Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, Dusty, but my logic in this thing is impeccable. You are confusing two different things.
I have been talking about logical possibility, not philosophic burden of proof when asserting something exists. You are correct that someone claiming that something positively exists does have the burden of proof to show that it does exist. But, I am not talking asserting something exists, I am talking about whether something could possibly exist. The logically possible proposition is possible unless it is logically contradictory, so the burden is on the person who claims something is impossible to prove that it is inherently contradictory.
Do you get the difference? Possible versus impossible in contrast to asserting not merely that something is possible, but that it does in fact exist.
The question of whether dark matter could possibly exist is separate from whether we have enough data to prove that it does exist. If I am asserting that it does exist, then I have to prove it. But, if someone is asserting that it is impossible for dark matter to exist, then they have to show why it is impossible, i.e., why it is logically contradictory.
Hopefully, I have said enough to clear that up. If not, please let me know.
That clarifies that matter. Dark matter is an hypothesis based on some pretty convincing calculations. That was good enough to start people looking for Neptune and rare minerals and it is good enough to start people trying to isolate dark matter - I heard rumbles hat it might have been found, not sure of that.
So it is still hypothetical though there is evidence that strongly indicates its existence, but the scientific proof is still awaited.
The same applies to Abiogenesis. The supportive evidence strongly implies how it came about. It is not scientifically demonstrated yet. It was also strongly postulated that there were transitional fossils and pre -Cambrian life even before the evidence was forthcoming. It has now been found and the Gap for god closes more and more. Thus there is suggestive evidence to support Abiogenesis. The recent laboratory work on basic life adds more data and renders the objections of the creationist (who have not a shred of evidence to support their own claims) footling to anyone willing to see it. Creationism has Genesis and that doesn't stand up at all - only by rewritiing the terms to try to make them fit the findings of science and claiming that was what it meant all along or by going into denial.
That all said, there is always a possibility of a Deist/Pantheist god of some kind existing. But the supportive evidence is arguable and inconclusive at best. Einstein's belief in an ordered universe misled him over quantum physics. Score a point against. The result of that, logically, has to be agnosticism and what you don't know to be so, or for which you don't have some sound supportive evidence (1), you don't believe - even if you accept it as a more or less remote possibility. And 'god' is a rather remote one.
When we get onto personal gods then, as I believe you argue, the possibility become otiose. The claims made by the believers for their gods become contradictory and pretty much disprovable. That is why my arguments against are to do with personal gods. As regards possible deist sortagods, I prefer to argue about, because I have no particular objection to the idea and my new -atheist is really aimed at the claims of religion rather than the possibility of a god - of some sort.
Does that clarify the matter at all?
(1) there is a lot of very carefully packaged and skillfully marketed persuasive evidence but that doesn't at all mean that it is sound.
Curious what you consider examples of a possible, and a contradictory god.
Possible god: It is possible that there is a supreme being that exists outside of our universe. There is no reason why there could not be. I am not suggesting that there is, just that it is possible.
Possible god: It is possible that there is a supreme being that exists outside of our universe. There is no reason why there could not be. I am not suggesting that there is, just that it is possible.
That was a good post. Theists will of course argue against it using the learning - curve analogy or the 'who are we to criticize God' argument or both, yet the fact is that the Problem of Evil is one that constantly turns up as reasons why people come to have doubts. So, yes, the god -claims in the Bible do have a contradictory flavour about them.
One could try the get -out of saying that our ideas about such a god might be mistaken, but that just raises the question of whether we should worship a god who claims to be good but doesn't seem to be. And that's still the Problem of evil. That's the problem with personal gods.
Your possible deity beyond the universe is another matter altogether. One has to ask what possible concern a god beyond the universe - essentially an off - world alien being - has to do with us.
Any god that is going be any more to us that an academic possibility has to be one that is here and interacting with us and then we once again are talking about personal gods and their inherent impossibilities.
That was a good post. Theists will of course argue against it using the learning - curve analogy or the 'who are we to criticize God' argument or both, yet the fact is that the Problem of Evil is one that constantly turns up as reasons why people come to have doubts. So, yes, the god -claims in the Bible do have a contradictory flavour about them.
The Biblegod aside, Arequipa . . . Contrary to popular opinion . . . I usually don't bother with unanswerable conundrums about why our existence is the way it is. But I did have a thought while reading your posts. Now I know from prior encounters that you seem to have difficulty with abstractions so you may not immediately grasp the concept. OK . . . physical gestation requires the embryo to self-develop along DNA prescribed patterns. Stay with me, now. So spiritual gestation would require a spiritual embryo to do the same right? What do you think would be the characteristics of a "spiritual womb" (temporary existence) that is designed to gestate (self-develop) a mature Spirit (consciousness) full of love for Self and ALL life . . . something that mandates the development of a knowledge of good (love) and evil (non-love). This temporary physical existence seems well-suited . . . don't you think? Just a thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
