NationStates Jolt Archive

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right

Hmm.

I think they actually have the advertisers on this one. Since the claim is "there probably is no God", the onus is on them to prove that that is likely the case.

Of course, this is based on how the ASA code defines "probably", I guess. I'm not familiar.

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right

I think the Church forget who bears the onus of proof here. All the atheist advert does is call them out on lacking evidence.

I think the Church forget who bears the onus of proof here. All the atheist advert does is call them out on lacking evidence.

Actually, it doesn't. The onus would be on the church if they said "There's no evidence for God" or "There is no proof of God". By saying "there probably is no God", they shifted the onus to themselves to prove that.

Actually, it doesn't. The onus would be on the church if they said "There's no evidence for God" or "There is no proof of God". By saying "there probably is no God", they shifted the onus to themselves to prove that.

Oh great. Proving a negative. Well they're screwed.

Well Carlsberg got away for years with the phrase "probably the best lager in the World".

Oh great. Proving a negative. Well they're screwed.

Indeed they are - but they brought it on themselves.

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.


I always thought the complexity of the world really pointed more to God not existing, then existing. I mean, at some level, we should just see things working, we don't really have a need for, say, cells, or hormones, or most of our organs, certainty most physical laws don't need to exist.

Actually, it doesn't. The onus would be on the church if they said "There's no evidence for God" or "There is no proof of God". By saying "there probably is no God", they shifted the onus to themselves to prove that.

All they have to do is say "there is no evidence for God; therefore our advertisement is accurate."
Indeed, those attacking the ads seem to realize this, as their attacks take the form of "well there is plenty of evidence God exists!" without producing any of said evidence. There's a reason they're not pulling "there is no evidence he doesn't" line of attack here-- they realize that it's silly.

All they have to do is say "there is no evidence for God; therefore our advertisement is accurate."
Indeed, those attacking the ads seem to realize this, as their attacks take the form of "well there is plenty of evidence God exists!" without producing any of said evidence. There's a reason they're not pulling "there is no evidence he doesn't" line of attack here-- they realize that it's silly.

I think you give these religious types too much credit. By using that dreadful word "probably", I think legally they will have to prove a >50% chance that God does not, in fact, exist. 50% or lower, and it might be false advertisement.

And, as you said, proving a negative is... well, difficult.

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right

The word 'probably' is probably their security. It means that (realistically) they are saying there is a greater chance than the other result - i.e. they are saying there's a greater chance there's NOT a god, than the chance that there is one.

Which is hard to argue against, in real terms, because it means you have to show that your own argument is more 'probable' than theirs.

Ah drat - the onus of proof is indeed on them :(
Why did they not use something like "God murders babies" ? Too afraid that would backfire despite it being in the Bible ?

In any case, they can always use the "which God is supposed to be real then" argument, and put a Catholic, a Protestant, a Calvinist, a Mormon and for good measure a few Moslims, Hindus and so forth in the same room. After they have all disproven eachothers idea of God, the atheists just nod and say "we agree with all of them".

All they have to do is say "there is no evidence for God; therefore our advertisement is accurate."
Indeed, those attacking the ads seem to realize this, as their attacks take the form of "well there is plenty of evidence God exists!" without producing any of said evidence. There's a reason they're not pulling "there is no evidence he doesn't" line of attack here-- they realize that it's silly.

I wonder if they'll really go into an actual court(or wherever one would settle a dispute of this nature) and have people testify that they felt God's presence, or that gravity is within the range that allows life to come about, thus God must have made it that way or something like that. It'll be like the devout noobs that show up here and try to scientifically prove their beliefs, but in an actually important setting. Hilarious.





I wonder how much the tickets would go for.......

Indeed they are - but they brought it on themselves.

No! They haven't!

Besides, not only is this absurd, Christian Voice here is treating God as if He/She/It were a PRODUCT!

Can it go any more dysfunctional than THAT?

No! They haven't!

Besides, not only is this absurd, Christian Voice here is treating God as if He/She/It were a PRODUCT!

Can it go any more dysfunctional than THAT?

You can go with some of the far eastern religions and get them two for the price of one.

In any case, they can always use the "which God is supposed to be real then" argument, and put a Catholic, a Protestant, a Calvinist, a Mormon and for good measure a few Moslims, Hindus and so forth in the same room. After they have all disproven eachothers idea of God, the atheists just nod and say "we agree with all of them".

Unfortunately, I think that would only weaken their case - as now we have several gods contending for the title, as opposed to a lack of them.

Unfortunately, I think that would only weaken their case - as now we have several gods contending for the title, as opposed to a lack of them.

True - but it is up to the prosecution to define God. You cannot charge someone for "claiming something that we cannot even describe does probably not exist".

True - but it is up to the prosecution to define God. You cannot charge someone for "claiming something that we cannot even describe does probably not exist".

The exact phrase being - "There probably is no God".

That means multiple gods would count as being a disproof to that statement. As, it denies both singles and multiples, and even different theories regarding.

The exact phrase being - "There probably is no God".

That means multiple gods would count as being a disproof to that statement. As, it denies both singles and multiples.

Nope. They can easily claim that God with a capital letter denotes a single, identifiable entity. If they really want a cop-out, they could use the FSM.
"There probably is no god" would however indeed be .. painful.

Unfortunately, I think that would only weaken their case - as now we have several gods contending for the title, as opposed to a lack of them.

Found a loophole!

Listen.

Claiming God probably does not exist doesn't preclude goddesses, minor gods, and so on. There are and were MANY MORE religions than simply the three biggest ones, and in most of them, God as that name isn't the power.

As such, among ALL religions, God with that name does NOT, in fact, probably exist!

I need a Briton to call these guys!

Nope. They can easily claim that God with a capital letter denotes a single, identifiable entity. If they really want a cop-out, they could use the FSM.
"There probably is no god" would however indeed be .. painful.

Valid point. Hmm... this case may very well come to the grammatical structure and display of the sentence.

However, even if that's the case, they'd have to prove that there's greater than a 50% chance that each monotheistic religion is false.

However, they can group christianity/judaism as one and muslim as one, since they ostensibly worship the same god(s).

Unfortunately, I think that would only weaken their case - as now we have several gods contending for the title, as opposed to a lack of them.

Then you just divide up evidence so no god has the required >50% probability of existing.

*can see entire case hinging on if burning bush is evidence of Abrahamic God or Vespa*

However, even if that's the case, they'd have to prove that there's greater than a 50% chance that each monotheistic religion is false.

However, they can group christianity/judaism as one and muslim as one, since they ostensibly worship the same god(s).

1- Actually not necessary per se - Other religions have different names for God(ess)(e)(s) than God.

2- True.

1- Actually not necessary per se - Other religions have different names for God(ess)(e)(s) than God.

So do Christians. They just have a habit of not using it:

Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH, Jah (for short)

So do Christians. They just have a habit of not using it:

Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH, Jah (for short)

That seals the deal for Christianism as well then. :D

I think you give these religious types too much credit. By using that dreadful word "probably", I think legally they will have to prove a >50% chance that God does not, in fact, exist. 50% or lower, and it might be false advertisement.

And, as you said, proving a negative is... well, difficult.

Even if it's not what the religious people were intending, the atheists could argue:
1) The theist side claimed that our advertisement is wrong because "there is plenty of evidence for God's existence."
2) By saying that it is the existence of evidence that makes our ads misleading, they are implicitly admitting that if there were no evidence for God, then our claim would not be misleading.
3) There is no evidence for God.
4) Therefore, our ads are not misleading.

That seals the deal for Christianism as well then. :D

Not at all - because you are using God like a name, where it's actually a title. Anyone who could conceivably claim that title (God capitalized being Almighty God) must be proven to have a greater than 50% chance of not existing.

And, as we have discussed, proving a negative is really really difficult.

Even if it's not what the religious people were intending, the atheists could argue:
1) The theist side claimed that our advertisement is wrong because "there is plenty of evidence for God's existence."
2) By saying that it is the existence of evidence that makes our ads misleading, they are implicitly admitting that if there were no evidence for God, then our claim would not be misleading.
3) There is no evidence for God.
4) Therefore, our ads are not misleading.

Which is a flaw in the theist's argument that might be turned against them, if they present the argument that way in court. However, only what is said in court is admissible in court in this case. All the theists have to do is ask the defense for evidence of nonexistence, and when there is none, blanketly claim that it's impossible to say if God exists or not, therefore the "probably not" claim cannot be substantiated.

Case closed.

That's if they're smart. We'll see what happens.

Not at all - because you are using God like a name, where it's actually a title. Anyone who could conceivably claim that title (God capitalized being Almighty God) must be proven to have a greater than 50% chance of not existing.

And, as we have discussed, proving a negative is really really difficult.

But that goes to the DEFINITION of God, then, turning the argument into a semantics one and rendering it moot. And at any rate, it's STILL proven by the fact that there are more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones.

Further, they don't have to prove anything, just as Coca-Cola does not need to prove that their product tastes better than Pepsi. Or, to use a common example, that Diet [Drink] tastes just like Regular [Drink]. All the atheists need to do is show that their position is reasonable, since the strength of the evidence is somewhat subjective. I have yet to encounter a diet drink that I think tastes like the regular version, but that doesn't mean I can sue Coca-Cola or Pepsi for false advertisement, does it?

Which is a flaw in the theist's argument that might be turned against them, if they present the argument that way in court. However, only what is said in court is admissible in court in this case. All the theists have to do is ask the defense for evidence of nonexistence, and when there is none, blanketly claim that it's impossible to say if God exists or not, therefore the "probably not" claim cannot be substantiated.

Case closed.

That's if they're smart. We'll see what happens.

First of all, the atheists can argue that the lack of evidence for god is sufficient for "probably not." After all, that's the standard we use for almost everything else. If there's no evidence that a certain place tends to have a lot of tornadoes, we assume it doesn't and don't build structures to withstand tornadoes. Barring that, they can go the route I just posted, and argue that, since the strength of the evidence is somewhat subjective, they need only show that their claim is a reasonable one, which is much easier.

But that goes to the DEFINITION of God, then, turning the argument into a semantics one and rendering it moot. And at any rate, it's STILL proven by the fact that there are more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones.

Ahh... definitions.

Thanks to www.webster.com we have one. The first definition is what we're looking for:

God
n.

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


Have to prove in the negative anyone who goes for that title.

Ahh... definitions.

Thanks to www.webster.com we have one. The first definition is what we're looking for:

God
n.

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


Have to prove in the negative anyone who goes for that title.

Surely God has more than one entry in any dictionary. All the Atheists have to do is pick one they CAN prove and claim that's the one they were using.

First of all, the atheists can argue that the lack of evidence for god is sufficient for "probably not." After all, that's the standard we use for almost everything else. If there's no evidence that a certain place tends to have a lot of tornadoes, we assume it doesn't and don't build structures to withstand tornadoes. Barring that, they can go the route I just posted, and argue that, since the strength of the evidence is somewhat subjective, they need only show that their claim is a reasonable one, which is much easier.

Bad example. When determining building codes, tornado data (even if in small number) is examined to determine the number and severity of tornadoes in the region over a fixed time period. Even if few tornadoes pass through the area, the evidence is recorded and these trends are examined.

Also, it depends exactly what the burden of proof is for "probably". Does anyone know where to find the ASA code section they're referring to?

Which is a flaw in the theist's argument that might be turned against them, if they present the argument that way in court. However, only what is said in court is admissible in court in this case. All the theists have to do is ask the defense for evidence of nonexistence, and when there is none, blanketly claim that it's impossible to say if God exists or not, therefore the "probably not" claim cannot be substantiated.

Case closed.


If asked to prove evidence of nonexistence, the atheist defence could simply call god as a witness.

When he fails to respond...

Surely God has more than one entry in any dictionary. All the Atheists have to do is pick one they CAN prove and claim that's the one they were using.

That's all there is for when it's capitalized.

Bad example. When determining building codes, tornado data (even if in small number) is examined to determine the number and severity of tornadoes in the region over a fixed time period. Even if few tornadoes pass through the area, the evidence is recorded and these trends are examined.

But that's my whole point. We don't see tornadoes in a certain place, so we assume that they do not happen there. That is, lack of evidence for tornadoes implies there probably are no tornadoes. It doesn't prove it-- maybe nobody sees them and, for some reason that we haven't yet discovered, they don't show up on any sort of tracking technology.

By the same reasoning, they could argue, lack of evidence for God means there probably is not one.


Also, it depends exactly what the burden of proof is for "probably". Does anyone know where to find the ASA code section they're referring to?

I'm not sure, but it can't be more strict than when definitive statements are made, and I don't see, to return to the drink example, Coca-Cola getting fined for saying that Coke Zero tastes exactly like Coke, even if plenty of people can tell the difference.

No! They haven't!

Besides, not only is this absurd, Christian Voice here is treating God as if He/She/It were a PRODUCT!

Can it go any more dysfunctional than THAT?
*emails Christian Voice re:purchase of God"
If asked to prove evidence of nonexistence, the atheist defence could simply call god as a witness.

When he fails to respond...

I think the alleged omnipresence of God could be problematic there.

If asked to prove evidence of nonexistence, the atheist defence could simply call god as a witness.

When he fails to respond...

How do they deliver the subpoena?

I think the alleged omnipresence of God could be problematic there.

The alleged omnipresence doesn't stop 'his' lack of observable material presence from being a good argument for 'probable' non-existence.

The onus would then be on those attacking, to provide evidence that god WAS there, despite his lack of obvious response.

But that's my whole point. We don't see tornadoes in a certain place, so we assume that they do not happen there. That is, lack of evidence for tornadoes implies there probably are no tornadoes. It doesn't prove it-- maybe nobody sees them and, for some reason that we haven't yet discovered, they don't show up on any sort of tracking technology.

By the same reasoning, they could argue, lack of evidence for God means there probably is not one.

Not quite. For building data, we measure local wind speeds for a certain amount of time, and then write the building codes to ensure that we build properly.

But we do not assume that no tornadoes do not happen in the area. We make measurements and those provide physical evidence of an absence of high wind speeds. No assumption is taken. There is no 'lack of evidence'. There is evidence of a lack.

This is qualitatively different from god where we do have an absence of evidence, and in fact, must assume that that means that god does not exist.

How do they deliver the subpoena?

Newspaper notice. Next to "Ziggy".

How do they deliver the subpoena?

Prayer.
"Dear Lord, we thank you for the bounty we are about to receive. On an unrelated note, you have been served"

Prayer.
"Dear Lord, we thank you for the bounty we are about to receive. On an unrelated note, you have been served"

Ah, but if the defense says that God refuses to answer the subpoena, they must first admit God exists to refuse it!

If they defense can't admit his existence, they can't subpoena him.

Ah, but if the defense says that God refuses to answer the subpoena, they must first admit God exists to refuse it!

If they defense can't admit his existence, they can't subpoena him.

Then, by extension, simply refusing to issue a subpoena, would be evidence that god doesn't exist?

Then, by extension, simply refusing to issue a subpoena, would be evidence that god doesn't exist?

Nah, it would be evidence that the defense doesn't believe that God exists.

Prayer.
"Dear Lord, we thank you for the bounty we are about to receive. On an unrelated note, you have been served"
lol

good answer!

Nah, it would be evidence that the defense doesn't believe that God exists.

For real? Want to get them both ways?

Surely, if the defence were willing to see the subpoena served, it's not their fault if god refuses to exist in any objective noticable way?

Out of curiosity, if it turns out that jehovallahweh exists but is nowhere near omnibenevolent, omniscient or omnipotent, which side wins?

For real? Want to get them both ways?

Surely, if the defence were willing to see the subpoena served, it's not their fault if god refuses to exist in any objective noticable way?

Either way, it's been tried. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html)

And yes, in this case, by subpoenaing him, they either admit that he exists and that their subpoena was made in good faith, or they admit that they're mocking the court and/or wasting the court's time and therefore would be subject to contempt of court.

Either way, it's been tried. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html)

And yes, in this case, by subpoenaing him, they either admit that he exists and that their subpoena was made in good faith, or they admit that they're mocking the court and/or wasting the court's time and therefore would be subject to contempt of court.

How is it that THEY are mocking the court? You're suggesting that these atheists need to present evidence in a case for which there IS no evidence. A religious body that pushed that case would be making a mockery of the court by presenting it.

The defence are being asked to provide the body that the prosecution couldn't find.

How is it that THEY are mocking the court? You're suggesting that these atheists need to present evidence in a case for which there IS no evidence. A religious body that pushed that case would be making a mockery of the court by presenting it.

The defence are being asked to provide the body that the prosecution couldn't find.

Oh I quite agree that it's ridiculous no matter how you look at it. Don't get me wrong - but this particular group has made the claim that God "probably doesn't exist", and, if the case goes through, must provide some sort of backing for this claim. Depending on the text of the ASA, the amount of backing for this could be major or minor.

That's what this suit is about - the prosecution is seeking evidence for a claim that the defense made. The evidence of which the prosecution is well aware of doesn't exist.

Oh I quite agree that it's ridiculous no matter how you look at it. Don't get me wrong - but this particular group has made the claim that God "probably doesn't exist", and, if the case goes through, must provide some sort of backing for this claim. Depending on the text of the ASA, the amount of backing for this could be major or minor.

That's what this suit is about - the prosecution is seeking evidence for a claim that the defense made. The evidence of which the prosecution is well aware of doesn't exist.

Which means that the prosecution are making a mockery, not the defence.

This group has made the claim that 'God probably doesn't exist' - which is being considered controversial - but there is no 'probably' in the claims they are responding to. So, the first question that the courts should consider is - why should we hold the defence to a different standard than the prosecution are held to?

Which means that the prosecution are making a mockery, not the defence.

This group has made the claim that 'God probably doesn't exist' - which is being considered controversial - but there is no 'probably' in the claims they are responding to. So, the first question that the courts should consider is - why should we hold the defence to a different standard than the prosecution are held to?

Because, and let me say this carefully - this case has absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not. Let me repeat - it does not matter for the prosecution to prove God to exist, or even that he "probably" does, because it does not matter whether he does or doesn't.

All that matters is that the defense has conducted an adequate amount of research to state in good faith that "God probably doesn't exist." As long as the claim is made in good faith - and by that I mean backed up by credible evidence - then the claim is free to stand. Otherwise, they have made a claim that they had no basis in making, and that means a lawsuit.

Because, and let me say this carefully - this case has absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not. Let me repeat - it does not matter for the prosecution to prove God to exist, or even that he "probably" does, because it does not matter whether he does or doesn't.

All that matters is that the defense has conducted an adequate amount of research to state in good faith that "God probably doesn't exist." As long as the claim is made in good faith - and by that I mean backed up by credible evidence - then the claim is free to stand. Otherwise, they have made a claim that they had no basis in making, and that means a lawsuit.

No - the point I was making wasn't about whether god exists or not. Neither side has any evidence that could actually stand. Which is why the court should immediately throw this case out as a waste of time - the simple fact that the prosecution would push a case for a crime they claim happened, but for which there is no evidence, should be enough reason for the judge to dismiss it.

If I say you murdered someone... but I can't show a body. Or a weapon. Or any evidence that the crime was committed... or even that the victim exists... you don't have to contrast how realistic my defence is - you shouldn't even be considering the 'crime' as anything more than fiction.

If I say you murdered someone... but I can't show a body. Or a weapon. Or any evidence that the crime was committed... or even that the victim exists... you don't have to contrast how realistic my defence is - you shouldn't even be considering the 'crime' as anything more than fiction.

Ok, first, let's draw a line between criminal and civil law.

Now that that's out of the way, the prosecution already has evidence - a claim was made that seems invalid. A claim was made that "God probably doesn't exist". The prosecution doesn't agree. They want to see the evidence that there is a >50% chance that God doesn't exist. If the defense has no such evidence (and they won't, since it's proving a negative), they have made an unsubstantiated claim and sold it to the public as fact, which is false advertising.

That's what the suit is about - the defense making an unsubstantiated claim.

Ok, first, let's draw a line between criminal and civil law.

Now that that's out of the way, the prosecution already has evidence - a claim was made that seems invalid. A claim was made that "God probably doesn't exist". The prosecution doesn't agree. They want to see the evidence that there is a >50% chance that God doesn't exist. If the defense has no such evidence (and they won't, since it's proving a negative), they have made an unsubstantiated claim and sold it to the public as fact, which is false advertising.

That's what the suit is about - the defense making an unsubstantiated claim.

How is the claim unsubstantiated?

Specifically - how is it 'unsubstantiated'.... when it is just a rebuttal of an unsubstantiated claim? That's the point I'm making - there is no grounds for the prosecution, because the BEST parallel would probably be a trade description violation. The prosecution are asking for a court to rule that the defence has to stop questioning the health benefits of a product the prosecution's client doesn't even make.

How is the claim unsubstantiated?

Presumably, there was no study done, no evidence considered, no surveys taken, and no single piece of research regarding the existence of God to back up that statement.

Specifically - how is it 'unsubstantiated'.... when it is just a rebuttal of an unsubstantiated claim?

A rebuttal of an unsubstantiated claim would be "There's no evidence that God exists." Or "They have no proof that God exists." Or "There is no proof that God exists." Or even "We don't believe in God." There's a lot of variations that would be considered a rebuttal, but in the context they put it, it's a claim. It's a negative claim surely, but still a claim.

That's the point I'm making - there is no grounds for the prosecution, because the BEST parallel would probably be a trade description violation. The prosecution are asking for a court to rule that the defence has to stop questioning the health benefits of a product the prosecution's client doesn't even make.

These two sentences didn't make sense to me. Could you elaborate please on the parallel you're trying to make?

I thought religion was based on faith, which means that they don't need any evidence. So it's a bit of hypocrisy from the christian side to attempt to portray anything as evidence for God's existence.

Presumably, there was no study done, no evidence considered, no surveys taken, and no single piece of research regarding the existence of God to back up that statement.


Why do you presume there is no study done? No evidence considered?

Let's you and I look at all the objective evidence, here and now, shall we?

...

And now we'll move on.


A rebuttal of an unsubstantiated claim would be "There's no evidence that God exists." Or "They have no proof that God exists." Or "There is no proof that God exists." Or even "We don't believe in God." There's a lot of variations that would be considered a rebuttal, but in the context they put it, it's a claim. It's a negative claim surely, but still a claim.


Even at worst, it's less of a claim than the opposition claim, for which there's no evidence. Why indulge it?

I really don't see why we're saying it's wrong to question an unsubstantiated claim... just because it's religion.


These two sentences didn't make sense to me. Could you elaborate please on the parallel you're trying to make?

One group is claiming they have a product. There is no evidence of this product. The second group is saying... hey, hang about, there's nothing there. And the first group is waving the law at them to stop them saying it.

If the judge has any brains, he'll look it over, and tell them you can't use the law to enforce belief... and that there's nothing illegal about saying a product that has never been seen, might not actually be there.

Why do you presume there is no study done? No evidence considered?

Let's you and I look at all the objective evidence, here and now, shall we?

...

And now we'll move on.

There isn't. But even before Pepsi says we taste better than coke, you can bet they had a taste test with 500 people to prove it. If there was a study or evidence considered, surely the group responsible would bring forth that evidence promptly so that the lawsuit would go away, right? Yet, they haven't done so. So, in all likelihood, there was no CYA maneuver accomplished.

Even at worst, it's less of a claim than the opposition claim, for which there's no evidence. Why indulge it?

I really don't see why we're saying it's wrong to question an unsubstantiated claim... just because it's religion.

But in this case, it is the theists that are questioning an unsubstantiated claim. They aren't the ones that put up billboards all over the place saying "God probably exists" or even "God exists". Granted, I think they should all be beaten severely for the "I believe in you. - God" signs, but that's another subject.

One group is claiming they have a product. There is no evidence of this product. The second group is saying... hey, hang about, there's nothing there. And the first group is waving the law at them to stop them saying it.

If the judge has any brains, he'll look it over, and tell them you can't use the law to enforce belief... and that there's nothing illegal about saying a product that has never been seen, might not actually be there.

Except, per your scenario, group 2 didn't go to group 1 and seek to see the product. They did not take legal action to make group 1 produce the product.

They put up 40,000 advertising signs saying that Group A doesn't have this product without due legal process or question. That would be, at best, libel.

Surely there's a counter-claim to any religious advertising then, do they really want to go down this road?

Surely there's a counter-claim to any religious advertising then, do they really want to go down this road?

I hope they do. The humor of it would be immense.

There isn't. But even before Pepsi says we taste better than coke, you can bet they had a taste test with 500 people to prove it. If there was a study or evidence considered, surely the group responsible would bring forth that evidence promptly so that the lawsuit would go away, right? Yet, they haven't done so. So, in all likelihood, there was no CYA maneuver accomplished.


But we're not talking about Pepsi. This wasn't Pepsi claiming that coke tastes funny - this was people in the cola marketplace complaining about an empty cup.

Their 'research' doesn't have to extend any further than looking in the cup and seeing nothing.

If Coke wants to do anything, they better prove that the cup wasn't empty.


But in this case, it is the theists that are questioning an unsubstantiated claim. They aren't the ones that put up billboards all over the place saying "God probably exists" or even "God exists". Granted, I think they should all be beaten severely for the "I believe in you. - God" signs, but that's another subject.


Actually, the argument has been made that the atheist posters we're probably inspired by an earlier series of Christian posters on bus-sides.


Except, per your scenario, group 2 didn't go to group 1 and seek to see the product. They did not take legal action to make group 1 produce the product.

They put up 40,000 advertising signs saying that Group A doesn't have this product without due legal process or question. That would be, at best, libel.

If that's the route they want to take. I'm not sure God is going to push the libel case.

Luckily, atheists have all the lawyers on their side.

Actually, the argument has been made that the atheist posters we're probably inspired by an earlier series of Christian posters on bus-sides.

And I want to see where this takes us. I actually hope the theists win, just to see the backlash.

I'm kind of twisted that way.

You do realise folks that this isn't going to court. It is a simple complaint made to the Advertising Standards Authority, who then adjudicate on this complaint.

Result - Nothing - the complaint was ungrounded
- Reworking of the advertisement - a minor problem
- Withdrawal of the advertisement - a major problem

I think probably misfortune is headed their way. They are probably in a world of trouble. You know he has a really long memory. You might as well go outside and paint a big target on you. Lightning aim here.

I think probably misfortune is headed their way. They are probably in a world of trouble. You know he has a really long memory. You might as well go outside and paint a big target on you. Lightning aim here.

That's right. Pissy, vengeful, puerile violence against any who dare offend you is the true mark of a higher intelligence.

Don't mess with the Almighty. Okay I am taking bets how long this sign stays up. I bet some strange misfortune, like the place burns down and no one is hurt or one of those huge cranes falls on it or a truck loaded with chickens looses control and crashes into it.

I am going with a truck load of chickens and none of the chickens are hurt as well. Sorry it I thought it was a building. Buses that is a whole other story. Moving target. Still doable though.

Indeed, God has a great track record in 'no one gets hurt'

Don't mess with the Almighty. Okay I am taking bets how long this sign stays up. I bet some strange misfortune, like the place burns down and no one is hurt or one of those huge cranes falls on it or a truck loaded with chickens looses control and crashes into it.

I am going with a truck load of chickens and none of the chickens are hurt as well. Sorry it I thought it was a building. Buses that is a whole other story. Moving target. Still doable though.

YOU are going with nothing.

God is not yours to control, use, or otherwise reflect YOUR wishes. This isn't God's punishment, this would be what YOU want, TB. YOU, YOU, and ONLY YOU. No God. God has nothing to do with YOUR wishes towards the people that disagree with YOU. It's about YOU, and you'd do well to admit it.

Assuming there is a God, we're talking about a kind of intelligence that's so far beyond our understanding that it isn't even funny. Yet here you are, claiming God will punish them for... speaking?

Do you THINK God would even CARE what people write? Do you THINK God is like you, me, heck, any of us?

I've studied the nature of reality for years and yet I can't lay claim to the understanding of God's designs. And here you are, not only claiming, with no base, that you do, but also claiming His designs are those of a... a what? A seven-year old terrorist? "Oh, they offend me, so I'll cause a disaster"? THAT'S your idea of a God? How can you even LIVE with the fear you must feel, of thinking, expressing or otherwise feeling and showing anything you think your God will disapprove, lest he... what? Smites you? Destroys your house, kills your family?

Do you really think these guys matter? Do you think YOU OR I matter?

"Target"? For what? An insult? The one insulting God here is YOU. YOU are the one claiming God is this childish. YOU are the one essentially calling God a terrorist with the maturity of a seven-year-old.

Those are the facts. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with ME.

That's right. Pissy, vengeful, puerile violence against any who dare offend you is the true mark of a higher intelligence.Hasn't this been the parenthetical sig for this forum?

Indeed, God has a great track record in 'no one gets hurt'
That's what repression is for, good chum!

Sorry if I'm a little confused, but why can't it be that the evidence for God's existence is the same as the evidence against his existence? For example, it's quite clear that there is "design" in nature (I'm not suggesting this is unnatural) and I doubt that ALL of the Christians in question here are of the "I'm-a-crazy-fundie" variety.

So if they consider this natural design evidence for God, why shouldn't the atheists believe them? Isn't that what "evidence for God" means? Unless we want to say to them we know what they believe better than they do themselves, which seems somewhat odd. We can't just take a limited stereotype and attack it; real arguments involve listening and responding to the opposition's position. I'm not sure that's happened here.

i think people look for 'evidence' of 'god' in all the wrong places. what IS abundantly obvious, well obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by the brainwashing of nonscholarly, nondisciplined elements of organized belief, is that there is so much more out there, then all of us together could ever even begin to know more then the tineyist fraction of, that its really ignorant for the most part to try and say what absolutely can or can't be, has to be or has to not be.

i also happen to believe, that what is really important, is that whatever is out there, certain things are up to us anyway. that it is up to us, because what ever is out there doesn't, hasn't shown itself to, work in ways contrary to this, to create and not destroy, whatever kind of a world, we actually do want to live in.

Well Carlsberg got away for years with the phrase "probably the best lager in the World".

An that means thread over. Carlsberg are still using that line in their ads, and have not yet been pulled up on it, so I'm guessing that no case can be made here.

An that means thread over. Carlsberg are still using that line in their ads, and have not yet been pulled up on it, so I'm guessing that no case can be made here.

Yes, they've never been challenged about it, despite many people vehemently disagreeing with the statement, myself included.

Yes, they've never been challenged about it, despite many people vehemently disagreeing with the statement, myself included.

Should really be "the third or fourth worst horse piss in the world, after carling and fosters and budweiser"

Yes, they've never been challenged about it, despite many people vehemently disagreeing with the statement, myself included.

The point being of course, the use of the word 'probably' in advertising has to be okay. Really it makes no claims, other than opinion. The makers of Carling can say that it is probably the best lager in the world, and not be called out on it because they can say, 'well it is our opinon that Carling probably is the best larger in the world, but then we would say that wouldn't we, after all we make it'.

There is no claim, no false claim, it is pure opinion. So these Atheist posters on the buses that claim there is probably no God, really is not false advertising.

The point being of course, the use of the word 'probably' in advertising has to be okay. Really it makes no claims, other than opinion. The makers of Carling can say that it is probably the best lager in the world, and not be called out on it because they can say, 'well it is our opinon that Carling probably is the best larger in the world, but then we would say that wouldn't we, after all we make it'.

There is no claim, no false claim, it is pure opinion. So these Atheist posters on the buses that claim there is probably no God, really is not false advertising.

Exactly. I still find the whole thing rather amusing.

Exactly. I still find the whole thing rather amusing.

Heh indeed, it still suppries me somtimes just what people can get upset about.

You've got to wonder, though: if they said that God probably doesn't exist, what sort of evidence would they actually accept that he does? It's not like anything physical necessitates the existence of the philosopher's god. I just say, "God doesn't exist" - but I don't mean that I've made a scientific investigation into the subject. I'm just commenting on a being that by definition can't meaningfully have "existence" or "non-existence" ascribed to it (at least not in any ordinary sense). Since that's the case, I'm more making a statement of the way I live my life more than about anything other than me.

"Do you believe in god?"
"No, I don't live that way..."


I suppose my view is more anthropological than most, however.

What would count as evidence for god?

What would count as evidence for god?

Some atheist suggest that the regeneration of an imputed limb after intense praying would suffice.

Others would like to see a Christian lift a mountain and throw it into the sea.

In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

I'll be more than willing to convert if any of these two things happen. :p

Some atheist suggest that the regeneration of an imputed limb after intense praying would suffice.

Others would like to see a Christian lift a mountain and throw it into the sea.

In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

I'll be more than willing to convert if any of these two things happen. :p
id be satisfied with that snake handling thing where poisonous snakes wont bite you and if they do it wont hurt you.

mark 16: 17 These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover.'

id be satisfied with that snake handling thing where poisonous snakes wont bite you and if they do it wont hurt you.

mark 16: 17 These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover.'

Oh yes that would work too.

I can't wait for the Christians to come and convert me.:D

Some atheist suggest that the regeneration of an imputed limb after intense praying would suffice.

Others would like to see a Christian lift a mountain and throw it into the sea.

In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

I'll be more than willing to convert if any of these two things happen. :p

Would it have to be done solely through 'supernatural' means?

If, for example, a Xian built a mining company and then proceeded to demolish and haul a mountain into the sea, would that suffice?

If, for example, a Xian built a mining company and then proceeded to demolish and haul a mountain into the sea, would that suffice?

In that case the mountain would not have thrown itself into the sea - so it does not count ;)

Then again, it is quite likely that somewhere in the next few mllion years every mountain we know now will be below sea level at some time. Perhaps one could do something with time manipulation ?

Would it have to be done solely through 'supernatural' means?

If, for example, a Xian built a mining company and then proceeded to demolish and haul a mountain into the sea, would that suffice?

No, of course not. It has to be done just by praying. If mundane means are used how can we know god had anything to do with it? Or what god actually did it?

In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

This is Jesus speaking, JESUS! Not some punk.

YOU are going with nothing.

God is not yours to control, use, or otherwise reflect YOUR wishes. This isn't God's punishment, this would be what YOU want, TB. YOU, YOU, and ONLY YOU. No God. God has nothing to do with YOUR wishes towards the people that disagree with YOU. It's about YOU, and you'd do well to admit it.

Assuming there is a God, we're talking about a kind of intelligence that's so far beyond our understanding that it isn't even funny. Yet here you are, claiming God will punish them for... speaking?

Do you THINK God would even CARE what people write? Do you THINK God is like you, me, heck, any of us?

I've studied the nature of reality for years and yet I can't lay claim to the understanding of God's designs. And here you are, not only claiming, with no base, that you do, but also claiming His designs are those of a... a what? A seven-year old terrorist? "Oh, they offend me, so I'll cause a disaster"? THAT'S your idea of a God? How can you even LIVE with the fear you must feel, of thinking, expressing or otherwise feeling and showing anything you think your God will disapprove, lest he... what? Smites you? Destroys your house, kills your family?

Do you really think these guys matter? Do you think YOU OR I matter?

"Target"? For what? An insult? The one insulting God here is YOU. YOU are the one claiming God is this childish. YOU are the one essentially calling God a terrorist with the maturity of a seven-year-old.

Those are the facts. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with ME.


It comes down to a respect thing again. So then what was the purpose of this sign? What exactly are they selling? The purpose of this kind of advertising is to sell things.


I am sure God will likely ignore this sign. What do you care if we do believe? How does it harm you if we do believe? So I go to church, give money to poor, work within my community to make this world a better place. I try to give back as much as I have been blessed with, how does that harm you?

Do we see similar signs on churches saying Darwin was quack? Do we signs that Atheist's need to wake up a smell the coffee?

Do we see similar signs on churches saying Darwin was quack? Do we signs that Atheist's need to wake up a smell the coffee?

We see plenty of signs on churches saying that God does exist.

It comes down to a respect thing again. So then what was the purpose of this sign? What exactly are they selling? The purpose of this kind of advertising is to sell things.


I am sure God will likely ignore this sign. What do you care if we do believe? How does it harm you if we do believe? So I go to church, give money to poor, work within my community to make this world a better place. I try to give back as much as I have been blessed with, how does that harm you?

Do we see similar signs on churches saying Darwin was quack? Do we signs that Atheist's need to wake up a smell the coffee?

It is a counter sign to the signs the religious (I say that because you dont have to be a church to put up a sign) put up to gather support. It is not attacking religion.

It comes down to a respect thing again. So then what was the purpose of this sign? What exactly are they selling? The purpose of this kind of advertising is to sell things.

You said quite the opposite. It is noticeable to just about anyone who reads this thread.

I am sure God will likely ignore this sign. What do you care if we do believe? How does it harm you if we do believe? So I go to church, give money to poor, work within my community to make this world a better place. I try to give back as much as I have been blessed with, how does that harm you?

I wasn't discussing this. I was discussing your hope/assumption that God would punish the Atheists... by destroying a bus, causing emotional distress on whoever was there, and so on, all for the sake of dickwaving with PEOPLE.

Do we see similar signs on churches saying Darwin was quack? Do we signs that Atheist's need to wake up a smell the coffee?

No, when whatever church acts, they tend to be slightly more clear, innit? Witch-hunts, inquisitions...

Thing is, Christian Voice are screwing themselves quite a bit here.

If the ASA rules that the ads are fine, then the idea that there is probably no god is essentially legally promoted.

If the ASA rules that the ads have to be withdrawn, religious groups basically won't be able to advertise anything to do with god.

It's a baffling move; they're putting themselves in a total no-win situation.

Thing is, Christian Voice are screwing themselves quite a bit here.

If the ASA rules that the ads are fine, then the idea that there is probably no god is essentially legally promoted.

If the ASA rules that the ads have to be withdrawn, religious groups basically won't be able to advertise anything to do with god.

It's a baffling move; they're putting themselves in a total no-win situation.

One assumes they hope that the court will say that it is probable that God exists.

Thing is, Christian Voice are screwing themselves quite a bit here.

If the ASA rules that the ads are fine, then the idea that there is probably no god is essentially legally promoted.

If the ASA rules that the ads have to be withdrawn, religious groups basically won't be able to advertise anything to do with god.

It's a baffling move; they're putting themselves in a total no-win situation.

The really funny thing is that, since religious groups are often very well funded, much better than atheistic groups, and typically use that to advertise much more than said atheistic groups, a ruling that the ad is unacceptable would hurt them more than it would the atheists. Unless, of course, they just let a legal double standard stand, promoting religion above non-religion, and say this ad is not okay, but similar pro-religion ones are. If this was happening in the US, that is exactly what I'd expect, but maybe they'll rule a bit more fairly overseas.

One assumes they hope that the court will say that it is probable that God exists.

First off it's not a court, and the ASA doesn't work like that. They rule on whether or not the ad is acceptable, and the furthest they could go would be to say that there wasn't enough evidence to back up the claim that "there is probably no god".

Ruling that it is probable god exists is completely beyond their authority, they can only rule on whether the ad breaches the rules concerning substantiating claims or not.

The problem for Christian Voice, therefore, would be that no christian groups, or religious groups at all for that matter, would be able to advertise with anything that comes close to claiming god exists if the ad was ruled against; they wouldn't have the tangible evidence to substantiate their claims, and the ads would be barred.

Some atheist suggest that the regeneration of an imputed limb after intense praying would suffice.

Others would like to see a Christian lift a mountain and throw it into the sea.

In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

I'll be more than willing to convert if any of these two things happen. :p

id be satisfied with that snake handling thing where poisonous snakes wont bite you and if they do it wont hurt you.

mark 16: 17 These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover.'

But why should we accept that those are evidence for god and there is not some other explanation that we just currently don't know? A believer might well pray for something to happen, but even if it did, why should we say that God made it happen?

I got a question: Do they advertise churches on Buses in the UK? I have seen sign in the US advertising a church.

Witch hunts wasn't that 300 years ago? Inquisition even longer than that (Before the 12th century)

No, of course not. It has to be done just by praying. If mundane means are used how can we know god had anything to do with it? Or what god actually did it?

In Matthew 21:21:
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

This is Jesus speaking, JESUS! Not some punk.

So, you would only accept evidence of a supernatural occurence? There would have to be some prayer, and then the moving of the mountain shortly thereafter with no immediately perceivable natural cause?

Do atheists feel insulted when churches advertise? If they do then maybe the Christian community should stop?

I got a question: Do they advertise churches on Buses in the UK? I have seen sign in the US advertising a church.

Witch hunts wasn't that 300 years ago? Inquisition even longer than that (Before the 12th century)

I don't think I've ever seen a church advertising at all, really, except for Scientology, but that's a joke that went too far anyway.

Do atheists feel insulted when churches advertise? If they do then maybe the Christian community should stop?

Nah, I don't mind seeing ads about Jesus and whatnot. I just find it funny that (some) Christians advertise all the time for their deity and then bitch whenever atheists try to express our view.

Nah, I don't mind seeing ads about Jesus and whatnot. I just find it funny that (some) Christians advertise all the time for their deity and then bitch whenever atheists try to express our view.

Interesting. Never mind, I take it back, I recant. In the USA it would be covered under the first amendment. No matter how much I disagree with it I support your right to believe it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7390941.stm

'Imaginary friend'

But Richard Dawkins, scientist, staunch atheist and author of books including The God Delusion, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the cardinal's comments carried no weight.

Referring to God as an "imaginary friend", Mr Dawkins said: "When talking to a politician you would demand proof for what they say, but suddenly when talking to a clergyman you don't have to provide evidence.

"There's absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, 'I believe it because I believe it.'

"God either exists or he doesn't. It's a matter of the truth."

Speaking later on Radio 4, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor answered those criticisms. He said: "I think there are a number of people in this country who would like to marginalise religion.

"They would much prefer not to see religion as neutral, but to neutralise it.

"And there are unbelievers who construct their own God in order to demolish him."

Of claims that faith has no basis in reason, he replied: "To believe in God is not unreasonable."

Of claims that faith has no basis in reason, he replied: "To believe in God is not unreasonable."

Depends on what one means with "believing in God".

To believe He exists - fair enough. While we have a huge double standard where it comes to believing in God and believing in invisible leopards with mind-altering rays firing from their spots, one can indeed choose to believe in it if one desires.

But to worship him for reasons other than complete and utter fear... one could argue about the "reasonability" of that. The Biblical God after all is not nice or the embodiment of love- He is merely immensely powerful.

But why should we accept that those are evidence for god and there is not some other explanation that we just currently don't know? A believer might well pray for something to happen, but even if it did, why should we say that God made it happen?
well with that drinking poison thing we should make sure that they didnt spend the last year or so developing an immunity to iocane powder....

Depends on what one means with "believing in God".

To believe He exists - fair enough. While we have a huge double standard where it comes to believing in God and believing in invisible leopards with mind-altering rays firing from their spots, one can indeed choose to believe in it if one desires.

But to worship him for reasons other than complete and utter fear... one could argue about the "reasonability" of that. The Biblical God after all is not nice or the embodiment of love- He is merely immensely powerful.


Well said. Faith has never been based on reason. Nobody on earth has ever seen God. They did see a cloud, and burning bush that talked.

Faith is the opposite of reason but it does not mean that it is unreasonable.


I took this from the wiki article. I must admit I never really heard of this guy or looked into his work until now.

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


In 2007, Dawkins founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly.[101] Inspired by the gay rights movement, Dawkins hopes that atheists' identifying of themselves as such, and thereby increasing public awareness of how many people hold these views, will reduce the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.



My question is first where is there a Religious Majority? Certainly no where in the western world, Iran maybe. He should stick science.

I always thought the complexity of the world really pointed more to God not existing, then existing. I mean, at some level, we should just see things working, we don't really have a need for, say, cells, or hormones, or most of our organs, certainty most physical laws don't need to exist.

Absolute shit. We need all our organs, cells and hormones. You're talking rubbish.

Well said. Faith has never been based on reason. Nobody on earth has ever seen God. They did see a cloud, and burning bush that talked.

Faith is the opposite of reason but it does not mean that it is unreasonable.


I took this from the wiki article. I must admit I never really heard of this guy or looked into his work until now.

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


In 2007, Dawkins founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly.[101] Inspired by the gay rights movement, Dawkins hopes that atheists' identifying of themselves as such, and thereby increasing public awareness of how many people hold these views, will reduce the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.



My question is first where is there a Religious Majority? Certainly no where in the western world, Iran maybe. He should stick science.

lol. There is a religious majority virtually everywhere in the world.

My question is first where is there a Religious Majority?

Everywhere.
http://adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif
Source: http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Eurobarometer_poll.png

Religion dominates the planet. The Abrahamics have about half.

I think we make a mistake when we approach god as something that can be pointed to empirically and said to either exist or not exist. God is not an object to be analysed, but a mystery to be experienced. Invisible laser leopards or pink unicorns have no empirical evidence for them, like god. But god has an ongoing presence in the lives of humans that these other fanciful creatures do not.

And we theists, of course, have no empirical evidence for this ongoing presence either.

I was reading a story to my children last night. We're at the point where they are old enough to have stories read to them that don't come with pictures. So we read chapters from novels. Oz, Wonderland, Narnia and a host of other mythical places come alive in my head every night. I quite enjoy the stories.

And we readers, of course, have no empirical evidence for this ongoing experience of obviously nonexistent lands.

I don't think anyone would claim that my experience of Oz is unreasonable, or if they did, they wouldn't go on to claim that my experience is somehow not real because it is unreasonable.

Of course, an atheist reading this would latch on to the idea that god is portrayed as being no more real than Narnia or Oz. Which is true, but misses the point. The point is that the ongoing experience is real, and it doesn't matter if the source of that experience can be shown to empirically exist or not.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167

Not according to this. The USA is the only one left, I guess we are starting to see some of that.

The point is that the ongoing experience is real

What ongoing experience? I'm not having one, and I believe in God. (ish, I'm a Deist.)

It comes down to a respect thing again. So then what was the purpose of this sign? What exactly are they selling? The purpose of this kind of advertising is to sell things.


I am sure God will likely ignore this sign. What do you care if we do believe? How does it harm you if we do believe? So I go to church, give money to poor, work within my community to make this world a better place. I try to give back as much as I have been blessed with, how does that harm you?

Do we see similar signs on churches saying Darwin was quack? Do we signs that Atheist's need to wake up a smell the coffee?

I drove past a church on the way to work today with a sign that said "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

It's from Psalms. And it implicitly says that Atheists are fools for not believing, that Atheists are corrupt, that they have done 'abominable works', and that they never do anything good.

Contrast that with the 'probably' ad, and see how they compare.

What ongoing experience? I'm not having one, and I believe in God. (ish, I'm a Deist.)

I don't really count deists as theists in that sense. The blind watchmaker who sets all things in motion and then steps back from interacting after that is not a model of god that addresses any human relationship with god.

So you wouldn't have the experience I am talking about.

Everywhere.
http://adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif
Source: http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Eurobarometer_poll.png

Religion dominates the planet. The Abrahamics have about half.

It is strange both can't be right at the same time? Can they?

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167

So you wouldn't have the experience I am talking about.

So only true theists can have this experience then?

I got a question: Do they advertise churches on Buses in the UK? I have seen sign in the US advertising a church.

Witch hunts wasn't that 300 years ago? Inquisition even longer than that (Before the 12th century)

Christian groups have been sponsoring ads on buses for a while now.

Christian groups have been sponsoring ads on buses for a while now.

On buses? I've never seen any in England or Wales.

It is strange both can't be right at the same time? Can they?

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167

They're answering different questions.

The Pew study is talking about people who say "religion plays a very important role in their lives", which isn't necessarily even CLOSE to people that identify as religious.

So... yes, they ARE both right at the same time.

America is unusual - by Western standards - because being religious carries so much weight, and affects day-to-day living so strongly.

I drove past a church on the way to work today with a sign that said "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

It's from Psalms. And it implicitly says that Atheists are fools for not believing, that Atheists are corrupt, that they have done 'abominable works', and that they never do anything good.

Contrast that with the 'probably' ad, and see how they compare.

Sure I sure if I went into the Koran, Talmud I would find similar things. Those are prayer books. That is quite a bit different that having published in say the New York Times. They are openly trying to inflame religious people. If I posted a sign in front of a Mosque that said "Islam is a bunch of phonies" or in front of synagogue that said "Jews are wasting their time"

On buses? I've never seen any in England or Wales.

The last time I was in Wales was about 3 decades ago, so I can't really speak to that - but Christian groups have been running these campaigns in some places (mainly, London, I assume) for a while.

So only true theists can have this experience then?

Depending on how you define theism, yes.

But this is my definition and focuses mostly on how I approach god. Others who are more institutionally based would have different criteria.

The important thing for me here is to point out that it is foolish to judge all concepts solely by one criteria (how empirically verifiable they are) when that is not the criteria by which it is judged in normal use.

On buses? I've never seen any in England or Wales.

Jesussaid.org and the alpha course people have both sponsored ads on buses in the uk

Sure I sure if I went into the Koran, Talmud I would find similar things. Those are prayer books. That is quite a bit different that having published in say the New York Times. They are openly trying to inflame religious people. If I posted a sign in front of a Mosque that said "Islam is a bunch of phonies" or in front of synagogue that said "Jews are wasting their time"

The parallel here would be a mosque with a sign that said 'christians are idiots, are evil, and have no morals'. How would you feel about that?

The point you missed was - I was driving BY a church. I wasn't IN a church. I wasn't reading the Bible. So what they put on their roadside is unsolicited advertising - and - from my point of view, it's pretty offensive... look at what it says about Atheists. How can they think that's an acceptable thing to put in public?

Depending on how you define theism, yes.

But this is my definition and focuses mostly on how I approach god. Others who are more institutionally based would have different criteria.

The important thing for me here is to point out that it is foolish to judge all concepts solely by one criteria (how empirically verifiable they are) when that is not the criteria by which it is judged in normal use.

You're wrong.

It's not 'foolish' to judge things solely by one certain type of criteria.

You asked what would count as evidence for the existence of God. To me? I would want something that can't be explained away as evidence of anything else - that's not foolish.

The parallel here would be a mosque with a sign that said 'christians are idiots, are evil, and have no morals'. How would you feel about that?

The point you missed was - I was driving BY a church. I wasn't IN a church. I wasn't reading the Bible. So what they put on their roadside is unsolicited advertising - and - from my point of view, it's pretty offensive... look at what it says about Atheists. How can they think that's an acceptable thing to put in public?

I stand corrected. I have never seen a roadside ad in the USA that says Atheist are going to hell. I suppose you have the right and maybe we should rethink any religious advertising. Other than something like:

Please visit St. Mark's located 123 Main street for all your Catholic needs

You're wrong.

It's not 'foolish' to judge things solely by one certain type of criteria.

So, do you judge how awesome your last party was by how empirically verifiable it is?

Or which roleplaying game you prefer?

That would be really bizarre. I would think you would judge these things based on how you interact with them.

From an empirical standpoint, Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ is as realistic and verifiable as Clive Cussler's latest thriller. It would be foolish to then claim that the two books are equal in value.

You asked what would count as evidence for the existence of God. To me? I would want something that can't be explained away as evidence of anything else - that's not foolish.

So, would you want every other possible hypothesis to be shown to be false before you believed in the divine explanation?

I have heard of some supposed funny ones

“Stop, Drop, and Roll will not work in Hell”;

“Give Satan an Inch, He’ll be a Ruler”;

and

“No God, No Peace. Know God, Know Peace.”

"God Loves You...................some restrictions apply"

or:

"All the people in the church across the road are going to hell"

So, do you judge how awesome your last party was by how empirically verifiable it is?

Or which roleplaying game you prefer?

That would be really bizarre. I would think you would judge these things based on how you interact with them.

From an empirical standpoint, Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ is as realistic and verifiable as Clive Cussler's latest thriller. It would be foolish to then claim that the two books are equal in value.


You are talking about matters of preference.

We're not talking about 'preferring' god, we're talking about 'proving' him/her.


So, would you want every other possible hypothesis to be shown to be false before you believed in the divine explanation?

Well, yeah!

And I suspect most people do the same. You don't see rain on your window and immediately assume God sprang a leak, right?

I have heard of some supposed funny ones

“Stop, Drop, and Roll will not work in Hell”;

“Give Satan an Inch, He’ll be a Ruler”;

and

“No God, No Peace. Know God, Know Peace.”

I've seen the last one on the way to college. Though they've changed it a few times. The last thing I recall it saying was something like "This sign may change, God is eternal".

You are talking about matters of preference.

We're not talking about 'preferring' god, we're talking about 'proving' him/her.

Yes. And I was commenting on how talking about proving god is not really the applicable question.

Why do we demand proof of god, but no proof of our preference for thin crust pizza?

We accept it when someone says their preference for something has no need of proof. Why do we demand proof about an ongoing experience of divine mystery?

Well, yeah!

And I suspect most people do the same. You don't see rain on your window and immediately assume God sprang a leak, right?

The trouble is that there is an infinite amount of possible explanations for any given phenomena. Therefore to exclude all other explanations would take an infinite amount of time.

Yes. And I was commenting on how talking about proving god is not really the applicable question.

Why do we demand proof of god, but no proof of our preference for thin crust pizza?

We accept it when someone says their preference for something has no need of proof. Why do we demand proof about an ongoing experience of divine mystery?


Because my preference for Barbecue Chicken Pizza is entirely subjective, but God either exists... or doesn't.


The trouble is that there is an infinite amount of possible explanations for any given phenomena. Therefore to exclude all other explanations would take an infinite amount of time.

And?

That excuses jumping at answers?

I can see this thread heading towards another solipsist trap.

There is no god. I can prove it!

1+1= FISH

There really are some funny one's out there.

"Staying in bed shouting Oh God! Does not constitute going to church" Where lese Houston - Galveston

God answer's Knee-Mail

Jesus can turn your E F I L around

Give God what is right not what is left -- I am not even sure what that means






l

Yes. And I was commenting on how talking about proving god is not really the applicable question.

Why do we demand proof of god, but no proof of our preference for thin crust pizza?

Because the two things are utterly and completely unrelated to each other. Your belief that pepperoni is awesome is not the same as "god exists". One is a subjective belief which, by definition, can never be true or false. The other is a statement of fact.

Unless of course you're asking why I don't demand proof of the fact that you really do love pepperoni, I suppose that's because there are no pepperoni lovers out there who try to take away my right to have garlic and extra cheese.

It doesn't affect me whether or not you believe that pepperoni is the best pizza topping, but when you then try to use the presumption that it is so, in order to try and influence my life and my choices, then yeah, I'm gonna ask to see some proof.

I don't care what you eat, I don't care what you believe. As long as your faith isn't used as a tool to try and influence my actions.

Because my preference for Barbecue Chicken Pizza is entirely subjective, but God either exists... or doesn't.

I think we make a mistake when we approach god as something that can be pointed to empirically and said to either exist or not exist. God is not an object to be analysed, but a mystery to be experienced....The point is that the ongoing experience is real, and it doesn't matter if the source of that experience can be shown to empirically exist or not.

And?

That excuses jumping at answers?

No, but asking for the impossible and then complaining that no one delivers seems a little unreasonable.

Because the two things are utterly and completely unrelated to each other. Your belief that pepperoni is awesome is not the same as "god exists". One is a subjective belief which, by definition, can never be true or false. The other is a statement of fact.

Unless of course you're asking why I don't demand proof of the fact that you really do love pepperoni, I suppose that's because there are no pepperoni lovers out there who try to take away my right to have garlic and extra cheese.

It doesn't affect me whether or not you believe that pepperoni is the best pizza topping, but when you then try to use the presumption that it is so, in order to try and influence my life and my choices, then yeah, I'm gonna ask to see some proof.

I don't care what you eat, I don't care what you believe. As long as your faith isn't used as a tool to try and influence my actions.Wait...so suddenly everyone who has some concept of a god is trying to influence your life and choices?

Or you're just annoyed with those that do, and will only ask for proof from that group?

No, but asking for the impossible and then complaining that no one delivers seems a little unreasonable.

again, I think the reason that the impossible is asked for is less as a real true question but rather as a self serving point. Until you can prove god exists, and his word is true...keep him the fuck out of my life.

Want to legislate from your faith? Be prepared to prove your faith is the correct one.

9 times out of 10, the question isn't asked to get an answer, it's to demonstrate that there isn't one.

Wait...so suddenly everyone who has some concept of a god is trying to influence your life and choices?

Or you're just annoyed with those that do, and will only ask for proof from that group?

mostly that group, or when the topic comes up just for a general topic of conversation (IE if a discussion is about god, I think questions pertaining to the evidence of god is fair game).

I have no problems with people who have their own personal faith. Just...keep it personal.

mostly that group, or when the topic comes up just for a general topic of conversation (IE if a discussion is about god, I think questions pertaining to the evidence of god is fair game).

I have no problems with people who have their own personal faith. Just...keep it personal.

I don't care that they do it but keep homosexual sex in the icky closet where it belongs!

OR

Can't religious people go to a church? I don't want my children seeing people being all religious out there on the street! :p

No, but asking for the impossible and then complaining that no one delivers seems a little unreasonable.

Well, it would be...if the religious didn't actively fight against the delivery of explanations.

Take a look at Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the absence of an explanation of creation. It's not an explanation. It basically asserts that "some mysterious stuff that we'll never understand happened" and then when a scientist stands up and says "Hey, I'll explain it to you" the not very intelligent Intelligent Design believer immediately says "Liar" and "Don't belittle my faith"

So...ya know. If religion is being asserted as fact and is being used (at least in America) as a basis on which to vote for President? Then people can ask for evidence of things.

Then religion can come under fire all it needs to. And people can scrutinize it as much as they want. Because religion opened itself up to that when it moved itself from the church to the town square.

Well, it would be...if a small group retarded Christians didn't actively fight against the delivery of explanations.

Fixed for greater accuracy.

Because the two things are utterly and completely unrelated to each other. Your belief that pepperoni is awesome is not the same as "god exists". One is a subjective belief which, by definition, can never be true or false. The other is a statement of fact.

Can you prove that the existence (or lack thereof) of god is a statement of fact, or do you just assume it is?

Unless of course you're asking why I don't demand proof of the fact that you really do love pepperoni, I suppose that's because there are no pepperoni lovers out there who try to take away my right to have garlic and extra cheese.

It doesn't affect me whether or not you believe that pepperoni is the best pizza topping, but when you then try to use the presumption that it is so, in order to try and influence my life and my choices, then yeah, I'm gonna ask to see some proof.

I don't care what you eat, I don't care what you believe. As long as your faith isn't used as a tool to try and influence my actions.

I don't really think that a historical use of religion as a tool of coercion has anything to do with whether or not the concept of god should be considered as something that is empirically verifiable or not.

The two concepts are only indirectly related.

I don't care that they do it but keep homosexual sex in the icky closet where it belongs!

OR

Can't religious people go to a church? I don't want my children seeing people being all religious out there on the street! :p

I said personal, not private. Distinctly different things. Though I appreciate the effort you went through to try and "trap" me.

Can you prove that the existence (or lack thereof) of god is a statement of fact, or do you just assume it is?

....huh? Of course I can. Things either exist, or they don't. I may, or may not, have a large rat sitting in my kitchen at this moment. Whether or not I believe in that rat, as I sit here in my office, will not change the fact that it either exists, or it does not.

"I believe god exists" is a statment of opinion. "God exists" is a statement of fact, because it posits something that is objectively true, or objectively false.

I don't really think that a historical use of religion as a tool of coercion has anything to do with whether or not the concept of god should be considered as something that is empirically verifiable or not.

The two concepts are only indirectly related.

I think when religion is used as a tool of coercion, it becomes related to the question as to whether it's empirically verifiable.

I said personal, not private. Distinctly different things. Though I appreciate the effort you went through to try and "trap" me.

You give your appreciation much too easily then. I'm just eating my tempura and stirring the pot.

You give your appreciation much too easily then.

Well, then I'll be sure to be far more stingy with it in your direction for the future :tongue:

Well, it would be...if the religious didn't actively fight against the delivery of explanations.

Take a look at Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the absence of an explanation of creation. It's not an explanation. It basically asserts that "some mysterious stuff that we'll never understand happened" and then when a scientist stands up and says "Hey, I'll explain it to you" the not very intelligent Intelligent Design believer immediately says "Liar" and "Don't belittle my faith"

So...ya know. If religion is being asserted as fact and is being used (at least in America) as a basis on which to vote for President? Then people can ask for evidence of things.

Then religion can come under fire all it needs to. And people can scrutinize it as much as they want. Because religion opened itself up to that when it moved itself from the church to the town square.

I think your characterisation of theists as ignorant luddites and scientists as completely lucid and rational free-thinkers seems simplistic and probably does not reflect reality well.

Well, then I'll be sure to be far more stingy with it in your direction for the future :tongue:

Jerkface.

Things either exist, or they don't.

I would describe this statement as an untestable assumption.

"God exists" is a statement of fact, because it posits something that is objectively true, or objectively false.

I would describe this statement as an untestable assumption about something that may not actually be said to exist.

I think when religion is used as a tool of coercion, it becomes related to the question as to whether it's empirically verifiable.

So, would you have stopped Martin Luther King Jr. during his civil rights work when he used the power of US churches to force the state to recognise the equality of non-whites? You know, in order to verify that his god was actually empirically verifiable.

I think your characterisation of theists as ignorant luddites and scientists as completely lucid and rational free-thinkers seems simplistic and probably does not reflect reality well.

I think it'd be a lot of fun being a luddite.

http://www.stephaniesyjuco.com/antifactory/blog/uploaded_images/LudditesSmashingLoomLarge-757004.jpg

Can I be one without becoming a theist?

I think it'd be a lot of fun being a luddite.

http://www.stephaniesyjuco.com/antifactory/blog/uploaded_images/LudditesSmashingLoomLarge-757004.jpg

I'll see your Luddites and raise you a superhero that protects you...

from science!

http://superdickery.com/images/stories/stupor/comics_hoverboy8.jpg

I would describe this statement as an untestable assumption.


Here we go, heading to solipsist trap already like I said. :p Although a statement like that is a tautology, you don't 'test tautologies'. They are true by definition. If God does exist, then he isn't non-existent. If God doesn't exist, then he is not existent.

I think your characterisation of theists as ignorant luddites and scientists as completely lucid and rational free-thinkers seems simplistic and probably does not reflect reality well.

I think the fact of the matter is simplistic. I think people who explain things via "God did it" are people who can't distinguish mythology from reality.

And I mean mythology in the academic, non-derogatory sense. "a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event." So it's not an insult. Not really.

Scientists aren't free thinkers and I doubt they're always rational. A lot of them try to prove some pretty crazy theory. But science as a field is based on what scientists can prove, based on experiments that can be repeated.

I don't think there's a lot of wiggle room there. Especially not vis-a-vis the Intelligent Design debate. I'm not going to just forget about the fossil record and every major advancement in biomedical research to date, as well as physics as we know it along with a lot of other fields just because certain people want to protect their mythology from the truth and hope there's enough that we don't know that their invented mythological garbage can squeak by.

I would describe this statement as an untestable assumption.

If you want to deconstruct the argument so thoroughly as to claim "things either exist or they don't" as an untestable assumption, then it's a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning, and not paralized from fear that the floor might fall away beneath your feet

Scientists aren't free thinkers and I doubt they're always rational. A lot of them try to prove some pretty crazy theory. But science as a field is based on what scientists can prove, based on experiments that can be repeated.

Correction: science is based on what is testable yet has not been disproven. The fact that science focuses on disproving instead of proving is what makes it strong.

Correction: science is based on what is testable yet has not been disproven. The fact that science focuses on disproving instead of proving is what makes it strong.

Yes, I mispoke. You are correct.

However, that makes Intelligent Design all the more insidious. It can't be tested, yet it's proposed as if it were a serious debate.

Here we go, heading to solipsist trap already like I said. :p Although a statement like that is a tautology, you don't 'test tautologies'. They are true by definition. If God does exist, then he isn't non-existent. If God doesn't exist, then he is not existent.

Okay. So in this case, when we talk about the 'fact of god's existence or lack thereof," we are talking about a tautology, or something that is true by definition.

The reason I was asking was because iot seems to me that we slip into this paradigm where we automatically look at god, and everything else, as something that can be proven to exist, or not. But is this really the case?

I think the fact of the matter is simplistic. I think people who explain things via "God did it" are people who can't distinguish mythology from reality.

And I mean mythology in the academic, non-derogatory sense. "a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event." So it's not an insult. Not really.

Scientists aren't free thinkers and I doubt they're always rational. A lot of them try to prove some pretty crazy theory. But science as a field is based on what scientists can prove, based on experiments that can be repeated.

I don't think there's a lot of wiggle room there. Especially not vis-a-vis the Intelligent Design debate. I'm not going to just forget about the fossil record and every major advancement in biomedical research to date, as well as physics as we know it along with a lot of other fields just because certain people want to protect their mythology from the truth and hope there's enough that we don't know that their invented mythological garbage can squeak by.

Do you believe all theists believe in ID?

Do all theists assume 'god did it'?

Do all theists have trouble separating mythology from reality?

If you want to deconstruct the argument so thoroughly as to claim "things either exist or they don't" as an untestable assumption, then it's a wonder you can get out of bed in the morning, and not paralized from fear that the floor might fall away beneath your feet

See above.

I don't think things either exist or not on a binary scale. The past, for example, cannot be sensed or empirically verified. Yet we all go around acting as if the past is as real as anything else. To me the past is one of those things that falls outside that binary paradigm.

Evidence that tends to suggest that God exists.

The nation of Israel

The slave being led out of Eqypt

The roman documents confirming that Christ was crucified INRI

Evidence of the great flood as mentioned in Genesis around the time said in the Bible.

Records that Herod killed all new born and young children under 2 years old shortly after the appearance of the Magi

They can trace his lineage back to Abraham

The have Archeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed by burn sulfur.

I mean really what proof would suffice?

I don't think things either exist or not on a binary scale. The past, for example, cannot be sensed or empirically verified. Yet we all go around acting as if the past is as real as anything else. To me the past is one of those things that falls outside that binary paradigm.

because "the past" is not a thing. It's not an entity. It does not exist, nor can it exist, because the past does not reference something that does exist, but it's a reference point for things that once did.

"the past" is not a thing. It's a concept. At best, it's a tense.

Okay. So in this case, when we talk about the 'fact of god's existence or lack thereof," we are talking about a tautology, or something that is true by definition.


I'm confused as to what you're talking about. I thought we were essentially debating the law of excluded middle. I'm saying that God can't both exist, and not exist, he either exists or he doesn't. I'm not saying that you can prove God exists.

Either Jesus was some crackpot lunatic or he was the son of god.

The nation of Israel
Self fulfilling prophecy ;)

The slave being led out of Eqypt
Afaik there is no evidence for that. A mass exodus in fact almost certainly never happened.

The roman documents confirming that Christ was crucified INRI
Non-existing ;)

Evidence of the great flood as mentioned in Genesis around the time said in the Bible.

Does that really exist ? Would be interesting to see.

I think the biggest problem with this topic is that idiots tend to dominate the conversation, on both sides....so that the few people capable of carrying on an informed, intelligent and in-depth discussion are somewhat drowned out :(

Evidence that tends to suggest that God exists.

The nation of Israel

umm....

The slave being led out of Eqypt

There is no documented evidence of a slave exodus.

The roman documents confirming that Christ was crucified INRI

No such documents exist.

Evidence of the great flood as mentioned in Genesis around the time said in the Bible.

No such evidence exists. In fact, modern geological evidence utterly refutes such a thing.

Records that Herod killed all new born and young children under 2 years old shortly after the appearance of the Magi

What records?

They can trace his lineage back to Abraham

A lot of people can trace their lineage back to a lot of things, so?

The have Archeological evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed by burn sulfur.

No "they" don't.

I mean really what proof would suffice?

I'm gonna go with "actual proof" not "proof you made up that doesn't actually exist".

No, but asking for the impossible and then complaining that no one delivers seems a little unreasonable.

Who is asking for the impossible?

(Some would argue, with god ALL things are possible).

The question: what would it take to prove the existence of god

The answer: Ah... well, some proof would be a start...

The response: Ah well, if you're going to be unreasonable about it...


If you weren't going to accept the answer, the question was pointless.

I don't care that they do it but keep homosexual sex in the icky closet where it belongs!


Err... if we're actually going for a parallel, a sentiment more like "I'm fine with you being homosexual, just don't be homosexual with ME" would be closer.

because "the past" is not a thing. It's not an entity. It does not exist, nor can it exist, because the past does not reference something that does exist, but it's a reference point for things that once did.

"the past" is not a thing. It's a concept. At best, it's a tense.

Right. And you seem to be making the assumption that god fits into the class of things that either exist or don't, and the past fits into another class.

Or maybe it's not an assumption. Maybe you have a good reason for claiming this. Can you share it with me?

I'm confused as to what you're talking about. I thought we were essentially debating the law of excluded middle. I'm saying that God can't both exist, and not exist, he either exists or he doesn't. I'm not saying that you can prove God exists.

I was wondering whether or not you could even apply the law of the excluded middle to an entity such as god.

because "the past" is not a thing. It's not an entity. It does not exist, nor can it exist, because the past does not reference something that does exist, but it's a reference point for things that once did.

"the past" is not a thing. It's a concept. At best, it's a tense.

Isn't this sort of the point?

I reject the word and idea of 'God' because I don't believe in that a thing such as God exists. I don't really mind not knowing for certain either way.

I do, however, have a spirituality that is based on a 'concept' somewhat in the way that you've described the past. If some people think of it in the way I am, then I suppose they could call it god. I don't, because people generally associate that word with a 'thing', or a specific set of beliefs (around here, usually Christian in nature).

But if people who are talking about god (not God) aren't talking about a 'thing' but rather a 'concept', elusive and difficult to define as the past, then what kind of proof can be provided if the assertion of existence is of a concept and not a thing?

Err... if we're actually going for a parallel, a sentiment more like "I'm fine with you being homosexual, just don't be homosexual with ME" would be closer.

I wasn't trying very hard, give me a break, sheesh! *eats dumplings*

I don't think things either exist or not on a binary scale. The past, for example,

'The past' doesn't exist. It is the state to which things existing transition.

I was wondering whether or not you could even apply the law of the excluded middle to an entity such as god.

Why not? You use the word entity. He is either an entity, or he isn't an entity. By definition, the fact that he is an entity, means that he isn't not an entity.

edit: assuming for the sake of argument that fact to be true.

Either Jesus was some crackpot lunatic or he was the son of god.

or he, you know...wasn't. Belongs to the same class of people as Bilbo Baggins, Harry Potter and Winston Churchill.

I wasn't trying very hard, give me a break, sheesh! *eats dumplings*

:)

I was just pointing out, the belief that faith is personal isn't all that unreasonable.

Who is asking for the impossible?

(Some would argue, with god ALL things are possible).

The question: what would it take to prove the existence of god

The answer: Ah... well, some proof would be a start...

The response: Ah well, if you're going to be unreasonable about it...


If you weren't going to accept the answer, the question was pointless.

Yes. You are asking for scientific proof of god.

While ignoring the fact that science doesn't prove anything. it disproves stuff.

It seesm like people forget basic science when discussing theology.

But if people who are talking about god (not God) aren't talking about a 'thing' but rather a 'concept', elusive and difficult to define as the past, then what kind of proof can be provided if the assertion of existence is of a concept and not a thing?

because a concept can't exist, that's the point of it. A concept is just the phrase we use to represent an idea. Concepts can't exist because there's no thing to exist.

Yes. You are asking for scientific proof of god.

While ignoring the fact that science doesn't prove anything. it disproves stuff.

It seesm like people forget basic science when discussing theology.

well, in fairness, proof is a bad word, "evidence" perhaps.

There can be no scientific proof of God, God is an unfalsifiable proposition, and is not contingent on physical testable phenomena on this universe.

'The past' doesn't exist. It is the state to which things existing transition.

To what extent does the 'present' exist? What are we talking about here? Specific people? We can prove that a certain person is alive now...we can prove they were alive in the past...a specific event? Open to interpretation as it is, we can in some simple cases prove definitively that I just spilled some fucking dumpling sauce on my corporations law text, and five minutes from now, I'll have evidence of that past event obscuring a paragraph on incorporation.

Anyway, not really what we're talking about, I suppose...if time is a 'vehicle' or a 'setting' for things that exist to transition within.

Point being, why couldn't god be like that too?

pft, I spent good effort looking for that picture and nobody even said anything.

'The past' doesn't exist. It is the state to which things existing transition.

So, does everything either exist or not exist? Does Yoda exist? Does my love of beer exist?

Can we then assume that everything that exists can be empirically verified?

Why not? You use the word entity. He is either an entity, or he isn't an entity. By definition, the fact that he is an entity, means that he isn't not an entity.

edit: assuming for the sake of argument that fact to be true.

Yes, if we assume that god is an entity. So, we can apply the rule of excluded to middle to god if we assume that god is an entity, and we assume that an entity is something that fits in that binary class.

because a concept can't exist, that's the point of it. A concept is just the phrase we use to represent an idea. Concepts can't exist because there's no thing to exist.

Yet concepts certainly have influence on things that exist...in the main, us, but not strictly limited to humans.

If we all stopped 'believing' in the past, you can bet that would have a profound and real impact on the way we conduct our present lives.

Now I know you'd probably say well look, 'god' as a concept is going to influence humans sure, but that isn't evidence that 'god' exists, only that people think it does, and act accordingly.

But then I have to say...is our understanding of the 'past' all that makes it 'real'?

pft, I spent good effort looking for that picture and nobody even said anything.

It made me think of something Dobbs would come up with, and I'd love to have it on my shelf :D

Happy?

Attention whore.:p

Yes, if we assume that god is an entity. So, we can apply the rule of excluded to middle to god if we assume that god is an entity, and we assume that an entity is something that fits in that binary class.

The problem is, as pointed out, you're engaging in sophistry. Nothing can exist that doesn't exist. To say otherwise is to argue with the plain meaning of the word.

well, in fairness, proof is a bad word, "evidence" perhaps.

What kind of evidence?

pft, I spent good effort looking for that picture and nobody even said anything.

I'm getting it tattooed on my stomach!

I'd love to have it on my shelf :D


I'm getting it tattooed on my stomach!

I see a way to solve both of these desires

The problem is, as pointed out, you're engaging in sophistry. Nothing can exist that doesn't exist. To say otherwise is to argue with the plain meaning of the word.

So what word would you use to explain the 'x' of the past? Existence is out...so what?

Does human account count for nothing? Very existence of the Bible account for nothing. You could even claim there 3 seperate version of the Bible Koran/Talmud/ the Christian Bible.

If the USA had endure 1/4 of what the nation of Israel went through we would long since split up.

The had very verbal base society. Stories were passed on by word of mouth.

The Babylonian knew he existed the were outside Judeo-christian soceity.

I mean Nebakanezer even wrote a passage for the Bible of his account. We are talking about King, who answer to no man, who takes time out of his day to write a passages for the Bible? Extraordinary? I think so what would compel him to do so?

Passover any of you actually been to this with any of our Jewish friends out there. It is very symbolic. This is the tears we cried, this is the unleaven bread we had to eat. it seems to suggest that what was real not some cultural delusion?

Can we then assume that everything that exists can be empirically verified?


The idea that everything either exists, or doesn't exist, is separate completely from the idea that everything can be verified.


Yes, if we assume that god is an entity. So, we can apply the rule of excluded to middle to god if we assume that god is an entity, and we assume that an entity is something that fits in that binary class.

Everything fits into that binary class, if it doesn't, then it isn't a thing. Also, if the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to God, then the law of excluded does apply to god, because it can be both, because there is no law of excluded middle, but there is because there can be both, but... o shi-

Yes. You are asking for scientific proof of god.

While ignoring the fact that science doesn't prove anything. it disproves stuff.

It seesm like people forget basic science when discussing theology.

I'm not asking for scientific proof of god. I'm not asking for any proof. If you want me to believe in your god, you're going to have to show me something that is going to convince me.

You are arguing two things:

One: you argued that only theists can experience the experience of the relationship with god - so that 'evidence' isn't going to be ANY use as evidence of existence to a skeptic...

and:

Two: that it is "foolish" to study the evidence in an objective fashion, as we do with other entities.

To me - there's an obvious conflict there. The evidence YOU cite doesn't EXIST for the non-believer, but there's nothing inherently foolish in studying the evidence that DOES exist.

And that's where I came in - you claimed that the objective approach is foolish... but you're also arguing that there is no other evidence.

It's nothing to do with 'forgetting basic science'. The excuse that you presented earlier was a 'god of gaps' argument. You can't exclude EVERY possible alternative, so - effectively - you can never rule god out. But you CAN find evidence that falsifies each of those possibilities, including (theoretically) the possibility that 'god-did-it'. And that's where it falls down - you CAN'T falsify god.

So the only way in which you can present an actual ARGUMENT for god (not preaching), is by finding some way to falsify the 'theory'. Which is WHY the skeptic asks for objective evidence. Accepting something WITHOUT evidence isn't logical. And yet, it's the asking for proof you consider 'foolish'...

The problem is, as pointed out, you're engaging in sophistry. Nothing can exist that doesn't exist. To say otherwise is to argue with the plain meaning of the word.

I was just trying to figure out exactly what a tautology was, and at the same time, just pointing out how some atheists seem to have a lot of unspoken assumptions about the nature of god and her nonexistence.

But such is the nature of faith. I don't mind if you folks have this faith in your beliefs. But try not to pretend that you have the infallible truth.

David and Goliath. Using a sling stone to kill a giant. They even know how heavy his spear was and how big it was?

pft, I spent good effort looking for that picture and nobody even said anything.
Also, an excellent question was asked at the end of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14381319&postcount=156) and you didn't say anything.


:D

Do you believe all theists believe in ID?

Do all theists assume 'god did it'?

Do all theists have trouble separating mythology from reality?

No, I don't think all theists believe in ID. I don't think all theists assume God did it.

But yes, I do think that all theists cannot separate mythology from reality. Here's the reason why not:

The assertion "God exists" is redundant.

Existence is not a character of something. Existence is a quality which is a prerequisite of something. The only reason "I" can be the subject of the sentence "I exist" is because the person to whom I am referring when I say "I" already exists without even saying that. If "I" didn't exist I wouldn't be typing. Couldn't be.

Same as with the idea of "God doesn't exist" It's meaningless. How can something you're identifying as a subject in a sentence NOT exist? It must have existed at some point or else it couldn't be named as the subject of a sentence.

And you know why that leads to a paradox, where God both does and does not exist at the same time? Because God is an idea. And that's all. Human beings made it up.

And thus, mythology creates ideas. When those ideas are accepted to be true with no evidence or testability, than THAT is mistaking mythology for reality.

Also, an excellent question was asked at the end of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14381319&postcount=156) and you didn't say anything.


:D

if one wants to get technical, states being forced to recognize the equality of non whites was due to the 14th amendment. Something that preceded Dr. King's lifetime by several decades.

Moreover, as I said, I speak of restrictions on rights, not expanding them.

David and Goliath. Using a sling stone to kill a giant. They even know how heavy his spear was and how big it was?

....the fuck? Did you just drop acid or something?

Can god microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it?

The magi show up? How did they even know anything about Jesus? Following a star or some other celestial entity. We are not talking about non-educated men here. These guys were scholars.

To what extent does the 'present' exist?


It doesn't.


What are we talking about here? Specific people? We can prove that a certain person is alive now...we can prove they were alive in the past...a specific event? Open to interpretation as it is, we can in some simple cases prove definitively that I just spilled some fucking dumpling sauce on my corporations law text, and five minutes from now, I'll have evidence of that past event obscuring a paragraph on incorporation.


Things exist now, and they have existed. Things will exist. Those things we can find (will be able to find) evidence for.


Anyway, not really what we're talking about, I suppose...if time is a 'vehicle' or a 'setting' for things that exist to transition within.


Not a vehicle - a perspective.

'The past' doesn't exist. It's a viewpoint on things that DID exist (and maybe still do), but 'it' doesn't 'exist'.


Point being, why couldn't god be like that too?

God could be a perspective? Absolutely. A way of looking at the world. Totally. But then - that 'god' wouldn't be an entity. Or a creator. Or any of the other propoerties usually connected with godhood.

But such is the nature of faith. I don't mind if you folks have this faith in your beliefs. But try not to pretend that you have the infallible truth.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that no belief I have can be utterly infallible. There are just beliefs that are supported by evidence, and those that are not (and those that run rather counter to it).

True, nothing I see, hear, taste, smell, or touch can be assumed to be infallible, with 100% certainty. But I don't think you can go through life with such a frame of mind all the time. Otherwise, as I said, you couldn't get out of bed in the morning for fear the ground would suddenly disappear beneath you.

The magi show up? How did they even know anything about Jesus? Following a star or some other celestial entity. We are not talking about non-educated men here. These guys were scholars.

and how did Bilbo know where to find the ring anyway? I mean, he's just a hobbit, hobbits don't go under mountains!

I'm not asking for scientific proof of god. I'm not asking for any proof. If you want me to believe in your god, you're going to have to show me something that is going to convince me.

You are arguing two things:

One: you argued that only theists can experience the experience of the relationship with god - so that 'evidence' isn't going to be ANY use as evidence of existence to a skeptic...

and:

Two: that it is "foolish" to study the evidence in an objective fashion, as we do with other entities.

To me - there's an obvious conflict there. The evidence YOU cite doesn't EXIST for the non-believer, but there's nothing inherently foolish in studying the evidence that DOES exist.

And that's where I came in - you claimed that the objective approach is foolish... but you're also arguing that there is no other evidence.

It's nothing to do with 'forgetting basic science'. The excuse that you presented earlier was a 'god of gaps' argument. You can't exclude EVERY possible alternative, so - effectively - you can never rule god out. But you CAN find evidence that falsifies each of those possibilities, including (theoretically) the possibility that 'god-did-it'. And that's where it falls down - you CAN'T falsify god.

So the only way in which you can present an actual ARGUMENT for god (not preaching), is by finding some way to falsify the 'theory'. Which is WHY the skeptic asks for objective evidence. Accepting something WITHOUT evidence isn't logical. And yet, it's the asking for proof you consider 'foolish'...

I think you misunderstood me. My fault.

I am arguing that god's empirical verifiability is unimportant, and probably impossible due to the quality of god. So to attempt to study god as something that can be objectively analysed seems foolish.

If the immediate experience of god is what is important to a theist, then we no longer treat god as an analysable entity, but as a dynamic of life.

I have no wish for you to believe in my god. In fact, I often wish I didn't believe in my god.

I just want people to realise that many of the complaints made by atheists about the provability of god seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the divine and science.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that no belief I have can be utterly infallible. There are just beliefs that are supported by evidence, and those that are not (and those that run rather counter to it).

True, nothing I see, hear, taste, smell, or touch can be assumed to be infallible, with 100% certainty. But I don't think you can go through life with such a frame of mind all the time. Otherwise, as I said, you couldn't get out of bed in the morning for fear the ground would suddenly disappear beneath you.

You know, I listened to an astrophysicist lecture one time about that big new particle collider they're opening in ...Geneva? I think it's Geneva. Some huge 17 km circular particle collider that cost like 3 billion dollars.

Anyway, someone asked him if he was sure that there was no danger in association with sending protons through the thing..

And he laughed, and he said "Only as sure as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow."

Which was a clever answer, since you can't be 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow either. It's very likely, but nothing is certain.

If that is the case then the Bible is a book of lies. Really compelling lies that have fact figures that have lasted centuries. Wouldn't it long since have passed away by now?

if one wants to get technical, states being forced to recognize the equality of non whites was due to the 14th amendment. Something that preceded Dr. King's lifetime by several decades.

Moreover, as I said, I speak of restrictions on rights, not expanding them.

Yet the equality of non whites was not effectively realised decades before Dr.King's lifetime. Clearly the pressure he (and others) was able to muster, using the church, had something to do with it :P Certainly that pressure could be labelled 'coercive'...n'est pas?

But yes, I do think that all theists cannot separate mythology from reality. Here's the reason why not:

The assertion "God exists" is redundant.

Existence is not a character of something. Existence is a quality which is a prerequisite of something. The only reason "I" can be the subject of the sentence "I exist" is because the person to whom I am referring when I say "I" already exists without even saying that. If "I" didn't exist I wouldn't be typing. Couldn't be.

Same as with the idea of "God doesn't exist" It's meaningless. How can something you're identifying as a subject in a sentence NOT exist? It must have existed at some point or else it couldn't be named as the subject of a sentence.

And you know why that leads to a paradox, where God both does and does not exist at the same time? Because God is an idea. And that's all. Human beings made it up.

And thus, mythology creates ideas. When those ideas are accepted to be true with no evidence or testability, than THAT is mistaking mythology for reality.

You seem to be confusing the concept of 'god as idea', and 'god as being'.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that no belief I have can be utterly infallible. There are just beliefs that are supported by evidence, and those that are not (and those that run rather counter to it).

True, nothing I see, hear, taste, smell, or touch can be assumed to be infallible, with 100% certainty. But I don't think you can go through life with such a frame of mind all the time. Otherwise, as I said, you couldn't get out of bed in the morning for fear the ground would suddenly disappear beneath you.

Please tell me what evidence you have for your belief that god does not exist.

If that is the case then the Bible is a book of lies. Really compelling lies that have fact figures that have lasted centuries. Wouldn't it long since have passed away by now?

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-Bertrand Russel

and how did Bilbo know where to find the ring anyway? I mean, he's just a hobbit, hobbits don't go under mountains!

They know the men's names Casper, Melichor, Balthasar


Wow you guys are tough.

God could be a perspective? Absolutely. A way of looking at the world. Totally. But then - that 'god' wouldn't be an entity. Or a creator. Or any of the other propoerties usually connected with godhood.

That would be my understanding of what 'god' is, were I to actually use that word to describe it, yes. As previously (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14381415&postcount=175) mentioned.

I suppose I bring it up because I have met a number of people over the years who profess to believe in 'God' yet have beliefs very similar to mine, which are more conceptual in nature than 'existence' based.

I'm simply attempting to school myself to stop assuming that god means the latter rather than the former for any given person I may meet.

I have no wish for you to believe in my god. In fact, I often wish I didn't believe in my god.

I just want people to realise that many of the complaints made by atheists about the provability of god seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the divine and science.

and I think you may be failing to understand some of the arguments the atheists make. Implicit in the demand for evidence of god is that the answer is already foreknown. There isn't any.

And while, true, nothing can be ABSOLUTELY proven, things can be demonstrated by highly substantial evidence. Do I KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow? No, but I have extremely substantial evidence to indicate that it will, so much so that the likelihood seems extremely good.

But don't make the error of stating that "nothing can be proven" to mean that any assumption is as good as another. "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a good assumption because it's predicated on highly substantial evidence.

"god exists", to many, is not a good assumption, because there is no highly substantial evidence to substantiate that belief.

Now true, if you ask me to "prove the sun will rise tomorrow" in the same tone of "prove god exists", then I can not. What I can do though, is I can look at this vast amount of evidence and state with near certainty that it will do so. And while it is not technically correct to call it "proven" if we use the term literally, we can say that the evidence makes any other alternative so highly unlikely that we have demonstrated it with great probability, and can, for at least practical purposes, call it proven.

And when asked to "prove god exists", at very least it could be read as "show me evidence to indicate that this belief is probable, or at very least, fairly highly possible". And of course inherent in the first question is the second one. "if you don't have substantial evidence to indicate your god exists...why do you believe in it?"

They know the men's names Casper, Melichor, Balthasar


Wow you guys are tough.

The Bible is so full of contradictions, it would be unwise to try to use it as proof for god's existence.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Please tell me what evidence you have for your belief that god does not exist.

who said I believe god does not exist? I believe god as described by some doesn't exist, namely because such a descripted entity would leave evidence bhind, where there is none.

But a vast concept of god, it's hard to find evidence for, namely because you can't be certain what the evidence would even look like if we found it.

They know the men's names Casper, Melichor, Balthasar

I do believe you mean Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-Bertrand Russel



That might be true. Suppose a whole segment of your population did interact with this teapot. That just about their whole society is based on this teapot.

I do believe you mean Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar.

Thanks I was not sure on the spelling. Thank you for keeping me honest.

Now true, if you ask me to "prove the sun will rise tomorrow" in the same tone of "prove god exists", then I can not. What I can do though, is I can look at this vast amount of evidence and state with near certainty that it will do so. And while it is not technically correct to call it "proven" if we use the term literally, we can say that the evidence makes any other alternative so highly unlikely that we have demonstrated it with great probability, and can, for at least practical purposes, call it proven.

And the fact that you make an analogy comparing the existence of god to the sunrise shows that you seem to have trouble understanding basic science: the sunrise is an empirically verifiable phenomena. God is not. Consequently, one can be proven or disproven, while the other cannot. God is not open to falsification.

And when asked to "prove god exists", at very least it could be read as "show me evidence to indicate that this belief is probable, or at very least, fairly highly possible". And of course inherent in the first question is the second one. "if you don't have substantial evidence to indicate your god exists...why do you believe in it?"

And when asked to "prove god does not exist", at very least it could be read as "show me evidence to indicate that this belief is probable, or at very least, fairly highly possible". And of course inherent in the first question is the second one. "if you don't have substantial evidence to indicate god does not exist...why do you believe in it?"

And the fact that you make an analogy comparing the existence of god to the sunrise shows that you seem to have trouble understanding basic science: the sunrise is an empirically verifiable phenomena. God is not. Consequently, one can be proven or disproven, while the other cannot. God is not open to falsification.

says who...you? You presume to define god?

That might be true. Suppose a whole segment of your population did interact with this teapot.

False analogy. Just because people talk to the teapot doesn't mean it talks back.

That just about their whole society is based on this teapot.

Utter bullshit.

who said I believe god does not exist? I believe god as described by some doesn't exist, namely because such a descripted entity would leave evidence bhind, where there is none.

But a vast concept of god, it's hard to find evidence for, namely because you can't be certain what the evidence would even look like if we found it.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, Specific claims (those that deal with the natural world) about specific models of god can be tested scientifically.

You seem to be confusing the concept of 'god as idea', and 'god as being'.

God as idea I have no problem with. But ideas are not reality.The reality of dinner is not a menu, nor is it the word "dinner". The reality of a dinner is the dinner.

What is the reality of God? God itself? Where's that? What is that?

There's no reality behind the idea of God. So if you're happy with that as an idea (an idea with no reality behind it) than have at it, but that seems like a pretty weak idea to me. Might as well be Xenu, in that case. Here to help me with my dead alien ghosts.

P.S. Screw Scientology in all its forms.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, Specific claims (those that deal with the natural world) about specific models of god can be tested scientifically.

Although not really, these models can just as easily 'die the death of a thousand qualifications'. I mean the theists might turn around and say 'oh the devil removed the needed evidence, and put this contradictory evidence in place', or something like that. Which you can't exactly disprove.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, Specific claims (those that deal with the natural world) about specific models of god can be tested scientifically.

well fine, yes, it's a fair assumption, I mean if we want to define god as a generalized conceptual "thing" about which no predictions can be made, then sure, it would be inherently unfalsifiable because we couldn't even tell what would, in essence, falsify it.

Which, fine, if that's the direction you want to take it. It just strains my own personal sense of logic to believe in something that is undefiniable. What, exactly, is it that you believe in?

says who...you? You presume to define god?

No. I just know what falsification means, and what criteria are required for something to be falsifiable. God does not meet these criteria. Your love for whatever it is you love also is unfalsifiable, but I don't need to be able to define that either in order for my statement to be true.

And the fact that you make an analogy comparing the existence of god to the sunrise shows that you seem to have trouble understanding basic science: the sunrise is an empirically verifiable phenomena. God is not. Consequently, one can be proven or disproven, while the other cannot. God is not open to falsification.

You're contradicting yourself. You said earlier:

While ignoring the fact that science doesn't prove anything. it disproves stuff.

Funny, since you keep telling people they don't understand how science relates to this.


And when asked to "prove god does not exist", at very least it could be read as "show me evidence to indicate that this belief is probable, or at very least, fairly highly possible". And of course inherent in the first question is the second one. "if you don't have substantial evidence to indicate god does not exist...why do you believe in it?"

So, of all the unbounded things that could exist, by your logic, you would now have to believe in all of them that don't have substantial evidence to indicate they don't exist.

Neo Art's default of holding off and not believing until there is a reason to believe seems a bit more reasonable than the default of believing in something without substantial evidence.

Although not really, these models can just as easily 'die the death of a thousand qualifications'. I mean the theists might turn around and say 'oh the devil removed the needed evidence, and put this contradictory evidence in place', or something like that. Which you can't exactly disprove.

well that again brings us into the "we can't really prove or disprove anything, just gather enough evidence to make it appear so probable/improbable as to be able to state with confidence that it is, for all practical purposes, proven/disproven"

And when asked to "prove god does not exist", at very least it could be read as "show me evidence to indicate that this belief is probable, or at very least, fairly highly possible". And of course inherent in the first question is the second one. "if you don't have substantial evidence to indicate god does not exist...why do you believe in it?"

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in faeries? How about magical mystical dragons that exist just out of your peripheral vision, beyond hills of diamonds, and glowing strands of gold?

Or do you believe unicorns, faeries, and invisible, always out of sight dragons...probably don't exist?

And therein lies the problem. I could come up with a million things you don't believe in. You don't believe in dragons and lepraucauns and santa claus and the tooth fairy (I'm assuming here, of course), and an honest lawyer. There are whole myriad of things that you believe do not exist. What's the problem with adding "god" to that list?

Or do you go around telling people that they shouldn't NOT believe in santa claus?

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in faeries? How about magical mystical dragons that exist just out of your peripheral vision, beyond hills of diamonds, and glowing strands of gold?

Or do you believe unicorns, faeries, and invisible, always out of sight dragons...probably don't exist?

And therein lies the problem. I could come up with a million things you don't believe in. You don't believe in dragons and lepraucauns and santa claus and the tooth fairy (I'm assuming here, of course), and an honest lawyer. There are whole myriad of things that you believe do not exist. What's the problem with adding "god" to that list?

Or do you go around telling people that they shouldn't NOT believe in santa claus?

Hush, you. You just clearly have "trouble understanding basic science". You see, it doesn't prove anything*. Therefore, you should believe in something that has no evidence for it.

*Except for the sun, apparently. That can be "proven or disproven".

Hush, you. You just clearly have "trouble understanding basic science". You see, it doesn't prove anything*. Therefore, you should believe in something that has no evidence for it.

*Except for the sun, apparently. That can be "proven or disproven".

Science provides evidence to support its theories beyond reasonable doubt. At least for accepted theories. Courts do the same thing and call it proof so I'm not seeing a problem here.

There's no reality behind the idea of God...

Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

Although not really, these models can just as easily 'die the death of a thousand qualifications'. I mean the theists might turn around and say 'oh the devil removed the needed evidence, and put this contradictory evidence in place', or something like that. Which you can't exactly disprove.

Satan put those fossils there!

But it would be possible simply to ignore the non-scientific qualifications and continue a scientific study of the phenomena.

well fine, yes, it's a fair assumption, I mean if we want to define god as a generalized conceptual "thing" about which no predictions can be made, then sure, it would be inherently unfalsifiable because we couldn't even tell what would, in essence, falsify it.

Which, fine, if that's the direction you want to take it. It just strains my own personal sense of logic to believe in something that is undefiniable. What, exactly, is it that you believe in?

I believe in a natural (as opposed to supernatural), immanent (not transcendent), non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omni benevolent, creative unity of all things.

They did say "Probably"....

Science provides evidence to support its theories beyond reasonable doubt. At least for accepted theories. Courts do the same thing and call it proof so I'm not seeing a problem here.

The problem is here:

Gift of God first said that "science doesn't prove anything", which I agree with. It attempts to disprove things, to refine models.

But THEN, in trying to show how Neo Art supposedly doesn't understand "basic science", he claimed that science, through empirical evidence CAN "prove or disprove" the sun rising, thereby completely contradicting himself on a point central to his entire argument.

You're contradicting yourself. You said earlier:



Funny, since you keep telling people they don't understand how science relates to this.



So, of all the unbounded things that could exist, by your logic, you would now have to believe in all of them that don't have substantial evidence to indicate they don't exist.

Neo Art's default of holding off and not believing until there is a reason to believe seems a bit more reasonable than the default of believing in something without substantial evidence.

Yes. A sunrise cannot be proven. It can be wittnessed, though, so my point still stands.

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in faeries? How about magical mystical dragons that exist just out of your peripheral vision, beyond hills of diamonds, and glowing strands of gold?

...

Or do you go around telling people that they shouldn't NOT believe in santa claus?

I was pointing out that there is just as much evidence for the lack of god's existence as there is for god's existence. So any belief based on that lack of evidence is one of faith.

The fact that the same range of evidence (i.e. none) exists for these things does not change that fact.

I could simply point out that a belief in a lack of god is equivalent to a belief in the Easter Bunny as neither have any evidence for such a belief.

Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

Evidence of something NOT being real?

How would I do that? Go through everything that's real in the world and show how each one of those things isn't God?

You can't show evidence of something NOT being there. No one can. It's impossible.

I could, however, point to the absolute lack of anything in reality that even suggests the reality of God. I could point to millions of people who believe in God, none of whom have been able to show anything concrete that substantiates the claim of the reality of their God.

Remember I'm not talking about the idea of God. I concede that the idea of God is there. I'm talking about the physical world. A tangible piece of evidence suggesting that the idea of God has some sort of reality behind it and isn't just some crap that some guy thought up.

And there is none.

You can't show evidence of something NOT being there. No one can. It's impossible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

I believe in a natural (as opposed to supernatural), immanent (not transcendent), non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omni benevolent, creative unity of all things.

You were asked for a definition, and you've give a fair one. When you use the term God, I can respect that this is what you mean.

But God as defined in the dictionary is very different, and I think that might cause confusion.

Yes. A sunrise cannot be proven. It can be wittnessed, though, so my point still stands.

Oh, no, you were very clear saying it could be "proven or disproven" via the "basic science" you accuse others of not understanding.

You were asked for a definition, and you've give a fair one. When you use the term God, I can respect that this is what you mean.

But God as defined in the dictionary is very different, and I think that might cause confusion.

It does cause confusion. A lot.

This is why I don't like dictionaries for anything except the most basic definitions. If you're discussing theology on a meaningful level, you should be beyond such a basic definition.

I believe in a natural (as opposed to supernatural) .... creative unity of all things.

What do you mean by creative unity?

I could simply point out that a belief in a lack of god is equivalent to a belief in the Easter Bunny as neither have any evidence for such a belief.

But by your logic, belief in the lack of an Easter Bunny with magical powers to conceal its existence is ALSO equivalent to the belief in the Easter Bunny.

Oh, no, you were very clear saying it could be "proven or disproven" via the "basic science" you accuse others of not understanding.

And then I said I was wrong and it can't be proven. I made a mistake. I meant to say witnessed.

Are you confused about something?

On a late note, they DID have a great flood, but it was NOT related to a deity and did NOT cover the entire earth.Observe! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif)

Also, here are some more (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) contradictions in the bible.

It does cause confusion. A lot.

This is why I don't like dictionaries for anything except the most basic definitions. If you're discussing theology on a meaningful level, you should be beyond such a basic definition.

In other words, depart at will from the meanings inherent in language, so you could essentially saying anything, and when challenged "Oh, I don't go by meanings so basic as the dictionary".

It would be like me going to court and saying "Your honor, yes, my client killed her willfully, maliciously, and without justification, but that is not murder. Please stop being so limited by your defintions."

What do you mean by creative unity?

As a monist, I believe that all things in the universe are one. God is all these things and the relationships between them.

But by your logic, belief in the lack of an Easter Bunny with magical powers to conceal its existence is ALSO equivalent to the belief in the Easter Bunny.

In that there is no evidence to support such a belief, they are equal.

And then I said I was wrong and it can't be proven. I made a mistake. I meant to say witnessed.

Are you confused about something?

You are admitting now, with the above quoted post that you were wrong and made a mistake. You didn't admit that before.

EDIT: All you said was: "Yes. A sunrise cannot be proven. It can be wittnessed, though, so my point still stands." So, no, you didn't admit to being wrong or making a mistake, until after I had posted that.
So, no, by your own postings, I'm not the confused one.

As a monist, I believe that all things in the universe are one. God is all these things and the relationships between them.



In that there is no evidence to support such a belief, they are equal.

So, Neo Art, who by his own words "withholds judgement" is wrong by not picking one equal over the other?

You, who have chosen one equal over the other, are correct in your method?