It's only an illusion

[Oncedeceived]

Nor is there any physical evidence for or against the existence of the Invisible Magic Bunny.

So what?

To say there is no evidence for the existence of God is incorrect. One might not agree that the evidence supports God, that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, your head really hurts, but what good does it do to take a medication you claim is not effective?

Though you have not tested your smoke detector, they have a track record and have been utilized for years. In fact, for something that could save you and your family from death, I am shocked you have not tested them (this appears very illogical) as they can easily be tested by pushing the button, or placing a smoldering match underneath it. What is the logic behind not testing something that could save your life, yet you break down the medications to penny's, that you state is not effective?

You are wrong. I simply said that my experience is that the medication is generally ineffective. Let's say that my headache is relieved only 20 percent of the time and that when that happens, I still wonder whether it was the result of the medication or something unrelated.

A match will not make the smoke detector go off. I have pressed the button and the alarm does sound, but I have never had someone do it while I was sleeping to determine whether I would wake up. Have you done so?

You said:

What is the logic behind not testing something that could save your life, yet you break down the medications to penny's, that you state is not effective?

You should use not ", that" as a modifier but ", which." Even so, the sentence appears to suggest that penny's is not effective, as opposed to medications. Assuming you meant medications, why didn't you say "are"? Why did you say penny's rather than pennies? I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Please type more clearly.

 

[Zosimus]

That's the thing about it, it seems to work for me even if I don't have faith in it.

Go figure.

You don't have faith in your faith? I don't get it.

 

[Seipai]

You don't have faith in your faith? I don't get it.

Atheism is not faith based. What he believes in works whether he believes in it or not.

I know the odds are against me when I go to a casino. I know mathematically there is nothing I can do with most games to improve my "luck" and that no system will change the outcome. Guess what, that works whether I believe it or not.

Give me enough money and I can prove it to your satisfaction.

 

[Belk]

To say there is no evidence for the existence of God is incorrect. One might not agree that the evidence supports God, that doesn't mean it isn't.

There is no evidence of which I am aware that would allow me to falsify a god. There is also no evidence of which I am aware that would allow to falsify a lack of gods Hence the agnosticism and weak atheism. If the evidence supports both cases it is useless to me in determining which position is correct.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nor is there any physical evidence for or against the existence of the Invisible Magic Bunny.

So what?

To say there is no physical evidence for the existence of God is incorrect. One may dismiss it as evidence but I believe there is evidence that supports God's existence.

Whoops double post

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't get it.

Yes, I know.

 

[In situ]

the scientific method says nothing about the existence of God one way or another.

Perhaps, but the collected scientific knowledge does say a a lot about the possible nature of a possible god and that knowledge does not vindicate any major religions claims about their god(s).

 

[HitchSlap]

To say there is no physical evidence for the existence of God is incorrect. One may dismiss it as evidence but I believe there is evidence that supports God's existence.

It is correct to say there is no objective physical evidence for a deity.

That's what I mean when I say you're entitled to your own opinion, and not your own facts. Facts are those pesky things that remain long after you stop believing in them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no evidence of which I am aware that would allow me to falsify a god. There is also no evidence of which I am aware that would allow to falsify a lack of gods Hence the agnosticism and weak atheism. If the evidence supports both cases it is useless to me in determining which position is correct.

You could see I would assume that if it is evidence that supports both cases that either could be true based upon it. It could support two different premises but that it depends on our own view of the world whether one seems more likely or not. Correct?

 

[Zosimus]

Atheism is not faith based. What he believes in works whether he believes in it or not.

I know the odds are against me when I go to a casino. I know mathematically there is nothing I can do with most games to improve my "luck" and that no system will change the outcome. Guess what, that works whether I believe it or not.

Give me enough money and I can prove it to your satisfaction.

The person in question said that he had three beliefs:

Reality exists
We can learn something about reality
Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without

Considering that faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof and that he cannot prove these beliefs, he clearly has faith in them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is correct to say there is no objective physical evidence for a deity.

That's what I mean when I say you're entitled to your own opinion, and not your own facts. Facts are those pesky things that remain long after you stop believing in them.[/quote}

Facts are facts. Opinions can be based on facts, which of course is always the case.

We've had the problem before as to what objective means.

 

[HitchSlap]

You could see I would assume that if it is evidence that supports both cases that either could be true based upon it. It could support two different premises but that it depends on our own view of the world whether one seems more likely or not. Correct?

Incorrect. There is only one best explanation for something being A, or not A.

You can't have is both ways.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is correct to say there is no objective physical evidence for a deity.

That's what I mean when I say you're entitled to your own opinion, and not your own facts. Facts are those pesky things that remain long after you stop believing in them.[/quote}

Facts are facts. Opinions can be based on facts, which of course is always the case.

We've had the problem before as to what objective means.

Yes facts are facts. Opinions based on facts are either right or wrong.

Objective means that all available evidence can be independently verified as facts.

 

[In situ]

To say there is no physical evidence for the existence of God is incorrect.

I did not say that. What I meant is that the statement is not very informative.

One may dismiss it as evidence but I believe there is evidence that supports God's existence.

Fine with me... but for an evidence to be vidley accepted it need to be possible to a) verify independently and b) objectively. The majority of evidence for god does not fulfill these two requirements and are therefor not evidence but judgments or opinions.

As Bertrand Russel put it; a hallucination is a fact not an error what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes facts are facts. Opinions based on facts are either right or wrong.

Objective means that all available evidence can be independently verified as facts.

Assuming that I said, "The president is expected to return from a trip to Japan tomorrow" how would you verify whether that is true?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Incorrect. There is only one best explanation for something being A, or not A.

You can't have is both ways.

Yes, but some people don't believe in God so they dismiss the best explanation for something being A, or not A.

 

[In situ]

The person in question said that he had three beliefs:

Reality exists
We can learn something about reality
Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without

Considering that faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof and that he cannot prove these beliefs, he clearly has faith in them.

What is your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Assuming that I said, "The president is expected to return from a trip to Japan tomorrow" how would you verify whether that is true?

There would be various ways to determine if that was true.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, but some people don't believe in God so they dismiss the best explanation for something being A, or not A.

Here's the time in our discussion where you get to

A. Provide a working definition of "God" and
2. Provide some objective evidence for said "God"