quade 4 #176 August 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe believer's only evidence of such an event is his own claim. Yeah, so? I'm talking about 'private revelations'. Notice the word 'private'? Does the fact that it is private and experienced by a particular person make it impossible to be truthful? Nope, not at all, and at no point have I said such "revelations" are impossible or that people claiming to have experienced them are lying. Blues, Dave What about the people whose revelations contradict each other or are later proven to be false by history? In the first case, logically, at least one must be either lying or delusional and if you think about it, so must it be true in the second case, unless, of course, god changes his mind frequently.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #177 August 15, 2008 In the first case, logically, at least one must be either lying or delusional and if you think about it, so must it be true in the second case, unless, of course, god changes his mind frequently. Proving that God is a woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #178 August 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTill there is any evidence of any deity it is an assumption no matter how much anyone believes in it . SCORE! That point is unassailable. Nice job!Quote Same thing can be said about 95% of the matter and energy that make up the universe. Its presence is suspected but there is no evidence to indicate what it is. So do we just assume it doesn't exist? _____________________________________ Man, it's very frustrating that I have to spend most of my time in SC chasing down and explaining why bad analogies are bad. We can fairly assume that there is matter in other parts of the universe because WE occupy a part of the universe and we can use our scientific knowledge to see the matter around us, and see the evidence of matter in far-flung parts of the universe. For example, we know about stars because hey, we live near one. We know what it does, and we can tell what it's made from. Hence, when we see stars in the distance, in other galaxies, we can say hey, ours is made of matter, theirs probably is too. But we have NOT seen comparable evidence or proof of a GOD here, so we can't say that there's a likelihood of a God anywhere else.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #179 August 15, 2008 QuoteIf you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they all have the same amount of evidence of their existence. Whereas if you don't want to believe in ALL of them (which is a reasonable decision), and you PICK ONE, you're being ARBITRARY, which to me is the same as an admission that you can't guarantee you got the right one, and your God might be pure bunk. No one who GUESSES can claim to KNOW that he guessed right until someone in authoritiy reveals the correct answer, yes?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #180 August 15, 2008 Quote> If you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they > all have the same amount of evidence of their existence. That's like saying you should believe simultaneously that a coin hidden inside a box is a quarter, a penny, a nickel and a dime all at the same time, since there is no visible evidence of its denomination. It's probably more intelligent to assume that it is one of several possibilities, perhaps even make a guess, subject to later revision. Odds are, though, that it is not every coin simultaneously. Exactly, Billvon. To claim to know with confidence and certainty that your GUESS as to what kind of coin is in the box is a fallacy. One must admit that to make a selection without knowing is a guess. By nature, a guess can be wrong. So if one chooses to follow one of a dozen gods, forsaking the other 11 which all have the exact same amount of evidence to support their existence and supremacy (which of course is Zero), one must be guessing; therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing--really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #181 August 15, 2008 QuoteQuote Why is it useless? If someone manages to turn their lives around because of their belief in God, it's far from useless. It's useless because if person already believes in God, they do not need any revelations or proofs of his existence. If a person gets that kind of revelation, he then believes in God because of knowledge of God instead of FAITH in God. I think that kind of screws with God's plan, actually. Isn't he really big on people putting faith in him, and it's important to him that they believe without needing proof? --- Shit, if God gave me a convincing revelation, I'D believe in him, and yeah, I'd do the worshipful, "live my life for God" thing. Hell yeah I would, because if I came to be 100% convinced there's an afterlife in Heaven I could earn, I'd bend over backwards to earn it! Now, I'd be unable to prove that I was not simply delusional, but that's different issue.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #182 August 15, 2008 >therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing . . . Yes, there is that chance. >really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing. That does not follow. You can no more prove the lack of a god than someone can prove the presence of theirs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #183 August 15, 2008 [ Same thing can be said about 95% of the matter and energy that make up the universe. Its presence is suspected but there is no evidence to indicate what it is. So do we just assume it doesn't exist Man, it's very frustrating that I have to spend most of my time in SC chasing down and explaining why bad analogies are bad. We can fairly assume that there is matter in other parts of the universe because WE occupy a part of the universe and we can use our scientific knowledge to see the matter around us, and see the evidence of matter in far-flung parts of the universe. For example, we know about stars because hey, we live near one. We know what it does, and we can tell what it's made from. Hence, when we see stars in the distance, in other galaxies, we can say hey, ours is made of matter, theirs probably is too. But we have NOT seen comparable evidence or proof of a GOD here, so we can't say that there's a likelihood of a God anywhere else .Quote Before you start chasing anything, I would suggest you do a little research on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Hadrons including baryons & mesons along with leptons make up 5% of the universe. That is the matter we can see and touch. Dark matter and energy makes up 95% of the universe and is as mysterious as the knowledge of God. Its presence can be felt but no evidence exists as to what it is. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #184 August 15, 2008 hmmm, 8 pages of posts & we haven't heard from hairyjuan yet. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #185 August 15, 2008 Quote hmmm, 8 pages of posts & we haven't heard from hairyjuan yet. And nothing from chuteless. Something's wrong in here. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #186 August 16, 2008 Who are the other founders? And the MD qual doesn't make psychiatry or psychiatrists a science, I'd also argue psychiatry has only made modest progress in the last 130 years. Addictions and schizophrenia seem to remain pretty intractable...but we're getting way off base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #187 August 16, 2008 Quote>therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing . . . Yes, there is that chance. >really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing. That does not follow. You can no more prove the lack of a god than someone can prove the presence of theirs. You took apart two parts of a whole, which changed the meaning. I was saying that "one must be guessing; therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing--really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing." The second part ("really just a concept") is the extension of the first part ("here's a chance God is nonexistent, just a concept but not an actual true being).Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #188 August 16, 2008 Quote >This means the God wants us to do something. An unsupportable assumption. Lack of proof in one aspect of a theory does not prove the converse. It is very easy to "prove" it the same way: is there any proof that this God does NOT want us to do anything? If we assume he does not and we did, there is no harm done. But if we assume he does, and we did not do anything? Then you have a problem. Similar to Pascal Wager.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #189 August 16, 2008 We still have the insurmountable problem of figuring out WHO is right when they claim to know what God wants us to do. You might have noticed by now that different people have vehemently different beliefs about that... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 8 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
birdlike 0 #179 August 15, 2008 QuoteIf you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they all have the same amount of evidence of their existence. Whereas if you don't want to believe in ALL of them (which is a reasonable decision), and you PICK ONE, you're being ARBITRARY, which to me is the same as an admission that you can't guarantee you got the right one, and your God might be pure bunk. No one who GUESSES can claim to KNOW that he guessed right until someone in authoritiy reveals the correct answer, yes?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #180 August 15, 2008 Quote> If you believe in one god you should believe in them all since they > all have the same amount of evidence of their existence. That's like saying you should believe simultaneously that a coin hidden inside a box is a quarter, a penny, a nickel and a dime all at the same time, since there is no visible evidence of its denomination. It's probably more intelligent to assume that it is one of several possibilities, perhaps even make a guess, subject to later revision. Odds are, though, that it is not every coin simultaneously. Exactly, Billvon. To claim to know with confidence and certainty that your GUESS as to what kind of coin is in the box is a fallacy. One must admit that to make a selection without knowing is a guess. By nature, a guess can be wrong. So if one chooses to follow one of a dozen gods, forsaking the other 11 which all have the exact same amount of evidence to support their existence and supremacy (which of course is Zero), one must be guessing; therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing--really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #181 August 15, 2008 QuoteQuote Why is it useless? If someone manages to turn their lives around because of their belief in God, it's far from useless. It's useless because if person already believes in God, they do not need any revelations or proofs of his existence. If a person gets that kind of revelation, he then believes in God because of knowledge of God instead of FAITH in God. I think that kind of screws with God's plan, actually. Isn't he really big on people putting faith in him, and it's important to him that they believe without needing proof? --- Shit, if God gave me a convincing revelation, I'D believe in him, and yeah, I'd do the worshipful, "live my life for God" thing. Hell yeah I would, because if I came to be 100% convinced there's an afterlife in Heaven I could earn, I'd bend over backwards to earn it! Now, I'd be unable to prove that I was not simply delusional, but that's different issue.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #182 August 15, 2008 >therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing . . . Yes, there is that chance. >really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing. That does not follow. You can no more prove the lack of a god than someone can prove the presence of theirs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #183 August 15, 2008 [ Same thing can be said about 95% of the matter and energy that make up the universe. Its presence is suspected but there is no evidence to indicate what it is. So do we just assume it doesn't exist Man, it's very frustrating that I have to spend most of my time in SC chasing down and explaining why bad analogies are bad. We can fairly assume that there is matter in other parts of the universe because WE occupy a part of the universe and we can use our scientific knowledge to see the matter around us, and see the evidence of matter in far-flung parts of the universe. For example, we know about stars because hey, we live near one. We know what it does, and we can tell what it's made from. Hence, when we see stars in the distance, in other galaxies, we can say hey, ours is made of matter, theirs probably is too. But we have NOT seen comparable evidence or proof of a GOD here, so we can't say that there's a likelihood of a God anywhere else .Quote Before you start chasing anything, I would suggest you do a little research on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Hadrons including baryons & mesons along with leptons make up 5% of the universe. That is the matter we can see and touch. Dark matter and energy makes up 95% of the universe and is as mysterious as the knowledge of God. Its presence can be felt but no evidence exists as to what it is. _______________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #184 August 15, 2008 hmmm, 8 pages of posts & we haven't heard from hairyjuan yet. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #185 August 15, 2008 Quote hmmm, 8 pages of posts & we haven't heard from hairyjuan yet. And nothing from chuteless. Something's wrong in here. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nigel 0 #186 August 16, 2008 Who are the other founders? And the MD qual doesn't make psychiatry or psychiatrists a science, I'd also argue psychiatry has only made modest progress in the last 130 years. Addictions and schizophrenia seem to remain pretty intractable...but we're getting way off base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #187 August 16, 2008 Quote>therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing . . . Yes, there is that chance. >really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing. That does not follow. You can no more prove the lack of a god than someone can prove the presence of theirs. You took apart two parts of a whole, which changed the meaning. I was saying that "one must be guessing; therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing--really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing." The second part ("really just a concept") is the extension of the first part ("here's a chance God is nonexistent, just a concept but not an actual true being).Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #188 August 16, 2008 Quote >This means the God wants us to do something. An unsupportable assumption. Lack of proof in one aspect of a theory does not prove the converse. It is very easy to "prove" it the same way: is there any proof that this God does NOT want us to do anything? If we assume he does not and we did, there is no harm done. But if we assume he does, and we did not do anything? Then you have a problem. Similar to Pascal Wager.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #189 August 16, 2008 We still have the insurmountable problem of figuring out WHO is right when they claim to know what God wants us to do. You might have noticed by now that different people have vehemently different beliefs about that... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 8 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SpeedRacer 1 #184 August 15, 2008 hmmm, 8 pages of posts & we haven't heard from hairyjuan yet. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #185 August 15, 2008 Quote hmmm, 8 pages of posts & we haven't heard from hairyjuan yet. And nothing from chuteless. Something's wrong in here. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigel 0 #186 August 16, 2008 Who are the other founders? And the MD qual doesn't make psychiatry or psychiatrists a science, I'd also argue psychiatry has only made modest progress in the last 130 years. Addictions and schizophrenia seem to remain pretty intractable...but we're getting way off base. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #187 August 16, 2008 Quote>therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing . . . Yes, there is that chance. >really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing. That does not follow. You can no more prove the lack of a god than someone can prove the presence of theirs. You took apart two parts of a whole, which changed the meaning. I was saying that "one must be guessing; therefore there is a chance that his God is a nonexistent thing--really just a concept of an entity without any such entity actually existing." The second part ("really just a concept") is the extension of the first part ("here's a chance God is nonexistent, just a concept but not an actual true being).Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #188 August 16, 2008 Quote >This means the God wants us to do something. An unsupportable assumption. Lack of proof in one aspect of a theory does not prove the converse. It is very easy to "prove" it the same way: is there any proof that this God does NOT want us to do anything? If we assume he does not and we did, there is no harm done. But if we assume he does, and we did not do anything? Then you have a problem. Similar to Pascal Wager.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #189 August 16, 2008 We still have the insurmountable problem of figuring out WHO is right when they claim to know what God wants us to do. You might have noticed by now that different people have vehemently different beliefs about that... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
