-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
Dear all readers here, for today, I will first present the best thinking on no evidence for God existing from the best posters in AtheistNexus.org.
Take notice that these best thinkers writing on no evidence for God existing, they take the care to not define what is evidence and what is God.
If however, you dear atheist colleagues here, you find their definitions of what is evidence, and their definitions of what or who is God, please do us the good service to present their definitions of both terms, in your posts in reaction to my observation to the contrary.
That is what I find all the time to be evidence of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking if thinking it is at all: not defining important terms like evidence and God, when they claim to not see evidence for God existing.
While you folks are reading the text below, I will go see what PsychoSarah has come up with on her definition of what is evidence, and also four or more examples of evidence that fit her definition of evidence.
________________________________
Click Why I Believe There Is No God
Why I Believe There Is No God*
*[ – No evidence (courtesy of Pachomius) ]
Reposted from my blog, Strident and Shrill: http://stridentandshrill.blogspot.com/
Mankind has had a wildly varying conception of god since the beginning of recorded history. The ancient Romans viewed their Caesar as a god, as did the Egyptians their Pharaohs. Some believed certain animals were gods. Others believed them to be invisible. Some say that there is only one. The idea that there is no god, however, is a fairly recent one. This is partially because it was actually illegal to not believe in a god until very recently.
To put it the most succinctly, I believe there is no god because I have been presented with no evidence that is compelling enough for me to believe otherwise. Please note that this is not the agnostic or weak atheist position of simply lacking belief, I truly believe that there is no god in the sense of an all-powerful, eternal creator of the universe who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Does this conclusion make me closed-minded and dogmatic? No. Is it a faith position? Not at all.
The mistake many I see make is to equate belief with faith. Faith is a type of belief but not all beliefs are faith in much the same way a square is a type of rectangle but not all rectangles are squares. Beliefs have a basis, and when a belief is not based upon evidence, it is called faith. This does not mean that all faith claims lack supporting evidence, but simply that the evidence is not its cause.
For example, my car has a braking system. Every time I step on a certain pedal, my car slows down. Thus, when I step on that pedal in the future, I believe that my car will slow down. This belief is not based upon faith, but on the evidence I have collected thus far, plus my knowledge of how braking systems work. It is based upon the fact that every time I press the pedal, the car slows down. If that stopped happening, my beliefs on the matter would change. I would examine the system to find the malfunction and repair it as necessary.
If I had faith that my brakes will work, I would believe that they stopped my car regardless of the evidence. That doesn't make the evidence for my faith disappear, only that my belief is not contingent upon that evidence. Most of the time, it doesn't matter whether I believe my brakes will work based upon the evidence or not. But when they don't work is where evidence-based belief proves to be superior to faith-based belief. If one does not base his belief that his brakes will work on the evidence, then he will not change his belief when the evidence leads somewhere else. In this and many other situations, faith leads to disaster.
For a good real-world example, take the official Catholic stance on birth control. AIDS is prevalent in Africa. Despite this, condoms, a device proven to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, aren't being used by most of the population. This is because the Catholic Church is promoting their faith position that condoms are a sin and thus people are better off dying of AIDS than using birth control. I don't think the church actually wants Africans to die, but their dogged insistence on applying their faith position to this epidemic is only causing more death and suffering than necessary. This is what happens when beliefs are not based upon evidence. They may actually be fine for a while, cause no harm, and even be functional to some extent. But when situations change, and when the evidence changes, beliefs must follow and change as well. Otherwise, people suffer needlessly. Religious faith, the dogged certainty of things one couldn't possibly be certain of, is thus a vice, not a virtue, for it denies the change, favoring self-preservation over quality of life.
So is my belief that there is no god based upon evidence or not? I concede that there is no evidence for the non-existence of god. But, there is no evidence for the non-existence of anything, so demanding proof of a godless universe isn't a valid criticism. There is no way I could possibly prove conclusively that gods (or anything) do not exist. I realize this sounds like I'm simply dismissing something based upon my own personal incredulity, but I'm really not, and here's why:
In an extraordinary claim, absence of compelling evidence is evidence of absence
The first part of that statement is very important, as it ensures what follows only applies to extraordinary claims. What is an extraordinary claim? Extraordinary literally means "out of the ordinary." To put it another way, something that is extraordinary defies everything we already know about the universe, or the 'ordinary.' Something that is ordinary does not. Claiming there was once a castle that floated in the sky is an extraordinary claim. Claiming that a particular castle once existed is an ordinary claim.
The second part should make it clear that extraordinary claims aren't necessarily impossible, but do require evidence if we are to believe they happened. In the absence of evidence, we usually believe that the extraordinary claim didn't happen, regardless of our lack of evidence to the contrary.
Finally, the phrase "compelling evidence" should be considered as well. Many extraordinary claims do have supporting evidence, but most, if not all of the time, their actual direct support of the claim is highly exaggerated. Either they only support its ordinary elements, or they are more easily explained by ordinary means. Thus, the existence of ordinary chariot wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea does not support the extraordinary claim that Moses parted it 3,500 years ago any more than the existence of the ordinary city of Troy supports the extraordinary claims of The Odyssey.
This principle is universally followed by the majority of the population in every way except in matters of religion and the question of the existence of god. Many of the same people who are fine with believing in Jesus are also fine with believing that Bigfoot, Thor, Santa Claus, Zeus, Mithras, Dionysus, and Hesphaetos do not exist and never existed. When I say that I believe God doesn't exist, I am merely applying the same principles of logic theists do against extraordinary claims they do not accept.
But despite all this, my belief that there is no God is not faith because I'm willing to change my mind if new, compelling evidence comes to light. If it were a faith position, I would continue believing in the absence of god no matter how good the evidence for it was. This willingness to change is the single most important element that separates faith from reasonable belief.
I have seen no compelling evidence of Bigfoot and thus I believe such a creature does not exist. But if I was presented with evidence that was verifiable and testable, then I would change my mind. That I apply this same standard of evidence to the question of god only means that I am attempting to be logically consistent and trying not to shift my standards to fit ideas that I like and rule out ones that I don't. I personally have no problem with the idea that god exists, and would believe it if the evidence convinced me, but as I have stated several times, it doesn't.
I am not unfamiliar with the common arguments for the existence of god. In fact, I've studied them for most of my life. I just don't buy them. They are not compelling enough for me to accept. I do plan on going into greater detail for each approach, but I decided not to do so in this post in order to avoid deviating too far from its main focus.
So there you have it. This is why, in a nutshell, I believe there is no God.
Comment by Brian on January 18, 2010 at 3:20pm
Even if we were to confirm that something supernatural exists, it would immediately cease being supernatural. The term "natural world" means basically "everything we understand."
Comment by Shasta Caron on January 18, 2010 at 10:34am
I agree with you, i too believe there is no god. but i dont doubt the existance of energy, and i still have to figure out the supernatural. i dont think there are personal gods, but supernatual energy i still ponder...
Comment by Brian on January 18, 2010 at 6:07am
"disbelief requires that you prove the contrary."
With ordinary claims, yes that's true. However, with extraordinary claims it is not. As I said, an extraordinary claim in this context is something that violates what we already know about the universe. That's fine to do but in the absence of compelling evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to use this lack of evidence as evidence of absence. Like I said, if someone told me a pink unicorn used in their closet, I would ask for proof, and if they couldn't show me anything, I would believe that there was no unicorn. Same thing with God.
The position that "nothing can be known about god" is just as dogmatic in my opinion as the claim that god exists. Besides, I'm not making a knowledge claim. I'm making a belief claim based upon the evidence that can change with the introduction of more evidence. Agnosticism and weak atheism are more similar than not, thus I mentioned them together.
Comment by Johnny on January 17, 2010 at 2:31pm
i'm afraid that although you have a lot of good things in there, the part about you not being agnostic either tells me that you don't understand the definition of an agnostic or you made a very bad case as to why you are not one.
there is belief and non-belief.
non-belief can be broken into two categories: doubt and disbelief.
the doubter is the agnostic atheist. agnostic means "nothing can be known about god." This is correct. However, you can still make that claim and doubt god.
disbelief requires that you prove the contrary. I disbelieve in the geocentric theory because the proven heliocentric theory is mutually exclusive.
Careful with your presentation. Forgive me if i skimmed it too quickly. I agree with most of it so i didn't bother going into depth.
[End of the best on no evidence from the best thinking of the best posters in AtheistNexus.org]
Take notice that these best thinkers writing on no evidence for God existing, they take the care to not define what is evidence and what is God.
If however, you dear atheist colleagues here, you find their definitions of what is evidence, and their definitions of what or who is God, please do us the good service to present their definitions of both terms, in your posts in reaction to my observation to the contrary.
That is what I find all the time to be evidence of self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism with atheists’ thinking if thinking it is at all: not defining important terms like evidence and God, when they claim to not see evidence for God existing.
While you folks are reading the text below, I will go see what PsychoSarah has come up with on her definition of what is evidence, and also four or more examples of evidence that fit her definition of evidence.
________________________________
Click Why I Believe There Is No God
Why I Believe There Is No God*
*[ – No evidence (courtesy of Pachomius) ]
Reposted from my blog, Strident and Shrill: http://stridentandshrill.blogspot.com/
Mankind has had a wildly varying conception of god since the beginning of recorded history. The ancient Romans viewed their Caesar as a god, as did the Egyptians their Pharaohs. Some believed certain animals were gods. Others believed them to be invisible. Some say that there is only one. The idea that there is no god, however, is a fairly recent one. This is partially because it was actually illegal to not believe in a god until very recently.
To put it the most succinctly, I believe there is no god because I have been presented with no evidence that is compelling enough for me to believe otherwise. Please note that this is not the agnostic or weak atheist position of simply lacking belief, I truly believe that there is no god in the sense of an all-powerful, eternal creator of the universe who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Does this conclusion make me closed-minded and dogmatic? No. Is it a faith position? Not at all.
The mistake many I see make is to equate belief with faith. Faith is a type of belief but not all beliefs are faith in much the same way a square is a type of rectangle but not all rectangles are squares. Beliefs have a basis, and when a belief is not based upon evidence, it is called faith. This does not mean that all faith claims lack supporting evidence, but simply that the evidence is not its cause.
For example, my car has a braking system. Every time I step on a certain pedal, my car slows down. Thus, when I step on that pedal in the future, I believe that my car will slow down. This belief is not based upon faith, but on the evidence I have collected thus far, plus my knowledge of how braking systems work. It is based upon the fact that every time I press the pedal, the car slows down. If that stopped happening, my beliefs on the matter would change. I would examine the system to find the malfunction and repair it as necessary.
If I had faith that my brakes will work, I would believe that they stopped my car regardless of the evidence. That doesn't make the evidence for my faith disappear, only that my belief is not contingent upon that evidence. Most of the time, it doesn't matter whether I believe my brakes will work based upon the evidence or not. But when they don't work is where evidence-based belief proves to be superior to faith-based belief. If one does not base his belief that his brakes will work on the evidence, then he will not change his belief when the evidence leads somewhere else. In this and many other situations, faith leads to disaster.
For a good real-world example, take the official Catholic stance on birth control. AIDS is prevalent in Africa. Despite this, condoms, a device proven to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, aren't being used by most of the population. This is because the Catholic Church is promoting their faith position that condoms are a sin and thus people are better off dying of AIDS than using birth control. I don't think the church actually wants Africans to die, but their dogged insistence on applying their faith position to this epidemic is only causing more death and suffering than necessary. This is what happens when beliefs are not based upon evidence. They may actually be fine for a while, cause no harm, and even be functional to some extent. But when situations change, and when the evidence changes, beliefs must follow and change as well. Otherwise, people suffer needlessly. Religious faith, the dogged certainty of things one couldn't possibly be certain of, is thus a vice, not a virtue, for it denies the change, favoring self-preservation over quality of life.
So is my belief that there is no god based upon evidence or not? I concede that there is no evidence for the non-existence of god. But, there is no evidence for the non-existence of anything, so demanding proof of a godless universe isn't a valid criticism. There is no way I could possibly prove conclusively that gods (or anything) do not exist. I realize this sounds like I'm simply dismissing something based upon my own personal incredulity, but I'm really not, and here's why:
In an extraordinary claim, absence of compelling evidence is evidence of absence
The first part of that statement is very important, as it ensures what follows only applies to extraordinary claims. What is an extraordinary claim? Extraordinary literally means "out of the ordinary." To put it another way, something that is extraordinary defies everything we already know about the universe, or the 'ordinary.' Something that is ordinary does not. Claiming there was once a castle that floated in the sky is an extraordinary claim. Claiming that a particular castle once existed is an ordinary claim.
The second part should make it clear that extraordinary claims aren't necessarily impossible, but do require evidence if we are to believe they happened. In the absence of evidence, we usually believe that the extraordinary claim didn't happen, regardless of our lack of evidence to the contrary.
Finally, the phrase "compelling evidence" should be considered as well. Many extraordinary claims do have supporting evidence, but most, if not all of the time, their actual direct support of the claim is highly exaggerated. Either they only support its ordinary elements, or they are more easily explained by ordinary means. Thus, the existence of ordinary chariot wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea does not support the extraordinary claim that Moses parted it 3,500 years ago any more than the existence of the ordinary city of Troy supports the extraordinary claims of The Odyssey.
This principle is universally followed by the majority of the population in every way except in matters of religion and the question of the existence of god. Many of the same people who are fine with believing in Jesus are also fine with believing that Bigfoot, Thor, Santa Claus, Zeus, Mithras, Dionysus, and Hesphaetos do not exist and never existed. When I say that I believe God doesn't exist, I am merely applying the same principles of logic theists do against extraordinary claims they do not accept.
But despite all this, my belief that there is no God is not faith because I'm willing to change my mind if new, compelling evidence comes to light. If it were a faith position, I would continue believing in the absence of god no matter how good the evidence for it was. This willingness to change is the single most important element that separates faith from reasonable belief.
I have seen no compelling evidence of Bigfoot and thus I believe such a creature does not exist. But if I was presented with evidence that was verifiable and testable, then I would change my mind. That I apply this same standard of evidence to the question of god only means that I am attempting to be logically consistent and trying not to shift my standards to fit ideas that I like and rule out ones that I don't. I personally have no problem with the idea that god exists, and would believe it if the evidence convinced me, but as I have stated several times, it doesn't.
I am not unfamiliar with the common arguments for the existence of god. In fact, I've studied them for most of my life. I just don't buy them. They are not compelling enough for me to accept. I do plan on going into greater detail for each approach, but I decided not to do so in this post in order to avoid deviating too far from its main focus.
So there you have it. This is why, in a nutshell, I believe there is no God.
Comment by Brian on January 18, 2010 at 3:20pm
Even if we were to confirm that something supernatural exists, it would immediately cease being supernatural. The term "natural world" means basically "everything we understand."
Comment by Shasta Caron on January 18, 2010 at 10:34am
I agree with you, i too believe there is no god. but i dont doubt the existance of energy, and i still have to figure out the supernatural. i dont think there are personal gods, but supernatual energy i still ponder...
Comment by Brian on January 18, 2010 at 6:07am
"disbelief requires that you prove the contrary."
With ordinary claims, yes that's true. However, with extraordinary claims it is not. As I said, an extraordinary claim in this context is something that violates what we already know about the universe. That's fine to do but in the absence of compelling evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to use this lack of evidence as evidence of absence. Like I said, if someone told me a pink unicorn used in their closet, I would ask for proof, and if they couldn't show me anything, I would believe that there was no unicorn. Same thing with God.
The position that "nothing can be known about god" is just as dogmatic in my opinion as the claim that god exists. Besides, I'm not making a knowledge claim. I'm making a belief claim based upon the evidence that can change with the introduction of more evidence. Agnosticism and weak atheism are more similar than not, thus I mentioned them together.
Comment by Johnny on January 17, 2010 at 2:31pm
i'm afraid that although you have a lot of good things in there, the part about you not being agnostic either tells me that you don't understand the definition of an agnostic or you made a very bad case as to why you are not one.
there is belief and non-belief.
non-belief can be broken into two categories: doubt and disbelief.
the doubter is the agnostic atheist. agnostic means "nothing can be known about god." This is correct. However, you can still make that claim and doubt god.
disbelief requires that you prove the contrary. I disbelieve in the geocentric theory because the proven heliocentric theory is mutually exclusive.
Careful with your presentation. Forgive me if i skimmed it too quickly. I agree with most of it so i didn't bother going into depth.
[End of the best on no evidence from the best thinking of the best posters in AtheistNexus.org]
Upvote
0
Well, I have not seen any posts from PsychoSarah since yesterday, which are addressed to me, in which she sets forth her definition of what is evidence, with four or more examples that fit her definition of what is evidence.
So, I will now try another tack to get atheists here to do genuine thinking, see my next post after you have read the ANNEX below.
ANNEX
Pachomius Yesterday at 5:57 AM #1276
Well, KTS has not reacted to my invite to her, so I will now invite most seriously another lady atheist, PsychoSarah, to take over from KTS: produce your definition of evidence, and four or more examples of evidence.
[Start of quote on invite to KTS from Pachomius, Yesterday at 3:10 AM #1246]*
Alert to KTS.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
*Everyone, please bear with me, I am really or I find it impossible to write here with the what I imagine to be universal word processing codes: thus my peculiar ways and means as I can manage, to write as to be read quickly and easily and clearly and definitively by people who are yes read and yes write, you get the idea.
I did try to find in the internet the kind of word processing codes employed in this forum, but I did not succeed.
And I can't be investing time and labor into fathoming the codes employed here, besides I am glad that with my way and means of writing here, I see my posts to come out quite clearly, quickly, easy to read, and most definitively carrying forth my ideas to all peoples who happen to read this thread - hehehehehe...
Tomorrow again.
[End of ANNEX]
So, I will now try another tack to get atheists here to do genuine thinking, see my next post after you have read the ANNEX below.
ANNEX
Pachomius Yesterday at 5:57 AM #1276
Well, KTS has not reacted to my invite to her, so I will now invite most seriously another lady atheist, PsychoSarah, to take over from KTS: produce your definition of evidence, and four or more examples of evidence.
[Start of quote on invite to KTS from Pachomius, Yesterday at 3:10 AM #1246]*
Alert to KTS.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
*Everyone, please bear with me, I am really or I find it impossible to write here with the what I imagine to be universal word processing codes: thus my peculiar ways and means as I can manage, to write as to be read quickly and easily and clearly and definitively by people who are yes read and yes write, you get the idea.
I did try to find in the internet the kind of word processing codes employed in this forum, but I did not succeed.
And I can't be investing time and labor into fathoming the codes employed here, besides I am glad that with my way and means of writing here, I see my posts to come out quite clearly, quickly, easy to read, and most definitively carrying forth my ideas to all peoples who happen to read this thread - hehehehehe...
Tomorrow again.
[End of ANNEX]
Upvote
0
Dear atheists here, let us do this exercise.
I know that you are convinced that being the negative side in the debate God exists or not, and besides since it is impossible to prove a negative, on which both accounts, you feel so smug that you are not under any burden to demonstrate your negative contention that God does not exist.
I tell you, you are totally naive in that self-smug duplex nonsense, but let that pass.
Still I notice that you take the task to tell mankind that you find no evidence for God existing, therefore no need to trouble yourself with God, according to what one of your fallacious mentors, Hitchens, now deceased, telling you that What is alleged without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The trouble is as usual for being shallow researchers, you do not take the care to do epistemological justice to yourselves, to find out whether Christian theists really allege God exists without evidence supporting their statement, God exists – from my part I take the care to explicitly add: in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Here is the exercise I invite you and me to undertake.
Examine your mind as to come to explain to yourself how you come to adopt the atheists’ identity dictum that God does not exist, for your life is not worth living if you do not know yourself, and that requires you to examine your mind as to explain to yourself how you come to the to yourself certainty that God does not exist.
Similarly I will also examine my mind as to come to my theists’ identity dictum that God exists.
And what exactly is the exercise I am talking about?
The exercise consists in you and I telling each other, what is the meaning of explaining something.
Okay, dear everyone reading this thread, let us sit back and see how atheists enlighten us on what it is to explain something.
But tell me, Oh ye atheists, if you want me to start the exercise with me delivering to you what I understand what it is to explain something.
See you all guys again tomorrow.
I know that you are convinced that being the negative side in the debate God exists or not, and besides since it is impossible to prove a negative, on which both accounts, you feel so smug that you are not under any burden to demonstrate your negative contention that God does not exist.
I tell you, you are totally naive in that self-smug duplex nonsense, but let that pass.
Still I notice that you take the task to tell mankind that you find no evidence for God existing, therefore no need to trouble yourself with God, according to what one of your fallacious mentors, Hitchens, now deceased, telling you that What is alleged without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The trouble is as usual for being shallow researchers, you do not take the care to do epistemological justice to yourselves, to find out whether Christian theists really allege God exists without evidence supporting their statement, God exists – from my part I take the care to explicitly add: in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Here is the exercise I invite you and me to undertake.
Examine your mind as to come to explain to yourself how you come to adopt the atheists’ identity dictum that God does not exist, for your life is not worth living if you do not know yourself, and that requires you to examine your mind as to explain to yourself how you come to the to yourself certainty that God does not exist.
Similarly I will also examine my mind as to come to my theists’ identity dictum that God exists.
And what exactly is the exercise I am talking about?
The exercise consists in you and I telling each other, what is the meaning of explaining something.
Okay, dear everyone reading this thread, let us sit back and see how atheists enlighten us on what it is to explain something.
But tell me, Oh ye atheists, if you want me to start the exercise with me delivering to you what I understand what it is to explain something.
See you all guys again tomorrow.
Upvote
0
Thousands of posts later and we are still waiting for the first post with evidence for the existence of God.
Not giving evidence is not how you prove that God exists. It is, however, how you prove atheists are justified for not believing in God.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,810
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I passed a church today on my way to McDonald's.
You know what a church is, don't you?
God's house?
His houses are everywhere.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Certainly. I would have gotten to it sooner if you had quoted me directly, since I tend to use the alert system to respond to people.
Scientific evidence definition: evidence as it applies to science which can be effectively used to either support a theory, or counter it. The best evidence is empirical, and its interpretation guided by the scientific method.
Since you didn't specify what the examples of evidence were to be evidence for, I have decided to produce 4 examples of evidence for the same theory of my choice: atomic theory.
1. http://images.slideplayer.com/26/8331270/slides/slide_5.jpg image of an atom, yes, we can see them, the nucleus, anyways.
2. Via chemical properties: The ratios of reactions match up with atomic ratios, pure elements always have the same mass to volume, compounds having the same mass to volume as the ratios of their constituents.
3. Inductively, since matter has set properties, there should be basic units of matter, smallest bits that cannot be divided and retain these properties. This was the basis for the generation of the original theory to begin with, rather than is evidence to support it, but it is worth mentioning, don't worry, I'll add a 5th one to make up for it.
4. The theory's predictions on electron movement match up with observed reality.
5. Various forms of radiation give off constituents of the radioactive elements; the type of radiation corresponds to the size of the particle being released, and they impact their surroundings in ways unique to each radioactive element. http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-1-b.jpg these "halos" are produced by alpha radiation on rocky surfaces.
-_- just quote people one at a time, using the Reply thing in the bottom right corner, rather than addressing us all at once. It's more organized that way anyways, so we don't have to delete the huge portions of your post that address other people.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Wow, a whole day, that must surely mean I won't respond -_-. I'm not even on here every day, I have college to do and other obligations. I might have responded sooner if you actually quoted me, but you don't, so I don't get alerts that you respond to me. That means I have to read through your giant posts to try to find out if you have responded to me, and that's ridiculous.
Also, yesterday was Valentine's day, I was mostly spending time with my fiance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have passed worse after coming back from McDonald's, but that isn't a story for mixed company.
A church is a congregation of Christians who worsphip and fellowship together, and it has nothing to do with physical trappings. At least, that is what I was taught.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,810
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'm talking about the church building ... not the church, per se.
I didn't think I would have had to have specified that.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Despite Jesus panning organized, public worship in the bible. Such a shame.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
I passed one to. Its now a gym though as there was to few members so they had to sell. Story of many churches here.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,810
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Unfortunately, that's true.
I often think of England's greatest preacher ever (the Prince of Preachers) and the Metropolitan Tabernacle.
I'm looking forward to meeting him someday.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
