SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[Free Lunch]

On 15 Apr 2007 09:26:55 -0700, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1176654415.157086.69110@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 15, 5:40?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
>> > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>> > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >> rbwinn wrote:
>> > > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>> > > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>>
>> > > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
>> > > >give them...
>>
>> > > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
>> > > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>>
>> > > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
>> > > >Jesus coming back!
>>
>> > > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
>> > > >who keep their word.
>>
>> > > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>>
>> > > >I saw this in alt religion.
>> > > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>> > > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>>
>> > > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
>> > > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
>> > > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
>> > > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
>> > > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
>> > > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
>> > > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>>
>> > > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
>> > > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
>> > > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
>> > > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
>> > > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>>
>> > > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
>> > > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
>> > > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
>> > > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
>> > > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
>> > > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>>
>> > > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
>> > > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
>> > > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
>> > > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
>> > > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
>> > > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
>> > > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>>
>> > Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
>> > that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers. ou seem
>> > to have no power over his existence whatsoever. od is like the Bible
>> > in one way. o matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
>> > to exist and says what it was written to say. o matter what atheists
>> > say about God, He continues to exist. ell, time for Bible study. f
>> > you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
>> > relativity, let me know.
>>
>> So your assertion is that all "holy" writings that exist are true?
>> You think that's an intelligent position?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
>scripture would be true.

How do you know that any of the writers were prophets of God? You have
no evidence to support that contention.

>Do you think it is an intelligent position
>to deny the existence of God?

As long as there remains no evidence to support the claim that God
exists, the only valid choice is to deny the existence of God.

>Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 5:40�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176640430.538032.321750@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 1:19?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Your claims of a combination of galillean transforms and a constant
> > maximum
> > speed of light have been proven (for a century) to be self-contradictory
> > and
> > so DO NOT WORK. Infact, ti is easily proved (and I have done so for you
> > already) that Galillean transforms do not work with ANY maximum possible
> > speed, or any speed that is the same in all intertial frames of reference.
>
> > I have demonstrated this every time you post it with your continual LIE
> > that
> > they work ,and depsite your continual LIES that the disproves are using
> > 'ether theory' or that LIE that I am claiming light to be oblate spheroid,
> > or the LIE that I believe trains are crushed by photons, or any of the
> > many
> > other LIES that you post.
>
> > Unless you have something else to offer, or some valid questions that
> > indicate a genuine desire to acutally learn, then you might as well leave
> > this discussion, as what you have said so far has been disproven and
> > restating it is not going to make it true.
>
> > Perhaps you might care to combine the constant speed of light with Lorentz
> > transforms, which DO work with a constant maximum speed ?
>
> > Well, as I understand what you are saying,
>
> You understand very little, from what you've demonstrated here
>
> > you believe that there are enough Harry Potter wizards
> > like you to impose your interpretation of mathematics
> > on the entire world.
>
> Math is not subject to intperpreation.

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:96e42312lub84jke16c98kv11dhd84lj8k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:31:12 -0400, in alt.atheism
> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> <4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
> >
> >"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> >news:9kd323lhu446krhj1d01iapo5r9jkqc1fp@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...
> >> >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >> >>
> >> >I saw this in alt religion.
> >> >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >> >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >>
> >>
> >> The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> >> logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> >> There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> >> works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> >> doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> >> critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> >> evidence that the thing in question does exist.
> >>
> >This is true, however, I made no claim, therefore I have nothing to
> >prove. There can be no evidence that God does _not_ exist, therefore
> >it's an irrational claim. Rather it's irrational to present such a non
> >supportable claim.
>
> You were poorly educated. The default position for all critical
> thinking, the null hypothesis, must be that X does not exist. People who
> make assertions that something does exist _always_ bear the
> responsibility of providing the evidence to support their claim.
>
Appearently, you never read my post before responding. You would
be right except, I personally made no claim. I took issue with an existing
claim. Whoever or whatever entitled the above thread suggesting he/she/it
had Evidence of No Gods is wrong! There can be no such _evidence_.
It cannot exist.
>
In the
> absence of evidence to support such claims, it is valid to assert that
> the null hypothesis is true. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist
> so it is reasonable and accurate to say that there are no leprechauns.
>
One must first claim that there are such creatures. Without any such
claim, there is nothing to prove. IOW I may believe there are leprechauns,
but since it means nothing to me that you do not, I have no burden
to prove their existence to you. The fact is you may entertain your
opinion that no leprechauns exist. That's fine. But when you claim
to have evidence that there are no such creatures, Ok, present
your evidence. Mine is the duty to try and falsify you claimed data.
You made the claim that no leprechauns exist, therefore, it must
be important to convince me, otherwise why make such claim.
>
> This, of course, would be provisional, since evidence may arise at some
> point in the future to show that leprechauns do exist, but it would be
> irrational to rely on the existence of leprechauns since there is no
> evidence whatsoever for them.
>
Ok. lets wait and see.
>
> ...

 

[Scott Richter]

H. Wm. Esque <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I saw this in alt religion.
> Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> I have yet to see the proof of this claim.

Translation: "I see nothing because I stand on the shoulders of
intellectual midgets..."

 

[Scott Richter]

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
> scripture would be true.

Not sure which is funnier, the first part of that sentence or the
second...


> Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God?

It most certainly is. Don't you know that?

 

[Sippuddin]

Jeckyl wrote:
> "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Actually, Martin Rees called his six fundamental constants
>> as brute facts . This are facts that require explaination.
>
> Facts don't have to be explained .. they just 'are'
>
>
Ha ha! That's hilarious.

You can't call a given statement a fact unless you can explain exactly
how it is that a given statement is known to be in accord with the
actual state of affairs so that anyone can check your observations in
the particular case.


See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,

"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"

[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]

"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." -- Popper

 

[jientho@aol.com]

On Apr 15, 2:03 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> Actually, Martin Rees called his six fundamental constants
> >> as brute facts . This are facts that require explaination.
>
> > Facts don't have to be explained .. they just 'are'
>
> You can't call a given statement a fact

False, Septic. He most certainly can and does _call_ them facts
(which doesn't make them ones, of course).

> unless you can explain exactly
> how it is that a given statement is known to be in accord with the
> actual state of affairs so that anyone can check your observations

We're still waiting for you, Septic, to demonstrate that there exists
any such thing as a required default presumption in logic as you
claim, so that anyone can check _your_ supposed observation. I deny
that there exists any such thing, and I deny that you have
demonstrated that there exists any such thing.

<cue the chirping crickets>

Jeff

 

[Mike]

On Apr 14, 8:17 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Billions of mathematicians and scientists and other people all over
> the world have studied abortion and found nothing wrong with it.

Silly comparison. An issue of mathematics and logic is not the same
as a moral judgement about right and wrong. Frankly I decided to
become a mathematician in part because of the objective and unversal
quality of mathematical truths. Put a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu,
and a Russian atheist in a room and ask them to debate questions of
politics or right and wrong and they will be unable to agree about
anything. But if they happen to be mathematicians or scientists then
the argument can be productive and the will reach usually the right
results. The world's scientific community has in the past been wrong
about scientific questions, but never over a simple point of logic.

.. So you say that I have unpopular ideas. I already knew
> that, Mike.

Why is it impossible for you to consider that your ideas are
"unpopular" simply because they are wrong?

> I still do not see any trains shrinking in length just
> because you and your friends say that they do.
> I think that you and your friends read too many Harry Potter books.
> So, once again, I will ask you about this problem that Albert
> Einstein thought of. An oberver is beside a railroad track. A train
> is coming down the track toward the observer with a velocity of v. On
> the train at the middle is another observer . When the observer on
> the train is at the position of the observer on the ground, bolts of
> lightning strike both ends of the train leaving marks on the ends of
> the train and marks on the railroad track. How far apart are the
> marks on the train? How far apart are the marks on the track?
> Since you refuse to answer the questions, I will answer them.
> If the length of the train is L, the marks on the train are a distance
> of L apart. If the length of the train is L, the marks on the track
> are a distance of L apart.

Your mistake as your false belief that simultaneity of the
lightning strikes is the same for both observers. It is not. In my
post above I gave a full derivation of the length contraction. If you
study the argument you will see that the lack of agreement of
simultaneity between the observers is the origin of length
contraction. You show me the error in my derivation of Lorentz
transformations and length contraction.

I don't think I can add much to Jeckyl's detailed answer to you
on that other thread. I did not read the entire thread in full
detail, but in the posts I did look at carefully Jeckyl's analysis
seemed completely correct. If you really want I can repeat the
explanations for you. But first show me what is wrong with the
standard derivation of Lorentz transformation and length contraction I
posted for you.

 

[Virgil]

In article <mJidnbia-aRL9b_bnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:4HqUh.4108$XU4.3472@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> Actually, Martin Rees called his six fundamental constants
> >> as brute facts . This are facts that require explaination.
> >
> > Facts don't have to be explained .. they just 'are'
> >
> >
> Ha ha! That's hilarious.

That is exactly what Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin has often said himself,
and now objects to only because it is being used against him.

 

[Pastor Frank]

"H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:UYdUh.2730$Pq5.1784@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>> > >
>> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> give them...
>> > >
>> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
>> > > > Christ
>> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>> > >
>> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
>> > > about
> Jesus coming back!
>> >
>> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> who keep their word.
>>
>> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> I saw this in alt religion.
> Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
Well, bless your little heart Jess, for admitting you would be an
immediate, ardent and enthusiastic convert, were you assured that Jesus
Christ is NOT a "fictional character", but an actual historical person.
There is hope for you yet Jess!!!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Pastor Frank]

"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the
>> actual
>> existence of millions of atheists.
>> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the
>> atheists and send them to his Hell.
>> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate
>> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of
>> its
>> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the
>> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell.
>
> What if he is neither "mean and intolerant" or "caring and loving"?
>
Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ
"communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we killed
Him for it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1hwluzq.nj2ssg13dgxkxN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> > H. Wm. Esque <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I saw this in alt religion.
> > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > Translation: "I see nothing because I stand on the shoulders of
> > intellectual midgets..."
> >
> If you are such of a Giant, where is your evidence. I make
> _no_ claim. But whoever or whatever entitled the original
> post, is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
> If he/she or it cannot present this evidence the only
> conclusion is he/she or it is lying.

Nice try. You're making an implicit claim; that evidence is required
to prove the nonexistence of deities. That's called "shifting the
burden of proof." The way things work in the real world is that one
looks around, notes the TOTAL LACK of evidence for deities, and
concludes there's no legitimate reason to accept any theists
unsupported assertion that they exist.

And in fact, the original poster pointed out that the lack of evidence
of a loving god is evidence that that specific god doesn't exist,
since if it did exist as described and truly wanted everybody to go to
heaven, it would provide the evidence each individual requires. That
such evidence is not provided proves that the specific deity described
doesn't exist.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:40?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > > > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > > > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > > >give them...
> >
> > > > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > > > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > > >Jesus coming back!
> >
> > > > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > > >who keep their word.
> >
> > > > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > > > >I saw this in alt religion.
> > > > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > > > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > > > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> > > > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> > > > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> > > > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> > > > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> > > > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> > > > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
> >
> > > > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> > > > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> > > > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> > > > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> > > > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
> >
> > > > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> > > > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> > > > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> > > > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> > > > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> > > > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
> >
> > > > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> > > > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> > > > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> > > > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> > > > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> > > > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> > > > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
> >
> > > Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> > > that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers. ?You seem
> > > to have no power over his existence whatsoever. ?God is like the Bible
> > > in one way. ?No matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
> > > to exist and says what it was written to say. ?No matter what atheists
> > > say about God, He continues to exist. ?Well, time for Bible study. ?If
> > > you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
> > > relativity, let me know.
> >
> > So your assertion is that all "holy" writings that exist are true?
> > You think that's an intelligent position?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as scripture would be true.

Well, golly, you didn't bother to even read my question, did you? Or
did your deity write ALL holy writings around the world?

So how do you explain the fact that it has been thoroughly proven that
asking for anything in Jesus' name does absolutely nothing? There are
no qualifiers; there is no weasley "unless god doesn't want to, " or
"this only works for the apostles."

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any
thing in my name, I will do it.

How do you explain that there must be a 2000+ year old person walking
around?

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

How do you explain that bats must be birds, or cows must chew their
cud?

Gosh, the list goes on and on.

> Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God?

Of course, since there has never been any objective, verifiable
evidence supporting the assertion, and since the deity described is
logically contradictory.

 

[H. Wm. Esque]

"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hwluzq.nj2ssg13dgxkxN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> H. Wm. Esque <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > I saw this in alt religion.
> > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> Translation: "I see nothing because I stand on the shoulders of
> intellectual midgets..."
>
If you are such of a Giant, where is your evidence. I make
_no_ claim. But whoever or whatever entitled the original
post, is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
If he/she or it cannot present this evidence the only
conclusion is he/she or it is lying.

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176640427.794998.147610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose
> to
> > > give them...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
> Christ
> > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
> about
> > > Jesus coming back!
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are
> people
> > > who keep their word.
> > > >
> > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> > > >
> > > I saw this in alt religion.
> >
> > So? Does that make your fictional character real?
> >
> > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >
> > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven?
> >
> I don't. I made no such claim. So. I have nothing to prove.
> The burden of disproof rest not on me. Try as you might
> you cannot disprove this claim. Therefore, since you
> cannot and I have made no claims, then obviously no one
> has any burden of proof. It isn't required.

So when you asked " Where is the simple evidence of no God?," you were
just blowing smoke? In fact, the burden of proof rests on the
positive claimant; in this case, the one asserting deities exist.
There are only two possibilities; either they do or they don't. If
there is no objective, verifiable evidence pointing to them, then
there is no reason to accept the assertion that they exist.
Additionally, if it can be demonstrated that a specific deity is
logically contradictory, that deity can be dismissed as nonexistent.
There is a whole list of logical contradictions for the xian deity.

> > The xian bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. Of
> > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > deities, does it? How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ANYWHERE. EVER. In light of
> > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > accept the assertion.
> >
> > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
> >
> > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.
> >

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176640427.794998.147610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> > > >
> > > I saw this in alt religion.
> >
> > So? Does that make your fictional character real?

No answer?

> > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >
> > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? The xian
> > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. Of
> > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > deities, does it? How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ANYWHERE. EVER. In light of
> > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > accept the assertion.
> >
> As far as I can determine this post isn't addressed to me.

How disingenuous of you. I'll repeat the question: How do you
propose the nonexistence of deities be proven, in light of the fact
that the xian bible makes claims about the xian dieites that can be
proven false? It seems a straightforward question to me.

> > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
> >
> I have seen no claim either way, therefore neither of us has the
> burden of proof. You can claim I owe you a million dollars, but
> it isn't my responsibility to prove I do not.

And yet, you keep asking for evidence of no god. "Where is the simple
evidence of no God?" were your exact words.

> Neither is it yours.
> OTOH if I am the IRS, and I claim you owe the IRS a million $s
> then the burden of proof is on you.

No, it isn't. It is the IRS's job to prove I owe the money; they are
making the claim, and I'm disagreeing with them. It's in my interest
to defend myself from the claim.

> > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.
> >
> I made no such claim.

"Where is the simple evidence of no God?" You're trying to shift the
burden of proof.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > give them...
> >
> > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > Jesus coming back!
> >
> > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > who keep their word.
> >
> > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > > I saw this in alt religion.
> >
> > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
> >
> > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >
> > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > accept the assertion.
> >
> > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
> >
> > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> court.

Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 9:30�am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2007 09:26:55 -0700, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1176654415.157086.69...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 15, 5:40?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> > On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> >> > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> >> > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > > >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> > > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >> > > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> >> > > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> >> > > >give them...
>
> >> > > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> >> > > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> >> > > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> >> > > >Jesus coming back!
>
> >> > > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> >> > > >who keep their word.
>
> >> > > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> >> > > >I saw this in alt religion.
> >> > > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >> > > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> >> > > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> >> > > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> >> > > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> >> > > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> >> > > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> >> > > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> >> > > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>
> >> > > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> >> > > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> >> > > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> >> > > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> >> > > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>
> >> > > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> >> > > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> >> > > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> >> > > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> >> > > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> >> > > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>
> >> > > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> >> > > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> >> > > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> >> > > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> >> > > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> >> > > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> >> > > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>
> >> > Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> >> > that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 15, 9:55?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
> > scripture would be true.
>
> Not sure which is funnier, the first part of that sentence or the
> second...
>
> > Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God?
>
> It most certainly is. Don't you know that?

Well, why don't you explain your idea to Jesus Christ when he returns
to judge the earth?
Robert B. Winn

 

[Jeckyl]

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:skk423t42qk0upsp25p61uf0nq873314ks@4ax.com...
> On 15 Apr 2007 09:26:55 -0700, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>>Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
>>scripture would be true.

If God is all powerful, he can lie. He can certainly change his mind.

>>Do you think it is an intelligent position
>>to deny the existence of God?

It is an intelligent position to say that we cannot say whether or not God
exists as we do not know what God is, or in what sense he exists, nor do we
have any proof of his existence or non-existense. Until those things are
defined and proof is found, we do not know.

However, they evidence we do have strongly supports the premise that the God
defined in the Bible does not exist, or at best that he is ineffectual.