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.
Yet again you are playing your weary old trick of trying to shift the burden of proof. YOU have to prove that a god exists; we don't have to prove that it doesn't. We know exactly what you are are doing - starting from a belief that God is a given that must be disproved, or it remains a truth. It isn't.
OK - plz provide your evidence that God does not exist.
OK plz
provide your evidence that Ganesh does not exist. See where you are going wrong?
First, I have never made that claim (although that is what I believe) so I have no need to prove the claim. On the other hand, you make the claim for the existence of Yahweh every day on this forum so it's for you to provide the verifiable evidence for your claim. Of course, we know you - can't but maybe you are not daft after all. Let's see.
Would those be the same reasons you use to dismiss the hundreds of thousands of gods said to exist by other religions, now and in the past?
It would be the same reason I dismiss the EXISTENCE of any and all HUMAN defined versions of God but still believe in the EXISTENCE of a generic one. I also believe MY version of the Christian narrative is the most advanced and sophisticated human definition of the Savior theme that runs throughout human speculation about God in myriad cultures, eras, and generations.
It would be the same reason I dismiss the EXISTENCE of any and all HUMAN defined versions of God but still believe in the EXISTENCE of a generic one. I also believe MY version of the Christian narrative is the most advanced and sophisticated human definition of the Savior theme that runs throughout human speculation about God in myriad cultures, eras, and generations.
also, the hundreds of thousands of gods demonstrate that humans everywhere in all times understand we are part of a larger system of life. we have been misdefinng what it is but that doesn't mean its not there. In fact, all those people demonstrate that it is more valid to believe in something than to deny everything. to deny hundreds of thousands pieces of repeating evidence kind of doesn't make sense.
GoC, your post don't reek of fundy, for the most part. so I am not sure about your resistance to such simple notions. why would you focus on what we don't don't know?
Is it reasonable for me to say "nobody knows it all so there is a teapot on the other side of sun that we never see."
or is it more reasonable to say
"there isn't a teapot there there because none of the objects that orbit the sun look anything like a man made household object?
what faith statement is more reasonable?
remember, the data shows there is stuff that orbits and there just might be something orbiting that we haven't seen yet. In fact, its more valid to claim there is than there is not. It just doesn't have the traits of a teapot. Its the exact same thing for this god thing. There is something, but many of the traits are wrong. Like mystics "only love". And some of the less obvious traits may be correct. that it may be loving.
Absolute nonsense. How can you claim to have proof when you MUST admit "We do NOT Know" whether or not there is a God?
E V I D E N C E. Not proof, E V I D E N C E. I have provided E V I D E N C E for atheism, not proof. It is not my fault the burden of proof is so named.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is insufficient reason to dismiss God given the undeniable (and unknown) attributes of the reality responsible for our existence. But there is sufficient reason to dismiss tooth fairies or what not.
So you keep asserting. If only you provided some E V I D E N C E for your claims. Not your usual assertions and fallacies, E V I D E N C E.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You attack SPECIFIC human explanations of God but NOT the EXISTENCE of God. Your arrogance blinds you to this critical lack and our ignorance about it remains untouched making your presumption of the default presumptuous indeed.
Which as absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But once again you provide even MORE evidence for atheism in that you have to misrepresent what I said once again. And the fact that I provided E V I D E N C E for atheism IS an argument against ALL GODS. But as you clearly do not understand probability, that means it is your arrogance that blinds you to the argument.
You may also want to investigate the difference between evaluating E V I D E N C E and presuming things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Beliefs require no such proof or evidence because they are beliefs just as your belief there is no God requires no proof unless you try to make it a CLAIM by presumption.
Stay on topic, as no one is presuming anything. Oh, wait, you was just employing a straw man and ad hominem.
Now are you disagreeing, or just making another of your usual attacks? If you are disagreeing, then please provide a credible argument against what I have written.
At least religious fundamentalists have a REASON for spreading their message. Religion has always had a positive place in society. Always.
Always.
Yes, always. Any claim to the opposite is just anti-theistic people trying to label everything by the society of the time and it's particular religious affiliation.
As Hauptmann Obvious said, just because you say it doesn't make it true. But if you think stoning, 9/11, and murder on religious grounds are positive, then you are beyond help.
But well done on refuting your initial assertion with your later attempt at well poisoning.
You dismiss our intelligence as some "evolved or emergent" property of the UNEXPLAINED existence of life and consciousness AS IF that is an explanation despite repeated attempts to point out that it EXPLAINS nothing. You obviously can't distinguish between EXPLANATION and mere OBSERVATION.
Once again must I explain what you pretend is UNEXPLAINED. Life is just chemistry, an exergonic chemical reaction. So that has kicked one leg out from under your god of the gaps argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What is NOT "counter-intuitive" about a claim of complex intelligent beings comprised entirely of material matter and processes that we know exist - just because we ARE them? You want to own the unexplained origin and existence of reality but deny it to God AS IF that makes sense. The silly Creator/No Creator infinite regress nonsense is intellectual pornography.
So are you arguing intelligent beings can just exist for no reason, or that your god evolved?
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.
