beowulf

I love dictionary.com! See how we can communicate better when we aren't redefining words.

So why is HE right for believing and Christians wrong? There is no evidence to support Christians claim of their god existing. Their argument is weak and of poor logic. There was no evidence to support Pauli's belief in the neutrino existing at that point, either. So you couldn't conclude that they existed at the time. Once evidence was found to support his theory then it was reasonable to conclude they do exist.

I don't see mnealtx playing word games. I think he's trying to make a valid argument that you're not seeing. So, how would you describe that period of time when energy balances around radioactive decay didn't add up? I disagree mnealtx is not making a valid argument. I would say it didn't add up. What else is there to say? I have yet to hear of a good argument for any deity. Evolution does a great job of explaining how humans came about. There is no evidence to support creationism.

So why is HE right for believing and Christians wrong? There is no evidence to support Christians claim of their god existing. Their argument is weak and of poor logic.

They don't vary that much. I don't think there is any such thing. Morality is relative to time, location and culture among other factors.

Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos. Lookup Wolfgang Pauli. What was the 'good argument' for the existence of neutrinos before Pauli's experiments? Here is what was written in Wikipedia. I have no idea where to find the actual theory that he submitted for the existence of neutrinos before they were proven to exist. Are you questioning that there was a good argument for neutrinos before they were proven to exist? I think it's pretty reasonable to say that he believed they existed before they could be proven to exist.

Show the argument supporting existence prior to physical evidence of neutrinos. Lookup Wolfgang Pauli.

Claiming to have said beliefs and actually practicing them are two very different things. I'm only referring to those that practice that core set of principals identified by various cultures across the planet. Those principals have changed over time and location. Slavery is a good example. In the bible slavery is common and not considered immoral.

Zero proof. Lots of evidence. None of it is scientific, repeatable, experiemental data. It's usually anecdotal, personal and very very subjective. Kind of like eyewitness testimony in court. It has value as evidence, but isn't proof in any way, shape or form. Big difference between evidence and proof. The evidence I was referring to was defined earlier as scientific.

And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. Your logic is totally screwed up. That wasn't what I said or what I meant. Really? "It's not reasonable to conclude that some thing exists if there is no evidence." - beowulf, post 26 "While Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them." - beowulf, post 37 Not sure why that confuses you. I don't see the conflict that you seem to see. That doesn't surprise me.... let me rephrase to see if you can catch the dichotomy. "God doesn't exist because there's no evidence to prove it." "Neutrinos always existed, even before there was evidence to prove it." You like to play word games. It's unreasonable to conclude that something exists if there is no evidence that it exists. Before we had evidence of Neutrino particles it wasn't reasonable to conclude they existed. There was a good argument that they existed, much better then there is for any deity. So it would have been much more reasonable to say you believed that Neutrinos existed before there was evidence to conclude they do. There is no evidence to reasonably conclude that any deity exists. I don't think there is a good argument to say that I believe a deity exists. Can you follow my logic and see why there is no conflict?

"the common definition of god" must mean your "common definition" of god. If you reread our posts, you'll see that I was clear in saying I wasn't discussing what I perceived to be your definition of god. I don't have a personal definition of god. When I refer to the common definition I mean the dictionary definition. Did I really need to spell that out? I did use the word deity. Was there really any question of what I refering to when I said god? God    [god] Show IPA noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

So, superman doesn't exist? No argument there. Anytime some new measurement is made, someone has to come up with a new word for it. How hard is it to get a new word into common use? Unbelievably difficult. I'm not going to bother arguing with you that your definition of "God" doesn't exist. Personally, I think you're right. The weakness in your argument is that others don't define "God" as your defining it. I am using the common definition of god. If you were using your own definition then you should have made that definition known. That is why I don't like people redefining words.

You're wrong. There's been an enormous amount of good done on this earth by people whose beliefs you can only ridicule. So, you've tried this for yourself? There has also been an enormous amount of bad done by people with the same beliefs. I grew up Christian, and I am not any better or worse of a person for not believing.

And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. Your logic is totally screwed up. That wasn't what I said or what I meant. Really? "It's not reasonable to conclude that some thing exists if there is no evidence." - beowulf, post 26 "While Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them." - beowulf, post 37 Not sure why that confuses you. I don't see the conflict that you seem to see.

You seem to be arguing against a "God" that's a single sentient entity, kind of like us/superman? No I am arguing against any supernatural entity of any kind. I don't know about you but I am not superman. What do you mean by "us/superman"?

There's an enormous number of observations made by humans across the planet, spanning all cultures, that there is something more to our existence than just the human body. Granted, none of those observations make a gauge move, but that doesn't invalidate them. My point here is that one's experience with "God" tends to be deeply personal. Those that choose to make those observations within themselves, and practice whatever faith based discipline involved with those observations, do have reproducible observations that can be shared with like minded people. Even better, at their core, most "religions" advocate a core set of behaviours that are remarkably consistent. Doesn't this count for something? No none of that counts for anything. It's all highly subjective and none of it can be repeated or tested.

And yet, you claim that lack of evidence of the existence of a Deity is perfect evidence that said Deity doesn't exist....sorry, can't have it both ways. Your logic is totally screwed up. That wasn't what I said or what I meant. Of course the Neutrinos always existed. They weren't Neutrinos till we named them that. Wolfgang Pauli put forth an argument that this undetected particle existed and at that point as far as anyone knew they didn't exist. Once there was a way to detect them then we can safely say yes he was right and they do exist. Not every thing that everyone imagines exists, so we can't say something exists till it's proven to exist. If I were to show you box and tell you $100,000 exists in said box and that I will trade it to you for a car worth the same. Would you just take my word or would you want evidence to support my claim that there is $100,000 in the box before signing over the title? I am saying that it is unreasonable to believe there is a god till there is evidence of one. It doesn't even have to be conclusive evidence. Just something that can be independantly tested. Otherwise it's unreasonable to say any deity exists.

Uhm, I see that experiment as silly, but then again, I don't view God as most Christians do. Any kind of evidence that could be tested that remotely suggests that a deity exists would be very significant! Right now the evidence amounts to zero.

This is one the dumbest arguments out there. Unicorns and the Christan god are equally as likely to exist. Till there is evidence of a unicorn there is no reason to believe they exist, just like the Christian god. The argument for the existence of any deity is the same as for a unicorn. It's therefore reasonable to say that deitys don't exist. There was a much better argument for the existence of Neutrinos and once scientists were able to come up with a test to run to see if they actually do exist they were then proven to exist. While Neutrinos always existed we were not able to detect them this of course doesn't mean they didn't exist till we were able to detect them.

Evidence of neutrinos have been detected. Look it up. Any type of evidence that can be scientificly evaluated and reproduced would be acceptable.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's not reasonable to conclude that some thing exists if there is no evidence.

No one has yet to provide evidence of any deity. So whether you like it or not faith in any deity is with out evidence. That is the definition of faith. If there were evidence then you wouldn't need faith.

The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all. Those pesky feelings and emotions...who needs 'em! Would that we were all robots... Emotions and feelings should have no place in determining whether something exists or not. With out evidence of any diety the only reasonable conclustion is that there are none.

The problem with a love relationship is that you can't properly quantify a non-tangible feeling. The religions of the world seem to quantify a lot to support their cause. IMO Equating deitys to feelings. That says it all.

Which version of creation should be taught? There are so many and they are all equally as likely be valid.