians hold today. A demon among demons that does not follow God's rule (ie the devil of today would not have asked God's permission to "test" Job, even if could enter heaven to ask for it.)

satan wasnt "pure evil" after his fall either. if I remember right when he asked god for permission to "test" Job, didn't he enter heaven to talk with god "face to face"? (i could be completely off and the fall happens after Job)



The "pure evil" satan is the view, as far as I can tell, the most christians hold today. A demon among demons that does not follow God's rule (ie the devil of today would not have asked God's permission to "test" Job, even if could enter heaven to ask for it.)

Have you ever read Paradise Lost (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_1/index.shtml) ?

satan wasnt "pure evil" after his fall either. if I remember right when he asked god for permission to "test" Job, didn't he enter heaven to talk with god "face to face"?



The "pure evil" satan is the view, as far as I can tell, the most christians hold today. A demon among demons that does not follow God's rule (ie the devil of today would not have asked God's permission to "test" Job, even if could enter heaven to ask for it.)
unless the whole Job story is a parable/allegory.......then it's not pertinent to the discussion.

unless the whole Job story is a parable/allegory.......then it's not pertinent to the discussion.

But since, as those who believe in God love to claim, you can't know for sure, then it is a possible avenue of discussion.

But since, as those who believe in God love to claim, you can't know for sure, then it is a possible avenue of discussion.

true, but you can't really know either way.......so you have to flex a bit, and be like "if this, than that"

unless the whole Job story is a parable/allegory.......then it's not pertinent to the discussion.

Well, no, then it is pertinent in another way.

"if this, than that"

That is pretty much the whole thread.;)

That is pretty much the whole thread.;)

;)

Satan has to have some good or he wouldn't have been a servant of God to begin with (going with the rebellion story)

*shrugs* Even if he was somewhat good to begin with, he could've since become the embodiment of evil and malign intent that we know him as today.

I never said we were created perfect. We were created to glorify God, we are either in service or out of service, we are never perfect, we can't be.

Most Christians hold the idea that we were created perfect, and that our fall was our fault, therefore we are in debt to God for failing to live up to his expectations and the potential that he gave us.

satan wasnt "pure evil" after his fall either. if I remember right when he asked god for permission to "test" Job, didn't he enter heaven to talk with god "face to face"? (i could be completely off and the fall happens after Job)

Pure evil could, I suppose, still talk to God if God allowed it. Doesn't really mean anything.

The "pure evil" satan is the view, as far as I can tell, the most christians hold today. A demon among demons that does not follow God's rule (ie the devil of today would not have asked God's permission to "test" Job, even if could enter heaven to ask for it.)

Mhm, this is true - but then again, in the Old Testament, where Job is, God is a vengeful mofo that may have taken offense to Satan suddenly testing one of his most loyal worshippers without his consent. The New Testament God is softer, friendlier, child-proof - it's conceivable that such a type of God would be unhappy with, but not retaliate an action of, possessing a human, inciting hatred among God's creations, planning to create an antichrist to cause hell on Earth, etc as Satan is known for doing.

*shrugs* Even if he was somewhat good to begin with, he could've since become the embodiment of evil and malign intent that we know him as today.
interesting.
Most Christians hold the idea that we were created perfect, and that our fall was our fault, therefore we are in debt to God for failing to live up to his expectations and the potential that he gave us.
not that we were created perfect, but that we were created to serve Him in a perfect world that our own sin has ruined. There is a difference.


Mhm, this is true - but then again, in the Old Testament, where Job is, God is a vengeful mofo that may have taken offense to Satan suddenly testing one of his most loyal worshippers without his consent. The New Testament God is softer, friendlier, child-proof - it's conceivable that such a type of God would be unhappy with, but not retaliate an action of, possessing a human, inciting hatred among God's creations, planning to create an antichrist to cause hell on Earth, etc as Satan is known for doing.
the new testament God isn't any nicer than the old testament one, ever read Jude?

unless the whole Job story is a parable/allegory.......then it's not pertinent to the discussion.

Well it is if he was asking for God's permission because he respects or works for him. Either way it's interesting to think about.

interesting.

not that we were created perfect, but that we were created to serve Him in a perfect world that our own sin has ruined. There is a difference.

Eh, I'm not seeing it. If we were created to be imperfect, and our very nature is flawed from the start, then I'm gonna have to say it's God's fault that the perfect world was corrupted. We're the red dye in the crystal clear water, and God's got the dropper.



the new testament God isn't any nicer than the old testament one, ever read Jude?

Jude doesn't ring a bell, but he certainly is nicer. He sends his son down to save us, as opposed to sending a flood down to kill us. He has a message of love and peace, as opposed to a message of fear and jealousy.

Have you ever read Paradise Lost (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_1/index.shtml) ?

nope. any good?

Well it is if he was asking for God's permission because he respects or works for him. Either way it's interesting to think about.
or because he fears God.



Eh, I'm not seeing it. If we were created to be imperfect, and our very nature is flawed from the start, then I'm gonna have to say it's God's fault that the perfect world was corrupted. We're the red dye in the crystal clear water, and God's got the dropper.
God is only responsible in the fact that He gave us our free will, we choose what to do with it. If God hadn't given us free will, we would do what He wanted like little robots, with freedom comes consequences.


Jude doesn't ring a bell, but he certainly is nicer. He sends his son down to save us, as opposed to sending a flood down to kill us. He has a message of love and peace, as opposed to a message of fear and jealousy.
Don't be misled there is a judgment coming, and the disobedient are going to have a bad time of it, the new testament is clear on that. Jesus even said so, red letters and all.

or because he fears God.

If he feared God he wouldn't have tried to overthrow him. Also, I think that if God was going to destroy Satan, he would've done it by now.

God is only responsible in the fact that He gave us our free will, we choose what to do with it. If God hadn't given us free will, we would do what He wanted like little robots, with freedom comes consequences.

But he dictated what free will entails - he created free will to mean that we are not perfect, and then called us sinners for not being perfect. It doesn't seem right.

Don't be misled there is a judgment coming, and the disobedient are going to have a bad time of it, the new testament is clear on that. Jesus even said so, red letters and all.

Right, but he says there's a judgement -coming-, not "I'm judging you NOW, *zomgfirebrimstonefuckingsadists*". He's nicer.

If he feared God he wouldn't have tried to overthrow him. Also, I think that if God was going to destroy Satan, he would've done it by now.
maybe.

But he dictated what free will entails - he created free will to mean that we are not perfect, and then called us sinners for not being perfect. It doesn't seem right.
free will to serve God or not, there isn't any other way to define free will.

You either serve God or you don't. I don't see what's unfair, it's a choice you make. It may not be right for you to choose to turn away from God, but it's your choice.

Right, but he says there's a judgement -coming-, not "I'm judging you NOW, *zomgfirebrimstonefuckingsadists*". He's nicer.

we live in the consequences of our own sin, God is going to end it all one day, we don't know when.

maybe.

Logically speaking, unless he had a job for him to do.

free will to serve God or not, there isn't any other way to define free will.

Again, God created the universe. He defined what everything means, he defined our logic, he defined what makes sense and what doesn't. He created this situation in which we live to be the way it is. God could've defined free will to mean anything he wanted it to mean.

You either serve God or you don't. I don't see what's unfair, it's a choice you make. It may not be right for you to choose to turn away from God, but it's your choice.

It's unfair because we can't be sure whether or not we're serving God, no matter what we do. We can't be sure we're serving the right god, we can't be sure we know what they meant in the bible - we're just assuming so much. It's unfair because if we're wrong, we could be punished as damned sinners, forsaken and unforgiven, for all eternity, in hell.

we live in the consequences of our own sin, God is going to end it all one day, we don't know when.

But again! He used to do that shit what seemed to be every other day! A flood today, two entire cities burned to the ground tomorrow, the day after that he's got frogs dropping on people's heads in Egypt.

He doesn't do that anymore. No matter what's going to come eventually, he's not as vengeful or interactive with humanity as he was in the Old Testament.

free will to serve God or not, there isn't any other way to define free will.

You either serve God or you don't. I don't see what's unfair, it's a choice you make. It may not be right for you to choose to turn away from God, but it's your choice.

I beg to differ. Just because you do not follow God, does not make you a bad person, let alone evil. Free will is the ability to make our own decisions through out our lives. belief is god is just one of the many choices a person will make.




we live in the consequences of our own sin, God is going to end it all one day, we don't know when.

so how long before you get your poster-board proclaiming "The end is near"?
A lot of the big names in religion are claiming we are is the "end times".





(though to be fair, it seems like every few years it is "the end of the world")

so how long before you get your poster-board proclaiming "The end is near"?
A lot of the big names in religion are claiming we are is the "end times".





(though to be fair, it seems like every few years it is "the end of the world")

in the grand scheme of life we probably are in the end times, I don't deal much in end times prophecy because it really doesn't make a difference, what will happen will happen no matter if I am a premillennialist or a postmilennisalist or whatever.

I beg to differ. Just because you do not follow God, does not make you a bad person, let alone evil. Free will is the ability to make our own decisions through out our lives. belief is god is just one of the many choices a person will make.
speaking purely in God terms, you are. (general you)

Logically speaking, unless he had a job for him to do.
lots of people do lots of things that are illogical. I wouldn't put it past Satan to be blinded by stupidity.



Again, God created the universe. He defined what everything means, he defined our logic, he defined what makes sense and what doesn't. He created this situation in which we live to be the way it is. God could've defined free will to mean anything he wanted it to mean.
and thus it's arrogant to tell Him that He did it wrong.



It's unfair because we can't be sure whether or not we're serving God, no matter what we do. We can't be sure we're serving the right god, we can't be sure we know what they meant in the bible - we're just assuming so much. It's unfair because if we're wrong, we could be punished as damned sinners, forsaken and unforgiven, for all eternity, in hell.
you have to have faith that God is just. There are many things we can never know, that's where faith enters into it.



But again! He used to do that shit what seemed to be every other day! A flood today, two entire cities burned to the ground tomorrow, the day after that he's got frogs dropping on people's heads in Egypt.
not every day, not every other day, over hundreds and thousands of years.

He doesn't do that anymore.
how do you know?

No matter what's going to come eventually, he's not as vengeful or interactive with humanity as he was in the Old Testament.

I never saw God as vengeful. Not even in the old testament.

speaking purely in God terms, you are. (general you)

some loving god.

"you were perfect, but you didnt believe in me. lake of fire and eternal damnation for you. next."

some loving god.

"you were perfect, but you didnt believe in me. lake of fire and eternal damnation for you. next."

the thing is we were never perfect. We were always in need of a relationship with God, He loves you enough to let you choose that. If you want to be angry at God though, it's your business, I was like that for a long time, turns out to be pointless. We make our own hell, being angry at God might just be yours.

the thing is we were never perfect. We were always in need of a relationship with God, He loves you enough to let you choose that. If you want to be angry at God though, it's your business, I was like that for a long time, turns out to be pointless. We make our own hell, being angry at God might just be yours.

I ment perfect in the since that a person could follow everything the bible says, because that would be the way they were rasied, but they just didn't believe.

they would be sent to suffer for eternity.


I am not angry at god. You cant be angry at what doesn't exist. I am annoyed by those that would try to portray such a being as "loving".

I ment perfect in the since that a person could follow everything the bible says, because that would be the way they were rasied, but they just didn't believe.

they would be sent to suffer for eternity.
being outside the will of God is suffering of it's own. Even the rocks cry out in reverence to God. You have a choice, and so does every other person on the Earth. Don't kid yourself either, you can't be good enough, you can't follow "the Bible" and make it, you either serve God or you don't.


I am not angry at god. You cant be angry at what doesn't exist. I am annoyed by those that would try to portray such a being as "loving".
you sure sound angry at God. UpwardThrust, doesn't, I believe him when he says he doesn't believe in God. You and a few others around here? notsomuch.

being outside the will of God is suffering of it's own. Even the rocks cry out in reverence to God. You have a choice, and so does every other person on the Earth. Don't kid yourself either, you can't be good enough, you can't follow "the Bible" and make it, you either serve God or you don't.



you sure sound angry at God. UpwardThrust, doesn't, I believe him when he says he doesn't believe in God. You and a few others around here? notsomuch.

believe whatever you want. your claiming that I believe in god is not going to make it so. As for "suffering" I have yet to hear of anyone who blames their suffering on their lack of belief, while I have heard of many who wonder why god lets them suffer, or beliefs their suffering is because they don't believe enough.

believe whatever you want. your claiming that I believe in god is not going to make it so. As for "suffering" I have yet to hear of anyone who blames their suffering on their lack of belief, while I have heard of many who wonder why god lets them suffer, or beliefs their suffering is because they don't believe enough.

I have suffered enough due to my own bad choices to know it's mostly my fault, and I know God well enough not to blame Him for my stupidity.

I am not trying to convert you. I don't play that. I thought since you seemed interested I would elaborate.

I have suffered enough due to my own bad choices to know it's mostly my fault, and I know God well enough not to blame Him for my stupidity.

I am not trying to convert you. I don't play that. I thought since you seemed interested I would elaborate.

good job!

its nice to see christian beliefs so well explained.

To determine whether Christianity is monotheistic or polytheistic it is necessary to determine whether Judaism is monotheistic or polytheistic. The questions one needs to answer then are:
1. How was Yhvh worshiped throughout history? (i.e. as an unary god without any spouses or other gods, or not)
2. Under which name, and is the identification of that name with Yhvh unambiguous? (i.e. does the identification with another name not compromise the biblical record of Yhvh)

To determine whether Christianity is monotheistic or polytheistic it is necessary to determine whether Judaism is monotheistic or polytheistic.

why?

1. How was Yhvh worshiped throughout history? (i.e. as an unary god without any spouses or other gods, or not)

why would that matter even for judaism?

Oh, yay, more inspecifics. Just like ID. Now, clearly, specifically, what evidence that would definitely exist if there were a god doesn't?

Not some vague reference. Say it clear. What thing if it were present would evidence that God exists?

So here we are 10 pages later and this evidence Free Soviets claim to have that prove there are no gods has not surfaced.

Come on, Free, what is this evidence? Or is the best you have argument from ignorance?

To determine whether Christianity is monotheistic or polytheistic it is necessary to determine whether Judaism is monotheistic or polytheistic. The questions one needs to answer then are:
1. How was Yhvh worshiped throughout history? (i.e. as an unary god without any spouses or other gods, or not)
2. Under which name, and is the identification of that name with Yhvh unambiguous? (i.e. does the identification with another name not compromise the biblical record of Yhvh)

i dont honestly think that the connection between christianity and judaism is strong enough to have that be the test.

they dont really even have the same god do they? the jews certainly dont have a trinitarian god. their god has neither son nor spirit.

the christian god was started after the death of jesus in (nominally) 33ad. there was no trinity-creator-of-the-universe-with-no-other-gods-in-existence god before then.

why?Because Christianity dwells entirely on Judaism. Jesus is supposedly the son or incarnation of the Jewish god, so the history of that god is quite relevant, isn't it?

why would that matter even for judaism?what? whether it's monotheistic or polytheistic? i don't know if that matters for judaism, but if it's polytheistic, wouldn't that somehow compromise judaism and the exclusiveness it claims for its god?

...a trinitarian god....a trinitarian god doesn't make the difference between monotheism and polytheism. if a god appears in three manifestations it could still be monotheism, only if there are three distinct deities it's not.

So here we are 10 pages later and this evidence Free Soviets claim to have that prove there are no gods has not surfaced.

once again, i made no such claim. you have tried reading what i have said, yes? what i did claim is that the lack of any evidence whatsoever at this point makes a rather compelling epistemic justification for actively disbelieving. this is the same standard of evidence for disbelieving in fairies and orbiting teapots, despite the fact that they may really just be very good at hiding.

Because Christianity dwells entirely on Judaism. Jesus is supposedly the son or incarnation of the Jewish god, so the history of that god is quite relevant, isn't it?

no. since the whole thing is all just a bunch of make-believe anyways, all that can possibly matter is what their current belief classifies them as, except when we are talking about historical classifications

what? whether it's monotheistic or polytheistic?

no, whether the people who later became the jews were monotheists or polytheists at earlier times.

no. since the whole thing is all just a bunch of make-believe anyways, all that can possibly matter is what their current belief classifies them as, except when we are talking about historical classifications

no, whether the people who later became the jews were monotheists or polytheists at earlier times.

So you say all that counts is the perspective, but not the issue of belief?

So you say all that counts is the perspective, but not the issue of belief?

in classifying the religions of particular people, what they believe counts, not what other people used to believe.

in classifying the religions of particular people, what they believe counts, not what other people used to believe.so a change in belief does not compromise the credibility in respect to the issue of belief? isn't it somewhat odd when a faith changes from poly- to monotheistic without any explanation or justification?

So you say all that counts is the perspective, but not the issue of belief?

no.

what matters is what is believed today not what was believed 4000 years ago.

for example, christianity is about....1800 years old. for....1600 of those years it was absolutely believed by christians that the biblical story of the great flood was literally true.

today we know that there was no flood and only a handful of christians believe in a literal interpretation of the events of the old testament.

today we cannot take the absence of a world wide flood as proof that the biblical god does not exist. that it was believed for the vast majority of the time that christianity has existed doesnt matter at all.

no.

what matters is what is believed today not what was believed 4000 years ago.

for example, christianity is about....1800 years old. for....1600 of those years it was absolutely believed by christians that the biblical story of the great flood was literally true.

today we know that there was no flood and only a handful of christians believe in a literal interpretation of the events of the old testament.

today we cannot take the absence of a world wide flood as proof that the biblical god does not exist. that it was believed for the vast majority of the time that christianity has existed doesnt matter at all.

Well, but Christians believe in Yhvh because Jews have done so. However, Jews have done so only for very few centuries before the creation of Christianity. Does it not matter at all that the belief systems of this tiny group had changed quite dramatically?

Well, but Christians believe in Yhvh because Jews have done so. However, Jews have done so only for very few centuries before the creation of Christianity. Does it not matter at all that the belief systems of this tiny group had changed quite dramatically?

maybe in the question of whether the particular god in question actually exists or not, but not at all in the question of how many gods a religion believes exist. like, not even slightly.

Well, but Christians believe in Yhvh because Jews have done so. However, Jews have done so only for very few centuries before the creation of Christianity. Does it not matter at all that the belief systems of this tiny group had changed quite dramatically?

you might think so but it seems that it does not.

what difference can it make to christians how long jews worshipped yahweh and where that belief came from when they remade yahweh into a god completely different from the jewish god anyway?

good job!

its nice to see christian beliefs so well explained.

*prays you aren't being sarcastic*

also, I am semi-disturbed that I didn't dig out my scripture references....

once again, i made no such claim. you have tried reading what i have said, yes? what i did claim is that the lack of any evidence whatsoever at this point makes a rather compelling epistemic justification for actively disbelieving. this is the same standard of evidence for disbelieving in fairies and orbiting teapots, despite the fact that they may really just be very good at hiding.

Sorry. That you can EVIDENCE that no gods exist.

No, it does not compelling claim because logical fallacies are not compelling..

This is logic. If Joe had driven to the party his car would be outside. His car is not outside. Therefore Joe did not drive the car. In order for a lack of evidence to be compelling you have to show that logic and evidence dictates that an particular peice of evidence would be there.

If what you were saying were true you could show what specific evidence we expect to exist based on past experiences or other evidence and show why it would be necessarily so.

Anything less than that is argument from ignorance. So again, clearly state what logical or evidenciary basis you have for make claims about supernatural beings and their capabilities or lack thereof? List the evidence that would necessarily be there to support the existence of such beings that leads you to your conclusion that they don't exist. Otherwise the ONLY logical conclusion is to admit you have know evidence either way. Anything else is argument from ignorance, by the very definition of the fallacy.

Come on, certainly you have something more substantial than "I know because if they existed someone would have proved it."

you might think so but it seems that it does not.It only seems otherwise for those who only have the bible as a source for that. Unfortunately the popularity of Christianity has had its effects on the way historical material has been interpreted by archaeologists and historians of the past centuries, and even still today.

what difference can it make to christians how long jews worshipped yahweh and where that belief came from when they remade yahweh into a god completely different from the jewish god anyway?Did they really? I would say the Christian perspective only slightly differs from the Jewish perspective.

*prays you aren't being sarcastic*

also, I am semi-disturbed that I didn't dig out my scripture references....

would i be sarcastic with you?

scripture references can be so tedious. i think they are best kept for when someone demands justification of your point of view.

we get such heavy handed "christians are morons" posts. its nice to have someone be able to show that its not stupid, its not ugly, and its not backwards.

Did they really? I would say the Christian perspective only slightly differs from the Jewish perspective.

well im not an expert on judaism by any stretch of the imagination but i would suggest that since jews dont have a trinitarian god and the christians do, its more than a slight difference.

well im not an expert on judaism by any stretch of the imagination but i would suggest that since jews dont have a trinitarian god and the christians do, its more than a slight difference.The trinitarian god seems to be your favorite issue. What about him? In what way is that so much different from the Jewish god. It's still the Jewish god, only in multiple manifestations. That doesn't change the concept at all. That gods can appear in many manifestations at once is/was no new thing for a faith in the Middle East at all. You almost sound as if the Christian god is not the Jewish god.

The trinitarian god seems to be your favorite issue. What about him? In what way is that so much different from the Jewish god. It's still the Jewish god, only in multiple manifestations. That doesn't change the concept at all. That gods can appear in many manifestations at once is/was no new thing for a faith in the Middle East at all. You almost sound as if the Christian god is not the Jewish god.

im suggesting that the christians "stole" yahweh in the same way that you suggest that the jews "stole" enki/yah.

if the jews would not recognize their god by the christian description of him, how can he be the same god?

Sorry. That you can EVIDENCE that no gods exist.

No, it does not compelling claim because logical fallacies are not compelling..

This is logic. If Joe had driven to the party his car would be outside. His car is not outside. Therefore Joe did not drive the car. In order for a lack of evidence to be compelling you have to show that logic and evidence dictates that an particular peice of evidence would be there.

If what you were saying were true you could show what specific evidence we expect to exist based on past experiences or other evidence and show why it would be necessarily so.

1. interaction necessitates effects. (that is what the words mean)
2. effects are the observable evidence of causes. (again, what words mean)
____________________
3. therefore if some supernatural thing interacted with the universe, there would be evidence of this interaction in the universe.

what specific evidence we would expect to see is dependent on the hypothetical god being proposed. all of the hypothetical gods people actually believe in (aka, have proposed) have failed to exhibit the effects which they clearly ought to have had. this has happened so often that it is insane to withhold judgement, but instead we must relegate the gods concept to the same bin where we keep the fairies, unicorns, wizards, and orbiting teapots until evidence surfaces that points the other direction for any of them.

we can, of course, continue testing new hypothetical gods as people think them up. in fact, we must. but we do not start from scratch each time they do, constantly moving back to utter agnosticism on the entire question. instead, following the standard method of inductive knowing, each failed god hypothesis just makes us all the more epistemically justified in believing that there aren't any gods.

im suggesting that the christians "stole" yahweh in the same way that you suggest that the jews "stole" enki/yah.However, Christians do not pretend that their god is someone else than the Jewish god (see Jesus' transfiguration).

if the jews would not recognize their god by the christian description of him, how can he be the same god?Jews do recognize their god by the Christian description, they've been there when it was, um, created. You know, the Mishnah/Talmud were written to distinguish what is Jewish from what is Christian because the "god" at issue is the selfsame.

This is logic. If Joe had driven to the party his car would be outside. His car is not outside. Therefore Joe did not drive the car. In order for a lack of evidence to be compelling you have to show that logic and evidence dictates that an particular peice of evidence would be there.

If what you were saying were true you could show what specific evidence we expect to exist based on past experiences or other evidence and show why it would be necessarily so.

Anything less than that is argument from ignorance.

And that would be so, if FS was making an ontological argument, but he's making an epistemological argument, which says that if something lies beyond what it is possible for us to know --if it is, to us, essentially "nothing" --then there is no reason to believe in it. There is no reason to believe in a nothing that we can't know.

Oddly, it's not too different from the case the agnostic theist uses to justify firm belief in that very same "nothing."

1. interaction necessitates effects. (that is what the words mean)
2. effects are the observable evidence of causes. (again, what words mean)
____________________
3. therefore if some supernatural thing interacted with the universe, there would be evidence of this interaction in the universe.

what specific evidence we would expect to see is dependent on the hypothetical god being proposed. all of the hypothetical gods people actually believe in (aka, have proposed) have failed to exhibit the effects which they clearly ought to have had. this has happened so often that it is insane to withhold judgement, but instead we must relegate the gods concept to the same bin where we keep the fairies, unicorns, wizards, and orbiting teapots until evidence surfaces that points the other direction for any of them.

we can, of course, continue testing new hypothetical gods as people think them up. in fact, we must. but we do not start from scratch each time they do, constantly moving back to utter agnosticism on the entire question. instead, following the standard method of inductive knowing, each failed god hypothesis just makes us all the more epistemically justified in believing that there aren't any gods.

1. Not all effects are observable, particularly because we need a basis for comparison.

But, assuming there would be effects, then to know they aren't around us, you must know what they are. The only way you can avoid argument from ignorance is to say what the evidence would be and show it does not exist, and thus the actor that causes those effects does not. You've not show this.

WHAT EFFECTS?

BE SPECIFIC.

20 pages later and still not one specific thing that we would necessarily see. Just admit you're full of shit so we can move on. One peice of evidence. Just one. What specific effect is not present that evidences no gods exist? Assuming God created the universe everythign around us is an effect. How would you differentiate that effect from a universe not created by God? Come on, tell us about your magic beans that allow you to predict the difference between a god-created universe and a non-god-created universe.

2. That is not the definition of the word. You made that up.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/effect
Effect - 2 : something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent)

The definition does not include that it's observable. Meanwhile, just because you observe something does not mean you can recognize it's cause or that it is an effect. Science ignores the supernatural because we are unable to recognize the effect of the supernatural. Is it possible that little invisible pixies escort apples to the ground? Absolutely. Why does science ignore this? Because even if they did we'd have no ability to recognize it. No predictions could be made. And there would be no recognizeable difference from the theories we already support and based on which we can make predictions.

We ignore the supernatural in science specifically because we have no ability to make predictions based on the supernatural and as such have no ability to analyze it. You've flipped that on it's head and are making the same claims as IDers. The same claims that IDer's get laughed out of science classes and scientific forums for. Because you cannot explore a supernatural cause. Claiming otherwise is making the same dumbass claims you've been making for twenty pages.

Again, what specific effect?

You're scientifically analyzing the existence of God as a cause for the origin of the universe. Tell me what effect would occur, specifically. What test would you conduct? What predictions could be made? What specific evidence can you provide that would show a contribution by God? Because unless you can list those things. You cannot make any logical or scientific claim that such evidence does not exist or hasn't been found.

Your argument could prove god exists and you wouldn't know it because you have no ability to recognize the effect of an agent you've never encountered anything resembling. It's not possible.

Jocabia, do you believe in:
Fairies (the kind with wings, not gay men)
pixies
lochness monster
bigfoot
goblins
hobgoblins
grimlens
trolls
hobbits
banshees
magic folk
sea monsters
the flying spaghetti monster
norse gods
greek gods
roman gods (pre-christian take over)
egyptian gods
ect.


after all, there is no proof that they exist, but nor is there any that they do not.

However, Christians do not pretend that their god is someone else than the Jewish god (see Jesus' transfiguration).

Jews do recognize their god by the Christian description, they've been there when it was, um, created. You know, the Mishnah/Talmud were written to distinguish what is Jewish from what is Christian because the "god" at issue is the selfsame.

christians CLAIM that their god is the jewish god. i dont think that it stands up well to scrutiny.

as i said, im not an expert in judaism, but i think you are wrong in thinking that jews would recognize the christian god as their own. they might recognize the NAME but their god doesnt impregnate human women, doesnt have a son, doesnt have a seperate "spirit". he is not a 3-gods-in-one at all. he is their god in name only.

but i guess we would have to ask an actual jew which of us is closer to being right. i dont know enough about judaism to do more than assume.

And that would be so, if FS was making an ontological argument, but he's making an epistemological argument, which says that if something lies beyond what it is possible for us to know --if it is, to us, essentially "nothing" --then there is no reason to believe in it. There is no reason to believe in a nothing that we can't know.

Oddly, it's not too different from the case the agnostic theist uses to justify firm belief in that very same "nothing."

No reason to believe is not the same as actively believing something does not exist. He is claiming he knows God does not exist. He doesn't. He can't. He has no emperical evidence for such a claim. Emperical evidence is impossible. He can claim whatever he likes, but by definition he is relying on a fallacy.

Meanwhile, yes, I recognize he's trying to morph his argument, but initially he was discussing evidence, and his bullshit attempts to worm his way out of the argument are not going to work. There is no logical way to declare a lack of the supernatural. It cannot be done. Argument from ignorance is by definition when you claim a lack of evidence proves something false, when if fact just doesn't allow one to claim it's true.

yes it is. for example, if i propose that there is some entity that exists and has certain properties and will in some way be observable in certain circumstances, and then isn't so observed, that is absolutely evidence of lack.



does it require a suspension of logic to claim that you know there aren't any unicorns? do only zealots claim that there isn't a tiny teapot in orbit between the earth and mars? the standard for knowledge this statement seems to require is ludicrous.

So, we can show where this started and recognize that by his own account, that we have to establish the properties of the entity and how it will be in some way be observable in order for their to be evidence of lack.

So what are the properties of this entity you've not experienced, cannot experience and have no knowledge of? Pull out your crystal ball and tell me the properties of supernatural creatures? Now tell me the specific ways it would be observable? How would you recognize the actions of a god? Or keep avoiding the question. I'm sure that will eventually convince no one.

We have something to compare unicorns to. Properties for it because of how it is described, and know that a creature with such properties does not exist. We have knowledge of teapots and space. We have some way to expect evidence in these situations.

But 20 pages later you STILL cannot specifically tell me what evidence.

Jocabia, do you believe in:
Fairies (the kind with wings, not gay men)
pixies
lochness monster
bigfoot
goblins
hobgoblins
grimlens
trolls
hobbits
banshees
magic folk
sea monsters
the flying spaghetti monster
norse gods
greek gods
roman gods (pre-christian take over)
egyptian gods
ect.


after all, there is no proof that they exist, but nor is there any that they do not.

I don't believe in them. I also don't know they don't exist.

Some of them have specific properties we can base predictions on and, based on that, gather evidence for existence or non-existence. However, anything that has no properties that we can define cannot, by definition, allow us to make predictions. As such there is no way to analyze them at all.

The things for which there are defined properties of which we have some knowledge, it's a horse with a horn, or the like, we can analyze and conclude do not exist.

However, we have no basis for comparison for gods. None. We have no way to predict what a supernatural, superuniversal intelligent actor would do, create, and leave behind. Knowledge requires experience and when it comes to gods we have nothing on which to base predictions.

We were talking about emperical knowledge. There is no emperical knowledge about beings that exist outside the universe.

No reason to believe is not the same as actively believing something does not exist. He is claiming he knows God does not exist. He doesn't. He can't. He has no emperical evidence for such a claim. Emperical evidence is impossible. He can claim whatever he likes, but by definition he is relying on a fallacy.

Meanwhile, yes, I recognize he's trying to morph his argument, but initially he was discussing evidence, and his bullshit attempts to worm his way out of the argument are not going to work. There is no logical way to declare a lack of the supernatural. It cannot be done. Argument from ignorance is by definition when you claim a lack of evidence proves something false, when if fact just doesn't allow one to claim it's true.

For some people, if there is no reason to believe then there is no belief in that thing. Belief requires something to latch onto. FS has argued, "i cannot prove that i have hands and i cannot prove that i have ever come into contact with water. (yet) i agree with you that i know these things." (post #719) And according to philosopher David Hume, he's right. There is no basis for our concretization of the 'cause' of the 'effects' that we experience. There is no proof of anything that we 'know'.

And we know everything. Every 'thing' is only what we know of it; and if we make a separation between what we know of a thing, and what the thing is in actuality apart from our knowing it, then we necessarily must be claiming that we don't actually *know* anything about those things. About anything. We don't know the real God. We don't even know the real ourselves.

Empiricial evidence is nothing more than what we know. You're right, it is impossible (that it is actually anything more than a representation of the thing), for anything - natural or supernatural.

Sorry that I didn't real the whole thread, and I'm equally sorry if my comments miss some parts of it that are significant for you, but from what little I read FS is making an epistemological argument that is sound.

For some people, if there is no reason to believe then there is no belief in that thing. Belief requires something to latch onto. FS has argued, "i cannot prove that i have hands and i cannot prove that i have ever come into contact with water. (yet) i agree with you that i know these things." (post #719) And according to philosopher David Hume, he's right. There is no basis for our concretization of the 'cause' of the 'effects' that we experience. There is no proof of anything that we 'know'.

And we know everything. Every 'thing' is only what we know of it; and if we make a separation between what we know of a thing, and what the thing is in actuality apart from our knowing it, then we necessarily must be claiming that we don't actually *know* anything about those things. About anything. We don't know the real God. We don't even know the real ourselves.

Empiricial evidence is nothing more than what we know. You're right, it is impossible (that it is actually anything more than a representation of the thing), for anything - natural or supernatural.

Sorry that I didn't real the whole thread, and I'm equally sorry if my comments miss some parts of it that are significant for you, but from what little I read FS is making an epistemological argument that is sound.

He isn't talking about belief. I specifically mentioned believing and how believing something is true is different than claiming you know it. I believe in God. I can't claim I can evidence God and therefore I can't claim that my believe is based on knowledge. There is no emperical evidence for God. I cannot logically claim that God exists. I cannot logically claim that God does not exist.

This started by claiming one can logically claim that without evidence you can say claim that something doesn't exist. As even FS pointed out, making such a claim requires us to know the properties of that thing. When it comes to an intelligent creator of the universe, we simply can't. It's not in our realm of possible knowledge.

Meanwhile, we were specifically discussing logic. If we say anything we don't know we can assume doesn't exist then the argument from ignorance would not exist. In logic, you cannot make such a claim. You have to offer evidence for your claims, you can't just rest on, well, you can't prove me wrong.

____________________
3. therefore if some supernatural thing interacted with the universe, there would be evidence of this interaction in the universe.

Three questions:

First, since this "supernatural thing" was and is supposedly not only sentient, but more intelligent and wise than anything else in the universe, what if he didn't want to leave evidence? He certainly is capable of concealing it. If he didn't want to leave evidence, we probably will never find it, will we?

Second, even if the "supernatural thing" did leave evidence (which would have to be intentional), could you describe to me what that evidence would be?

Third, since this "supernatural being" supposedly created the laws of the universe, laws such as "interaction necessitates effects," couldn't that being circumvent such laws, and interact with the universe without creating evidence? Or, since He supposedly created the universe itself, did those laws that he also created even exist when he created that universe? Were they created later?

If you can answer any of those questions, I'll be impressed. I mean, they can't be your usual irrational answers. And I know, that does put you in a bit of a fix, but then that's what makes it delicious.

Are you still here? Sorry, I had forgotten about your existence.

Yeah, I sort of relax for a day or so, then come back to the thread and post like five things all at once. If that's enough time for you to forget about my existence than you must not think much of me. The horror.

He isn't talking about belief. I specifically mentioned believing and how believing something is true is different than claiming you know it. I believe in God. I can't claim I can evidence God and therefore I can't claim that my believe is based on knowledge. There is no emperical evidence for God. I cannot logically claim that God exists. I cannot logically claim that God does not exist.

This started by claiming one can logically claim that without evidence you can say claim that something doesn't exist. As even FS pointed out, making such a claim requires us to know the properties of that thing. When it comes to an intelligent creator of the universe, we simply can't. It's not in our realm of possible knowledge.

Meanwhile, we were specifically discussing logic. If we say anything we don't know we can assume doesn't exist then the argument from ignorance would not exist. In logic, you cannot make such a claim. You have to offer evidence for your claims, you can't just rest on, well, you can't prove me wrong.

it seems to me that its far more rational to NOT believe in something that cant be proven or even tested for than it is TO believe in it.

are you seriously demanding that he PROVE that something you assert has no way of being proven?

what FS is pointing out is that there are MANY definitions of god (as is part of the point of this thread). many gods can be shown to be false in that the postive proofs given for them are bullshit. the only "god" that cannot be shown to be false is the one that is claimed to have no possible way of proving.

while you are certainly free to believe anything you want, it seems to me to be silly to claim that something that is unprovable and untestable must be given the benefit of the doubt by someone else.

And that would be so, if FS was making an ontological argument, but he's making an epistemological argument

exactly

He isn't talking about belief.

Well, he did in post #797. Either you chose to ignore it, or you consider some other part of his argument to be more important to you.

I specifically mentioned believing and how believing something is true is different than claiming you know it. I believe in God. I can't claim I can evidence God and therefore I can't claim that my believe is based on knowledge. There is no emperical evidence for God. I cannot logically claim that God exists. I cannot logically claim that God does not exist.

This started by claiming one can logically claim that without evidence you can say claim that something doesn't exist. As even FS pointed out, making such a claim requires us to know the properties of that thing. When it comes to an intelligent creator of the universe, we simply can't. It's not in our realm of possible knowledge.

Meanwhile, we were specifically discussing logic. If we say anything we don't know we can assume doesn't exist then the argument from ignorance would not exist. In logic, you cannot make such a claim. You have to offer evidence for your claims, you can't just rest on, well, you can't prove me wrong.

Believing something is true is also, from a particular context, no different than claiming you know it, since from that context belief follows (succeeds) knowledge of what is true.

I too believe in God as unknowable, and cannot claim material evidence of that God that would hold up in a court of law or a science laboratory; but my belief is very much founded in knowledge - philosophical, not empirical -and that philosophy is evidence for my belief. It is an evidence that points to an epistemological issue of belief, not an ontological issue of belief, and from that context it also rules out a context of "existence" for God, though not my belief in God's existence.

It's all very logical, if you steer away from the ontology.

it seems to me that its far more rational to NOT believe in something that cant be proven or even tested for than it is TO believe in it.

are you seriously demanding that he PROVE that something you assert has no way of being proven?

No, I'm demanding that he claimed knowledge when I was saying that you cannot make a positive claim of nonexistence of gods. He jumped in and claimed he could evidence a lack of existence of gods. My point in demanding that he evidence it is to show that you cannot. According to him he CAN evidence it. If he can, then he should do it and allow us to be floored by something that has never, ever been evidenced before.


what FS is pointing out is that there are MANY definitions of god (as is part of the point of this thread). many gods can be shown to be false in that the postive proofs given for them are bullshit. the only "god" that cannot be shown to be false is the one that is claimed to have no possible way of proving.

He didn't say many. He said he could disprove any of them. That they cannot exist.


while you are certainly free to believe anything you want, it seems to me to be silly to claim that something that is unprovable and untestable must be given the benefit of the doubt by someone else.

By the nature of logic, you cannot make a claim you cannot evidence. You cannot evidence there is no God, so it is not a logical claim.

We aren't talking about what people believe. We're talking about whether it can be logically supported. He jumped on me for saying lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. This is a fact.

Evidence of lack requires predictive claims that do not come true. He refuses to make any, because he knows he cannot.

Well, he did in post #797. Either you chose to ignore it, or you consider some other part of his argument to be more important to you.

Oh, I recognize he's changing his argument. We were talking about logic. Logic requires evidence. He claimed you can know there is know god and he compared this knowing about gravity. He jumped on my claim that logic dictates that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.


Believing something is true is also, from a particular context, no different than claiming you know it, since from that context belief follows (succeeds) knowledge of what is true.

I too believe in God as unknowable, and cannot claim material evidence of that God that would hold up in a court of law or a science laboratory; but my belief is very much founded in knowledge - philosophical, not empirical -and that philosophy is evidence for my belief. It is an evidence that points to an epistemological issue of belief, not an ontological issue of belief, and from that context it also rules out a context of "existence" for God, though not my belief in God's existence.

It's all very logical, if you steer away from the ontology.

Except we set the context. We are talking about evidence. We are talking about knowledge being things that have evidence. He has as much evidence for a lack of god as I have for believing in god.

I realize you can't be arsed to look at his argument as a whole, but the fact we started about evidence and he's not given any is relevant. He has yet to support his claim that he can logically arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist. It can't be done. One has to rely on the argument from ignorance fallacy. Now, if you'd like to put his argument in context, please do. I'm not going to let him pretend he didn't claim to have evidence.

exactly

Really? Let's see what you were actually arguing before you started completely avoiding the challenge you said you would meet. See below.

once again, i made no such claim. you have tried reading what i have said, yes? what i did claim is that the lack of any evidence whatsoever at this point makes a rather compelling epistemic justification for actively disbelieving. this is the same standard of evidence for disbelieving in fairies and orbiting teapots, despite the fact that they may really just be very good at hiding.

Yes, he pretends he made some other claim.

But at the start of the conversation...

give me a particular god, i'll give you the evidence that ought to be there but isn't. this is all simple burden of proof stuff here.

He said he could proved specific evidence for any particular god that out to be there. I described one, he has yet to provide that evidence.

We're not talking about a claim about the limits of knowledge, but a claim that he could provide evidence that God does not exist. As of yet, he's just squirmed and made vague claims about evidence without specifying ANYTHING. He'd be laughed out of EVERY science room. He has no evidence. He's not yet provided one iota.

For those looking on, keep in mind that epistemology defines knowledge and belief differently. If you believe a chair can hold your weight and you sit down and it doesn't, you didn't know it. He originally claimed you can know that God does not exist.

Jocabia, do you believe in:
Fairies (the kind with wings, not gay men)
pixies
lochness monster
bigfoot
goblins
hobgoblins
grimlens
trolls
hobbits
banshees
magic folk
sea monsters
the flying spaghetti monster
norse gods
greek gods
roman gods (pre-christian take over)
egyptian gods
ect.


after all, there is no proof that they exist, but nor is there any that they do not.

Did you just compare God to Bigfoot? Oh, Doogie, that is just not smart debating. As a matter of fact, it's rather crappy.

The point is that Free Soviets is right in saying that for those things whose existence would necessarily leave evidence, the lack of evidence found after much searching consitutes proof of its non-existence.

The problem is that with God, we don't know whether He would leave evidence at all, or whether we could perceive whatever evidence He left.

With Bigfoot, we know that he would leave droppings, footprints, blood, etc. Because he is a (oh I don't know) mammal? Animal? Physical being? God doesn't fit those descriptors, so, we have no idea what kind of evidence He would leave, or if He would leave evidence at all.

Suddenly, you change to "no, I was really just saying that we can't know"

where?

You've said you have evidence. You've compared it to gravity. By fact, you do not have any evidence. You do not even have the predictive evidence you've claimed and avoided making any specifics about.

You said you have evidence. Now produce it and quit trying to pretend that you said something else.

the only god you've proposed is one that cannot even in principle have evidence for its existence. i claimed that any such thing does not exist. maybe you missed it?

if a thing's alleged existence is identical to a thing's non-existence, then that thing doesn't exist. existence must be a difference-maker.

The problem is that with God, we don't know whether He would leave evidence at all, or whether we could perceive whatever evidence He left.

the problem with god is that he leaves no evidence.

so how do you decide anything about god? how do you know what he wants of you , if anything? how do you know if its the christian god or the hindu god/pantheon? perhaps god really is the clockmaker who cares nothing about what we do from day to day. how would you know?

do you pick a religion at random in the hope that it represents what god wants of us? what if its the wrong religion? what if its the wrong VERSION of the right religion? how would you ever know before its too late to do anything about it?

where?



the only god you've proposed is one that cannot even in principle have evidence for its existence. i claimed that any such thing does not exist. maybe you missed it?

if a thing's alleged existence is identical to a thing's non-existence, then that thing doesn't exist. existence must be a difference-maker.

I said we wouldn't recognize that evidence, since it wouldn't look different to us, we have no basis for comparison. Saying you would recognize the evidence is illogical. You have no foundation on which to base it.

If it created the universe, that is an effect, it is evidence of its existence and it is a difference-maker. However, we'd have no ability to recognize it as evidence without knowing something about the actor, and we don't. You've already said that knowing the properties a requirement.

Now, what is your evidence that we would necessarily see in order for an intelligent actor to have created the universe? On what do you base your claim that this evidence would necessarily exist? How could you distinguish between a created universe and one that was not created?

You claimed you could do this. Were you lying or wrong?

exactly how long do people have to search for evidence that something exists and turning up nothing before it can be written off as non-existent?

exactly how long do people have to search for evidence that something exists and turning up nothing before it can be written off as non-existent?

You can't search for evidence for something without knowing what evidence looks like. That's the point. We have no basis to know what evidence for a supernatural actor would look like. We have no basis for comparison. We have nothing on which to logically base that knowledge.

We can believe something does not exist. Even refuse to ever treat it as if it exists. As such, you'll never have to address an argument that says pixies paint the flowers, since they'd have to first evidence pixies. You can't treat it just as if it doesn't exist.

But you cannot claim non-existence. I cannot say, for example, that I know the Bible is false because God does not exist. I'd have to use some other claim, but the claim that God does not exist cannot be evidenced. Ever.

Don't believe me. Write a paper that ID has been proven wrong because supernatural beings do not exist and attempt to get it published in any scientific journal. You'll be laughed at. Produce the same paper exposing the actually scientific flaws in their claim and you'll get published. However, there is no acceptable way to claim that supernatural actors do not exist. You cannot get there and expect anyone to accept that claim as logical and/or scientific.

If evidence cannot be found, for whatever bullshit reason, that something exists, it might as well not exists.

We can believe something does not exist.
...
But you cannot claim non-existence.

what distinction do you see between these two statements?

what distinction do you see between these two statements?

I could not base further claims on the claim that gods do not exist. Logical claims require evidence. You have none. And we've been talking about logical claims all along, so don't try squirm with equivocation.

I can believe anything I like. Beliefs don't require logic. I can base a belief on faith, but not a logical claim.

If evidence cannot be found, for whatever bullshit reason, that something exists, it might as well not exists.

Might as well not exist and doesn't exist are not equivelent, particularly logically. Ignoring something and actively claiming its non-existence are different animals.

Might as well not exist and doesn't exist are not equivelent, particularly logically. Ignoring something and actively claiming its non-existence are different animals.

It is impossible to prove ANYTHING does not exist. you cannot prove it. so by your logic EVERYTHING exists. nothing is false.

Given how mankind has looked for evidence for things over time, 2 things happen.

1) they find evidence and theories sport and it is accepted as reality.
2) they do not find evidence, and it is classified as non-existent.

the 3rd option of "it exists we just can't find/haven't found evidence" can only be temporary.

It is impossible to prove ANYTHING does not exist. you cannot prove it. so by your logic EVERYTHING exists. nothing is false.

Given how mankind has looked for evidence for things over time, 2 things happen.

1) they find evidence and theories sport and it is accepted as reality.
2) they do not find evidence, and it is classified as non-existent.

the 3rd option of "it exists we just can't find/haven't found evidence" can only be temporary.

No, that's not true. By my logic, you cannot make claims about things you do not know. I don't claim that because you cannot say it doesn't exist, I can say it does. Recognize the difference.

And you're wrong, "sport". We don't classify things as non-existent unless we actually have knowledge of their properties in order to make such a claim. Science and logic both require evidence. Claiming that because we lack evidence we can claim lack is the basis for the logical fallacy called argument from ignorance "you haven't shown me it exists so it doesn't".

it seems to me that its far more rational to NOT believe in something that cant be proven or even tested for than it is TO believe in it.

are you seriously demanding that he PROVE that something you assert has no way of being proven?


No one is demanding that. He says that he can prove that God doesn't exist.

Let me break this down for you as best I can:

1. We cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.
2. A strict rationalist, therefore, remains undecided about the existence of God.
3. Some people, however, choose to make what Kierkegaard called the "leap of faith," that is, choosing to believe or, act like one believes, that God exists.
4. Some people do the opposite, choosing to believe that God does not exist.
5. Neither of these two choices is backed by proof.

Now you say, if I may paraphrase, that it is more rational to believe in the non-existence of an unprovable entity than its existence. This, however, would only be true if non-existence was more prevalent than existence. In reality, we have no idea whether the natural state of something is existence or non-existence. Thus, the choice to believe in the existence of God is no more irrational than the choice to believe in God's non-existence.

No one is demanding that. He says that he can prove that God doesn't exist.

Let me break this down for you as best I can:

1. We cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.
2. A strict rationalist, therefore, remains undecided about the existence of God.
3. Some people, however, choose to make what Kierkegaard called the "leap of faith," that is, choosing to believe or, act like one believes, that God exists.
4. Some people do the opposite, choosing to believe that God does not exist.
5. Neither of these two choices is backed by proof.

Now you say, if I may paraphrase, that it is more rational to believe in the non-existence of an unprovable entity than its existence. This, however, would only be true if non-existence was more prevalent than existence. In reality, we have no idea whether the natural state of something is existence or non-existence.

Yes.

The rational approach, the logical approach, requires that we not pretend to have a conclusion on the existence of God. Such a conclusion is necessarily invalid. Whether it is true or not is not relevant.

He claimed he logically arrive at the non-existence of any god. He actually challenged me to pick out a god so he could provide a logical proof for it.

And, yes, I said proof, FS, because that's what it's called when you're talking about logic.

If it created the universe, that is an effect, it is evidence of its existence and it is a difference-maker.

indeed, and on the basis of that we would therefore expect that some sort of sound cosmological argument could be made. but based on the shoddy track record of them thus far, we are epistemologically justified in saying that there ain't no sound cosmological argument.

However, we'd have no ability to recognize it as evidence without knowing something about the actor, and we don't. You've already said that knowing the properties a requirement.

we need to have some hypothesized to be able to talk meaningfully about it at all. what you are doing is demanding that i explain what evidence we would expect to see from an unknowable unknown that you refuse to define. this is a meaningless question. you might as well not even use the word god, but instead ask me to describe the evidence i would expect to see if aosrgjrpinge existed since you don't mean anything in particular by the word anyways. i cannot be specific about what we would expect if you cannot be specific about what it is you are proposing exists and what it did. but if you cannot be specific about that, then you are not actually proposing anything at all.

Now, what is your evidence that we would necessarily see in order for an intelligent actor to have created the universe? On what do you base your claim that this evidence would necessarily exist? How could you distinguish between a created universe and one that was not created?

if the universe could not exist without this creator, a sound cosmological argument and a definite beginning which cannot be explained by forces active within the universe, at the very least. to get more specifics, i need to know more specifics about this alleged intelligent actor.

I could not base further claims on the claim that gods do not exist. Logical claims require evidence. You have none. And we've been talking about logical claims all along, so don't try squirm with equivocation.

I can believe anything I like. Beliefs don't require logic. I can base a belief on faith, but not a logical claim.

so your distinction is between 'beliefs' and 'claims' then? i don't think i follow.

indeed, and on the basis of that we would therefore expect that some sort of sound cosmological argument could be made. but based on the shoddy track record of them thus far, we are epistemologically justified in saying that there ain't no sound cosmological argument.

Amusing. Argument from ignorance. "You haven't proved to me that they exist, so I conclude they don't". It was a logical fallacy when we started. Still a logical fallacy. Your claim will never be evidenced by simply saying the other side couldn't prove their side. Nice try. No toy.


we need to have some hypothesized to be able to talk meaningfully about it at all. what you are doing is demanding that i explain what evidence we would expect to see from an unknowable unknown that you refuse to define. this is a meaningless question. you might as well not even use the word god, but instead ask me to describe the evidence i would expect to see if aosrgjrpinge existed since you don't mean anything in particular by the word anyways. i cannot be specific about what we would expect if you cannot be specific about what it is you are proposing exists and what it did. but if you cannot be specific about that, then you are not actually proposing anything at all.

You claimed I did define it, or did you forget? I notice what I've done changes in your posts based on what's convenient for you. You said you could show what evidence any god would leave behind. I gave you one. I accept your admission that you cannot offer said evidence.





if the universe could not exist without this creator, a sound cosmological argument and a definite beginning which cannot be explained by forces active within the universe, at the very least. to get more specifics, i need to know more specifics about this alleged intelligent actor.

Again, this starts with an assumption that is invalid.

Our way of viewing the universe means that we will always settle on the explanation that fits the evidence best. We will find an explanation even if it has holes. No matter how much we evidence, there will always be gaps. Those gaps are acceptable in science provided the explanation we give fits the evidence. We know that often theories will develop more over time and that we will find parts of the forces that we miss.

You're starting with the assumption that we have found all of the forces that explain the origin of the universe, we haven't, and basing your "evidence" on this claim. You've substituted one ubsubstantiated claim for another.

Meanwhile, in order for me to give you more traits of this actor, I'd have to make assumptions. But, fine. It's purple. It really likes to eat a supernatural fruit called cheesegrannies, and when it farts it smells like something similar to a mixture of lilacs and ham.

The God I believe is a common one. Many people believe in a God that started the universe and planned everything that ever happened in it and as such never had to step in and fix things. Everything would obey the laws of the universe as set forth, but the entirety of the universe is an effect of that God. You claimed you could establish the evidence for and thus disprove that God.

Come on, keep squirming. This is fun.

1. We cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.
2. A strict rationalist, therefore, remains undecided about the existence of God.
3. Some people, however, choose to make what Kierkegaard called the "leap of faith," that is, choosing to believe or, act like one believes, that God exists.
4. Some people do the opposite, choosing to believe that God does not exist.
5. Neither of these two choices is backed by proof.

Now you say, if I may paraphrase, that it is more rational to believe in the non-existence of an unprovable entity than its existence. This, however, would only be true if non-existence was more prevalent than existence. In reality, we have no idea whether the natural state of something is existence or non-existence. Thus, the choice to believe in the existence of God is no more irrational than the choice to believe in God's non-existence.

1. we cannot prove that there is a tiny teapot made in china orbiting a particular star in the andromeda galaxy or that there isn't.
2. a reasonable epistemology does not remain undecided about the question
3. some people, however, choose to make a leap of faith and go around believing that there is such a teapot.
4. the rest of us think they are very strange while we sit there, justly believing that there isn't.
5. neither of these choices are backed by proof. but only one of them is epistemically justified.


oh, and in a non-infinite universe, non-existence must be more prevalent than existence.

It is impossible to prove ANYTHING does not exist. you cannot prove it. so by your logic EVERYTHING exists. nothing is false.

Given how mankind has looked for evidence for things over time, 2 things happen.

1) they find evidence and theories sport and it is accepted as reality.
2) they do not find evidence, and it is classified as non-existent.

the 3rd option of "it exists we just can't find/haven't found evidence" can only be temporary.

We really don't have to get ontological in this argument. It's a runaround that nobody needs. There are certain accepted standards for what exists, scientifically speaking. And for our purposes, that's all we need. Stars, nebulae, nobody's ever visited them, but astronomers agree that they exist. Or a little closer to home, for instance: I exist. My sister doesn't, and you can confirm that with the census bureau.

And you're right, 'it' is temporary for pretty much everything for which we've been looking for evidence thus far (elliptical orbits, the identity of Deep Throat, etc.). But with God, that "temporary" might just change to "permanent in some cases."

Don't presume to know things that nobody else knows. It's unsightly on you.

1. we cannot prove that there is a tiny teapot made in china orbiting a particular star in the andromeda galaxy or that there isn't.
2. a reasonable epistemology does not remain undecided about the question
3. some people, however, choose to make a leap of faith and go around believing that there is such a teapot.
4. the rest of us think they are very strange while we sit there, justly believing that there isn't.
5. neither of these choices are backed by proof. but only one of them is epistemically justified.


oh, and in a non-infinite universe, non-existence must be more prevalent than existence.


You can make relevant claims about the properties of teapots and base them on evidence. Since you keeping making that comparison, please explain what relevant claims you can make about supernatural agents. what are the known properties of supernatural agents?

Hehe.

You can make relevant claims about the properties of teapots and base them on evidence. Since you keeping making that comparison, please explain what relevant claims you can make about supernatural agents. what are the known properties of supernatural agents?

Hehe.
Sounds like someone is still scared of the boogy man.

oh, and in a non-infinite universe, non-existence must be more prevalent than existence.

This would be relevant if we were discussing chance. We aren't. In order to do so, you'd have to establish what percentage of possible beings, supernatural beings represent. I'm relatively certain you cannot do so. Even mathematicallly you couldn't do much better than an order comparison of the infinite possibilities.

Sounds like someone is still scared of the boogy man.

Dude, belief. Knowledge. They are two different words. They have two different meanings.

Now, if you don't understand the language we're using, bow out gracefully. Just because I don't make illogical claims like you lot doesn't mean that I believe everything I can't claim doesn't exist does. So address the argument, or admit you can't. You'll stop embarrassing yourself that way.

so your distinction is between 'beliefs' and 'claims' then? i don't think i follow.

No, you know you don't follow. I know you don't follow either.

We were discussing logic. I've long since distinguished between what one might believe and what one can logically claim. You claimed you can logically state that God doesn't exist. The problem with your claim is that this particular claim is the most well-known example ever used for argument from ignorance.

Dude, belief. Knowledge. They are two different words. They have two different meanings.

Now, if you don't understand the language we're using, bow out gracefully. Just because I don't make illogical claims like you lot doesn't mean that I believe everything I can't claim doesn't exist does. So address the argument, or admit you can't. You'll stop embarrassing yourself that way.

Nah, your that one who claimed that by logic we have to entertain the idea of absurd ideas. The boogy man is "supernatueral" and I cannot think of anyone under...what? 12? that would make any type of argument that the boogy man could exist, even with the bullshit "since it cannot be proven either way it could exist you don't know" argument.








The boogy man. A better teapot.

Nah, your that one who claimed that by logic we have to entertain the idea of absurd ideas. The boogy man is "supernatueral" and I cannot think of anyone under...what? 12? that would make any type of argument that the boogy man could exist, even with the bullshit "since it cannot be proven either way it could exist you don't know" argument.

I didn't claim it. It's a fact. Logic dictates that we cannot LOGICALLY claim that something does not exist without evidence.

I know you don't recognize the difference between a logical claim and your belief or even the beliefs of a lot of people, but the fact is that you cannot make these claims logically.

I don't believe in the boogey man. I certainly don't have any logical reason to fear him or to act as if he exists or might crawl from my closet. There is no evidence for any of these fears. However, I cannot logically make the dumbass claims you're making.

Fortunately, I know better than to try. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone excercised logic properly? For example, it would have saved you from having to post and say silly things.

The boogy man. A better teapot.


I have a dream. That dream is that one day more people will be logical. How about we start with you and you retract your post? Now do you have anything rational to say or do you prefer to prove you don't understand the discipline of logic even a little bit?

There is a mountain of difference between knowing what you can and not logically claim and what you do and don't believe. Think on this for an hour or two. Then open a dictionary. Maybe look up some logical fallacies. And then come back. It really help you have something relevant to say.

nope. I fell comfortable stating "There is absolutely no such thing as the boogy man".

1. we cannot prove that there is a tiny teapot made in china orbiting a particular star in the andromeda galaxy or that there isn't.
2. a reasonable epistemology does not remain undecided about the question
3. some people, however, choose to make a leap of faith and go around believing that there is such a teapot.
4. the rest of us think they are very strange while we sit there, justly believing that there isn't.
5. neither of these choices are backed by proof. but only one of them is epistemically justified.


oh, and in a non-infinite universe, non-existence must be more prevalent than existence.

1. For the last time, God is not comparable to teapot.
2. You're just wrong. The rules of rational inquiry have been explained to you by many people more experienced with them than I. If you choose to ignore them, you choose not to play by the rules, and though we don't exactly have a referee here, the other kids might not play ball.
3. Again, God is not a teapot. There are better comparisons out there, you know, and the fact that you are not latching on to them makes me doubt that you are as intelligent and rational as you imply that you are. Of course, I cannot prove any of this, so I must remain ultimately undecided.
4. What rest of us? You seem to be in the minority with your beliefs at least on this forum, and I must say that I've never met anybody with as stubborn a pseudo-rational outlook as you have. And in any event, you have no right to imply that anybody else agrees with you, even within a metaphor, unless you can prove to us that he or she categorically stated that he or she did agree.
5. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding or ignoring epistemology and rational inquiry.

And finally, just because our own universe appears to be non-infinite, doesn't mean every universe is. And even within our universe, just because non-existence is more prevalent than existence, does not mean that one is a natural state, and that is what I was discussing. Unless you can prove to me that non-existence is the natural state for all things, you cannot assume that it is more rational to choose to believe in the non-existence of something than in the existence of that same thing.

nope. I fell comfortable stating "There is absolutely no such thing as the boogy man".

You can feel comfortable stating it. But absent some relevant evidence you can not logically claim.

Here is the difference between stating your belief and a logical claim (I can't believe it is necessary to state this).

If it is a logical claim, you can enter it into a debate or argument as evidence for something you're trying to establish. If it is a belief, the fact that you have no evidence really doesn't matter. It's youre belief, you're welcome to it.

Unless you present evidence no debator or anyone discussing anything logically with you is going to accept a claim. To do so would be ludicrous and it would make for an invalid argument.

Now, I know you don't know the difference, but I'm really trying to help you saying silly thing. What you can feel comfortable stating and what is justifiable logically are not the same. I feel comfortable stating that "George Bush is an ass" but I wouldn't enter it as a logical foundation for an argument. And unlike your claim, I can actually provide evidence.

You can feel comfortable stating it. But absent some relevant evidence you can not logically claim.

so your epistemic system, which distinguishes between beliefs and claims, holds that you can't reasonably claim the boogey man doesn't exist. and this is supposed to be a point in it's favor? really?

the problem with god is that he leaves no evidence.

so how do you decide anything about god? how do you know what he wants of you , if anything? how do you know if its the christian god or the hindu god/pantheon? perhaps god really is the clockmaker who cares nothing about what we do from day to day. how would you know?

do you pick a religion at random in the hope that it represents what god wants of us? what if its the wrong religion? what if its the wrong VERSION of the right religion? how would you ever know before its too late to do anything about it?

Because all those questions can be answered by choosing to believe certain things. That is the essence of the leap of faith. And since I don't want to discuss my religious choices with you, it makes no sense to pose these questions to me, unless you're implying that you have no idea what this argument is about and you need me to clarify for you. Glad to do it, anyway.

so your epistemic system, which distinguishes between beliefs and claims, holds that you can't reasonably claim the boogey man doesn't exist. and this is supposed to be a point in it's favor? really?

We're talking about logic. You can try to change the rules if you like, but I made it clear I was talking about logic when you claimed you could make evidenced logical claims about the nonexistence of any god.

I accept your attempt to change the landscape as an admission you've finally recognized that you cannot logically make claims without evidence and that you don't have any evidence.

Meanwhile, still waiting for you to rise to your own challenge and tell me what evidence the creator of the universe must leave. You've made some fallacious claims that we'll recognize the god force, but you've not actually specifically pointed out how we would recognize such a thing.

But at the start of the conversation...
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
give me a particular god, i'll give you the evidence that ought to be there but isn't. this is all simple burden of proof stuff here.

He said he could proved specific evidence for any particular god that out to be there. I described one, he has yet to provide that evidence.
Did you give him a particular God-image? Which one, from which mythology, pray tell? I'd like to kick it in the face, myself.

I suspect the "evidence" would be provided by the context of the myth.

We're not talking about a claim about the limits of knowledge, but a claim that he could provide evidence that God does not exist. As of yet, he's just squirmed and made vague claims about evidence without specifying ANYTHING. He'd be laughed out of EVERY science room. He has no evidence. He's not yet provided one iota.
Well, YOU're not talking about a claim about the limits of knowledge. Other people are --and hence the arguments.

For those looking on, keep in mind that epistemology defines knowledge and belief differently. If you believe a chair can hold your weight and you sit down and it doesn't, you didn't know it. He originally claimed you can know that God does not exist.
Epistemology looks at the issue of what we know and how we know it. It doesn't define knowledge or belief any differently than other studies. That would be too confusing for philosophers.

I said we wouldn't recognize that evidence, since it wouldn't look different to us, we have no basis for comparison. Saying you would recognize the evidence is illogical. You have no foundation on which to base it.
Ah, I suspect I know which God-image you referenced, and his myth is found in the metaphor of "the uknowable."

If it created the universe, that is an effect, it is evidence of its existence and it is a difference-maker. However, we'd have no ability to recognize it as evidence without knowing something about the actor, and we don't. You've already said that knowing the properties a requirement.
So you're claiming there IS evidence of this God? How do we know that, if we cannot recognize the evidence?

Now, what is your evidence that we would necessarily see in order for an intelligent actor to have created the universe? On what do you base your claim that this evidence would necessarily exist? How could you distinguish between a created universe and one that was not created?

You claimed you could do this. Were you lying or wrong?

The myth of God as "the unknowable" includes such images as the Void, the Heavens, emptiness, the Waters beneath the earth, all of which literally interpreted can be pointed at and "disproved" at a whim, since they all represent "nothingness."

We don't classify things as non-existent unless we actually have knowledge of their properties in order to make such a claim.

So everything exists.

Did you give him a particular God-image? Which one, from which mythology, pray tell? I'd like to kick it in the face, myself.

I suspect the "evidence" would be provided by the context of the myth.

Ah, yes, more fallacies. You cannot prove I don't exist by proving I didn't or couldn't have taken a certain action. You can disprove certain stories. You can evidence nonexistence of God. It's impossible.

Meanwhile, I described my personal beliefs. My particular "God-image". You're welcome to "kick it in the face" but you'll have no more logical basis for doing so than I would claiming He exists.



Well, YOU're not talking about a claim about the limits of knowledge. Other people are --and hence the arguments.

I don't care what other people are talking about. I was told I was wrong to claim that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. He jumped my claim, not the other way around. What other people are talking about has nothing to say about what I said the rules of logic are. Your other conversations don't reflect on that.


Epistemology looks at the issue of what we know and how we know it. It doesn't define knowledge or belief any differently than other studies. That would be too confusing for philosophers.

Of course, which is when he idiotically pretends their is no difference between logical claims and beliefs, it's exactly that.


Ah, I suspect I know which God-image you referenced, and his myth is found in the metaphor of "the uknowable."

You're wrong. I recognize the validity of the agnostic claim. It has nothing to do with what I believe.


So you're claiming there IS evidence of this God? How do we know that, if we cannot recognize the evidence?

Amusing. Nope. I'm claiming there isn't emperical evidence. Seriously, I'll welcome you to join the discussion. We aren't talking about me evidence God. We're talking about him evidencing the nonexistence of God.

He's saying that I'm claiming that IF He created the universe, the universe is the evidence, but the effect, it's just not emperical. He used evidence there differently than emperical evidence. Equivocation is just going to make you fall into yet another fallacy.



The myth of God as "the unknowable" includes such images as the Void, the Heavens, emptiness, the Waters beneath the earth, all of which literally interpreted can be pointed at and "disproved" at a whim, since they all represent "nothingness."

So you mean you can change what I believe so you can disprove it? Hmmm... amusing, but no more logical than when it was originally claimed.

I'm not claiming that I believe in nothingness. I'm claiming I believe in a God that created the universe.

It can't be disproved logically. You'd have to leave the realm of logic. Well, first, you'd have to enter it, then leave. I'm not really that patient.

So let's see you jump into a conversation you admit to be ignorant of, tell me I have to operate in the landscape you misunderstood, and then make up what I believe. What a useful conversation.

Now, if you'd like to move back into the emperical and logical where I was operating and engage in the conversation I was having feel free. Or you can just keep talking about OTHER things that people OTHER than me were talking about, but I'm not particularly likely to respond.

So everything exists.

False dichotomy. There are things we can classify as existing logically, things we can classify as nonexistent logically, and things we cannot make existence claims about because we have nothing to base them on.

Except you're an intelligent person who knows that. So are you just tired or what?

I'm sorry but jumping from "we can't make a logical claim to nonexistence without evidence" to "so you're saying everything exists" is plainly stupid.

I'm fairly certain you're aware of the broad spectrum between "I don't know" and "I'm claiming the opposite".

1. For the last time, God is not comparable to teapot. Why? You know as much about God as you know about said teapot.

Why? You know as much about God as you know about said teapot.

Heh and I'm gonna drop my two pence in here, God is certianly comperable to a teapot.

Over the last fiveish pages there've been two or three different conversations and hijacks, all of which I'm not a part of at the moment, so I just skimmed over them.



lots of people do lots of things that are illogical. I wouldn't put it past Satan to be blinded by stupidity.

I was talking about God. He wouldn't logically keep him alive, yet still keep him under the threat of extermination, unless he had a job for him to do.

and thus it's arrogant to tell Him that He did it wrong.

He created arrogant, prideful, confused, weak, and stupid creatures. Giving such creatures free will and being surprised at the outcome is the sequence of an insane person.


you have to have faith that God is just. There are many things we can never know, that's where faith enters into it.

But why do you have faith that God is just?

I get the feeling we're going to have another one of our weird conversations that may or may not end up with me on people's shitlist.

Do you have faith that God is just, regardless of logic and evidence otherwise, regardless of what the bible says that may contradict it, regardless of how you define a 'good person', all because you think you need to have this feeling that there is a just and benevolent being that created everything and has a plan? It's a very comforting thing to rely on such a solid idea, but it does require you to limit your ability to question it, as well as a bit of circular logic.

I don't have faith that God is just because I've never been given any reason to believe so. I don't think that just because someone created the universe, he is unquestionable and perfect and, by default, just. I think the opposite - I believe that such a being should be held accountable for everything that happens because of his actions in creating and regulating the universe.


not every day, not every other day, over hundreds and thousands of years.

Meaning 100,000 years? That's roughly 94,000 more than many fundies acknowledge the world even existed. Fact remains, since before Jesus was even born, God has not directly interacted with the world he created, unless you believe the assholes that claim to speak to God on a daily basis and use that as credibility when they say they need to raise two-million dollars or God will kill him.

how do you know?

To be honest, I don't. But I think I'd notice if an entire city was destroyed by flaming balls of rock and an angel with a flaming sword was killing everyone. Something godly would attract attention - shit, some idiot seeing the Virgin Mary on toast got worldwide news! Imagine if anything really DID happen!

I never saw God as vengeful. Not even in the old testament.

That's lol.

being outside the will of God is suffering of it's own. Even the rocks cry out in reverence to God. You have a choice, and so does every other person on the Earth. Don't kid yourself either, you can't be good enough, you can't follow "the Bible" and make it, you either serve God or you don't.

Well that's just sad. I'd pray for you, but I like to distance myself from silly things.

you sure sound angry at God. UpwardThrust, doesn't, I believe him when he says he doesn't believe in God. You and a few others around here? notsomuch.

Difference between being angry at God and being angry at God's followers and their effect on the world: large.

I have suffered enough due to my own bad choices to know it's mostly my fault, and I know God well enough not to blame Him for my stupidity.

So a white girl from the midwest of the richest country in the world can conclusively say that whatever suffering anyone receives is because of their own bad choices?

Bad form.

would i be sarcastic with you?

scripture references can be so tedious. i think they are best kept for when someone demands justification of your point of view.

we get such heavy handed "christians are morons" posts. its nice to have someone be able to show that its not stupid, its not ugly, and its not backwards.

Well, I have her quoted as basically stating that anybody that is not a Christian (most likely, specifically, HER type of Christian) is not a good person, and will not be any different from murderers and child rapists in the eyes of God, because they all 'do not serve God', and that's the only real standard she sees.

It is stupid. It is backward. It is very ugly. Sorry.

I can believe anything I like. Beliefs don't require logic. I can base a belief on faith, but not a logical claim.

Really? Believe something for me. Go ahead. I'll wait. How about sdcklsoitsvli? Make yourself believe in that.

Personally, I cannot believe in things that go contrary to logic as I understand it. And I certainly cannot believe in things I don't know about.

Really? Believe something for me. Go ahead. I'll wait. How about sdcklsoitsvli? Make yourself believe in that.

Personally, I cannot believe in things that go contrary to logic as I understand it. And I certainly cannot believe in things I don't know about.

That is quite wrong you know. We all hold belifes, and not all of them are based upon logic.

That is quite wrong you know. We all hold belifes, and not all of them are based upon logic.

Not all of them based on my logic... true. But mine are.

Not all of them based on my logic... true. But mine are.

So you are saying that you have logical, objective proof for all of your belifes?

False dichotomy. There are things we can classify as existing logically, things we can classify as nonexistent logically, and things we cannot make existence claims about because we have nothing to base them on.

Except you're an intelligent person who knows that. So are you just tired or what?

I'm sorry but jumping from "we can't make a logical claim to nonexistence without evidence" to "so you're saying everything exists" is plainly stupid.

I'm fairly certain you're aware of the broad spectrum between "I don't know" and "I'm claiming the opposite".
You said in #844 that "you cannot make claims about things you do not know," and, in the same breath, that we can classify things as existent or non-existent when "we actually have knowledge of their properties in order to make such a claim." Classifying things makes a claim about them, so how can we classify things as "non-existent" unless we know about them? Following the logical string, if we know properties of them, we know about them, and so they cannot be non-existent. We can make claims about them, about their properties. That effectively says that everything exists.

Which is true, by the way.

No one is demanding that. He says that he can prove that God doesn't exist.

Let me break this down for you as best I can:

1. We cannot prove that God exists or does not exist.
2. A strict rationalist, therefore, remains undecided about the existence of God.
3. Some people, however, choose to make what Kierkegaard called the "leap of faith," that is, choosing to believe or, act like one believes, that God exists.
4. Some people do the opposite, choosing to believe that God does not exist.
5. Neither of these two choices is backed by proof.

Now you say, if I may paraphrase, that it is more rational to believe in the non-existence of an unprovable entity than its existence. This, however, would only be true if non-existence was more prevalent than existence. In reality, we have no idea whether the natural state of something is existence or non-existence. Thus, the choice to believe in the existence of God is no more irrational than the choice to believe in God's non-existence.

im sorry to fall back on my apparently illogical stance of "if there is absolutely no evidence of something's existence and no way to test for it, it is more rational to not believe than to believe in it". your "existence is more prevalent than non-existence" is proof of nothing since so many of the things we have imagined existed have turned out to be non-existent. it cannot be rational to believe in something that cannot even be tested for, that cannot be defined, that cannot be known. your belief in god ends up justified as "because i said so".

religious people have been pushed by science to the logical brink. in the past it was taken as evidence of god that storms happened, that plagues came and went, that marauders decided to pass your city by. religion was people's best guess as to how the world worked. now we have a better system called science and it has tossed religion out of the explanation department.

religion is stuck in "i cant prove it but i think its true". now that might be enough for you. i have no quarrel with that. but to demand that someone else must also find what you say sensible and logical is going too far.

So you are saying that you have logical, objective proof for all of your belifes?

No, I said I have logical reasoning for all my beliefs. But thanks for playing.

I was talking about God. He wouldn't logically keep him alive, yet still keep him under the threat of extermination, unless he had a job for him to do.
You are personifying God with your own personality, we have no vision to see how things might work out, so we can't know what a good plan would be.

He created arrogant, prideful, confused, weak, and stupid creatures. Giving such creatures free will and being surprised at the outcome is the sequence of an insane person.
when did I say God was surprised by anything? Sure you can say the things you have been, but it's up to you whether or not you want to be an arrogant, prideful, confused, weak and stupid creature. I assumed you did not, maybe I assumed wrongly.


But why do you have faith that God is just?
I believe what I know/believe about the nature of God is that He is just.

I get the feeling we're going to have another one of our weird conversations that may or may not end up with me on people's shitlist.
not if you don't start acting like an asshole.

Do you have faith that God is just, regardless of logic and evidence otherwise, regardless of what the bible says that may contradict it, regardless of how you define a 'good person', all because you think you need to have this feeling that there is a just and benevolent being that created everything and has a plan? It's a very comforting thing to rely on such a solid idea, but it does require you to limit your ability to question it, as well as a bit of circular logic.

It doesn't require me to limit my question to circular logic, and I can't explain my faith in a small pat answer that would be pleasing for you to hear. I don't have to. It's faith, it's not science. k?

I don't have faith that God is just because I've never been given any reason to believe so. I don't think that just because someone created the universe, he is unquestionable and perfect and, by default, just. I think the opposite - I believe that such a being should be held accountable for everything that happens because of his actions in creating and regulating the universe.
and thus you are arrogant.


Meaning 100,000 years? That's roughly 94,000 more than many fundies acknowledge the world even existed. Fact remains, since before Jesus was even born, God has not directly interacted with the world he created, unless you believe the assholes that claim to speak to God on a daily basis and use that as credibility when they say they need to raise two-million dollars or God will kill him.
hundreds and thousands, not hundreds of thousands. You claim to know God's interactions over the entire human history though?.....maybe I wasn't wrong about the arrogant.


To be honest, I don't. But I think I'd notice if an entire city was destroyed by flaming balls of rock and an angel with a flaming sword was killing everyone. Something godly would attract attention - shit, some idiot seeing the Virgin Mary on toast got worldwide news! Imagine if anything really DID happen!
wow.



That's lol.
glad I could make you laugh.


Well that's just sad. I'd pray for you, but I like to distance myself from silly things.
should I also stop praying for you then?



Difference between being angry at God and being angry at God's followers and their effect on the world: large.
yes, I see you are angry at Christians. I wasn't talking to you, or about you.



So a white girl from the midwest of the richest country in the world can conclusively say that whatever suffering anyone receives is because of their own bad choices?
didn't say that.

Bad form.
ditto.



Well, I have her quoted as basically stating that anybody that is not a Christian (most likely, specifically, HER type of Christian) is not a good person, and will not be any different from murderers and child rapists in the eyes of God, because they all 'do not serve God', and that's the only real standard she sees.

and here comes the scripture.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 10:9 But if you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that Jesus died on the cross you will be saved.

In God terms, we all are imperfect, by our own choice, we spiritually die, we are doomed, except God sent His son to die on the cross for us, and if we believe in Him and confess Him our Lord and Savior we can be saved......I am sure you have heard all this before and by now are rolling your eyes.

My "particular brand" of Christianity comes straight from the scripture, and yes, I believe it.

It is stupid. It is backward. It is very ugly. Sorry.
You aren't sorry. You are a hypocrite.....but wait, I got in trouble for that before. Let me explain. You seem to say one time that you are a moral relativist and that people need to leave other people to make their own life choices, and that it's intolerant and wrong to do otherwise, and yet, you have such hate, real hate for Christians, and say such hateful things. It doesn't strike me as very tolerant, nor does it seem that you are very "live and let live" either.

Because all those questions can be answered by choosing to believe certain things. That is the essence of the leap of faith. And since I don't want to discuss my religious choices with you, it makes no sense to pose these questions to me, unless you're implying that you have no idea what this argument is about and you need me to clarify for you. Glad to do it, anyway.

as you suppose, i am uninterested in your religious beliefs.

the purpose of my questions is not to find out what you believe and destroy it with my superior logic (It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic*)

its to demonstrate that supposing an unknowable unprovable untestable supernatural supreme being gets you exactly nowhere when it comes to religion. it leaves you with the cheeky question of "now what?". to get to christianity (for example) you have to say that the bible is the word of god. thats a whole nother position now isnt it? you have to show how the bible IS the word of god and the hindu vedas are a bunch of crap. whole nother position indeed.


*douglas adams "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy"

No, I said I have logical reasoning for all my beliefs. But thanks for playing.

Ahhh I see, so then you can have a belief without objective proof, as long as your subjective proof follows logical rules, and it still be valid?

Gee thanks, but I ain't finished playin' yet!;)

Well, I have her quoted as basically stating that anybody that is not a Christian (most likely, specifically, HER type of Christian) is not a good person, and will not be any different from murderers and child rapists in the eyes of God, because they all 'do not serve God', and that's the only real standard she sees.

It is stupid. It is backward. It is very ugly. Sorry.

no she didnt really say that at all. you chose to read that into what she said. its not her fault that you interpret what she writes in an ugly way.

no she didnt really say that at all. you chose to read that into what she said. its not her fault that you interpret what she writes in an ugly way.

;) nice HHGTG up there. I likey!

This would be relevant if we were discussing chance. We aren't. In order to do so, you'd have to establish what percentage of possible beings, supernatural beings represent. I'm relatively certain you cannot do so. Even mathematicallly you couldn't do much better than an order comparison of the infinite possibilities.

It's also relevant when we're discussing epistemology, which asks, "How do you know it exists?" How do you know this "chance" of yours exists? In order to do so, you have to define what it is to know a thing, what a "thing" is in order to be known (properties), what a thing is when we lack knowledge of it, i.e. has no properties (non-existent), and what role you (we) play in understanding it all. "Chance" is an understanding of the universe.

Ahhh I see, so then you can have a belief without objective proof, as long as your subjective proof follows logical rules, and it still be valid?

Gee thanks, but I ain't finished playin' yet!;)

Sorry, I don't believe in proof. Can you prove proof exists? And more importantly, how do you know?

Sorry, I don't believe in proof. Can you prove proof exists? And more importantly, how do you know?

Now you have me all confussed Please define what you mean by logic to me.

So you are saying that you have logical, objective proof for all of your belifes?Yes, those beliefs are called knowledge.

no she didnt really say that at all. you chose to read that into what she said. its not her fault that you interpret what she writes in an ugly way.But you know Smunkeeville, she is a christian fundamentalist, even according to her own words.

Yes, those beliefs are called knowledge.

Yes of course they are. I'm trying to detirmine what Gbrooks means when he? says that all of his belifes are logical. Because it is my contention that not all belifes are.

Yes of course they are. I'm trying to detirmine what Gbrooks means when he? says that all of his belifes are logical. Because it is my contention that not all belifes are.Beliefs must be (internally) logical, or otherwise one wouldn't consider them reasonable and worthy of adherence.

You are personifying God with your own personality, we have no vision to see how things might work out, so we can't know what a good plan would be.

No, I'm personifying God with what would make sense. You can't tell me why he would do something like that, because you don't know, because you don't question him, because you don't use logic, you use faith.

Oh, and by the way, what does God look like? We already know you think he's a man, so let's go from there.

when did I say God was surprised by anything? Sure you can say the things you have been, but it's up to you whether or not you want to be an arrogant, prideful, confused, weak and stupid creature. I assumed you did not, maybe I assumed wrongly.

Oh so he wasn't surprised when we fell. So he knew it would happen. So he planned for it to happen. Thanks for playing.

You're arrogant for assuming you're not prideful, confused, weak, and stupid. At least, by your definitions. By holding anyone up to any kind of standards without an assumed God backing you up, you're automatically arrogant.

I believe what I know/believe about the nature of God is that He is just.

Because... I'm waiting for it, c'mon, try answering my question. Try thinking.

not if you don't start acting like an asshole.

"Asshole" is too often confused with the act of pressuring someone to actually look at what you're saying and respond based on what was said, rather than what the person heard or what the person wishes you said. Very often in our conversations, I find that you don't actually answer or respond with anything related to what I asked you, any situations, any questions I posed. This leads me to believe you simply don't want to think about it - I think the last time we did this, you did think about it after a while, and confused "thinking about it" with having your faith shaken, and blamed me for it.


It doesn't require me to limit my question to circular logic, and I can't explain my faith in a small pat answer that would be pleasing for you to hear. I don't have to. It's faith, it's not science. k?

No, you can't explain your faith at all. Ever. With any length of paper and pen. Because it's nothing more than a wish, and a feeling, and a hope that you can cower to when you're lost and feel alone.

That's fine for many, and I don't even care if you have that - it's no skin off my nose - until, that is, people like you don't come to terms with it like you have. You said it yourself: It's not science. Many don't seem to get that, and they negatively affect the world around us because of it.

and thus you are arrogant.

And thus I use the logic and the intelligence that God gave me. To not do so would be an affront to His gift.

hundreds and thousands, not hundreds of thousands. You claim to know God's interactions over the entire human history though?.....maybe I wasn't wrong about the arrogant.

Well people try to gauge the age of the Earth based on the age of the people named in the bible. That tells me the bible must have a reliable genetic sequence from one person to the next all through time, and therefore must cover basically everything God's ever directly done to humanity.

That, or they're batshit insane.

wow.

I know, you're impressed!

glad I could make you laugh.

I actually did lol. Had to keep it down, I'm at work.

should I also stop praying for you then?

Preferably, yes. I'd feel like I was wasting your time.

yes, I see you are angry at Christians. I wasn't talking to you, or about you.

Yes, but from what I've seen, it seems he might share the same perspective as me, and wanted to make sure you weren't confusing the two concepts.

didn't say that.

Well your response was "I've been hurt before but it was my fault because I made stupid mistakes" when the question was directed generally. If you weren't answering it generally, then you just dodged the question entirely, as I've said you do.

and here comes the scripture.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 10:9 But if you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that Jesus died on the cross you will be saved.

In God terms, we all are imperfect, by our own choice, we spiritually die, we are doomed, except God sent His son to die on the cross for us, and if we believe in Him and confess Him our Lord and Savior we can be saved......I am sure you have heard all this before and by now are rolling your eyes.

In God terms, we were created imperfect - we had no choice. We weren't there when he made us to say "Hey don't make us stupid like that, don't make us afraid all the time, don't make us have kneejerk reactions, don't make us have bad instincts" - he made us to have those things, therefore we are imperfect. It's got NOTHING to do with our choices. Our choices are just the effects of the causes that God has done to us and therefore it is unjust to punish us for it.

My "particular brand" of Christianity comes straight from the scripture, and yes, I believe it.

I notice you didn't actually answer my question. Again. You just restated what I said in a different way.

Your husband's political techniques must come straight from you.


You aren't sorry. You are a hypocrite.....but wait, I got in trouble for that before. Let me explain. You seem to say one time that you are a moral relativist and that people need to leave other people to make their own life choices, and that it's intolerant and wrong to do otherwise, and yet, you have such hate, real hate for Christians, and say such hateful things. It doesn't strike me as very tolerant, nor does it seem that you are very "live and let live" either.

I'm a moral relativist in that I believe everyone's individual judgement is equal to everyone else's judgement. If I condemn someone to hell, it's no more valid than if someone else does it. I recognize that everyone can have different ideas about what is and is not moral - I can't do anything about that. However, I still have my own personal ideas about what is and is not moral - I don't hide the fact that they come from nothing but my own personal opinions, unlike others that insist that theirs has a divine inspiration.

I don't believe people need to leave other people alone, I don't believe it's intolerant and wrong to interact with someone. Specific ways of doing it? Yeah, sure, but it must be taken on a case-by-case basis in which are and are not intolerant and bigoted.

I'm a very tolerant person as long as others tolerate others. I don't tolerate intolerance. I become the intolerant when someone calls someone a ******. I become the intolerant when someone calls them a kike. I become the intolerant when someone judges someone based on their skin and when someone deems someone else to be fit for a place such as hell simply because they do not subscribe to the same religious practices that you do.

I can't tolerate that. I feel sorry for those who can.

Beliefs must be (internally) logical, or otherwise one wouldn't consider them reasonable and worthy of adherence.

Indeed again which is why I asked Gbrooks, about objective proof, to once again distinguish between subjective evidance, and objective proof.

no she didnt really say that at all. you chose to read that into what she said. its not her fault that you interpret what she writes in an ugly way.

"Originally Posted by Nihelm
I beg to differ. Just because you do not follow God, does not make you a bad person, let alone evil. Free will is the ability to make our own decisions through out our lives. belief is god is just one of the many choices a person will make.

Smunk:
speaking purely in God terms, you are. (general you)"

She did say that, and you're blindly defending her simply because she's your friend, rather than the fact that she actually said it. It sounds bad that she said it, but it's what she believes. I suggest you come to terms with it.

No, you know you don't follow. I know you don't follow either.

We were discussing logic. I've long since distinguished between what one might believe and what one can logically claim. You claimed you can logically state that God doesn't exist. The problem with your claim is that this particular claim is the most well-known example ever used for argument from ignorance.

oh, you don't mean claim. you mean deductively prove. claiming something to be true and believing it to be true are the same thing (except that maybe claiming requires notifying others of your belief), hence my question on this point. i understand now, but it doesn't help your case. we have already established that deductive proof is unnecessary for knowledge, unless you are willing to concede that you don't know that you have hands.

what is going on is that you haven't really grasped the distinction i've been making use of between ontological proof that something doesn't exist and epistemic justification for the belief that it doesn't. since deductive proof is definitely not required for knowledge, then we must be able to have sufficient grounds for knowing something doesn't exist on some less hardcore standard (provided that the thing actually doesn't exist, of course). one of these standards is failing to have any evidence at all despite our looking. we use this epistemic standard all the fucking time, and, in fact, could not function without it.

now i claim that all of the gods which have been hypothesized have failed to turn up any evidence at all. this gives us sufficient epistemic grounds for claiming to know that they don't exist. in response you have come up with a god who you say left evidence but we cannot observe it due to some limitation or other (which seems like an interesting claim in itself, as it implies that strong agnosticism is false), and are demanding that we ignore all the preceding grounds for active disbelief and start over with this one. it does not work that way. our grounds remain, and you have to provide positive evidence for this thing's existence in order to override them. to hold otherwise is to say that each time i propose that space is really filled with aether but with slightly modified properties, we must start over and proclaim that we have no idea what space is like. we do not do this, nor should we. knowledge is possible.

Ah, yes, more fallacies. You cannot prove I don't exist by proving I didn't or couldn't have taken a certain action. You can disprove certain stories. You can evidence nonexistence of God. It's impossible.

Meanwhile, I described my personal beliefs. My particular "God-image". You're welcome to "kick it in the face" but you'll have no more logical basis for doing so than I would claiming He exists.


I don't care what other people are talking about. I was told I was wrong to claim that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. He jumped my claim, not the other way around. What other people are talking about has nothing to say about what I said the rules of logic are. Your other conversations don't reflect on that.
And that's the whole problem, in a nutshell. The epistemological argument is not about "proof" or "claims," and you don't care what it *is* about. Logic applies there, too (the "How do we know that God exists?" issue), but you insist that logic be dealt with only in an ontological context ("Does God exist? Where's the proof! Show me the evidence!"). "Proof" in that context is only relevant there.

You're wrong. I recognize the validity of the agnostic claim. It has nothing to do with what I believe.
What you recognize as the "agnostic argument" is epistemology.

Debates of this nature raise the issue of whether any form of knowledge is possible if people do not accept common language terms and maintain private languages, the precise meaning of which is only accessible to themselves

knowledge is possible.
Some knowledge is possible, but only where it is irrefutably free from possible error. If you think you know something that turns out to be mistaken, you never actually knew that thing in the first place. It's kind of a Shroedinger occurrance; it is only with the test's results that it can be determined whether what you thought you knew was actually knowledge or error. If no such test occurs, what you have is a state that is neither of the two; it is perpetual uncertainty.

If I can create a hypothesis that cannot be tested then I cannot know whether that hypothesis is correct or not. It may be appropriate not to factor this hypothesis into my model of how I engage in the world, as per Occam's Razor - indeed, it may prove actively harmful to do so - but it is not appropriate to declare knowledge that the hypothesis is untrue.

It's also relevant when we're discussing epistemology, which asks, "How do you know it exists?" How do you know this "chance" of yours exists? In order to do so, you have to define what it is to know a thing, what a "thing" is in order to be known (properties), what a thing is when we lack knowledge of it, i.e. has no properties (non-existent), and what role you (we) play in understanding it all. "Chance" is an understanding of the universe.

Seriously, if you're not going to read, then don't bother. He suggested nonexistence of a particular being is more likely. I'm the one that asked those questions. Putting his arguments on me is because you're lazy or not paying attention and neither of those make me wish to continue.

Only one of us claimed we could know these properties and predict from them and it ain't me. So if you have a problem with that line of thinking, then discuss it with him.

And that's the whole problem, in a nutshell. The epistemological argument is not about "proof" or "claims," and you don't care what it *is* about. Logic applies there, too (the "How do we know that God exists?" issue), but you insist that logic be dealt with only in an ontological context ("Does God exist? Where's the proof! Show me the evidence!"). "Proof" in that context is only relevant there.


What you recognize as the "agnostic argument" is epistemology.

No, the whole problem is that I'm talking about claims. I said that logical claims cannot be made without argument. As such unless you're capable of discussing that, then you're not actually discussing anything with me.

You might think it seems intelligent to jump in the middle of a conversation about cars and point out that we seem to not care about bikes, but unless you have something relevant to say about the topic of the conversation I was having, then I'm not interested.

I am talking about claims. I have always been talking about claims. I continue to talk about claims. Nothing that is acceptable outside of logical claims is relevant to what is an acceptable logical claim or not.

You do understand what a logical claim is, no? Since I started this point, and he claimed I was wrong, you don't get to jump in and ignorantly claim that I have to switch to his morphed argument just because it's more interesting to you.

oh, you don't mean claim. you mean deductively prove. claiming something to be true and believing it to be true are the same thing (except that maybe claiming requires notifying others of your belief), hence my question on this point. i understand now, but it doesn't help your case. we have already established that deductive proof is unnecessary for knowledge, unless you are willing to concede that you don't know that you have hands.

what is going on is that you haven't really grasped the distinction i've been making use of between ontological proof that something doesn't exist and epistemic justification for the belief that it doesn't. since deductive proof is definitely not required for knowledge, then we must be able to have sufficient grounds for knowing something doesn't exist on some less hardcore standard (provided that the thing actually doesn't exist, of course). one of these standards is failing to have any evidence at all despite our looking. we use this epistemic standard all the fucking time, and, in fact, could not function without it.

now i claim that all of the gods which have been hypothesized have failed to turn up any evidence at all. this gives us sufficient epistemic grounds for claiming to know that they don't exist. in response you have come up with a god who you say left evidence but we cannot observe it due to some limitation or other (which seems like an interesting claim in itself, as it implies that strong agnosticism is false), and are demanding that we ignore all the preceding grounds for active disbelief and start over with this one. it does not work that way. our grounds remain, and you have to provide positive evidence for this thing's existence in order to override them. to hold otherwise is to say that each time i propose that space is really filled with aether but with slightly modified properties, we must start over and proclaim that we have no idea what space is like. we do not do this, nor should we. knowledge is possible.

Oh, I grasped the distinction you made five or so pages in, after you realized you'd made claims that were provably false. You claimed you could logically support nonexistence of any gods, and so far you've failed to do so. Later you squirmed and wriggled and whined, but I'm not shifting.

A logical claim requires evidence. If you can support the claim it is not logical. It fails. There is a significant difference between what you believe and what you can logically support.

Don't pretend like you started with them the same, because you said you could establish the evidence that would be there and show that it is not there. When challenged to do so, you failed. In a logical debate, you fail, you lose. I accept your defeat.

Now, I ask again. You offered up that you could point out the specific evidence that would be result the existence of any god. I told you about my belief in God and offered you the opportunity to do that. The closest we've seen is a god of the gaps claim that if god existed there would be a gap we could attribute him to (something completely disallowed in science).

And you wonder why you're argument resembles ID.

Some knowledge is possible, but only where it is irrefutably free from possible error. If you think you know something that turns out to be mistaken, you never actually knew that thing in the first place.

all this says is that our justified beliefs must be true to be knowledge. i don't recall disputing that. but when we have beliefs backed up by an appropriate epistemic justification, we call them knowledge. we can be wrong about this, as good epistemic justification is not limited deductive proof - and, in fact, cannot be.

It's kind of a Shroedinger occurrance; it is only with the test's results that it can be determined whether what you thought you knew was actually knowledge or error. If no such test occurs, what you have is a state that is neither of the two; it is perpetual uncertainty.

actually, this seems like it hits on a special instance of a more general problem dealing with issues of knowing that we know. requiring us to "know that we know x" before we can rightfully claim that "we know x" actually starts an infinite regress - in order to know that we know x, we'd need to know that we know that we know x, etc. since this is nonsense, clearly we do not need to know that we know x in order to know x.


If I can create a hypothesis that cannot be tested then I cannot know whether that hypothesis is correct or not. It may be appropriate not to factor this hypothesis into my model of how I engage in the world, as per Occam's Razor - indeed, it may prove actively harmful to do so - but it is not appropriate to declare knowledge that the hypothesis is untrue.

if your empirical hypothesis cannot be tested even in principle, it cannot be distinguished from its opposite and thus says nothing. at least arguably, in any case.

anyways, i claim that my knowing that the hypothesis is untrue is based on a standard, reliable set of processes of epistemic justification, part of which includes occam's razor. on the basis of these reliable processes, i justly claim knowledge.

Now, I ask again. You offered up that you could point out the specific evidence that would be result the existence of any god.

any particular gods. not vague hand-wavings of gods

I told you about my belief in God and offered you the opportunity to do that. The closest we've seen is a god of the gaps claim that if god existed there would be a gap we could attribute him to (something completely disallowed in science).

if there is a gap and a god fits in that gap and science doesn't allow for that, so much the worse for science.

besides, there really ought to be a 'gap' under your scenario. there doesn't appear to be. and using the same processes we rightfully use to justify all sorts of beliefs we hold, we can rightfully claim that until some evidence for this new god shows up, he goes in the pile with all the old ones.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

digging way back to what started this all, i thought of another way to proceed. do you believe we can know that a species - the yangtze river dolphin, for example - is extinct?

"Originally Posted by Nihelm
I beg to differ. Just because you do not follow God, does not make you a bad person, let alone evil. Free will is the ability to make our own decisions through out our lives. belief is god is just one of the many choices a person will make.

Smunk:
speaking purely in God terms, you are. (general you)"

She did say that, and you're blindly defending her simply because she's your friend, rather than the fact that she actually said it. It sounds bad that she said it, but it's what she believes. I suggest you come to terms with it.

i read the thread. i know what she meant. that you have decided that it means something ugly doesnt mean that your way is the way it should taken.

any particular gods. not vague hand-wavings of gods

That is a particular god. You said any god. I gave the you god I very truly do believe in. You yourself categorized it with a prevelant belief. I take it that now that you recognize it's inconvenient you've changed those goalposts, no?

I'm referencing the only god I believe exists and the only thing I believe about him. I accept your resignation to the FACT that you cannot provide evidence for the nonexistence for any god as you claim, only those gods that are defined in such a way that you know properties about them you THINK you can refute.

I find it interesting that you claimed right away when I mentioned that god that I'd clearly defined and just didn't realize it, and suddenly, now that you're in a corner, it's a "vague, hand-waving" god.


if there is a gap and a god fits in that gap and science doesn't allow for that, so much the worse for science.

Science ignores it. It doesn't allow us to put up untestable hypotheses. God of the gaps is a common tactic of zealots. There will always be gaps. There is no dichotomy of "if I don't know, then God must fit there". The idea is ludicrous and not even vaguely scientific.


besides, there really ought to be a 'gap' under your scenario. there doesn't appear to be. and using the same processes we rightfully use to justify all sorts of beliefs we hold, we can rightfully claim that until some evidence for this new god shows up, he goes in the pile with all the old ones.

On what experience do you base your assumption? On what relevant data? Your limited imagination does not an argument make. It's just relying on argument from ignorance yet again.

Lack of evidence under the rules of logic is not evidence of lack. Suggesting otherwise is argument from ignorance. You've shown time and again throughout this argument that the best you can do is make one unfounded claim to back up another. It's ID in reverse and it's not logical or scientific. It's an embarrassment to reason.

digging way back to what started this all, i thought of another way to proceed. do you believe we can know that a species - the yangtze river dolphin, for example - is extinct?

I know you don't recognize this, but you keep mentioning things that we actually have something with which to derive specific properties. By your own suggestion this is exactly how we would derive evidence for nonexistence (or in this case extinction).

Show what evidence or similar experience allows you to logical or scientifically derive similar types of conclusions. Yes, I know you'll skirt around this too. You have to. Because you can't actually reference anything similar to what we know about teapots and yangtze river dolphins.

I know you don't recognize this, but you keep mentioning things that we actually have something with which to derive specific properties. By your own suggestion this is exactly how we would derive evidence for nonexistence (or in this case extinction).

Show what evidence or similar experience allows you to logical or scientifically derive similar types of conclusions. Yes, I know you'll skirt around this too. You have to. Because you can't actually reference anything similar to what we know about teapots and yangtze river dolphins.

if a lack of evidence for their continued existence is enough to know that the yangtze river dolphin has gone extinct, why should we treat anything any different without good evidence that it actually is different? not could conceivably be different, but actually is. either the lack of evidence of living yangtze river dolphins is evidence for a lack of them (at which point you need to get an entirely new argument against my epistemic claim, since you will have abandoned your misunderstanding of the argument from ignorance) or you cannot know much of anything at all under your epistemological system (and therefore i feel no need to treat it as a serious contender).

if a lack of evidence for their continued existence is enough to know that the yangtze river dolphin has gone extinct, why should we treat anything any different without good evidence that it actually is different? not could conceivably be different, but actually is. either the lack of evidence of living yangtze river dolphins is evidence for a lack of them (at which point you need to get an entirely new argument against my epistemic claim, since you will have abandoned your misunderstanding of the argument from ignorance) or you cannot know much of anything at all under your epistemological system (and therefore i feel no need to treat it as a serious contender).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon

if a lack of evidence for their continued existence is enough to know that the yangtze river dolphin has gone extinct, why should we treat anything any different without good evidence that it actually is different? not could conceivably be different, but actually is. either the lack of evidence of living yangtze river dolphins is evidence for a lack of them (at which point you need to get an entirely new argument against my epistemic claim, since you will have abandoned your misunderstanding of the argument from ignorance) or you cannot know much of anything at all under your epistemological system (and therefore i feel no need to treat it as a serious contender).

I love how you changed what we were talking about halfway through. You like to mention epistemology every post to pretend like you didn't change. Not all of us are so stupid.

Now, your comparison to the dolphins. You set the rules. You at one time were actually trying to excercise reason. Let's quote you.

yes it is. for example, if i propose that there is some entity that exists and has certain properties and will in some way be observable in certain circumstances, and then isn't so observed, that is absolutely evidence of lack.

By your own standards in order to be able to say your claim to nonexistence is logical, you must show certain properties and that such properties will create specific evidence and in what circumstances we would see that evidence.

However, you've never offered that evidence. You've made vague claims.

Specific evidence. 20 pages. Not one bit. Just a lame 'god of the gaps" claim that gaps are evidence of god.

Science and logic both require you to make a claim, and show evidence for that claim, either by making predictions and showing those predictions or by presenting other observable evidence. You've not presenting anything. You made a completely not connected prediction and you've attempted to compare a being we don't know the properties of and don't know what specific evidence we would see to a being that we do know the properties of and we do know precisely what evidence would be left.

Come on, you're better than this, aren't you? Don't tell me that in 20 pages you can't come up with this evidence you claimed to have in spades.

im sorry to fall back on my apparently illogical stance of "if there is absolutely no evidence of something's existence and no way to test for it, it is more rational to not believe than to believe in it". your "existence is more prevalent than non-existence" is proof of nothing since so many of the things we have imagined existed have turned out to be non-existent. it cannot be rational to believe in something that cannot even be tested for, that cannot be defined, that cannot be known. your belief in god ends up justified as "because i said so".

religious people have been pushed by science to the logical brink. in the past it was taken as evidence of god that storms happened, that plagues came and went, that marauders decided to pass your city by. religion was people's best guess as to how the world worked. now we have a better system called science and it has tossed religion out of the explanation department.

religion is stuck in "i cant prove it but i think its true". now that might be enough for you. i have no quarrel with that. but to demand that someone else must also find what you say sensible and logical is going too far.

If you have no way to prove that God exists or doesn't, believing that He does not is just as irrational as believing that He does, because both options require you to belief in something that, as Kierkegaard reminds us, is beyond reason or explanation by deduction. The farthest one can go while remaining rational and free of choices not supported by proof is the agnostic stance of 'I have no way of knowing whether God exists or not, and as such I will make no claim either way.'

While it may seem to you that one of the above choices is more irrational than the other, I think that is just personal bias speaking, because to state that you believe some entity does not exist because it cannot be proven either way, without knowing whether existence or non-existence is the natural and predisposed state of all entities, constitutes a belief that is based on no more proof than the belief that the same entity does exist.

Also, don't presume to know what choice I have or have not made regarding this issue. It will cloud your judgement of what I'm saying and will retard this argument unnecessarily.

Oh, and I wouldn't say that science explains everything. It explains quite a lot of things that have been unknown for centuries, but it is far from a complete set of knowledge. For example, we know gravity exists, but we don't know what causes it. And we don't know much about the universe before the singularity.

Finally, nothing I've argued stems from 'X is true because I said so.' Don't insult me. Free Soviets has done enough of that for everyone in this thread.

I love how you changed what we were talking about halfway through. You like to mention epistemology every post to pretend like you didn't change. Not all of us are so stupid.

i have always been talking about knowledge. it was on epistemological grounds that i called bullshit on your absence of evidence cliche. go look (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12959193&postcount=609). if you had said absence of evidence is not proof of absence, i would instantaneously agree. i have been entirely consistent on this point.

absence of evidence is not proof of absence
absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence
but absence of evidence quite often is very good evidence of absence under any reasonable epistemic standard

By your own standards in order to be able to say your claim to nonexistence is logical, you must show certain properties and that such properties will create specific evidence and in what circumstances we would see that evidence.

However, you've never offered that evidence. You've made vague claims.

and you've offered me vague properties. i have specifically said we'd need more specific properties for the entity you allege exists in order to make more specific predictions. for example, back when you were including omniscience in your claimed god (hey, remember that?), we can make more specific claims about what the universe ought be like for that to be true.

you don't wish to do this. that's fine, but it functionally means that you aren't actually proposing anything at all.

the vague god you claim to be proposing varies between one that can in principle be established through a cosmological argument, and one that is identical with the lack of that vague god, depending on what you are being asked at the moment. and when i mention the cosmological argument, and the fact that a reliable knowledge-producing process leads me to believe that there isn't a sound one possible, you drop back into the absence of evidence cliche. so then i have to come back around and try to get you to see that we don't need proof to have knowledge. but you can't concede that point, even though the position you hold denies the existence of knowledge of, amongst other things, extinction. instead you complain that i am comparing god to teapots. in a sense i am, but more fundamentally i am trying to get you to recognize that you almost certainly already use a reasonable system of epistemic justification in other circumstances that explicitly denies your absence of evidence cliche.

really, the existence of gods argument is a sub-thread of the point being made in what you quoted. notice that i didn't actually even talk about gods at all, as i was instead directly addressing your claim about evidence of lack with a generalized description of one form of scientific testing.

ust a lame 'god of the gaps" claim that gaps are evidence of god.

not so much, no. however, i did say that if there was a real gap - not in our knowledge, but in the nature of the universe - and some gods really did fill it, then any system of reasoning that refuses to believe that is not good enough to get us to truth. perhaps i was unclear on that earlier, but we've had this argument before too.

Science and logic both require you to make a claim, and show evidence for that claim, either by making predictions and showing those predictions or by presenting other observable evidence. You've not presenting anything.

why should i go around proposing gods and their properties to test? we've already tested lots, and none of them have worked out. the best your lot seems to be able to offer are ones that we aren't allowed to test. frankly, i think you might as well be speaking gibberish when you make such offers.

If you have no way to prove that God exists or doesn't, believing that He does not is just as irrational as believing that He does, because both options require you to belief in something that, as Kierkegaard reminds us, is beyond reason or explanation by deduction.

good thing we have more options than just deductive proof to arrive at rational belief then , eh? i like induction myself, as well as direct and immediate experience, and, more broadly, all the various processes and 'rules of thumb' that are generally reliable at causing us to hold true beliefs.

If you have no way to prove that God exists or doesn't, believing that He does not is just as irrational as believing that He does, because both options require you to belief in something that, as Kierkegaard reminds us, is beyond reason or explanation by deduction. The farthest one can go while remaining rational and free of choices not supported by proof is the agnostic stance of 'I have no way of knowing whether God exists or not, and as such I will make no claim either way.'

While it may seem to you that one of the above choices is more irrational than the other, I think that is just personal bias speaking, because to state that you believe some entity does not exist because it cannot be proven either way, without knowing whether existence or non-existence is the natural and predisposed state of all entities, constitutes a belief that is based on no more proof than the belief that the same entity does exist.

Also, don't presume to know what choice I have or have not made regarding this issue. It will cloud your judgement of what I'm saying and will retard this argument unnecessarily.

Oh, and I wouldn't say that science explains everything. It explains quite a lot of things that have been unknown for centuries, but it is far from a complete set of knowledge. For example, we know gravity exists, but we don't know what causes it. And we don't know much about the universe before the singularity.

Finally, nothing I've argued stems from 'X is true because I said so.' Don't insult me. Free Soviets has done enough of that for everyone in this thread.

I hate to step in, I've been vaguely following this but...

If one cannot show any evidence whatsoever for existence or non-existence, then the default position is that it does not exist.

There is a difference: You are having to create something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That creation is inherently a waste of time, because there is absolutely no evidence on which you can create it.

The default position has to be: It does not exist.

Fine I cannot prove it doesn't exist, because there is absolutely no evidence either way - but if that is the case, why would you posit something when nothing is clearly the default position

It's like looking at a blank wall and positing there's a painting on it - why would you do that?

You could use all your senses, conduct all sorts of experiments that show there is no painting and then say: it must be outside the realm of my senses and science.

Again, why would you posit it was there at all?

Why not posit a light, why not posit a tapestry, which not posit a million frogs?

Why posit anything at all when you're looking at a blank wall?

The only reason you would do so is because of the question: then why is the wall there?

Scientists ask: How is the wall there?

I hate to step in, I've been vaguely following this but...

If one cannot show any evidence whatsoever for existence or non-existence, then the default position is that it does not exist.

There is a difference: You are having to create something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That creation is inherently a waste of time, because there is absolutely no evidence on which you can create it.

The default position has to be: It does not exist.

Fine I cannot prove it doesn't exist, because there is absolutely no evidence either way - but if that is the case, why would you posit something when nothing is clearly the default position

That's exactly the point: make up something and then claim it exists but there is no evidence for it, even more: there can be no evidence for it. The default position is: if one claims that there can be no evidence for something then that something does not exist, otherwise no-one would know or even think about that something.
If there can be no evidence for God, then that means that no-one has ever had contact with God and has never experienced God otherwise and even the idea of God would not exist either. Except one copies the idea of God from somewhere else, namely from other religions (which happened in the case of the biblical god and is now promoted by the abrahamic religions), but then the copied god is a conceptual fabrication and does not exist.

That's exactly the point: make up something and then claim it exists but there is no evidence for it, even more: there can be no evidence for it. The default position is: if one claims that there can be no evidence for something then that something does not exist, otherwise no-one would know or even think about that something.
If there can be no evidence for God, then that means that no-one has ever had contact with God and has never experienced God otherwise and even the idea of God would not exist either. Except one copies the idea of God from somewhere else, namely from other religions (which happened in the case of the biblical god and is now promoted by the abrahamic religions), but then the copied god is a conceptual fabrication and does not exist.

I think I'm going to get into trouble with my wall analogy.

Disregarding the painting, which is really about the illogic of positing the existence of something we have no evidence for...

I'm guessing the question we'll be asked is: What built the wall?

Science would say that we don't know, currently it seems that it exploded into existence and everything required to form the wall was created at that point - it could have been a car, it could have been an elephant - all we surmise so far is that an explosion occurred and the wall formed over time. It may seem amazing that it's a wall but that's simply the way it is - it couldn't be anything else otherwise we would not be here to observe it.

Religion would say, if you're a creationist, the wall was formed as is by God in 6 days, if you're not, that God created the blueprint and it built itself from there over millions of millennia.

Yet the point remains - why does it need to be a God?

Why can't it be a scientific answer we haven't yet figured out, much like all those other things ascribed to Gods, such as lightening, that must have seemed just as impossible to explain, yet have been now.

Now you have me all confussed Please define what you mean by logic to me.

You should more logically be asking for my defintiion of "proof." A logical proof is but one kind of proofing, and the only thing it proves is the conclusion in the context of the premise it was built on, utilzing the arguments that it did. That's a very narrow thing "proven."

But it's irrelevant, the more important question is, "How do you know?" Logic gives us a structure to draw conclusion from premise, but if we start with a conclusion needing to be "proven," and attempt to find a suitable premise, and arguments to stick between, then we haven't employed a proper logic at all, however much it may emulate the structure. Logic is deductive.

Knowledge is deduced; belief follows understanding; and epistemology logically derives answers to the question, "How do we know?" At least, it suits my internal logic, i.e. it makes sense. It provides a grounds for understanding the ancient myths of many cultures, which are expressing epistemological concepts in a symbolic language.

Indeed again which is why I asked Gbrooks, about objective proof, to once again distinguish between subjective evidance, and objective proof.

You allocate "proof" to the objective, that is an arbitrary designation, even within the context of logic.

why does it need to be a God?what is God?

Debates of this nature raise the issue of whether any form of knowledge is possible if people do not accept common language terms and maintain private languages, the precise meaning of which is only accessible to themselves

Right. Philosophy has dealt with this issue numerous times, and necessarily developed standard terms for discussing things. It'd be more helpful if everyone would learn some "common" philosophy terms before entering a debate on metaphysics (but I hate to disclude someone because they don't).

Seriously, if you're not going to read, then don't bother. He suggested nonexistence of a particular being is more likely. I'm the one that asked those questions. Putting his arguments on me is because you're lazy or not paying attention and neither of those make me wish to continue.

Only one of us claimed we could know these properties and predict from them and it ain't me. So if you have a problem with that line of thinking, then discuss it with him.

"Those questions" require a particular perspective to enter the picture, though, that you don't seem to be actively engaging to understand what FS is saying, namely the subjective one.

Claiming to have justification that God does not exist, from an epistemological standpoint, is not the same as claiming knowledge of God-properties in order to elminate them from existence (as appears to be what you demand for non-existence), which would be from an ontological standpoint. *shrug*

Right. Philosophy has dealt with this issue numerous times, and necessarily developed standard terms for discussing things. It'd be more helpful if everyone would learn some "common" philosophy terms before entering a debate on metaphysics (but I hate to disclude someone because they don't).so metaphysics is only for philosophers? and since when is an existing god something metaphysical instead of physical? especially divine interaction with the real world and humans in particular is surely not metaphysical, otherwise no-one could possibly claim to have experienced it. shouldn't god questions rather be in the field of historians and archaeologists and physicists?

what is God?

Apparently it's something that gave me free will and then punishes me when I use it.

It's a cranky old bugger that's for sure.

Or it's something else, from what I hear you can make it up as you go along and then punish others for not following the rules.

To be serious, my only god is a certain peace of mind, a sense that I'm ok, those rare moments when life is not getting in the way of a good time - I try to attain that as often as possible.

Apparently it's something that gave me free will and then punishes me when I use it.why does it need to be a God?

why does it need to be a God?

Why does a car need to be called a car? For convenience of language and communication.

Where is this going, can you cut to the chase?

No, the whole problem is that I'm talking about claims. I said that logical claims cannot be made without argument. As such unless you're capable of discussing that, then you're not actually discussing anything with me.
Trying not to, as to do so would entail participating in the conversation, and that would be futile. I'm just trying to get you to understand that, regardless of who started it, your objections against what FS says are misunderstanding his position. All the hand-banging is unnecessary.

But you're right, I should've minded my own business.

Oh, I grasped the distinction you made five or so pages in, after you realized you'd made claims that were provably false. You claimed you could logically support nonexistence of any gods, and so far you've failed to do so. Later you squirmed and wriggled and whined, but I'm not shifting.

No; he didn't actually make an ontological claim. Really.

Okay, I'm done.

If you have no way to prove that God exists or doesn't, believing that He does not is just as irrational as believing that He does, because both options require you to belief in something that, as Kierkegaard reminds us, is beyond reason or explanation by deduction.
Do you honestly, really and truly, believe this?

Because if you do, then wow...you are the DREAM target for every corrupt organization. You'll believe anything that is proposed, as long as there is no evidence for it one way or the other?

Well, I propose that there are magical pixies in my backyard who will wipe out the human race unless you send me $10 million. Seeing as how there's no way to disprove their existence, it would be irrational of you to not believe in them, and it would be irrational for you to not take their threats seriously.

Please make that out to cash, if you don't mind.

If you have no way to prove that God exists or doesn't, believing that He does not is just as irrational as believing that He does, because both options require you to belief in something that, as Kierkegaard reminds us, is beyond reason or explanation by deduction. The farthest one can go while remaining rational and free of choices not supported by proof is the agnostic stance of 'I have no way of knowing whether God exists or not, and as such I will make no claim either way.'

While it may seem to you that one of the above choices is more irrational than the other, I think that is just personal bias speaking, because to state that you believe some entity does not exist because it cannot be proven either way, without knowing whether existence or non-existence is the natural and predisposed state of all entities, constitutes a belief that is based on no more proof than the belief that the same entity does exist.

Also, don't presume to know what choice I have or have not made regarding this issue. It will cloud your judgement of what I'm saying and will retard this argument unnecessarily.

Oh, and I wouldn't say that science explains everything. It explains quite a lot of things that have been unknown for centuries, but it is far from a complete set of knowledge. For example, we know gravity exists, but we don't know what causes it. And we don't know much about the universe before the singularity.

Finally, nothing I've argued stems from 'X is true because I said so.' Don't insult me. Free Soviets has done enough of that for everyone in this thread.


i think you are being disingenuous.

there IS no rational reason for believing something that cant be proven. there is no reason to give any unprovable story credence.

IF you have a belief in god, i think it is not baseless. you are just claiming it to be so but that you do in fact have a reason why you believe.

or you dont believe and are pretending that there is someone out there who believes without any reason.

so metaphysics is only for philosophers? and since when is an existing god something metaphysical instead of physical? especially divine interaction with the real world and humans in particular is surely not metaphysical, otherwise no-one could possibly claim to have experienced it. shouldn't god questions rather be in the field of historians and archaeologists and physicists?

In the context of mythology, it is "for philosophers." And it is experienced.

i think you are being disingenuous.

there IS no rational reason for believing something that cant be proven. there is no reason to give any unprovable story credence.

IF you have a belief in god, i think it is not baseless. you are just claiming it to be so but that you do in fact have a reason why you believe.

or you dont believe and are pretending that there is someone out there who believes without any reason.

I think you have hit the nail right on the head. All of our belifes have a basis, have a reason. Even if that reason can be said to be irrational, nobody belives without reason.

i have always been talking about knowledge. it was on epistemological grounds that i called bullshit on your absence of evidence cliche. go look (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12959193&postcount=609). if you had said absence of evidence is not proof of absence, i would instantaneously agree. i have been entirely consistent on this point.

absence of evidence is not proof of absence
absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence
but absence of evidence quite often is very good evidence of absence under any reasonable epistemic standard

You said precisely what the standard is and it's the standard held by both logic and science. You've not met it. You must show that this evidence would necessarily be present and recognizeable, what it would be, where it would be, and why it would be there. And THEN if it's not, you've got evidence of lack. You've not done anything of the kind.

Your later argument changed it to "if I could never see the evidence then that's evidence of lack" which is not what you started with and does not meet the requirements of logic nor science. Science simply ignores what it cannot yet, or possibly cannot ever, explore. So does logic.

Now, if you'd like to meet your own stardard of evidence that you started this conversation claiming, I'd be quite happy to consider you a rational conversationalist. But if you're going to pretend you didn't say exactly that, despite me quoting you saying it, then I'm just going to point out your lying and whistle.




and you've offered me vague properties. i have specifically said we'd need more specific properties for the entity you allege exists in order to make more specific predictions. for example, back when you were including omniscience in your claimed god (hey, remember that?), we can make more specific claims about what the universe ought be like for that to be true.

You think? That's the point. You can't reach such a conclusion unless one of is irrational first, and makes logical claims that you essentially later prove false. All you've shown, that provided I violate the rules of logic, you can show I've done so. That's the point. You can't get there without some level of illogical action. It cannot be done.

I don't allege anything exists. I believe in something. I'm not willing to make a logical claim it exists, becuase I cannot provide evidence. I'm not willing to make a logical claim that IF it exists it must have certain properties, because that would as stupid as your claims that it would leave "god of the gaps" evidence.

As to omniscience, again, you are being illogical. You cannot make claims about a property that is unbound by the universe. You cannot do it. It requires you to pretend that said property is bound by the universe and violate the principles of what it is. It's like claiming that things cannot be omniscient because brains have physical limits.





you don't wish to do this. that's fine, but it functionally means that you aren't actually proposing anything at all.

Now it means that the only way to declare a supernatural being logically cannot exist is to violate the rules of logic somewhere along the way. I've not done so. I won't. Mostly because it's ludicrously idiotic to make logical claims about the supernatural. It's the reason you're flailing about whining about how I won't be illogical so that you can feel better.


the vague god you claim to be proposing varies between one that can in principle be established through a cosmological argument, and one that is identical with the lack of that vague god, depending on what you are being asked at the moment. and when i mention the cosmological argument, and the fact that a reliable knowledge-producing process leads me to believe that there isn't a sound one possible, you drop back into the absence of evidence cliche. so then i have to come back around and try to get you to see that we don't need proof to have knowledge. but you can't concede that point, even though the position you hold denies the existence of knowledge of, amongst other things, extinction. instead you complain that i am comparing god to teapots. in a sense i am, but more fundamentally i am trying to get you to recognize that you almost certainly already use a reasonable system of epistemic justification in other circumstances that explicitly denies your absence of evidence cliche.

really, the existence of gods argument is a sub-thread of the point being made in what you quoted. notice that i didn't actually even talk about gods at all, as i was instead directly addressing your claim about evidence of lack with a generalized description of one form of scientific testing.

No, it doesn't. It requires you qualify it illogicaly and then start attacking principles that you don't have access to and clearly don't understand. The only way you can make such an argument is to pretend to know things you don't. Something you've begged me to do throughout this conversation.

Meanwhile, the supernatural was what we were talking about. It's the example of example. The principle example in every discussion of the argument from ignorance fallacy.


not so much, no. however, i did say that if there was a real gap - not in our knowledge, but in the nature of the universe - and some gods really did fill it, then any system of reasoning that refuses to believe that is not good enough to get us to truth. perhaps i was unclear on that earlier, but we've had this argument before too.

How would we know it was a "real" gap. You're making the same arguments that IDers make. They say something is a real gap and challenge you to fill it. If science worked that way, they'd be behaving scientifically. But rational people recognize there will always be gaps and to pretend that we can just randomly claim gods fill it is, well, irrational. We don't do it because we couldn't possibly claim that without leaving the bounds of reason. I know you're happy to do so, but that just leaves us rational people here to laugh and point.




why should i go around proposing gods and their properties to test? we've already tested lots, and none of them have worked out. the best your lot seems to be able to offer are ones that we aren't allowed to test. frankly, i think you might as well be speaking gibberish when you make such offers.

No, frankly we not testing "lots". We disproved stories. There is a significant difference.

We've also disproved lots of theories. Most of them. Throughout history. We still get to dismiss theories without actually disproving them. In this case there is no need to do so, because science righfully ignores the supernatural because the properties cannot be determined, the predictions cannot be tested, and it's all just a big circlejerk with one irrational person or another sitting in the middle. You've proven exactly why this is so. Thanks for sitting in the middle.

Amusingly, right away I said that unless you define a god in a way that allows you to make specific predictions, there is no way you can make logical claims about it. Amusingly, you, at that time, claimed I had defined the god sufficiently, before, of course, realizing that means I'm right and changing your claim. I've been claiming all along that without illogical claims that a god must have certain properties you cannot get to a logical claim about it not existing. Thank you for agreeing.

Of course, like your argument, science rejects theirs because it's a fact that evidence for or against undefined and impossible to define supernatural agents is never going to come.

In no logical or scientific realm would you not be laughed out of the room.
it's only 'undefined' because you refuse to recognize when you have defined it.

Since you seem to have forgotten that I claimed long ago that my version of God is an impossible to define supernatural agent and that this is precisely why he cannot be assaulted by logic. Logically, it's a god that makes sense, since I would never have the ridiculous bravado to claim that I could define how supernatural agents must behave.

Amusingly, that's essentially the conclusion you've finally reached. That such a god cannot be touched by science or logic.

Amusingly, when I claimed that 20 pages ago, your response what that I didn't realize I'd defined it.

In the context of mythology, it is "for philosophers." And it is experienced.
But are we talking about mythology?
And if it is experienced how can it be mythical or metaphysical?

But are we talking about mythology?
And if it is experienced how can it be mythical or metaphysical?

It depends what you mean by mythology.

What GBrooks is saying is that if you want to have a clear discussion about religion, scientific methodology, and philosophy, you have to understand the terms, or at least make an effort.

For example, 'metaphysical' pertains to more abstract questions, but does not specifically deal with things that are not physical. So when you say that experiencing god is either physical or metaphysical, you are using the words incorrectly. An experience of god can be physical, and have metaphysical implications. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Claiming to have justification that God does not exist, from an epistemological standpoint, is not the same as claiming knowledge of God-properties in order to elminate them from existence (as appears to be what you demand for non-existence), which would be from an ontological standpoint. *shrug*

Epistemology: the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.

Ontology: the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature of being.

So here GBrooks is trying to say that Free Soviets and Jocabia are talking about two different things. One is talking about how we know of god, and the other is discussing what god is like.

I hate to step in, I've been vaguely following this but...

If one cannot show any evidence whatsoever for existence or non-existence, then the default position is that it does not exist.

There is a difference: You are having to create something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That creation is inherently a waste of time, because there is absolutely no evidence on which you can create it.

The default position has to be: It does not exist.

Fine I cannot prove it doesn't exist, because there is absolutely no evidence either way - but if that is the case, why would you posit something when nothing is clearly the default position

No. My argument rests on the fundamental point that we do not know what the "default position" is, existence or non-existence. Going back to an earlier example, I exist, but my sister does not, and you cannot claim that either state is the "default position"

I am not creating anything. The idea of the Christian God is millenia old, as you know. The concept exists; it's out there; people believe or disbelieve in it at will. I had and continue to have nothing to do with this state of affairs. Now, we in the present are attempting to construct a logical answer to the question of whether God exists. We are using the construct of God that is millenia old, so we do not have to create any constructs simply for the purpose of the argument, which would of course invalidate it.

Working with this construct, we conclude that according to descriptions offerd by the context of the construct,

IF God exists, God has been demonstrably secretive in the past and may not want humans to discover how exactly He interacts with the universe in terms of physical evidence, at least not yet.

IF God exists, God is removed from the physical plane unless He chooses to be otherwise, and we acknowledge that we do not know what form any evidence of His existence on the physical plane of being would take, to attempt to prove or disprove His existence using the same rules that would be used to prove or disprove the existence of a certain animal species or impossibly extra-terrestrial teapot is a logical inconsistency.

These two postulates necessitate the need of more knowledge on our part before we can logically claim that there is no evidence of God's existence.

good thing we have more options than just deductive proof to arrive at rational belief then , eh? i like induction myself, as well as direct and immediate experience, and, more broadly, all the various processes and 'rules of thumb' that are generally reliable at causing us to hold true beliefs.

For induction to be effective in this case, you would have to be roughly as intelligent as God.

If you've had direct and immediate experience with God, you should probably publish that, because His followers would be keenly interested.

Unfortunately, "generally reliable" is not good enough in this particular forum of discussion.

And?

Do you honestly, really and truly, believe this?

Because if you do, then wow...you are the DREAM target for every corrupt organization. You'll believe anything that is proposed, as long as there is no evidence for it one way or the other?

Well, I propose that there are magical pixies in my backyard who will wipe out the human race unless you send me $10 million. Seeing as how there's no way to disprove their existence, it would be irrational of you to not believe in them, and it would be irrational for you to not take their threats seriously.

Please make that out to cash, if you don't mind.

Quiet you! If you had read my post carefully, you would understand that I was expounding on the necessity of choice to form any conclusive belief in the absence of proof. Choice is quite important to human beliefs. And no, I don't happen to be particularly gullible, which is what you seem to be implying. I do "honestly, really and truly" believe in Kierkegaard's theories, because they make a lot of sense to me, and I've been referencing him so much because I think doing so makes sense in the context of this argument.

Now, the fact that magical pixies in your backyard are literally infinitely more verifiable than God, a fact that I've explained in reference to Chinese teapots and Bigfoot already, you are foolish to suggest this.

I would never, ever send you $10 million for anything. If you told me you had "magical pixies" in your backyard that threatened the survival of the human race, I would laugh in your face. Why? Because I choose to believe that you are lying. An irrational choice, yes, but one I am more than willing to make. Besides, as I've already mentioned, that choice is even less irrational than not believing in the existence of God.

Do you see where I'm going with the whole choice thing? My God, I respect you so little right now that I might just stop talking to you in the middle of whatever I was say-

I think you have hit the nail right on the head. All of our belifes have a basis, have a reason. Even if that reason can be said to be irrational, nobody belives without reason.

Correct. They believe because they choose to do so.

Quiet you! If you had read my post carefully, you would understand that I was expounding on the necessity of choice to form any conclusive belief in the absence of proof. Choice is quite important to human beliefs.

To some beliefs, I suppose. Many others involve little to no conscious choice whatsoever. Humans function on assumption more often than many of us like to admit.


And no, I don't happen to be particularly gullible, which is what you seem to be implying. I do "honestly, really and truly" believe in Kierkegaard's theories, because they make a lot of sense to me, and I've been referencing him so much because I think doing so makes sense in the context of this argument.

Gullibility isn't the word for it.


Now, the fact that magical pixies in your backyard are literally infinitely more verifiable than God, a fact that I've explained in reference to Chinese teapots and Bigfoot already, you are foolish to suggest this.

Bunk. The pixies in my backyard exist in a form that cannot be empirically tested or verified in any way. They cannot be verified any more easily than any of the many Gods proposed by human beings.

The fact that you choose to view some myths as more plausible than others has no bearing on the verifiable reality.


I would never, ever send you $10 million for anything. If you told me you had "magical pixies" in your backyard that threatened the survival of the human race, I would laugh in your face. Why? Because I choose to believe that you are lying. And irrational choice, yes, but one I am more than willing to make.
So your philosophy is basically that everything you do, always, is irrational, since you will never be able to actually have objective verification of a single thing in life, right?

That pretty much just sounds like a misunderstanding of what "rational" means.

Rationality is about what follows from an initial assumption or start-thinking point. Does your pattern of thinking follow logically? Rationality doesn't tell you which assumptions to hold or not hold to start off the process.


Besides, as I've already mentioned, that choice is even less irrational than not believing in the existence of God.

Believing in God can be a rational choice, depending on the circumstance. Lacking belief in God is a rational default regardless of circumstance. Rationality does not mean what you seem to think it means.

In the case of Godbelief, "God" isn't the initial assumption. Belief in God is what follows from some initial assumption.


Do you see where I'm going with the whole choice thing?

Yeah. I like Kierkegaard's take on it better, myself, but whatever floats your boat.


My God, I respect you so little right now that I might just stop talking to you in the middle of whatever I was say-
Seeing as how it would be equally irrational for me to assume that you have little respect for me, I choose to assume that you worship me as a God.

IF the teapot exists, the teapot has been demonstrably secretive in the past and may not want humans to discover how exactly it interacts with the universe in terms of physical evidence, at least not yet.

IF the teapot exists, the teapot is removed from the physical plane unless it chooses to be otherwise, and we acknowledge that we do not know what form any evidence of it's existence on the physical plane of being would take,...

What's the difference?

...to attempt to prove or disprove His existence using the same rules that would be used to prove or disprove the existence of a(n) impossibly extra-terrestrial teapot is a logical inconsistency.

Would it? Please explain.

"Those questions" require a particular perspective to enter the picture, though, that you don't seem to be actively engaging to understand what FS is saying, namely the subjective one.

Claiming to have justification that God does not exist, from an epistemological standpoint, is not the same as claiming knowledge of God-properties in order to elminate them from existence (as appears to be what you demand for non-existence), which would be from an ontological standpoint. *shrug*

This is precisely the point. Regardless of what you THINK he was talking about, he said he did say he was going to analyze the properties of supernatural entities to eliminate them from existence. That's the point. What he says he was arguing, and what he actually argued are two different things.

Logic demands evidence for claims. He explained accurately what evidence it demands and claimed he could offer it. Then, suddenly, he claimed that in cases where that evidence doesn't come he could still make the claim, evidence he, himself, admitted was necessary for such a claim, and he did it by changing the landscape of the argument. Again, I'll quote him presenting what evidence is required and how that evidence is handled.

yes it is. for example, if i propose that there is some entity that exists and has certain properties and will in some way be observable in certain circumstances, and then isn't so observed, that is absolutely evidence of lack.

I didn't make up these rules. He agreed they were the rules under which we were operating in his first post on the subject. So much so that he just linked to it himself.

And in case you're wondering if at that time we were talking about gods, here is what he was replying to.

You cannot KNOW that certain gods aren't real. It requires a leap of faith and suspension of logic that we should only expect from zealots.

Seriously, this is just dumb. There are a billion reasons why knowledge of an actual existing god would not necessarily exist from the beginning of time. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

You cannot KNOW that certain gods aren't real. It requires a leap of faith and suspension of logic that we should only expect from zealots.

Again, these are his and my first posts on the subject. He replied to a post about gods and explained exactly how under the rules of logic one would evidence their non-existence. He agreed to this landscape whether you like it or not.

I hate to step in, I've been vaguely following this but...

If one cannot show any evidence whatsoever for existence or non-existence, then the default position is that it does not exist.

Not logically, nor scientifically. The default position is no position. A position in science and logic requires evidence. The effect of no position and a position of non-existence may be the same, but the position is not. One is an unverifiable assertion and another is a justified, rational position.

For things we can actually provide evidence for, like bigfoot, where we can predict based on the claims about him, that by looking for specific evidence, we know would appear from a creature of that size and with those properties, we can actually evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. Similarly with Nessie and other natural myths.

Regardless, you will never find a scientific position on something we've got no evidence whatsoever for.

You cannot KNOW that certain gods aren't real. It requires a leap of faith and suspension of logic that we should only expect from zealots.

"We know that the Earth is several billion years old. Therefore, we know that the (literally-interpreted) Biblical God does not exist."

Fair?

"We know that the Earth is several billion years old. Therefore, we know that the (literally-interpreted) Biblical God does not exist."

Fair?

More accurately, that would be, "We know that the Earth is several billion years old. Therefore, the chronology produced by James Ussher based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong." Even the question of the age of the Earth doesn't do anything to disprove God, more to bring the accuracy of an interpretation of the Bible into question.

Not logically, nor scientifically. The default position is no position. A position in science and logic requires evidence. The effect of no position and a position of non-existence may be the same, but the position is not. One is an unverifiable assertion and another is a justified, rational position.

For things we can actually provide evidence for, like bigfoot, where we can predict based on the claims about him, that by looking for specific evidence, we know would appear from a creature of that size and with those properties, we can actually evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. Similarly with Nessie and other natural myths.

Regardless, you will never find a scientific position on something we've got no evidence whatsoever for.

The initial state is nothing.

After that, you can posit something, from there you can make any assumption about what that something is.

The logical place to start therefore: is nothing.

You unintentionally state it yourself - the default state is 'no position'.

The default state is not 'position'.

It is nothing.

more to bring the accuracy of an interpretation of the Bible into question.

Yeah, that's what I said.

The notion that the Earth was created in seven literal days is not consistent at all with the conclusions of modern science... nor is the chronology of creation, even keeping strictly to the Bible.

Anyway, the point was that we can indeed demonstrate that certain gods do not exist, when their qualities and deeds are known not to be possible.

The initial state is nothing.

After that, you can posit something, from there you can make any assumption about what that something is.

The logical place to start therefore: is nothing.

You unintentionally state it yourself - the default state is 'no position'.

The default state is not 'position'.

It is nothing.

So the default state would be 'I have no position on the existence, or lack thereof, of god'.

So the default state would be 'I have no position on the existence, or lack thereof, of god'.

No, because to posit a god posits some thing.

The starting point is 0 - no thing.

Adding a god into the equation is adding 1

So now you're making it 0 or 1.

The starting point is logically 0.

i read the thread. i know what she meant. that you have decided that it means something ugly doesnt mean that your way is the way it should taken.

Wow. Just, wow.

I just quoted her. Quoted. Word-for-word - saying that if you aren't a Christian, you're a bad person. Earlier in the thread she's even said that there's only two levels in the universe: God, and everything else. The "everything else" includes rapists, murderers, child molesters, Jews, Athiests, and your neighbor Earl all in the same catagory. It also includes Christians, but she says they're the ones going to heaven so what's it matter if before they die they're in the same catagory?

You're dillusional, Ash.

No, because to posit a god posits some thing.

The starting point is 0 - no thing.

Adding a god into the equation is adding 1

So now you're making it 0 or 1.

The starting point is logically 0.

I'm not positing a god (what does positing mean, anyways? I'm using it the same way I use 'claim').

I'm saying that any claim about god (i.e. the idea that god does not exist) is itself a posit. It is an addition, to use your metaphor.

For things we can actually provide evidence for, like bigfoot, where we can predict based on the claims about him, that by looking for specific evidence, we know would appear from a creature of that size and with those properties, we can actually evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

Yeah, right. And we can do exactly the same thing for any particular notion of divinity.

Some very vague notions, and some notions that explicitly exclude divine intervention, may indeed be beyond empirical demonstration either way. But not all notions. And certainly not the notions in which most people believe.

Among other things, one would expect an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God that intervenes in the world to be more visible--especially when His followers so constantly disagree about what He wants.

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

Good Point Smunkeeville.

To Nihelm: Scripture is clear that God is "The Only True God". Just because there are other "gods" doesn't mean that they are true. The only real power the Devil has over you is that he knows the full truth and glory of the Lord (in other words: he knows more than you do and even he can quote scripture to his advantage) and he is a very good liar (which goes hand-in-hand with his vast knowledge). So good that all he needs to do is convince you that you're completely justified living in carnality. For the most part, it is his your own perverse flesh that drives you to stay. The answer: Reject that which distracts you from the Kingdom and don't look back. As Paul once said "Flee from iniquity!"

I'm not positing a god (what does positing mean, anyways? I'm using it the same way I use 'claim').

I'm saying that any claim about god (i.e. the idea that god does not exist) is itself a posit. It is an addition, to use your metaphor.

Position is a derivative of "posit". A position on something is "to posit". Should make it easier to understand and use.

Position is a derivative of "posit". A position on something is "to posit". Should make it easier to understand and use.

Thanks, so in my previous post, I should have said "I'm saying that any claim about god (i.e. the idea that god does not exist) is itself a position"

I'm saying that any claim that god does not exist is itself a posit. It is an addition, to use your metaphor.

An addition to what?

This is precisely the point. Regardless of what you THINK he was talking about, he said he did say he was going to analyze the properties of supernatural entities to eliminate them from existence. That's the point. What he says he was arguing, and what he actually argued are two different things.

The difference is that he claimed it from an epistemological viewpoint, which gives it an entirely different meaning than the one you are trying to impose on it.

An addition to what?

An addition to the starting position. I'm just using your metaphor from this post:

No, because to posit a god posits some thing.

The starting point is 0 - no thing.

Adding a god into the equation is adding 1

So now you're making it 0 or 1.

The starting point is logically 0.

I didn't make up these rules. He agreed they were the rules under which we were operating in his first post on the subject. So much so that he just linked to it himself.

i don't recall calling them rules. in fact, the very language of that post calls them an example. specifically, an example aimed at undermining the claim i was responding to - your statement that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
yes it is. for example, if i propose that there is some entity that exists and has certain properties and will in some way be observable in certain circumstances, and then isn't so observed, that is absolutely evidence of lack.

nothing there implies that formula to be the only way for a lack of evidence to be evidence of lack, it merely shows that there is a way for it to be, and therefore demonstrates your claim to be wrong.

christianity is a monotheistic religion, thats plain and simple

as to God existing or not existing, the whole thing is a gamble

if you believe that God exists and you act accordingly and are right, you will apparently be rewarded in the afterlife with eternal happiness

if you believe that God exists and you act accordingly and are wrong, you will have spent years of your life not fully enjoying life as you may have wanted

if you deny the existance of God and act accordingly and are right, you will have lived according to your own standards a full life

if you deny the existance of God and act accordingly and are wrong, you will apparently suffer eternal damnation and prepetual pain

it is a very serious question and must be given very long and careful consideration, personally i do believe in the existance of God because it is logical that there is a God, not necessarily any God of any set religion, but a supreme deity, definately

An addition to the starting position. I'm just using your metaphor from this post:

The concept of 0, or no thing, caused great consternation in Ancient Greece, to the point where it was banned - one can see why :)

It depends what you mean by mythology.

What GBrooks is saying is that if you want to have a clear discussion about religion, scientific methodology, and philosophy, you have to understand the terms, or at least make an effort.

For example, 'metaphysical' pertains to more abstract questions, but does not specifically deal with things that are not physical. So when you say that experiencing god is either physical or metaphysical, you are using the words incorrectly. An experience of god can be physical, and have metaphysical implications. It doesn't have to be one or the other.People do not have metaphysical experiences. Because this is so god(s) must be physical, or people who claim to have had experiences with them are liars.

An addition to what?

Bingo.

What's the difference?



Would it? Please explain.

The original reference, as you may know, was Free Soviets'. He compared the verifiability of God to that of a Chinese-made teapot orbiting a particular star in the Andromeda galaxy. This is a fallacy because:
Teapots have known quantities. I happen to have a Chinese-made teapot in my house as we speak, so I know a bit about them.
To put a teapot in orbit around any star in Andromeda would require that the Chinese be able to have launched a vehicle capable of reaching Andromeda. The Chinese have yet to land on the moon.
To reach Andromeda, the vehicle (assuming that it traveled at the speed of modern spacecraft) would have to have been launched several million years before the appearance of homo sapiens as a species.
Of course, if all that managed to take place, and the vehicle containing the teapot actually reached a star in Andromeda, putting the teapot into orbit would be a relatively simple matter.


Because the Chinese teapot is a physical object with known quantities, we know it must be transported physically with some sort of spacegoing vehicle. So while if there was a Chinese teapot orbiting that star at this moment, I would have no way to prove it, the chain of events that would necessarily lead to its being there is impossible, so the statement that there is a Chinese teapot orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy is proven false.

We do not know whether God would leave evidence of His existence. We do not know if God would conceal evidence of His existence. We do not know what any such evidence would look like or how to detect it.

So for the last time, God is not, in this case at least, comparable to a teapot. Stop trying to twist my argument into some bullshit "it's impossible to prove that anything exists anywhere, because the only thing I can verify is that I exist" college sophomore philosophy major explanation. It's not, and the fact that you even attempt it reveals your own ineptness.

christianity is a monotheistic religion, thats plain and simple

as to God existing or not existing, the whole thing is a gamble

if you believe that God exists and you act accordingly and are right, you will apparently be rewarded in the afterlife with eternal happiness

if you believe that God exists and you act accordingly and are wrong, you will have spent years of your life not fully enjoying life as you may have wanted

if you deny the existance of God and act accordingly and are right, you will have lived according to your own standards a full life

if you deny the existance of God and act accordingly and are wrong, you will apparently suffer eternal damnation and prepetual pain

it is a very serious question and must be given very long and careful consideration, personally i do believe in the existance of God because it is logical that there is a God, not necessarily any God of any set religion, but a supreme deity, definately

Ok a Deist. You believe in creator, but not a personnal God you can be close to. Not slaming you here. Yes, since the Universe had a set begining (Einstein determined this in spite of his not wanting there to be a set begining) it would not be a giant leap to see that there might be a creative entity or force.

People do not have metaphysical experiences. Because this is so god(s) must be physical, or people who claim to have had experiences with them are liars.

"Existing" is a metaphysical experience. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that includes ontology, which relates to "being."

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

Good Point Smunkeeville.

To Nihelm: Scripture is clear that God is "The Only True God". Just because there are other "gods" doesn't mean that they are true. The only real power the Devil has over you is that he knows the full truth and glory of the Lord (in other words: he knows more than you do and even he can quote scripture to his advantage) and he is a very good liar (which goes hand-in-hand with his vast knowledge). So good that all he needs to do is convince you that you're completely justified living in carnality. For the most part, it is his your own perverse flesh that drives you to stay. The answer: Reject that which distracts you from the Kingdom and don't look back. As Paul once said "Flee from iniquity!"

"Existing" is a metaphysical experience. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that includes ontology, which relates to "being.""Existing" is not an experience.

Good Point Smunkeeville.

To Nihelm: Scripture is clear that God is "The Only True God". Just because there are other "gods" doesn't mean that they are true. The only real power the Devil has over you is that he knows the full truth and glory of the Lord (in other words: he knows more than you do and even he can quote scripture to his advantage) and he is a very good liar (which goes hand-in-hand with his vast knowledge). So good that all he needs to do is convince you that you're completely justified living in carnality. For the most part, it is his your own perverse flesh that drives you to stay. The answer: Reject that which distracts you from the Kingdom and don't look back. As Paul once said "Flee from iniquity!"Please save us this christian drooling. :rolleyes:

The original reference, as you may know, was Free Soviets'. He compared the verifiability of God to that of a Chinese-made teapot orbiting a particular star in the Andromeda galaxy. This is a fallacy because:
Teapots have known quantities. I happen to have a Chinese-made teapot in my house as we speak, so I know a bit about them.
To put a teapot in orbit around any star in Andromeda would require that the Chinese be able to have launched a vehicle capable of reaching Andromeda. The Chinese have yet to land on the moon.
To reach Andromeda, the vehicle (assuming that it traveled at the speed of modern spacecraft) would have to have been launched several million years before the appearance of homo sapiens as a species.
Of course, if all that managed to take place, and the vehicle containing the teapot actually reached a star in Andromeda, putting the teapot into orbit would be a relatively simple matter.


Because the Chinese teapot is a physical object with known quantities, we know it must be transported physically with some sort of spacegoing vehicle. So while if there was a Chinese teapot orbiting that star at this moment, I would have no way to prove it, the chain of events that would necessarily lead to its being there is impossible, so the statement that there is a Chinese teapot orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy is proven false.

We do not know whether God would leave evidence of His existence. We do not know if God would conceal evidence of His existence. We do not know what any such evidence would look like or how to detect it.

So for the last time, God is not, in this case at least, comparable to a teapot. Stop trying to twist my argument into some bullshit "it's impossible to prove that anything exists anywhere, because the only thing I can verify is that I exist" college sophomore philosophy major explanation. It's not, and the fact that you even attempt it reveals your own ineptness.

Then Free Soviets misquoted Hoyle.

The original position is that it's an invisible teapot orbiting earth that is not subject to any scientific test.

I can subsitute that teapot, I can call it an elephant, I can call it a television, I can call it a quizzle, I can call it a god - it is much the same.

Is that teapot not as likely as any god?

Good Point Smunkeeville.

To Nihelm: Scripture is clear that God is "The Only True God". Just because there are other "gods" doesn't mean that they are true. The only real power the Devil has over you is that he knows the full truth and glory of the Lord (in other words: he knows more than you do and even he can quote scripture to his advantage) and he is a very good liar (which goes hand-in-hand with his vast knowledge). So good that all he needs to do is convince you that you're completely justified living in carnality. For the most part, it is his your own perverse flesh that drives you to stay. The answer: Reject that which distracts you from the Kingdom and don't look back. As Paul once said "Flee from iniquity!"

Romans 16:19 Be excellent at what is good. Be innocent of evil. ;)

"Existing" is not an experience.

You don't experience existing? How sad.

Is that teapot not as likely as any god?It is in fact likelier than the biblical god :D

You don't experience existing? How sad.weasel?

Please save us this christian drooling. :rolleyes:

:D we put up with you, surely it won't kill you to ignore that which makes you sick......I mean seriously? you can't just not comment? (me either apparently, we should start a club!)

It is in fact likelier than the biblical god :D

I, for one, welcome our teapot overlords :)

weasel?

Yes! Weasels experience existing, as do most life-forms. As do I. Apparently there are exceptions. :p

Edit: maybe this will help.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Main.html

Yes! Weasels experience existing, as do most life-forms. As do I. Apparently there are exceptions. :prubbish. you are weaseling. what experience of "existing" does a chair have? or does it not exist?

rubbish. you are weaseling. what experience of "existing" does a chair have? or does it not exist?

Who experiences the chair's existence? Wouldn't that be the person who looks at it and says, "Oh, look! a chair."

The concept of 0, or no thing, caused great consternation in Ancient Greece, to the point where it was banned - one can see why :)

Damn arabs! :D

People do not have metaphysical experiences. Because this is so god(s) must be physical, or people who claim to have had experiences with them are liars.

"Existing" is a metaphysical experience. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that includes ontology, which relates to "being."

One could say that existence is the metaphysical experience. The point is that you are using the word 'metaphysical' incorrectly.

Please save us this christian drooling. :rolleyes:

Sometimes it is difficult to be patient with you.

Romans 16:19 Be excellent at what is good. Be innocent of evil. ;)

Thank you. Yes, it is that simple.

Thank you. Yes, it is that simple.
apparently though, it's backwards, and stupid, and ugly.

One could say that existence is the metaphysical experience. The point is that you are using the word 'metaphysical' incorrectly.

Not incorrect, just a different context.

christianity is a monotheistic religion, thats plain and simple

Lawl, no it's not.

apparently though, it's backwards, and stupid, and ugly.

If it had left it at that one quote, it wouldn't be.

apparently though, it's backwards, and stupid, and ugly.

Many things that are historically associated with religion are backwards, stupid, and ugly. Unfortunately.

However, this has nothing to do with God, his existence, and the spirit of communion that drives believers to make the world a better place.

Blessings of agape, Smunkee.

EDIT:

Not incorrect, just a different context.

Really? I thought he was using it to mean 'immaterial' or 'transcendent'; i.e. not physical.

Many things that are historically associated with religion are backwards, stupid, and ugly. Unfortunately.

However, this has nothing to do with God, his existence, and the spirit of communion that drives believers to make the world a better place.

Blessings of agape, Smunkee.

:eek: agape :eek:

Many things that are historically associated with religion are backwards, stupid, and ugly.Only since christianity became popular. Christianity cost humanity 1000 years of social and technical development/improvement.

Really? I thought he was using it to mean 'immaterial' or 'transcendent'; i.e. not physical.
*nod* Different context. Not even unrelated.

"We know that the Earth is several billion years old. Therefore, we know that the (literally-interpreted) Biblical God does not exist."

Fair?

Actually, long ago in this conversation, I said a literal interpretation of the Bible is ludicrous. I think you'll find no opposition to such a statement from me.

However, I don't say that the stories about a being define the being.

Has God the properties described a literal interpretation of the Bible? Well, some of them are logically contradictary. However, being wrong about about how tall I am doesn't mean I don't exist or that the person someone described as me is not me.

However, this is really a semantics argument. Do Muslims, Christians, and Jews worship the same God? Technically, I'd say yes. In practice, I don't think Christians all worship the same God. But I don't believe that you can claim that beliefs about a being define the being unless that being is fictional. No one would suggest that if two people describe me differently that they aren't talking about the same me.

However, I don't say that the stories about a being define the being.

What does?

The initial state is nothing.

After that, you can posit something, from there you can make any assumption about what that something is.

The logical place to start therefore: is nothing.

You unintentionally state it yourself - the default state is 'no position'.

The default state is not 'position'.

It is nothing.

Nothing is no position. If I claim that you do not exist is this not an assertion? And you would debunk the assertion by showing evidence for existence.

If I say I don't know you exist, assuming I had never encountered you, then the only assertion I've made is about me state of understanding, I've not asserted anything about you.

Non-existence is a position, by definition, in the logical realm. No one gets a free pass. No claim does. The only way you can get away without providing evidence is to make no claim.

No, because to posit a god posits some thing.

The starting point is 0 - no thing.

Adding a god into the equation is adding 1

So now you're making it 0 or 1.

The starting point is logically 0.

The starting point is not 0. It's null. Null and 0 are not the same thing. You've debunked your own argument.

Take apples, for example.

You have a pal, Paul. The default postion for the number of apples Paul has is null. No information. You don't know how many apples Paul has.

As soon as you say Paul has 0 apples, you've made an assertion. Just as much of an assertion as if I said Paul had 10.

Yeah, right. And we can do exactly the same thing for any particular notion of divinity.

Some very vague notions, and some notions that explicitly exclude divine intervention, may indeed be beyond empirical demonstration either way. But not all notions. And certainly not the notions in which most people believe.

Among other things, one would expect an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God that intervenes in the world to be more visible--especially when His followers so constantly disagree about what He wants.

No, you can't. You can say that they did not take the actions that people claim. In some cases, you can show logical inconsistencies that would disprove a god with those traits. However, per the existence of gods, we cannot actually speak to that. Show me one lick of evidence against gods that isn't really about whether or not they did certain things they are posited to have done.

When disproving Bigfoot, we say that there is no animal that has the traits that they claim because we know things about animals and predict what an animal of that size would produce, effect, etc. We cannot do the same with the supernatural, because all of the means we have for predicting things about an animal, we do not have available to us. We have to create limits, manufacture them, in order to pretend to address dieties.

You have a pal, Paul. The default postion for the number of apples Paul has is null. No information. You don't know how many apples Paul has.

Indeed. And if you want an apple, you might reasonably ask, "Hey, Paul, do you have an apple?"

Have you ever (seriously) asked your friends if they are gods in disguise?

The difference is that he claimed it from an epistemological viewpoint, which gives it an entirely different meaning than the one you are trying to impose on it.

No, he didn't. He made explicit claims of what kind of evidence required for such a claim of non-existence. If he would have been operating in the realm that he was claiming originally he wouldn't have protested when I said that absent specific properties, you cannot disprove an entity. He said they were defined and could be actively disproved. He has yet to show this occuring.

I'm not willing to debate with you whether he claimed he could provide evidence. It's there in plain English. He said he could do it. He hasn't. Asking him for evidence he said he could provide is not trying to force him onto my field. I was playing on my field and he jumped in and offered to play and offered to play according to the same rules I am still requiring. It wasn't untill he lost that he wanted to change those rules.

In some cases, you can show logical inconsistencies that would disprove a god with those traits.

So we can, in fact, know that certain gods are not real?

However, per the existence of gods, we cannot actually speak to that.

This doesn't square with your last statement, unless you mean "we cannot know that no gods of any kind exist"--something about which we agree, and I said so in my last post.

Show me one lick of evidence against gods that isn't really about whether or not they did certain things they are posited to have done.

But we need not even go there... we can talk, as we do about Bigfoot, of what a god with certain traits can be expected to do.

Of course, we cannot have certainty. We cannot know that our reasonable expectations regarding the expression of those traits in fact hold; perhaps the evidence is hidden, or perhaps God works in ways more mysterious than we expected. But the same can be said for Bigfoot. Perhaps aliens are carefully obscuring most of the evidence of its passing, for instance; perhaps the reptilian space creatures from another dimension that control everything are carefully censoring it.

We cannot do the same with the supernatural, because all of the means we have for predicting things about an animal, we do not have available to us.

"God is alleged to be an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being. The natural laws of the world, however, give every appearance of being morally neutral--they harm good people as well as evil ones. We would therefore expect that a morally perfect being who was also omnipotent would miraculously interfere with natural law to result in just outcomes. Yet very little evidence for such interference exists, and horrifically unjust outcomes remain routine. The evidence indicates, therefore, that the omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect version of God doesn't exist."

Seems legitimate to me.

Indeed. And if you want an apple, you might reasonably ask, "Hey, Paul, do you have an apple?"

Have you ever (seriously) asked your friends if they are gods in disguise?

Um, you don't actually hope this is a logical argument. What follows from that is a statement about what I believe, not what I can logically demonstrate.

If a claim to existence or a claim to non-existence where the only options, you might have a point, but I don't have to claim either. Your lack of acceptance of the options does not change them.

By the way, I've never seriously asked my friends if they were cats in disguise. Does that mean I can claim cats don't exist?

Um, you don't actually hope this is a logical argument.

I asked a question. I did not make an argument.

If a claim to existence or a claim to non-existence where the only options, you might have a point, but I don't have to claim either.

What are you talking about? I never said you did.

By the way, I've never seriously asked my friends if they were cats in disguise. Does that mean I can claim cats don't exist?

No. But it certainly would mean that you don't really think that the default "no position" applies to that question.

Similarly, the fact that it is not reasonable to ask our friends whether they are gods in disguise indicates that we have a position on that question, too. But if it is true that the supernatural status of the divine elevates it beyond the realm of proof, it hardly seems that this position should be any more demonstrable than "God does not exist."

After all, we can't really prove it, can we?

So we can, in fact, know that certain gods are not real?


The point in what I said was that there are certain we cannot make that claim about. Proving that we can do so about some does not address that point.


This doesn't square with your last statement, unless you mean "we cannot know that no gods of any kind exist"--something about which we agree, and I said so in my last post.

What I said was that we cannot disprove certain gods, not that we cannot disprove any gods. Certain gods cannot be shown to not exist. This is not the same as saying no gods can.

It could have been clearer, but it doesn't say what you're saying it does.

But we need not even go there... we can talk, as we do about Bigfoot, of what a god with certain traits can be expected to do.

Of course, we cannot have certainty. We cannot know that our reasonable expectations regarding the expression of those traits in fact hold; perhaps the evidence is hidden, or perhaps God works in ways more mysterious than we expected. But the same can be said for Bigfoot. Perhaps aliens are carefully obscuring most of the evidence of its passing, for instance; perhaps the reptilian space creatures from another dimension that control everything are carefully censoring it.

Amusing. The same cannot be said of a natural creature. Bigfoot could in fact be supernatural, but then it would fall into the supernatural realm, we don't make claims about. That's why the actually logical claim is to say that a creature with the traits of Bigfoot does not exist.


"God is alleged to be an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being. The natural laws of the world, however, give every appearance of being morally neutral--they harm good people as well as evil ones. We would therefore expect that a morally perfect being who was also omnipotent would miraculously interfere with natural law to result in just outcomes. Yet very little evidence for such interference exists, and horrifically unjust outcomes remain routine. The evidence indicates, therefore, that the omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect version of God doesn't exist."

Seems legitimate to me.

Based on what experience? What experience do you have with morally perfect beings that would give you the impression they would interfere? How do you make such an assertion? Because morally imperfect, non-omnitient beings who might do so, and often do so with disasterous results?

In you limited capacity, how could you possibly make such an assertion as to claim to know what the "good" action would be?