Guest Sippuddin Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Sippuddin Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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 Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Mike Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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! Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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". Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 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". Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 In article <sqidnS-3ldNjabnbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > What do you say > > > I have told you what I say. Can't you read? Since what you say is largely lies, we comment on what you say! That you then snip our comments does not lessen the falsehood of those lies. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 In article <sqidnS63ldNta7nbnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> 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'. But as "might be" asserts nothing except lack of proof of "must not be", those who reject "might be" are claiming proof of "must not be". So where is that alleged proof. Setpic? > > We atheists WE honest agnostic atheists spit on your sort of Gnostic atheism. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 In article <XvidnTX-ZJcbZrnbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote: > jientho@aol.com wrote: > > > > > We're still waiting for you to demonstrate that there exists > > any such thing as a required default presumption > > Old tired boilerplate nonsense by Septic snipped. Think up some new lies, Septic. The old ones are too boring to bother reading. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 In article <Bp-dnbpTMpsNn7jbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote: > jientho@aol.com wrote: > >> 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. Which is precisely what Siptic has been doing, in addition to another gratuitious argumentum ad hominem. Even if Siptic's argument were not fallacious in itself, appending an argumentum ad hominem does not improve it. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 In article <EOidnaCLa83Zm7jbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote: > 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. There is equally no evidence for the impossibility of God(s). The agnostic principle says that in such a situation one must not take sides, not even Septic's side. On issues for which there is no decisive evidence, agnostics should be fence sitters. Septic rejects that Agnostic principle. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 In article <ofKdncgH2OAplLjbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com>, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote: > ?You want to know why the notion there might be a God is summarily > rejected? Because the symmetric notion that there might not be a God must be summarily rejected along with it, no doubt. They are equally special pleading, so if one is rejected, both must be. Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 On Apr 17, 11:38 am, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > H. Wm. Esque wrote: > > ... Whoever is claiming to have _evidence_ > > Stop trying Stop claiming you are supported by evidence, Septic. Jeff Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted April 17, 2007 Posted April 17, 2007 On Apr 17, 12:25 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "Septic" <s...@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. No, you haven't. What do you say, Septic, 1) God exists; or 2) God does not exist? Gotta be one or the other. > Can't you read? I am not saying anything I see you telling what you're _not_ saying, Septic, without telling what you _do_ say: 1) God exists; or 2) God does not exist. What's clear is that you are avoiding Jeckyl's simple question. Jeff Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "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." 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. > No need for all that. We Christians readily concede, that the god(s) or deities of atheist definition do indeed not exist. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we know Him and have seen Him through Jesus Christ, our God incarnate. Pastor Frank Jesus in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:1176676247.137060.188050@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > rbwinn wrote: >> >> Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in >> court. > > Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it? > Any "evidence that would stand up in court" may be provable by the scientific method, and such proof would make Religion a matter of fact, not one of belief and faith. Atheists demand, that God show Himself, other than as a despised non-conformist like Jesus Christ, but more perhaps like a giant talking face in the sky, saying: I am god, and I want you to do what I say, or I will burn your sorry ass in hell for all eternity. After which presumably, atheists will be convinced, fall in line and become snivelling, obsequious sycophants who hate this god in their hearts. ROFL -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 12:33 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > JessHC wrote: > > Septic 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'. False. 'No God' is the negation of 'God', Septic. 'Impossible God' is the negation of 'might be a God'. Any other logical ignorance you'd like to demonstrate, Septic? Jeff Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 12:53 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > jien...@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 Not demonstrated. > 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. You haven't demonstrated that the opposite presumption (false) is _required_, Septic. You fail, just as I said. Jeff Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On 17 Apr 2007 08:44:17 -0700, JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote: >rbwinn wrote: >> Well, as I understand it, even atheist Al Klein is considering the idea that a book might be an object. >Keep running. I'm considering the thought that Winn may be an object too - brick from the shoulders up. Quote
Guest DanielSan Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Sippuddin wrote: > 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. Theists need to produce evidence for themselves. > > evident : clear to the vision or the understanding > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evident > > You tell me, is there a God evident? To theists? You betcha. To atheists? Not on your life. > > 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? We aren't talking about atheists, numbskull. -- DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 ---------------------------------------------------- "In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On Apr 17, 8:14�am, JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 16, 10:35?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Simple answer: ?The mathematical train in Einstein's calculations cannot > > > exist. ?Therefore, this discussion about lightning and trains is moot. > > > Maybe Einstein was a witch, but everyone likes to talk about his train. > > No, everyone likes to talk about your delusions. 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.