SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > It is done every day.
> >
> > > > Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> > > > evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
> >
> > I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> > evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise.
> >
> > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > > apart.
> >
> > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > at the speed of light would be zero.
> >
> > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> calculations. It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to exist.

Which people?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:49?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 4:29?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 15, 3:29?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:1176640427.794998.147610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > > > > 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?
> >
> > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > Well, what I think you should do is explain your rules to Jesus Christ
> > > > > when he returns to judge the earth.
> >
> > > > Run away, run away!- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > I could send you a copy of the Bible. ?Where should I send it?
> >
> > I have several already, thank you. ?Continue running away from your
> > lack of objective, verifiable evidence.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, as I understand it, even atheist Al Klein is considering the idea that a book might be an object.

Keep running.

 

[Sippuddin]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:

> There is a term falsification that comes into play.

The falsifiable default presumption in this case is 'No God'.

We atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those
who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand?

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:45?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 4:35?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 15, 5:51?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I feel no need to explain myself to God. ?If God is genuinely
> > > > > > all-knowing, then he already knows why I made the "choice" I made.
> >
> > > > > Well, how is it that you claim I enter into this some way? ?As I said
> > > > > before, discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth.
> >
> > > > What objective, verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your
> > > > imagination can interact with reality?
> >
> > > Well, I have the train in Einstein's description which is not affected
> > > by the attempts of college graduates to reduce its length by witchcraft.
> >
> > That's nice, but isn't responsive. ?Now answer the question.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, you are certainly welcome to your own ideas about what is responsive.

Still non responsive. Why do you refuse to answer? What objective,
verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your imagination can
interact with reality?

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:39?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 4:36?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 15, 5:52?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > 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?
> >
> > > > > > And when do you plan on that happening?
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > What do you mean when do I plan on it happening? ?The scriptures say
> > > > > the day and the hour no man knoweth, not the angels in heaven, not the
> > > > > Son of God, but the Father only.
> >
> > > > And the ruby slippers will take us back to Kansas.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > I think Kansas would be a good place for you.
> >
> > Well, why don't you explain your idea to Dorothy when she returns?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Well, as I understand it, Judy Garland committed suicide.

What does that have to do with you explaining your idea to Dorothy?
Or do you not understand the concept of "actors"?

 

[Sippuddin]

Virgil wrote:
> In article <ZsGdnfDt571WT77bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>
>>> ... nor do we
>>> have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
>> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
>
> Wrong on two counts. Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin assumes it rather than
> presuming it

reasonable default presumption : that which is reasonably taken for
granted in any given case

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3y7q7x

We atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those
who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand? So you
can stop trying to shift the burden of proof to us atheists. That won't
work.

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[Sippuddin]

Jeckyl wrote:
> "Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
> news:ZsGdnfDt571WT77bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>
>>> ... nor do we have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
>> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
>>
>> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding:
>
> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding
>
> What do you say
>
I have told you what I say. Can't you read? I am not saying anything
about your hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture) God thingy, I am
just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in any
case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)

We atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those
who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand?

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[Sippuddin]

JessHC wrote:
> Sippuddin wrote:
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>
>>> ... nor do we
>>> have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
>> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
>>
>> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding:
>>
>> Richo wrote:
>> > On Apr 11, 9:05 am, "Enlightened one" <ladyt...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> You can neither prove that there is a God nor can you prove that there
>> >> isn't.
>> >
>> > Fine.
>> >
>> No it is not fine because we atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove
>> in this case, only those who champion the notion that there might be a
>> God do. Understand?
>>
>> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.
>
> Which has nothing to do with "might be."

The null, 'No God' is the denial (the negation) of 'might be a God'.

We atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those
who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand?

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[Sippuddin]

jientho@aol.com wrote:

>
> We're still waiting for you to demonstrate that there exists
> any such thing as a required default presumption


It is concomitant to the principle that it is logical fallacy to presume
[take it for granted by default] that the proposition in question is
true because there is no proof it is false.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

We atheists have absolutely nothing (no thing) to prove in this case,
only those who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand?

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[Sippuddin]

jientho@aol.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:51 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>>> ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>>
>> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof).
>
> That's a Fallacy of Petitio Principii from Septic.
>

Wrong, Jeffie, Petitio Principii is the fallacy of begging the question,
moron.

Do you even know what "the question" is in this case?

Clue: the question in this case is:

Is it true that there might be a God as Jeffie and his theist friends
assert?

There is no such thing as God in evidence is there?

You can give up trying to shift the burden of proof to us atheists. We
atheists have absolutely nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only
those of you who champion the notion that there might be a God do.
Understand?

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[Sippuddin]

Jeckyl wrote:
> "Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
> news:meGdncltyNxVTr7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
>> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>>
>>> ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>>
>> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof). The evidence
>> speaks for itself, and there is no such thing as God in evidence is there?
>
> What evidence?
>
Any evidence theists can produce.

evident : clear to the vision or the understanding
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evident

You tell me, is there a God evident?

evidence : something probative [serving to prove]

proof : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement,
or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proof



We atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those
who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand?

That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.

For example, see: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm


"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what

 

[Sippuddin]

Jeckyl wrote:
> "Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
> news:meGdncltyNxVTr7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
>> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>>
>>> ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>>
>> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof). The evidence
>> speaks for itself, and there is no such thing as God in evidence is there?
>
> What evidence?
>
> Saying "there is evidence" is a claim .. an assertion .. (it is NOT a
> denial) .. so the BoP is clearly to show this evidence.
>
> You can't weasel out of it. Although as the liar you are, you will try.
>
>
?Oh, J, why don't you give your lame old argument _ad hominem_ a rest?
Haven't you realized yet that it won't help you establish that there
might be a God anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence?

?You want to know why the notion there might be a God is summarily
rejected? It is summarily rejected due to a logical fallacy (special
pleading for God) inherent in it. ?How can there possibly be a God when
the argument for it is one that absolutely cannot have any validity, as
Bertrand Russell explains?


<quote>
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that.
</quote>
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

 

[JessHC]

Sippuddin wrote:
> JessHC wrote:
> > Sippuddin wrote:
> >> Jeckyl wrote:
> >>
> >>> ... nor do we
> >>> have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
> >> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
> >> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
> >>
> >> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding:
> >>
> >> Richo wrote:
> >> > On Apr 11, 9:05 am, "Enlightened one" <ladyt...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> You can neither prove that there is a God nor can you prove that there
> >> >> isn't.
> >> >
> >> > Fine.
> >> >
> >> No it is not fine because we atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove
> >> in this case, only those who champion the notion that there might be a
> >> God do. Understand?
> >>
> >> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with "might be."
>
> The null, 'No God' is the denial (the negation) of 'might be a God'.

Nope. 'No God' is the denial of 'God.' 'Might be' addresses lack of
knowledge, and in fact implies "probably not." In other words: "there
might be a god, but there isn't any objective, verifiable evidence of
any, and therefore no reason to assume one."

But since you will never address that issue, and will continue to
insist theists claim there "might be" a deity rather than "there is a
deity," and will continue to lie about what others have to say on the
subject in a lame effort to support your assertion, there's no need to
respond.

 

[Mike]

On Apr 17, 12:33 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>

> > > > > Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > > > > productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > > > > lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > > > > middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > > > > on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > > > > apart.
>
> > > > The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > > > different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > > at the speed of light would be zero.
>
> > And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> calculations. It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to
> exist.
> Robert B. Winn

An object with nonzero rest mass cannot move at the speed of
light. Photons have zero rest mass. It goes like this. Suppose m_0
is the rest mass of a particle. Then if the particle is moving at
velocity v the inertial mass is given by

m = m_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

This formula applies to particles for which m_0 > 0 and |v| < c. For
a photon we have m_0 = 0 and v = c and the above formula for m is
meaningless since it yields 0/0.

Energy is given by mc^2. For a stationary particle we have the
rest energy E_0 = m_0 c^2. For a moving particle we have

E = (m_0 c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Momentum in relativity is still p = mv provided we understand m to
mean inertial mass. Thus

p = (mv)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Trivial algebra now shows that

E^2 = (E_0) ^2 + p^2 c^2.

The above relation holds for particles with nonzero rest mass. For a
photon which has zero rest mass we have E_0 = 0. Hence for a photon
we have E^2 = p^2 c^2 from which it follows

E = |p|c (for a photon).

This, of course, is a purely relativistic phenomenon. In classical
physics a particle with zero rest mass would have zero mass no matter
what speed it moves and hence could not carry momentum nor have
kinetic energy. In relativity and in reality photons have both. For
a photon of frequence nu, quantum physics tells us that E = h nu for a
photon. Now we can infer the inertial mass for a photon as m = E/
c^2. It follows that for a photon

m = (h nu)/c^2.

I realize that you anti-relativity cranks don't believe a word of
this, but you might as well get clear on what relativity actually
says.

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176674527.481727.23040@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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."
> >
> No, this is false. Whoever is claiming to have _evidence_
> is making the only claim here. Refusing to present this
> evidence is shirking responsibility.

Well, every day people present evidence that the xian deity is
internally contradictory and logically impossible, although it is
inevitably waved away. Describe another deity and we'll see what we
can come up with.

> 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.
> >
> A specific god?

Yes. The xian one. Did you have another in mind?

> He has attempted to define God

You're talking about the xian deity again, correct?

> and then by holding
> up his own idea,

You must mean "by holding up the ideas found in the scripture for that
religion."

> can demolish the god of his creation then claim
> to have _evidence_ that god doesn't exist. This of course is a
> strawman-god .

It's a strawman for an atheist to use a description obtained from the
scripture of the cult?

> This as I have observed is rather typical.

Yes, it is typical that when an atheist points out the contradictions
and logical impossibility of the deity described in a given "holy
book" (the bible in this instance), the theist claims the atheist is
attacking a strawman. Unfortunately, the only descriptions any
atheist has to bo on are either those in the holy writings of a given
cult, or the descriptions provided by the members of that cult, since
there are no deities available to clear up the confusion.

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
> news:39a52357kldfqop5p3mujs4pp6fj7k3k2d@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:13:46 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > <HEsque@bellsouth.net> 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.
> >
> > <sigh> Do you really not get it, H. Willie, or are you just
> > pretending to be stupid?
> >
> > Once more, with feeling: there is no such thing as evidence that
> > something doesn't exist
> >
> So you are admitting that the proclamation of "simple _evidence_"
> falsifying Gods does not exist therefore the statement is false.

He might be, but I wouldn't. If a claim is made for a deity, and that
claim can be proven false, at the very least that's evidence the claim
about the deity is false, if not the deity itself.

> > There is either evidence for existence or there is not. If there
> > is evidence (and I mean real evidence, H. Willie, not the bullshit
> > you God-botherers peddle),
> >
> I have peddled nothing. I am holding your feet to the fire. To
> demonstrating falsifying evidence dethroning Gods.

Evidence "dethroning" the xian god has been given. Until you name and
describe another deity, we can't really say anything about it, can we?

> then we know the thing exists, or at least
> > can assume it probably does, depending on the amount of evidence
> > available. If there is no real, testable objective evidence that the
> > thing in question exists, then the logical assumption (and the default
> > position) is to assume that it does not.
> >
> > Got that, H. Willie?
> >
> The truth is you don't get it!

Nope.

 

[JessHC]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176676165.585598.137900@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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...
> > > > > >
> > > > > 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?
> >
> No, I want to see the "_evidence_ no Gods exist" that the header
> proclaims. This is not the same as _proof_. Proof is difficult to
> come by even in science.

Well, as I've said, the complete lack of objective, verifiable
evidence for any deity certainly demonstrates a lack of evidence
supporting their existence, since every being that exists leaves
evidence of its existence. The need for "creator deities" has been
demonstrated to be unneccesary. The fact that any deity I've ever
heard described as such turns out to have some fatal logical flaw in
it's description, taken with all the other problems I've just
described, seems to be pretty good evidence against the existence of
deities to me.

> In fact, the burden of proof rests on the
> > positive claimant; in this case, the one asserting deities exist.
> >
> Ordinarily I would agree except for one word - evidence .
> If the poster or you has such evidence, it is "y'alls" duty to
> present it. Failure to do so is shirking this responsibility.
> And this is especially heinous when it is the claimant who
> desires to subvert the faith of the theist, but refuses to
> present his evidence.

Evidence of the impossibility of the xian deity has been presented,
using the xian bible as reference. If that "subverts" the theist's
faith, too bad. How much evidence against how many deities is
required before one can state one has evidence of no deities?

> There is a term falsification that comes into play. It is
> not possible to prove anything, most scientist will tell
> you this, but it is entirely possible to falsify a theory or a
> claim by pointing to contravening evidence. This has not
> been done. Instead the tendency is to take refuge and hide
> behind some fallacious claim of logic.

Please be more specific. Are you saying it is logically fallacious to
point to the lack of any evidence combined with the logical
impossibility of described deities as evidence against deities?

> > 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.
> > > >
> >
> The reason I insist that your post doesn't address my position is because
> you fail to address what I actually write. Instead you go off on a tangent
> and attack certain specific Gods, which has _nothing_ at all to do with
> anything I have written and doesn't apply.

In my opinion, it applies. As far as I'm aware, every deity that has
ever been described to atheists has been refuted in one manner or
another. It is not my responsibility to reproduce every refutation
described in history. It isn't any atheist's responsibility to
disprove every god any theist comes up with before declaring there's
enough evidence to state there are no deities; after the first
thousand or so, one becomes tired of repeating the excercise.

 

[Virgil]

In article <3Iudna-h96Z_dLnbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
> > ... Whoever is claiming to have _evidence_
> >
> Stop trying to shift the burden of proof

Stop trying to sneak out from under the burden of proof that you
deserve, Septic.

Claiming that your claims aren't claims, but anyone else's mere
speculations are, doesn't work.

"Might be a god" is not a claim, but is only a speculation.
There is no implication that "might not be a god" is false implied.

"No God" is a claim which directly implies "There is a GOD" is false.

Give up your lies, Septic, and be honest for a change.

You might even learn to like it!

 

[Virgil]

In article <9didnV4KNpVzdrnbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:


> We atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove in this case, only those
> who champion the notion that there might be a God do. Understand?

No! Such nonsense is beyond understanding.

Since "might be" does not exclude "might not be", and vice versa, how is
either of them any more a claim in need of proof that the other?
>
> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption
"Don't know".

 

[Virgil]

In article <4qidnb0Vx7g7c7nbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> Virgil wrote:
> > In article <ZsGdnfDt571WT77bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeckyl wrote:
> >>
> >>> ... nor do we
> >>> have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
> >> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
> >> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
> >
> > Wrong on two counts. Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin assumes it rather than
> > presuming it
>
reasonable default assumption
no such animal.

>
> We atheists
Your extreme form of athiesm has at least as much to prove as any form
of theism.
>
> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption
"No Knowledge".