Guest Martin Phipps Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > We know God doesn't exist > > There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > statement. > > The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. To ask me to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. The same logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. Martin Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> statement. >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > To ask me to >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >The same >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." >Martin Padraic. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > We know God doesn't exist > >> > >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > >> statement. > >> > >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > > > >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. > > Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. There's really no point being open to the "possibility" that the Easter Bunny exists. > > To ask me to > >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. > >The same > >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. > > > Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts > of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason > why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should > not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. Because the burden of proof rests with the people who claim that God exists. You can argue that God doesn't want to reveal himself and that he just wants people to have faith but that does not _prove_ that he exists, it's just your excuse for why you can't provide any evidence of his existance. In any case, if God did exist and He could see how people all over the world are killing each other in His name then the responsible thing would be for Him to at least do something about it if not actually come forward and speak to religious leaders -if nobody else- and tell them that they should learn to live together in peace. And this killing has been going on a long time, starting with genocides, stonings, jihads and crusades and continuing through history with witch trials, burnings, holocausts and inquisitions and continuing even today with ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. His non action, to me, is sufficient to prove that he doesn't exist. The alternative would be to say He is encouraging this, but I suspect that would not be the kind of God you have in mind. You could argue that God is blind to all of this killing but then you would be admitting that an omniscient, all powerful God does not exist. That's all I am required to prove anyway so I'm done. Martin Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > We know God doesn't exist > >> > >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > >> statement. > >> > >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > > > >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. > > Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling us that we can't be sure if anything exists. > > To ask me to > >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. > >The same > >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. > > > Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts > of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason > why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should > not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide if we should believe that or not. I've tried to prove that god exists, it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is different than yours. You believe god exists despite the lack of evidence, whereas I don't. I don't have to provide evidence that god doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good enough. > You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a > position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God > does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? > > >Martin > > Padraic. > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1167783614.691652.305020@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> > >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> > >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. I'm pretty sure that I don't exist. That's for sure! And I'm not so sure about you, either! -- Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 On 2 Jan 2007 15:46:52 -0800, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> > >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > >There's really no point being open to the "possibility" that the Easter >Bunny exists. > >> > To ask me to >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >> >The same >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. > >Because the burden of proof rests with the people who claim that God >exists. Indeed, this is so. If this were about claims on the part of some believers that we have "incotrovertable scientific proof" that God exists, then I'd yield. However, the claim is _yours_, not the theist's: " We know God doesn't exist". It is now your burden to prove your claim. >You can argue that God doesn't want to reveal himself and that >he just wants people to have faith but that does not _prove_ that he >exists, it's just your excuse for why you can't provide any evidence of >his existance. > >In any case, if God did exist and He could see how people all over the >world are killing each other in His name then the responsible thing >would be for Him to at least do something about it if not actually come >forward and speak to religious leaders -if nobody else- and tell them >that they should learn to live together in peace. And this killing has >been going on a long time, starting with genocides, stonings, jihads >and crusades and continuing through history with witch trials, >burnings, holocausts and inquisitions and continuing even today with >ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. His non action, to me, is >sufficient to prove that he doesn't exist. Fair enough. The existence of the universe, to me, is sufficient evidence to prove the opposite. >The alternative would be to >say He is encouraging this, but I suspect that would not be the kind >of God you have in mind. You could argue that God is blind to all of >this killing but then you would be admitting that an omniscient, all >powerful God does not exist. That's all I am required to prove anyway >so I'm done. Well, no, you're not done. You've made an absolute claim, and there is no wiggling from it. The sob story you provide above and the absolutely lame so-called "proof" ("his nonaction, to me, is sufficient to prove") indicate to me you are probably not serious in your claim. Whether it was meant to be inflamatory or an exaggeration, or an emotional reaction to the previous post is anyone's guess. You'll be "done" when you've actually demonstrated, in a reasonable manner, that you actually have "proven" your claim to be true. Feel free to offer your data and methods and any experimentation that leads you to your conclusion. Padraic. >Martin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> > >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. >> > To ask me to >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >> >The same >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. > >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide >if we should believe that or not. Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some evidence should back up the claim. >I've tried to prove that god exists, >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is >different than yours. Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know that God exists". >You believe god exists despite the lack of >evidence, This is true. >whereas I don't. Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient evidence. >I don't have to provide evidence that god >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good >enough. Not at all. This is quite lazy. If you want to take the agnostic position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. But you up the ante when you make an absolute claim. When you had claimed that God exists, you tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist is in the exact same boat. He has to provide not just a lack of evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim that in no way can God exist. It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for those of us who claim he doesn't exist". >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." > >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly not the stupidest thing people do! Padraic. >> >Martin >> >> Padraic. >> >> -- >> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 2 Jan 2007 15:46:52 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > We know God doesn't exist > >> >> > >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > >> >> statement. > >> >> > >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > >> > > >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. > >> > >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > > > >There's really no point being open to the "possibility" that the Easter > >Bunny exists. > > > >> > To ask me to > >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. > >> >The same > >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. > >> > >> > >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts > >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason > >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should > >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. > > > >Because the burden of proof rests with the people who claim that God > >exists. > > Indeed, this is so. If this were about claims on the part of some > believers that we have "incotrovertable scientific proof" that God > exists, then I'd yield. However, the claim is _yours_, not the > theist's: " We know God doesn't exist". It is now your burden to prove > your claim. > > >You can argue that God doesn't want to reveal himself and that > >he just wants people to have faith but that does not _prove_ that he > >exists, it's just your excuse for why you can't provide any evidence of > >his existance. > > > >In any case, if God did exist and He could see how people all over the > >world are killing each other in His name then the responsible thing > >would be for Him to at least do something about it if not actually come > >forward and speak to religious leaders -if nobody else- and tell them > >that they should learn to live together in peace. And this killing has > >been going on a long time, starting with genocides, stonings, jihads > >and crusades and continuing through history with witch trials, > >burnings, holocausts and inquisitions and continuing even today with > >ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. His non action, to me, is > >sufficient to prove that he doesn't exist. > > Fair enough. The existence of the universe, to me, is sufficient > evidence to prove the opposite. > > >The alternative would be to > >say He is encouraging this, but I suspect that would not be the kind > >of God you have in mind. You could argue that God is blind to all of > >this killing but then you would be admitting that an omniscient, all > >powerful God does not exist. That's all I am required to prove anyway > >so I'm done. > > Well, no, you're not done. You've made an absolute claim, and there is > no wiggling from it. The sob story you provide above and the > absolutely lame so-called "proof" ("his nonaction, to me, is > sufficient to prove") indicate to me you are probably not serious in > your claim. Whether it was meant to be inflamatory or an exaggeration, > or an emotional reaction to the previous post is anyone's guess. > > You'll be "done" when you've actually demonstrated, in a reasonable > manner, that you actually have "proven" your claim to be true. Feel > free to offer your data and methods and any experimentation that leads > you to your conclusion. > > Padraic. First you have to refute the argument I have already given. The universe can exist without God but human suffering should not exist in the presence of a merciful God, especially suffering that is caused by people who profess to believe in God. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:52:25 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: - Refer: <quvqp2dhjf4lqasokuqrhbn5vvm06t1sb2@4ax.com> : >... there >is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. : !!!!! Fuckin' Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, we've got a live one here!! -- Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > We know God doesn't exist > >> >> > >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > >> >> statement. > >> >> > >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > >> > > >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. > >> > >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > > > >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling > >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. > > We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is > simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more > limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. Holy crap. We may have limited senses (I think our senses are pretty spectacular, but I'll play along), but we've invented machines that can sense the things we can't. We are able to sense the smallest particles of matter to the most distant galaxies. We can see things above and below the visible light spectrum. We can hear things with machines that the human ear can't. You underestimate our achievements. And if someone says god exists, we have all the same senses, and if they can sense god then I could too. When I follow their instructions as to where to find god, I find only that I've been fooled by a delusional person. > I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that > brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there > is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a > time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact > exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. We're not talking about that. We're talking about an existing Easter Bunny. NOt a hypothetical one. Same with god. Where is the real god(s)? > >> > To ask me to > >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. > >> >The same > >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. > >> > >> > >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts > >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason > >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should > >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. > > > >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide > >if we should believe that or not. > > Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no > sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a > "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some > evidence should back up the claim. Doesn't matter what the intent of the claimant is, existence is something that can be verified, "scientifically" if you like. You say god exists, where's the evidence? > >I've tried to prove that god exists, > >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is > >different than yours. > > Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though > I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, > there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know > that God exists". Facts are facts. There is no distinction between "scientific" facts and other kinds of facts. > >You believe god exists despite the lack of > >evidence, > > This is true. > > >whereas I don't. > > Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that > the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient > evidence. The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. The universe can exist quite easily without introducing a creator. And if you think the universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. > >I don't have to provide evidence that god > >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good > >enough. > > Not at all. This is quite lazy. The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence from science. > If you want to take the agnostic > position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether > God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more > than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter Bunny. At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. They'd at least need opposable thumbs for that. But there is not one iota of evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is populated with super beings. > But you up the ante when > you make an absolute claim. So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence for that, too. You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. > When you had claimed that God exists, you > tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. > You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of > evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist > is in the exact same boat. No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. > He has to provide not just a lack of > evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim > that in no way can God exist. Study some science. God is not required for the universe to work. In fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. > It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers > don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for > those of us who claim he doesn't exist". Well, it is. > >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a > >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God > >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." > > > >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? > > Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's > "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour > in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly > not the stupidest thing people do! It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat to our safety. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:52:25 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >Indeed, this is so. If this were about claims on the part of some >believers that we have "incotrovertable scientific proof" that God >exists, then I'd yield. The assertion that "God <insert some attribute, desire or action claimed of God here> ..." is an assertion that God objectively exists. (Things that don't actually exist don't have real attributes, they don't have opinions or desires and they don't actually do anything.) Objective existence means that there's objective evidence. So either the claimant is lying, the claimant is deluded or the claimant is refusing to support his argument with evidence he's capable of posting. All aside from the fact that the Christian definition of the Christian god is self-contradictory when compared to reality. It only holds up if things we know to be real are assumed to not be real. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:16:34 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:52:25 -0500, Padraic Brown ><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: > - Refer: <quvqp2dhjf4lqasokuqrhbn5vvm06t1sb2@4ax.com> >: >>... there >>is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >>time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >>exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. >: >!!!!! >Fuckin' Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, we've got a live one here!! The actual Easter Bunny does exist. In the same minds that believe in gods. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:37:28 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: - Refer: <9flrp291min161lededg35l4gkn996ejef@4ax.com> >On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:16:34 +1030, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:52:25 -0500, Padraic Brown >><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <quvqp2dhjf4lqasokuqrhbn5vvm06t1sb2@4ax.com> >>: >>>... there >>>is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >>>time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >>>exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. >>: > >>!!!!! >>Fuckin' Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, we've got a live one here!! > >The actual Easter Bunny does exist. In the same minds that believe in >gods. Inappropriately infantile ones, then. -- Quote
Guest Elroy Willis Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism > Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ... there is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there >> is a time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does >> in fact exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. > !!!!! > Fuckin' Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, we've got a live one here!! Surely he has to be joking, doesn't he? Slim possibility indeed. -- Elroy Willis http://www.elroysemporium.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On 4 Jan 2007 17:06:47 -0800, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 2 Jan 2007 15:46:52 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> >> > >> >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. >> > >> >There's really no point being open to the "possibility" that the Easter >> >Bunny exists. >> > >> >> > To ask me to >> >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >> >> >The same >> >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts >> >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason >> >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should >> >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. >> > >> >Because the burden of proof rests with the people who claim that God >> >exists. >> >> Indeed, this is so. If this were about claims on the part of some >> believers that we have "incotrovertable scientific proof" that God >> exists, then I'd yield. However, the claim is _yours_, not the >> theist's: " We know God doesn't exist". It is now your burden to prove >> your claim. >> >> >You can argue that God doesn't want to reveal himself and that >> >he just wants people to have faith but that does not _prove_ that he >> >exists, it's just your excuse for why you can't provide any evidence of >> >his existance. >> > >> >In any case, if God did exist and He could see how people all over the >> >world are killing each other in His name then the responsible thing >> >would be for Him to at least do something about it if not actually come >> >forward and speak to religious leaders -if nobody else- and tell them >> >that they should learn to live together in peace. And this killing has >> >been going on a long time, starting with genocides, stonings, jihads >> >and crusades and continuing through history with witch trials, >> >burnings, holocausts and inquisitions and continuing even today with >> >ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. His non action, to me, is >> >sufficient to prove that he doesn't exist. >> >> Fair enough. The existence of the universe, to me, is sufficient >> evidence to prove the opposite. >> >> >The alternative would be to >> >say He is encouraging this, but I suspect that would not be the kind >> >of God you have in mind. You could argue that God is blind to all of >> >this killing but then you would be admitting that an omniscient, all >> >powerful God does not exist. That's all I am required to prove anyway >> >so I'm done. >> >> Well, no, you're not done. You've made an absolute claim, and there is >> no wiggling from it. The sob story you provide above and the >> absolutely lame so-called "proof" ("his nonaction, to me, is >> sufficient to prove") indicate to me you are probably not serious in >> your claim. Whether it was meant to be inflamatory or an exaggeration, >> or an emotional reaction to the previous post is anyone's guess. >> >> You'll be "done" when you've actually demonstrated, in a reasonable >> manner, that you actually have "proven" your claim to be true. Feel >> free to offer your data and methods and any experimentation that leads >> you to your conclusion. >> >> Padraic. > >First you have to refute the argument I have already given. You haven't even given an argument yet. All you've really done thus far is make a claim "We know God doesn't exist". You also brought up the Easter Bunny strawman: "I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist." Then you turned the table around completely by complaining that the other side doesn't offer proof anyway: "Because the burden of proof rests with the people who claim that God exists." Then you sort of gave your reason why God can't exist: "...His non action, to me, is sufficient to prove that he doesn't exist." > The >universe can exist without God A reasonable position. I don't agree with it, but it is quite reasonable. >but human suffering should not exist in >the presence of a merciful God, Why? Human suffering exists because there are humans to inflict suffering on each other and on themselves. No God or devil are required for the evils in the world; and the presence of God doesn't necessarily mean the universe must be absoluitely perfect. > especially suffering that is caused >by people who profess to believe in God. Why? People, especially if they have any kind of power over others, will take any justification at all for abusing their fellow creatures. What makes you think "religion" should be in some way protected? You've done an admirable job of showcasing the obvious: "People can behave very badly, especially when they wield power and authority." In no way have you demonstrated that "We know God does not exist" thereby. Padraic >Martin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:37:28 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:16:34 +1030, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:52:25 -0500, Padraic Brown >><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >> - Refer: <quvqp2dhjf4lqasokuqrhbn5vvm06t1sb2@4ax.com> >>: Portion that Michael snipped: "I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But ..." >>>... there >>>is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >>>time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >>>exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. >>: > >>!!!!! >>Fuckin' Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, we've got a live one here!! > >The actual Easter Bunny does exist. In the same minds that believe in >gods. Thank you, Michael, for snipping the salient part of my statement! You'll note that I did NOT say one way or the other that the Easter Bunny exists. Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On 4 Jan 2007 18:24:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > We know God doesn't exist >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >> >> >> statement. >> >> >> >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >> >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >> >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". >> >> > >> >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. >> >> >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. >> > >> >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling >> >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. >> >> We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is >> simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more >> limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. > >Holy crap. We may have limited senses (I think our senses are pretty >spectacular, but I'll play along), but we've invented machines that can >sense the things we can't. We are able to sense the smallest particles >of matter to the most distant galaxies. We can see things above and >below the visible light spectrum. We can hear things with machines that >the human ear can't. You underestimate our achievements. And if someone >says god exists, we have all the same senses, and if they can sense god >then I could too. When I follow their instructions as to where to find >god, I find only that I've been fooled by a delusional person. I'm not underestimating our achievments at all. It's amazing that we can see what a far distant star is made of (or at least what it was made of ten billion years ago). All of these machines tell us things about the universe we inhabit. No surprise there. >> I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that >> brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there >> is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a >> time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact >> exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. > >We're not talking about that. We're talking about an existing Easter >Bunny. NOt a hypothetical one. Same with god. Where is the real god(s)? Indeed. Where are they? I'm not saying they're _anywhere_ around here! >> >> > To ask me to >> >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. >> >> >The same >> >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts >> >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason >> >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should >> >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. >> > >> >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide >> >if we should believe that or not. >> >> Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no >> sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a >> "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some >> evidence should back up the claim. > >Doesn't matter what the intent of the claimant is, existence is >something that can be verified, "scientifically" if you like. You say >god exists, where's the evidence? It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily be denied or ignored. There is no objective data to discuss. There is nothing "reasonable" for science to come to grips with. >> >I've tried to prove that god exists, >> >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is >> >different than yours. >> >> Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though >> I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, >> there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know >> that God exists". > >Facts are facts. There is no distinction between "scientific" facts and >other kinds of facts. > >> >You believe god exists despite the lack of >> >evidence, >> >> This is true. >> >> >whereas I don't. >> >> Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that >> the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient >> evidence. > >The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. We disagree on this, then. I find the existence of the universe and everything in it to be excellent evidence for a creator. >The universe can >exist quite easily without introducing a creator. I don't disagree with that at all. As I said before, this is a reasonable position. As it happens, I do not subscribe to this position. >And if you think the >universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. If <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> is a good discussion of entropy, then I see nothing there to contradict my statement. >> >I don't have to provide evidence that god >> >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good >> >enough. >> >> Not at all. This is quite lazy. > >The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the >natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence >from science. Sure. As I said, this is a reasonable hypothesis. >> If you want to take the agnostic >> position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether >> God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more >> than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. > >Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter >Bunny. Fair enough. Then at least we have in common an underlying faith. Mine that the universe is the result of the actions of a creator; yours that the notion of a creator is ridiculous. > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. Already agreed. > They'd at >least need opposable thumbs for that. Larger brains too. >But there is not one iota of >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is >populated with super beings. I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. >> But you up the ante when >> you make an absolute claim. > >So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence >for that, too. Yes, so what indeed? Anyone can stand outside and directly observe the truth of this statement. It is easy to prove, as the evidence is readily available. Unless you live at McMurdo. >You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. That's as may be. This discussion is not about whatever claim I may be making about the existence of God. The discussion is centered around the claim that "We know God does not exist". >> When you had claimed that God exists, you >> tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. > >It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the >population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing >to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. > >> You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of >> evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist >> is in the exact same boat. > >No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, >and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There may well be no case for the theists, at this "trial", but now there is a new case and a new judge. You have yet to present anything more than opening arguments. >> He has to provide not just a lack of >> evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim >> that in no way can God exist. > >Study some science. I have studied science. I have even joined ranks with atheists and agnostics against the misuse of (pseudo)science in the name of religion. >God is not required for the universe to work. In >fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. How so? >> It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers >> don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for >> those of us who claim he doesn't exist". > >Well, it is. Well, you're incorrect. What the God believers say is not relevant to the case before this court. Bring your evidence or be dismissed. >> >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a >> >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God >> >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." >> > >> >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? >> >> Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's >> "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour >> in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly >> not the stupidest thing people do! > >It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat >to our safety. Only because they are the majority. If the majority were atheists, we'd still be in the same rickety boat. Perhaps a little less rickety -- I have noted that most atheists of my acquaintence over the years here have proven to be decent and moral folks. What is more, they wouldn't have the "jihad excuse" to make war on other peoples. Padraic. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 "Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message news:ri4vp2ha4q3coiev1ajv6tjk7og7kcsqbn@4ax.com... > Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >> Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> ... there is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility >>> that there is a time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we >>> imagine him) does in fact exist as an actual rabbit that brings >>> foil wrapped chocolate eggs. > >> !!!!! >> Fuckin' Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, we've got a live one here!! > > Surely he has to be joking, doesn't he? Slim possibility indeed. I find that his analogy to be exactly right. The possibility of God is the same as the possibility for the Easter bunny, which is zero. --Wax Quote
Guest stoney Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:08:27 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" ><martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >>> >>> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >>> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>> >>>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>> >>>>> could exist, and that was the universe. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Then what created the universe? >>> >>> >>> >>> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >>> >>> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >>> >>> of matter, ie the universe. >>> >>> >>> >>> You did ask. >>> >>> >>> >>> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >>> >>> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? >>> >> >>> >> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. >>> > >>> > So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of >>> > time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely >>> > nothing for God to do? >>> >>> Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes >> >> We know God doesn't exist > >There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this >statement. Lie. The opposite does apply. >The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and >the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough >information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". Your cowardly bearing of false witness is noted. Grow the fuck up. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:22:59 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:14:01 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > - Refer: <sjsdp2h13i3ucu2u9m2p9o9v6df5n57ir0@4ax.com> >>On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:59:03 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>wrote in alt.atheism >> >>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:51:21 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >>> - Refer: <p3fuo2pj84pahkilt3c974oaluspbqoah9@4ax.com> >>>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:52:27 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>>>wrote in alt.atheism >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:27 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >>>>> - Refer: <7mvqo29h44mh2q0moke1ufjnrmtjaio4cn@4ax.com> >>>>>>On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>>>>>wrote in alt.atheism >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>>>>>><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> >>>>>>>>Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >>>>>>>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. >>>>>> >>>>>>"Thou Art God."-Michael Valentine. >>>>> >>>>>Who was he talking to at the time? >>>> >>>>Gillian, at one point in time, Jubal Harshaw, Ann the Fair Witness, >>>>myraid others. >>> >>>I do not recall having met any of those characters. >> >>Its in the same tome as the quote came from. >>Stranger in a strange land. > >Ah, more fiction to add to the bible babble! the bible bable's stranger than most -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 4 Jan 2007 17:06:47 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The > >universe can exist without God > > A reasonable position. I don't agree with it, but it is quite > reasonable. > > >but human suffering should not exist in > >the presence of a merciful God, > > Why? Human suffering exists because there are humans to inflict > suffering on each other and on themselves. No God or devil are > required for the evils in the world; The fact that "no God" is "required" is my point exactly. People argue that God is required for morality to exist and yet most animals do not kill their own like man does. It would seem as though man is actually less moral than most animals. If we were any less moral then we would have killed ourselves off already. > and the presence of God doesn't > necessarily mean the universe must be absoluitely perfect. It's far from perfect. Consider this: the universe is billions of light years across. Mankind will never be able to explore the entire universe yet theists assume that the universe was created for us. Why would a supreme being create the entire universe if all that was needed was this galaxy alone? > > especially suffering that is caused > >by people who profess to believe in God. > > Why? People, especially if they have any kind of power over others, > will take any justification at all for abusing their fellow creatures. > What makes you think "religion" should be in some way protected? Eliminating religion would give people one less reason to want to kill each other. Religion today is the main reason why people want to kill each other. Are people becoming suicide bombers because their "enemies" belong to a different race or a different religion? When Hitler launched a campaign to exterminate all the Jews in Germany, did he do so because Jewish people were a threat to Germany or because he believed that almost two thousand years ago the Jewish people rejected and killed his "saviour". > You've done an admirable job of showcasing the obvious: Thank you. I agree that the statement "God doesn't exist" is obvious. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are > scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence > becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like > gravity or rock strata. As opposed to an imaginary fairy in the sky? Martin Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Padraic Brown wrote: > On 4 Jan 2007 18:24:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> On 2 Jan 2007 16:20:14 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> On 1 Jan 2007 18:27:09 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Padraic Brown wrote: > >> >> >> On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" > >> >> >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > We know God doesn't exist > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this > >> >> >> statement. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and > >> >> >> the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough > >> >> >> information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". > >> >> > > >> >> >I would argue that I know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. > >> >> > >> >> Yet, you can not be certain that your argument is so. > >> > > >> >That is the slippery slope to solipsism. Pretty soon you'll be telling > >> >us that we can't be sure if anything exists. > >> > >> We can be reasonably sure that a few things exists. The point is > >> simply that we have a very limited array of senses and an even more > >> limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't. > > > >Holy crap. We may have limited senses (I think our senses are pretty > >spectacular, but I'll play along), but we've invented machines that can > >sense the things we can't. We are able to sense the smallest particles > >of matter to the most distant galaxies. We can see things above and > >below the visible light spectrum. We can hear things with machines that > >the human ear can't. You underestimate our achievements. And if someone > >says god exists, we have all the same senses, and if they can sense god > >then I could too. When I follow their instructions as to where to find > >god, I find only that I've been fooled by a delusional person. > > I'm not underestimating our achievments at all. It's amazing that we > can see what a far distant star is made of (or at least what it was > made of ten billion years ago). All of these machines tell us things > about the universe we inhabit. No surprise there. Well yeah, you were underestimating our achievements. You said "...we have a very limited array of senses and an even more limited corpus of information about what exists and what doesn't." That just isn't true and does the human mind a disservice. > >> I would tend to agree that the Easter Bunny (as an actual rabbit that > >> brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs) doesn't exist as such. But there > >> is no sense in denying the seemingly slim possibility that there is a > >> time and place where the Easter Bunny (as we imagine him) does in fact > >> exist as an actual rabbit that brings foil wrapped chocolate eggs. > > > >We're not talking about that. We're talking about an existing Easter > >Bunny. NOt a hypothetical one. Same with god. Where is the real god(s)? > > Indeed. Where are they? I'm not saying they're _anywhere_ around here! You seem as if you might be avoiding the question. > >> >> > To ask me to > >> >> >prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist seems absurd to me. > >> >> >The same > >> >> >logic applies to any demand that I prove God does not exist. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Why? It is regularly demanded of theists that they provide all sorts > >> >> of scientific proof and evidence for their beliefs. I see no reason > >> >> why someone who categorically claims that God does not exist should > >> >> not provie us with ample and compelling evidence. > >> > > >> >Look at it this way. People assert that god exists, and we all decide > >> >if we should believe that or not. > >> > >> Of course. If the assertion is from a position of faith, there is no > >> sense in arguing against it anyway. If the assertion comes from a > >> "scientific" point of view, then I would hazard the guess that some > >> evidence should back up the claim. > > > >Doesn't matter what the intent of the claimant is, existence is > >something that can be verified, "scientifically" if you like. You say > >god exists, where's the evidence? > > It is actually very important to the argument. If I say "there are > scientific reasons to accept the existence of God", then the existence > becomes a thing that can be discussed objectively. God becomes like > gravity or rock strata. If I say "there are spiritual reasons to > accept the existence of God", then the physical existence can easily > be denied or ignored. There is no objective data to discuss. There is > nothing "reasonable" for science to come to grips with Reason is reason. "Spiritual reasons" is an oxymoron. "Reasonable" implies reason. Without any evidence, there is no reason to think your god exists. > >> >I've tried to prove that god exists, > >> >it's just that there's no evidence that it does, so my conlusion is > >> >different than yours. > >> > >> Naturally. I've never understood this particular need to prove; though > >> I certainly concur that, in the world of scientifically studied facts, > >> there is not, at this time, any evidence supporting the claim "We know > >> that God exists". > > > >Facts are facts. There is no distinction between "scientific" facts and > >other kinds of facts. > > > >> >You believe god exists despite the lack of > >> >evidence, > >> > >> This is true. > >> > >> >whereas I don't. > >> > >> Though I am not conviced solely as a matter of faith. I do think that > >> the universe itself and the order of everything in it is sufficient > >> evidence. > > > >The existence of the universe is not evidence for god. > > We disagree on this, then. I find the existence of the universe and > everything in it to be excellent evidence for a creator. > >The universe can > >exist quite easily without introducing a creator. > > I don't disagree with that at all. As I said before, this is a > reasonable position. As it happens, I do not subscribe to this > position. > > >And if you think the > >universe is orderly then you don't understand entropy. > > If <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy> is a good discussion of > entropy, then I see nothing there to contradict my statement. Entropy is chaos. Every closed system in the universe is being destroyed by chaos. Stars explode, galaxies collide, species go extinct, natural disasters kill thousands of people. How is that orderly? > >> >I don't have to provide evidence that god > >> >doesn't exist, looking at the lack of evidence that he does is good > >> >enough. > >> > >> Not at all. This is quite lazy. > > > >The other half of the equation is that we have discovered that the > >natural world can be explained without god and with lots of evidence > >from science. > > Sure. As I said, this is a reasonable hypothesis. > > >> If you want to take the agnostic > >> position (that we don't have all the answers and can't know whether > >> God really exists or not) -- that's fair enough and requires no more > >> than a "that's good enough" sort of attitude. > > > >Nah. I'm an atheist, the idea of god is more ludicrous than the Easter > >Bunny. > > Fair enough. Then at least we have in common an underlying faith. Mine > that the universe is the result of the actions of a creator; yours > that the notion of a creator is ridiculous. Nah. Faith is a requires belief without evidence. I can back up what I think with evidence. That's not faith. > > At least we know that bunnies exist, although most rabbits > >exhibity no sign of benevolence towards humans, much less the ability > >to manufacture chocolate ovoids and wrap them in pretty foil. > > Already agreed. > > > They'd at > >least need opposable thumbs for that. > > Larger brains too. > > >But there is not one iota of > >evidence that the supernatural world exists, most of all that it is > >populated with super beings. > > I wouldn't disagree with that, either. At this time, and given our > technology, we have not been able to directly detect any such thing. You know, it's not a bad thing to ackowledge that some things are impossible. > >> But you up the ante when > >> you make an absolute claim. > > > >So what? The sun is hot. There's another one for you. I have evidence > >for that, too. > > Yes, so what indeed? Anyone can stand outside and directly observe the > truth of this statement. It is easy to prove, as the evidence is > readily available. Unless you live at McMurdo. > > >You sayaing God exists is an absolute claim. > > That's as may be. This discussion is not about whatever claim I may be > making about the existence of God. The discussion is centered around > the claim that "We know God does not exist". Have you checked the subject title? This discussion is about several different things so far. Even if you want to evade the question, the question still stands. Where is your evidence for god? > >> When you had claimed that God exists, you > >> tried to offer evidence in an effort to support and prove your claim. > > > >It wasn't MY claim. It is the claim of a large portion of the > >population, so I thought I'd check it out. Turns out they have nothing > >to back up this claim, so consequently I don't believe their claim. > > > >> You came to a point where you decided to give up the claim for lack of > >> evidence. The person that claims categorically that God does not exist > >> is in the exact same boat. > > > >No way. That person has examined the evidence like a judge at a trial, > >and has thrown the case out for lack of evidence. You have no case. > > Absolutely. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There may well > be no case for the theists, at this "trial", but now there is a new > case and a new judge. You have yet to present anything more than > opening arguments. God's greatest achievments are that it supposedly created the universe and that it created humans. By studying nature we've learned that god is not required for the universe to exist, and by studying evolution we know that god did not create humans. However, the onus is upon those making the claim of god's existence to provide proof; all I can do is say I don't believe you without proof, and that another lawyer has come up with a much more solid case. I'm tossing your case out. > >> He has to provide not just a lack of > >> evidence in favour of the existence of God, but has to prove his claim > >> that in no way can God exist. > > > >Study some science. > > I have studied science. I have even joined ranks with atheists and > agnostics against the misuse of (pseudo)science in the name of > religion. Study more science. God IS psuedoscience. > >God is not required for the universe to work. In > >fact, god violates the principles of the natural world. > > How so? A supernatural super evolved complex life form cannot spontaneously spring into existence. Evolution happens in gradual steps, usually over long periods of time. It took over 13 billion years for the universe to produce us, such as we are, how would you think that the first thing to exist would be god? Quantum physics also disallows for complex life forms cannot spontaneoulsy occur. And, of course, you have no evidence that the supernatural spiritual world exists in the first place. You are tilting at windmills. > >> It is not good enough to just sit back and say "hey, the God believers > >> don't have any evidence in their favour, so that's good enough for > >> those of us who claim he doesn't exist". > > > >Well, it is. > > Well, you're incorrect. What the God believers say is not relevant to > the case before this court. Bring your evidence or be dismissed. You can dismiss me all you want, but you're still deluded. > >> >> You're welcome to _believe_ that God does not exist, which is a > >> >> position of faith, just like the position of those who believe God > >> >> does exist. It's different when someone says "We know ..." > >> > > >> >It's stupid to believe something without any evidence. How's that? > >> > >> Resorting to insults now? OK. Sure, I guess you could say it's > >> "stupid" to believe something without evidence. Much of our behaviour > >> in real life is, to use this kind of logic "stupid". It's certainly > >> not the stupidest thing people do! > > > >It's getting there, considering believers are among the biggest threat > >to our safety. > > Only because they are the majority. That's crap. Just because there's lots of a certain group, doesn't mean they will be dangerous. What if the majority of people were pacifists? > If the majority were atheists, > we'd still be in the same rickety boat. You like making assertions without evidence, don't you? You have no idea if this is true or not, because atheists have never been the majority. And we would eliminate religious conflict, wouldn't we? And if that were eliminated, then a lot of the world's conflicts would be eliminated, wouldn't they? > Perhaps a little less rickety > -- I have noted that most atheists of my acquaintence over the years > here have proven to be decent and moral folks. What is more, they > wouldn't have the "jihad excuse" to make war on other peoples. Or the Christian excuse to make war on other people either. Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On 6 Jan 2007 15:06:16 -0800, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Padraic Brown wrote: >> On 4 Jan 2007 17:06:47 -0800, "Martin Phipps" >> <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > The >> >universe can exist without God >> >> A reasonable position. I don't agree with it, but it is quite >> reasonable. >> >> >but human suffering should not exist in >> >the presence of a merciful God, >> >> Why? Human suffering exists because there are humans to inflict >> suffering on each other and on themselves. No God or devil are >> required for the evils in the world; > >The fact that "no God" is "required" is my point exactly. OK. And? > People argue >that God is required for morality to exist and yet most animals do not >kill their own like man does. I disagree with the position that God is _required_ for morality to exist. Clearly, belief in God or adherence to a religion does not confer instant morality. As I said elsewhere, many Atheists of my acquaintence have demonstrated themselves to be moral people. >It would seem as though man is actually >less moral than most animals. Man can choose to be immoral or moral as his own whims and will dictate. Other animals are certainly capable of killing their own kind. There is enough footage of animals killing rivals' cubs and the like. But I wouldn't put that down to conscious choice, which seems to be something pretty firmly in our domain. >If we were any less moral then we would >have killed ourselves off already. We may yet. Don't celebrate too soon! >> and the presence of God doesn't >> necessarily mean the universe must be absoluitely perfect. > >It's far from perfect. Consider this: the universe is billions of >light years across. Mankind will never be able to explore the entire >universe yet theists assume that the universe was created for us. One, not all theists posit that the entire universe was "created (just) for us". Whatever the cause, it now exists and we find ourselves in it. It's up to us to make a meaning of this curious situation. Most Christians understand that this world -- the Earth -- was created for our benefit. Two, we do not yet know what our future generations will be capable of. We may yet see the day when humans can as easily travel to the ends of this universe (or even travel outside it) as we can step in a lift on the ground floor and be transported to the fourth floor. >Why >would a supreme being create the entire universe if all that was needed >was this galaxy alone? I could but speculate. It's probably in the technical specifications somewhere. >> > especially suffering that is caused >> >by people who profess to believe in God. >> >> Why? People, especially if they have any kind of power over others, >> will take any justification at all for abusing their fellow creatures. >> What makes you think "religion" should be in some way protected? > >Eliminating religion would give people one less reason to want to kill >each other. Eliminating people altogether will yield exactly zero reasons to want to kill each other. And anyway, if you eliminate religion as a reason for people to kill each other, they'll just come up with a new reason. "Oh-ho! So you are one of those evil cheese-danish-eating heretics! Well, it's into the purifying flames with thee!" >Religion today is the main reason why people want to kill >each other. It's also brings out the best in people. Honestly, I truly believe that people want to kill one another not so much for purely religious reasons as for good old fashioned evolutionary territorialism. Us versus Them. Think about it. Whenever one group of people steps across the invisible line, out come the weapons and everyone gets down to some serious brawlin. You can see it in our animal relatives very clearly. Religion is just a new fangled interpretation of the old passtime. >Are people becoming suicide bombers because their >"enemies" belong to a different race or a different religion? They're doing it on account of territoriality. "We" are stepping over an invisible line that "They" drew, so they feel the need to attack "Us". They have not shown themselves capable of restraining that instinctive impulse. Religion might be the cover -- but it's not really the reason. >When >Hitler launched a campaign to exterminate all the Jews in Germany, did >he do so because Jewish people were a threat to Germany or because he >believed that almost two thousand years ago the Jewish people rejected >and killed his "saviour". Hitler launched his campaign against the Jews because he was a VERY sick bastard. It was also a territorial action. He felt that a certain segment of the population had crossed some kind of invisible line and his reaction was to strike back. Once again we see that people in power, whether their motives are religious or otherwise (and I really doin't think Hitler's motive was religious at all), have the ability to make life miserable for all. >> You've done an admirable job of showcasing the obvious: > >Thank you. I agree that the statement "God doesn't exist" is obvious. Cute. You can cut-n-paste to effect some spin. What is "obvious" and what you admirably showed was that people can act very badly, especially when in power. What you have not yet done at all is show that "God doesn't exist". Since you can't clearly demonstrate that God doesn't exist, I accept it as good enough that the claim is false and unsupportable. Case closed due to lack of evidence. Padraic. >Martin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: >Grow the fuck up. Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! Cheers, Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.