Well, superman is not a scientific theory, like ... string theory? Therefore, knowing that superman was created a published as a work of fiction, and that there is no such thing as kyptonite, no sightings of superman, and a thousand other reasons means he is not falsified. He might be true ... even though his creator freely admits that he is not real. Apparently atheists will apply and disregard 'science' when it suits their preconceptions. The ever changing standards of atheism - which now dictate that you cannot disprove something unless its an accepted scientific theory first? Because the ego driven version of atheist creationist is using non-standards and an argument from absurdity while claiming not too? Right. BTW - I do love it when you post my own sources, having failed to read it when I first posted and thus proving you failed to read it ... so utter ignorance, blindly posting the first thing that comes up with google, and failing to read it means you are, of course, correct? Not simply and utterly dishonest? Well, have managed to prove that Stroll can use google ... and therefore Santa cannot be disproven ...
Absurdity? I know very well that there are many theories as to who wrote the bible. Please don't insult me by calling me lazy or ignorant. The only difference between the Author of God and the Author of Superman is that we are able to speak to the Creator of the Superman comics to disprove his existance. ...however... if we look at the contents of the Bible, we see contradictions. Contradictions in information = Imagination. If the information inside were true, it would not be contradictory/imaginary. Therefore, we are able to conclude that God is just as fictional as Superman.
Quibble - "To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections. I said the Author of God in my last post, not the author/s of the Bible - You seem to be confused. As God is imaginary, he was borne of one persons mind - AN author, not Authors. It was quite simple! Again, I know very well that there are many theories as to who wrote the bible. Please don't insult me by calling me lazy or ignorant. The only difference between the Author of God (not the bible) and the Author of Superman is that we are able to speak to the Creator of the Superman comics to disprove his existance. ...however... if we look at the contents of the Bible, we see contradictions. Contradictions in information = Imagination. If the information inside were true, it would not be contradictory/imaginary. Therefore, we are able to conclude that God is just as fictional as Superman.
This analogy I really like. The scientific evidence for God's existence is as strong as the evidence of God not existing: Both are missing! I don't think either side will argue with that. What we know though is when certain parts were written. We can date the content of the New Testament to around 100 AD at the earliest. Meaning that these texts were written around 60 years after Jesus's death. That's also why we can be pretty sure that the quotes of what Jesus said can't be too accurate. As you can imagine now it's rather hard to quote a dialog correctly from WW2 between two people you never personally met but only heard of. You could see the message was given like in the "telephone"-game. Every individual who heard the story said it a little different to someone else before it was written down.
I never heard of anybody having to prove a personal belief,,,what would I care if you believed? If I cared than perhaps,,,I don't.. I would not consider myself overly religious, but I like the tradition and it beats believing in a pet Rock,,,,for some. There are no answers, why search for one. If you are happy in whatever you believe fine,,just leave others alone. The best faith is the one of a open mind. I was watching a program about the Universe, they had at least ten brilliant men and their ten brilliant ideas about how the Universe came about. One thing they had in common,, all the other guys are wrong...LOL
I think that is a perfect demonstration if the picking and choosing of evidence from atheists. The main point was that you cannot prove a negative, you can. Now we introduce invisibility into the equation ... we can prove that too. Well, you cannot see black holes, they are invisible as well, how do we prove those? Again, the main point here Prof is that atheism, despite its pretenses is no more or less 'logical' than any other religion. In fact, based on the attempt to appear more logical, it appears far less logical than many mainstream religions. Which side is it after all that is having difficulty with the premise that superman is not real?
The author of God? So now we have just made a leap from Biblical authenticity to figuring out who created God? Nice. And here is the thing B, most of what atheists point to as contradictions are not contradictions. They are artificially introduced silliness that ignores context entirely. Atheists such as yourself will point out say ... adultery being death by stoning and then point out that Jesus himself failed to stone the adulterous woman, aha you say, a contradiction. Only the context is entirely different. A people under moasaic law were given very strict guidelines in interpretations because they were simply not ready. They had been enslaved for decades and simply did not yet have the ability to govern and lead in wisdom. After thousands of years, along comes Jesus and introduces what is known as the higher law, one that recognizes the ability of man to exist and function morally without a thumb stamp. So the 'contradiction' is actually evolution. But by being deliberately ignorant of context, you can claim, stupidly, that it is a contradiction. Most of what atheists write are about the same level of stupidity. And no, I think given that you are pointedly ignoring Biblical authorship and screaming in generalities, I think its a safe bet to assume, like so many other atheists, that you have not even bothered to read the Bible.
That is odd, I found evidence for both and have presented them right here on this thread. For some reason, another atheist cannot find either one. Odd.
You're quite right, which is why I said something like 'beyond detection'. I think that's the other poster's real point. If he genuinely is saying that you can't prove invisible things, rather than simply having mis-communicated what he really meant, then I'll join you in lambasting him. Myself, I say that god does not exist. I recognise that this is not based on logic. And I'm ok with that. But those atheists who merely say 'I dont believe in it because I dont see any reason to' - I don't see what's illogical about that.
#1 - that is exactly the basis for an argument from absurdity. You can indeed continue to dump things out there to the point that you can never prove anything at all. Same process by which Holocaust denial keeps going doesn't it? #2 - Because atheists never JUST say, "Well, I don;t see any reason to believe." They certainly don;t see a reason not to believe, but every atheists who concedes that their faith is just that, will instantly turn around and tell you why religion is dumb and illogical in the next heart beat and think absolutely nothing about the contradiction in his own thinking. As I said, my main beef with atheism is its simple double standards. Everything atheists pretend to hate about religion .. is found right there in atheism. Only at the end of the day, you have an argument from absurdity, and we have a doctrine that pushes us to love, be charitable, forgiving, repentant, standards based, etc. etc. etc.
We have been through this before, and it was finally admitted that all of the measuring systems are composed of arbitrary scales with numbers placed on those scales that have no authenticity with regard to reality. Even Einstein admits that mathematics does not relate to reality. Science, logic and reason cannot tell us anything, because none of those things have the capacity in and of themselves to rationalize. Only the person using those things can tell us something, and when that person tells us something, that person is relating only subjective things (talking about creatures of his/her mind). Getting back to your old defeated argument huh? OK. Beam me up Scotty. They were teleported to and from... and the food was manufactured by a replicator.
Who is making such a citation? You and who else? Where do you get that "2000 years" data from? Has such a revealing been scientifically authenticated? No? Then why are you promoting such unverified information? Well perhaps using the logic system(s) of mankind, it might appear that there is no logical reason. However, are you suggesting that such a god would be required to abide by the logic system of such people found on this planet? Just because you think there would be no logical reason, does not mandate that a god would be required to adhere to such a system of logic. Are there scientists out there in the wild looking for 'bigfoot'? No? Then how is it possible for scientific evidence to be found? Considering that you brought up the subject of 'bigfoot', I would have to guess that 'bigfoot' is alive and doing well in the forest of your mind. So, as seen from your mind, is 'bigfoot' a myth or a real entity? Ok, , , and your point is, what? I have already shown in scripture where the Bible openly declares that there are many gods. So what is the big deal? "actual evidence"???? Actual evidence can be any evidence that is actual. I concur... reserving questions pertaining to the length of time that you have referenced. Clarifying your use of "people"; surely you cannot mean 'all people' as there is a likelihood that there are still some people who would maintain such a belief. IMO, they must still be in existence because you have them in your mind,,, and your mind is in existence,,, Your mind is still in existence is it not?
"assumed"? "assume [əˈsjuːm] vb (tr) 1. (may take a clause as object) to take for granted; accept without proof; suppose to assume that someone is sane 2. to take upon oneself; undertake or take on or over (a position, responsibility, etc.) to assume office 3. to pretend to; feign he assumed indifference, although the news affected him deeply 4. to take or put on; adopt the problem assumed gigantic proportions 5. to appropriate or usurp (power, control, etc.); arrogate the revolutionaries assumed control of the city 6. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity (of God) to take up (the soul of a believer) into heaven [from Latin assūmere to take up, from sūmere to take up, from sub- + emere to take]" Your act of faith places you in a parallel situation along side the Christians. "assuming" "believing" with no physical evidence to support your claim. Yet you claim it is impossible to disprove the existence of an invisible creature, whether it be god, unicorns, leprechauns, you name it..... while at the same time you fly a banner that reads "godisnotreal"; while yet again the definition of the term 'disprove' along side your admission of inability to disprove... clearly shows that you cannot disprove or even refute another persons claim of 'God is real'.
I, nor anybody can prove nor disprove the existence of god- that is faith (which,by its nature, requires no proof). I do not believe in any religion or deity because I have not seen enough evidence to prove or disprove their theory of existence- many keep referring to myths or parables instead of scientific evidence. There is no proof we evolved either. However, the theory of evolution seems to have more evidence for it than us being created separately from other species (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208230523.htm http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full). The reason you are asked to disprove god is because it is impossible, therefore makes you concede a point and potentially look weaker at the argument. If you ask them to prove there is a god they redirect or alter the question.
In scientific methodology I was taught that something that can neither be proven or disproven could be assumed to be true and there are many examples of this in scientific theories. For example we cannot prove that life evolved from inorganic compounds but that is assumed to be true because we have evidence that indicates it probably happened. It's not evidence that it did happen but evidence that it probably happened. Of course the proposition put forward in the OP is philosophical and not scientific so we can resort to philosophical arguments as opposed to scientific arguments. Philsophical arguments can be based upon a logical train of thought unrelated to physical or emperical evidence.
Oh man, what a weird train of thought! But I am glad you realise that Superman does not exist, was there ever doubt in your mind, was there a need to 'falsify Superman' to be convinced? I explained what falsifiability means several times in the past, here another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability No, they just don't apply it where it is not applicable. 'Falsifying Superman' - lol, thanks for the laugh. I have said nothing of the kind. lol, this twaddle doesn't even make sense. Personal attacks - again.
I'd put emphasis here on "assumed to be true because we have evidence that indicates it probably happened". Exactly. We are dealing with proposals which fall outside scientific falsifiability. If one God exists, why not many? And demi-gods, spirits and the like? I live in a country where such beliefs are part of everyday life. Against this there is the exclusivity claim of monotheistic religions, i.e there is only the one and all creator God, and it is this one, everything else is falsehood and delusion, but even in Christianity, there is the trinity, 3 faces of the same God, so to say. Concilliatory advocates of religion may suggest that all worshiped gods are part of the one, differently perceived in different cultures. Well, this is possible, too, though some have such strikingly different features and characteristics that onw wonders how useful it is to regard them as one.
Within what came to be known as the Mystery Religions, which were though the same philosophical system all over the known civerlisations, the concept of God, as opposed to gods, was that all things are joined at some point, we are all a tiny piece of God and the aim was to be at one with the all. God was a concept known to the immortals for what is is, a teaching tool. Through loss of stability and therefore their teachers/mystics/philosophers, from wars and so on .....mortals with just bits and peices of the inner stories of the Temples came to make God literal and Jesus and Moses and Abraham so on and on and on ......... Until with Christianity, The Romans took the 'mad' cult of literalist Christianity, with a bit of Mythras, Dionysus-Orisis and Attas and so on to control the unruly masses through mind .God is Government.
combining holocaust and god? It would be like calling holocaust a religious holiday or as stupid as trying to be neutral with an incorporeal god. most know exactly why they will not believe the BS, of religious wingnuts.
I would be glad to leave them alone if they left society alone. But when some are pushing creationism etc and think their belief system can be introduced into areas of govt I will speak up. Take out under god from a pledge you make children say would be a start. Pledge was fine without that religious indoctrination. Atheists and non christians have rights too.
You keep talking about argument from absurdity, but I don't see where one is being used. I'd ask you to point it out but... well... you cant reply just now Figure of speech, OBVIOUSLY atheists say other words than just those you put in quotes. Also, religion and the existence of god are actually two seperate, though of course related, things.
In science, a statement without a current verified answer is assumed to be false, simply for the purposes of testing. This is called the null hypothesis, and it is from where we begin to examine the evidence. As an example, a cancer drug is said to have no effect, until testing proves otherwise. Once there is sufficient evidence, we begin to accept alternative hypotheses as true. Since the existence or non-existence of any god is a fundamental question about the state of the universe and is, thus, scientific, we should approach the question in the same manner we would the cancer drug. The null hypothesis would be as follows "There is no god". Once sufficient evidence is gathered, we can discard this hypothesis. Sorry it's a tad off-topic from the OP, but there was a bit of confusion on the previous pages.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Whatever one worships can be a god, even if it is self. Worshiping one's very own obsession with something one doesn't think exists in the first place. Live and let live, freedom to worship, habitual tolerance and acceptance first and foremost. Only if we live by these truths ourselves should we even consider criticizing Live and let live. We mustn't preach what we don't practice. That is how I read it.
