210 replies to this topic

[johnross47]

You're letting Shadowhawk highjack another topic for a rerun of all the battles he has lost before. The post above is massively off topic. The psycho-mega-proselytiser has broken out of his dungeon and is rampaging through reality again.

[shadowhawk]

You're letting Shadowhawk highjack another topic for a rerun of all the battles he has lost before. The post above is massively off topic. The psycho-mega-proselytiser has broken out of his dungeon and is rampaging through reality again.

What a mindless joke. No content here.

[mikeinnaples]

What a mindless joke. No content here.

Mindless and no content is 99% of what you post. Wake up and start thinking for yourself.

[johnross47]

What a mindless joke. No content here.

A major symptom of Obsessive Christianity Disorder is a negative affect colouring all experience and particularly manifesting as a failure to perceive humour, and/or to respond appropriately. This aspect of the syndrome is largely responsible for the persistent mockery the victim invites, which leads in turn to increasingly inappropriate attempts to deny reality and inevitably to increasing levels of mockery in an endless spiral of futility.

Spare us all; stick to the topic and give us your thoughts, not endless posts of clips you imagine will convert us all. The ones I have viewed were tedious, and intellectually nonsense.

[shadowhawk]

A major symptom of Obsessive Christianity Disorder is a negative affect colouring all experience and particularly manifesting as a failure to perceive humour, and/or to respond appropriately. This aspect of the syndrome is largely responsible for the persistent mockery the victim invites, which leads in turn to increasingly inappropriate attempts to deny reality and inevitably to increasing levels of mockery in an endless spiral of futility.

Spare us all; stick to the topic and give us your thoughts, not endless posts of clips you imagine will convert us all. The ones I have viewed were tedious, and intellectually nonsense.

Love how you say things on topic. All you can do is call names.

[johnross47]

You're reverting to type. Try actually addressing the point for a change.....in your own words and with your own ideas.

I can't say what it would take to reverse my opinion in this context because I am not a theist. If the question was reversed or doubled so that it invited all sorts to say what would reverse their opinion, then I might make a stab at it. The main problem I would have is that the possible sorts of evidence that might support a theistic view are so improbable that it is hard to make sensible suggestions. A legless man growing new legs and walking back to his hotel in Lourdes for example, or all the guns in the world simultaneously melting.

Edited by johnross47, 06 June 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 You're reverting to type. Try actually addressing the point for a change.....in your own words and with your own ideas.

Same old pointless stuff. The question is what it would take to cause a Theist to change His mind? Prove Atheism is true! I have given all kind of evidence supporting Theism and I notice you can only keep repeating your logical fallacies one after another. You don’t think I think for myself? Ok, show me you think at all. Deal with the issues.

[johnross47]

The question is " what would it take to reverse a theist's position". I am not a theist and therefore cannot answer other than by guessing what might persuade somebody else. I know what sounds reasonable to me but it clearly only gets the stock response of abusive accusations from you. I have not stated any logical falacies. The post I made above was not in the form of a logical argument; it was a rumination about hypothetical evidential events. You have given no evidence for theism though I realise you think you have. All of your supposed proofs are genuine examples of logical fallacies, but I don't propose to resurect old posts, which is what you are clearly trying to do. Two dead and buried threads have now been brought back so far. Why don't you learn to let them go, and concentrate on the matter in hand. You say that proof of atheism would change your mind. What do you imagine that might be? You were unable to accept sound arguments on that topic before; have you changed?

Edited by johnross47, 06 June 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

I have given all kind of evidence supporting Theism and I notice you can only keep repeating your logical fallacies one after another.

You haven't given a single shred of evidence. All you have done is post a bunch of inane links to other people trying to philosophize the existence of a god. There was no evidence contained in any of it.

And for the love of your god ....stop with the whining martyr bullshit. It shows nothing but hypocrisy and completely invalidates your viewpoint when you whine about people 'calling you names' when you are the very first person to cast a stone at someone else. That kind of behavior is going to land you in that perpetual burning prison that your god threatens you with.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 07 June 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Evidence is impossible with anyone who decides to be skeptical of anything and everything. Nothing philosophical is acceptable to you and Science would not even be acceptable. It is a philosophical position. There is nothing like absolute evidence in science. Blind faith in Atheism. All you have done is present nothing because you have nothing to present. The topic is what would it take for a Theist to change their mind. Evidence Atheism is true.

As for the rest of your baloney, not worth a response. Logical Fallacies.

[shadowhawk]

Evidence is impossible with anyone who decides to be skeptical of anything and everything. Nothing philosophical is acceptable to you and Science would not even be acceptable. It is a philosophical position. There is nothing like absolute evidence in science. Blind faith in Atheism. All you have done is present nothing because you have nothing to present. The topic is what would it take for a Theist to change their mind. Evidence Atheism is true.

As for the rest of your baloney, not worth a response. Logical Fallacies.

[gamesguru]

You should at least be in synch with your philosophy, exemplify your ideals in your actions, and embody your convictions in your practices. If you're going to say that only evidence for atheism would persuade your to reverse your position on theism, you should at least define what you mean by evidence. For my part, I do not consider atheism to have conclusive evidence in its favor, nor does theism have conclusive evidence behind it; once again, this (quite predictably) leads me to restate my position of soft agnosticism: at present there is not conclusive proof that either theism or atheism is sound.

[shadowhawk]

You should at least be in synch with your philosophy, exemplify your ideals in your actions, and embody your convictions in your practices. If you're going to say that only evidence for atheism would persuade your to reverse your position on theism, you should at least define what you mean by evidence. For my part, I do not consider atheism to have conclusive evidence in its favor, nor does theism have conclusive evidence behind it; once again, this (quite predictably) leads me to restate my position of soft agnosticism: at present there is not conclusive proof that either theism or atheism is sound.

Evidence is information that supports a conclusion. For a conclusion to be acceptable as true, there must be evidence to support it. To reverse my position I would have to accept the belief “There is no God.” I ask for evidence that would warrant such a belief. Look at the lame attempts in this topic. Most of what Atheists believe is unsupported by evidence. Blind faith.
http://www.longecity...ce-for-atheism/

Evidence should be your basis for belief or disbelief. Synonyms: proof - testimony - witness - attestation - obviousness - show - testify - demonstrate and similar words all can be evidence.. Depending on the subject, different kinds of evidence are possible. The existence of Plato depends on a different kind of evidence than the existence of an atom.

Absolute evidence for anything is impossible including “soft agnosticism. I think it is dishonest to demand what no one can deliver. Just because you don’t know 100 percent does not keep us from belief forever.

Turning to agnosticism, Webster defines it as a position which states that "neither the existence nor the nature of God, nor the ultimate origin of the universe is known or knowable." Here is a bold statement: When the agnostic says, "I don't know," what is really implied is "I can't know, you can't know, and nobody can know." Leith Samuel in his little book Impossibility of Agnosticism, mentions three kinds of agnostics:

Dogmatic: "I don't know, you don't know, and no one can know." Here is a person who already has his mind made up. He has the same problems as the atheist, he must know everything in order to hold this position honestly. Impossible.

Indifferent: "I don't know and I don't care." It is not likely that God would reveal Himself to someone who does not care to know: "He who has ears, let him hear." (Luke 14:35).

Dissatisfied: "I don't know, but I would like to know." Here is a person who demonstrates an openness to truth and a willingness to change his position should he have sufficient reasons. If such were the case, he would also be demonstrating what is true of agnosticism, namely, that it is meant to be a temporary path in search of truth which gives way to a more reasonable and less skeptical view of life and all reality.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse." (Saint Paul, Romans 1:20).

[johnross47]

point 1. is false; you do not have to accept the belief that there is no god; you only have to accept that there is no evidence for god and since that is your reason for rejecting atheism, to be consistent you have to accept an agnostic position.
point 2. You constantly lable us atheists because you think you have ammunition against them. I have never claimed to be an atheist.

"Absolute evidence for anything is impossible including “soft agnosticism. I think it is dishonest to demand what no one can deliver. Just because you don’t know 100 percent does not keep us from belief forever." You said it; now stop abusing all the others who keep trying to say the same to you.

Pity you follow up with a denial of your first reasonable statement.

Carefully crafted straw men are not sound arguments. I don't recognise any of those categories as fitting me or any of my friends,

Quotes from the bible are not evidence for anything except credulity.

[gamesguru]

All I'm saying is that, to the best of my knowledge, as far as my survey of human knowledge is concerned, nobody has yet produced a conclusive proof that a certain deity exists, and since true beliefs are only considered to be genuine knowledge if they are supplemented with a sound justification, I therefore feel extremely confident in saying that no one presently knows whether or not specific Gods exist. If you are able to produce a reason which is vastly more convincing than the ontological, cosmological, or teleological arguments, then I suggest you publish your results in a journal.

If, after the traditional arguments for God have begun to appear less convincing, you have nothing else left to fall back on, you may wish to appeal to faith, sentimental illogicality, and the emotions to justify God and religion, and if this is the case, then there is nothing of logic in my repertoire of knowledge which I can say to influence your opinion, for if you reject logic, you do not profess to prove your point, and the only true reason offered in favor of accepting your point is the reward in the form of the "afterlife", a reason which I consider to be most ignoble and distasteful.

Your reference to Leith Samuel was interesting, but he seems very ignorant, as he does not notice, let alone realize, the distinction between soft and hard agnosticism. I hope you see this distinction, and see the narrowness of his three groups, and the negativity of his criticism.

Edited by dasheenster, 08 June 2012 - 09:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster: All I'm saying is that, to the best of my knowledge, as far as my survey of human knowledge is concerned, nobody has yet produced a conclusive proof that a certain deity exists, and since true beliefs are only considered to be genuine knowledge if they are supplemented with a sound justification, I therefore feel extremely confident in saying that no one presently knows whether or not specific Gods exist. If you are able to produce a reason which is vastly more convincing than the ontological, cosmological, or teleological arguments, then I suggest you publish your results in a journal.

Well, you will have to continue with your survey I guess. I am not trying here, to convince you. This is off topic I suppose because I am the one being asked to change his mind, being a Theist and from your non-arguments there is no compelling reason for me to change. Nothing here from you. OK

There are of corse other reasons beside the ones you mention for believing in god but it would also be off topic. There are other topics where this discussion would be appropriate. You know that no one knows God exists. What do you mean by that? How can you, as an agnostic know that about everyone else? You believe and I don’t. Many people are convinced God exists from the evidence.

dasheenster: If, after the traditional arguments for God have begun to appear less convincing, you have nothing else left to fall back on, you may wish to appeal to faith, sentimental illogicality, and the emotions to justify God and religion, and if this is the case, then there is nothing of logic in my repertoire of knowledge which I can say to influence your opinion, for if you reject logic, you do not profess to prove your point, and the only true reason offered in favor of accepting your point is the reward in the form of the "afterlife", a reason which I consider to be most ignoble and distasteful.

I note several things here, you have produced no arguments related to anything I presented. Zero! Is this what you mean by, “less convincing? Nothing! I agree, this is less than convincing.

You gave me no reason to become an atheist. I take your mention of sentimentality, illogicality and emotions, as equally unjustified, bigoted, nonsense. I loved your classic straw man with its conclusion I rejected logic based on your nonsense presentation of my views. What a joke..

dasheenster: Your reference to Leith Samuel was interesting, but he seems very ignorant, as he does not notice, let alone realize, the distinction between soft and hard agnosticism. I hope you see this distinction, and see the narrowness of his three groups, and the negativity of his criticism.

Again there is no real argument here by you. There is several kinds of agnosticism. Off topic but here are a couple of soyrces that might add to the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia....eak_agnosticism

[shadowhawk]

point 1. is false; you do not have to accept the belief that there is no god; you only have to accept that there is no evidence for god and since that is your reason for rejecting atheism, to be consistent you have to accept an agnostic position.
point 2. You constantly lable us atheists because you think you have ammunition against them. I have never claimed to be an atheist.

"Absolute evidence for anything is impossible including “soft agnosticism. I think it is dishonest to demand what no one can deliver. Just because you don’t know 100 percent does not keep us from belief forever." You said it; now stop abusing all the others who keep trying to say the same to you.

Pity you follow up with a denial of your first reasonable statement.

Carefully crafted straw men are not sound arguments. I don't recognise any of those categories as fitting me or any of my friends,

Quotes from the bible are not evidence for anything except credulity.

1. wrong again. " What would it take to reverse an theist' position on the existence of God.' Read it. Evidence is not even mentioned.
Define evidence.. So you never claimed to be an atheist. OK What would it take for you to change your position? Any evidence?

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 June 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[johnross47]

I'm trying hard to make sense of your comment. It seems to me that you demand evidence from everyone else then deny it, or deny the need for it when it suits you. It is very difficult to discuss things with somebody who does not accept the same rules as the rest of us.You're the one who is constantly demanding evidence and claiming that what we say isn't. Maybe you should give us the benefit of your superior education and explain exactly what evidence is. You can't just go on shouting abuse at everybody and calling them fools without eventually being asked to justify your own position.

I never claimed to be an atheist, but I'm not credulous enough to be a theist either. I can't see how either theists or atheists can justify their position without making a leap in the dark beyond the evidence and the logic.

You say that my point 1 is wrong. Why? To say that evidence is not mentioned, and therefore is, I assume you mean, not needed, is a comment so far beyond reason and the normal procedures of argument that I can't believe it is the only tool you could find to defend your position. You may play with the words as much as you like but there are two categories of evidence that I can see as being relevant. One would be evidence for atheism, which has already been discussed at great length and discarded by everyone else as a logical nonsense. The other is a demonstration that you cannot prove god, and must therefore adopt at least an agnostic position. Since this second approach is also negative it cannot be done directly or completely. But you can show that all the supposed proofs of god so far are wrong, and therefore the proposition must remain unproved for the moment. It is jumping the gun to make a leap of faith and assume it will ever be proved.

Please don't reply to this by posting another tedious diatribe by that hideous con man Craig.

[gamesguru]

I found this interesting: http://www.premierco...ne-craig-have-a.

That video of Craig, however, was dull. He doesn't understand agnosticism, or very much philosophy. He claims that agnostics have no meaning in life, yet I know of many agnostics who take pride in living virtuously and reciprocating generosity. However, saying this to you, Shadowhawk, seems vain, as if I were to rely on induction, I should be led to suppose that you will perceive every instance of criticism as a sign of bigotry. I'm just calling you and Craig and many other "theologians" ignorant, accusing them of being one-sided, and essentially stupid, primarily by pointing out questions which can't be handled by their belief system, and secondarily by making claims which run contrary to their opinions but which are very difficult to refute.

I suggest you read my previous reply again, and opt to give a more civilized reply, for if you should wish to stand by what you have already said, I fear you will regret your decision greatly.

Edited by dasheenster, 10 June 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I'm trying hard to make sense of your comment. It seems to me that you demand evidence from everyone else then deny it, or deny the need for it when it suits you.(Where?) It is very difficult to discuss things with somebody who does not accept the same rules as the rest of us.(What bull) You're the one who is constantly demanding evidence and claiming that what we say isn't.(Where is it?) Maybe you should give us the benefit of your superior education and explain exactly what evidence is. You can't just go on shouting abuse at everybody and calling them fools without eventually being asked to justify your own position. (Where did I call anyone a fool? )

I never claimed to be an atheist, but I'm not credulous enough to be a theist either. I can't see how either theists or atheists can justify their position without making a leap in the dark beyond the evidence and the logic.(What evidence or logic?)

You say that my point 1 is wrong. Why? To say that evidence is not mentioned, and therefore is, I assume you mean, not needed, is a comment so far beyond reason and the normal procedures of argument that I can't believe it is the only tool you could find to defend your position. You may play with the words as much as you like but there are two categories of evidence that I can see as being relevant. One would be evidence for atheism, which has already been discussed at great length and discarded by everyone else as a logical nonsense. The other is a demonstration that you cannot prove god, and must therefore adopt at least an agnostic position. Since this second approach is also negative it cannot be done directly or completely. But you can show that all the supposed proofs of god so far are wrong, and therefore the proposition must remain unproved for the moment. It is jumping the gun to make a leap of faith and assume it will ever be proved.

Please don't reply to this by posting another tedious diatribe by that hideous con man Craig.

What evidence and logic do you present? Of course you don’t get it. You assume wrong again and again with not a drop of evidence.. Where is the evidence against Theism? " What would it take to reverse an theist' position on the existence of God.' Read it again and again and again. I asked for evidence of atheism. I now ask for evidence of agnosticism. EVIDENCE! Prove Theism is wrong. You haven’t shown any of the evidence I presented for Theism is wrong. Why should I change?

Your arguments against Craig are classic Logical Fallacies and another illustration of your endless name calling and bigotry, I am foolishly arguing with someone with a thought disorder.

[johnross47]

The members of the church I grew up in would be appalled by the nasty, insulting and gratuitously offensive nature of your replies. But then, they were christians. You should remember that the basic level of education on this forum is probably degree (or studying for one) and that many of us have gone further than that. We are mostly trained in argument and the weighing of evidence,and enjoy a good debate. Some people would call the moderators in after your reply to my last post.

The point I made in the last paragraph, still stands. Most people accept that the universe as we know it had a finite point of origin. (I realise that infinite universes have been proposed too). The information available to astronomers goes as far back as that same point, the big bang. What neither astromomers nor logicians have, is any evidence as to what came before, or if there was a before. W. Craig's arguments are only consistent up to that same point and then he makes a leap of faith, and like a conjuror producing a rabbit, reveals the god of his bible, falling back on the unsupportable claim that this is the most probable conclusion. Before that point he makes a great show of his skills with modal logic and his manipulation of the finer points of the Kalam. At that point, he leaves logic behinds and leaps into the dark. This not a logical fallacy, but if you think it is please give an analysis of where the logic falls down and where evidence has been missed or misused. The answer to the question asked therefore, is, a demonstration that the evidence for a god fails to go beyond the origin, which is obviously where a god must be if it exists.

Edited by johnross47, 11 June 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I found this interesting: http://www.premierco...ne-craig-have-a.

That video of Craig, however, was dull. He doesn't understand agnosticism, or very much philosophy. He claims that agnostics have no meaning in life, yet I know of many agnostics who take pride in living virtuously and reciprocating generosity. However, saying this to you, Shadowhawk, seems vain, as if I were to rely on induction, I should be led to suppose that you will perceive every instance of criticism as a sign of bigotry. I'm just calling you and Craig and many other "theologians" ignorant, accusing them of being one-sided, and essentially stupid, primarily by pointing out questions which can't be handled by their belief system, and secondarily by making claims which run contrary to their opinions but which are very difficult to refute.

I suggest you read my previous reply again, and opt to give a more civilized reply, for if you should wish to stand by what you have already said, I fear you will regret your decision greatly.

" What would it take to reverse an theist' position on the existence of God.” This is the topic. My response to this question was “proof of atheism.” There is no God. To this I add proof of agnosticism sense that would also be a change in position. That is what it would take for this theist. I have given Atheists and Agnostics lots of time to demonstrate the evidence for their position. So far they can only attack theism without any evidence of their own. http://www.longecity...ce-for-atheism/

I read the reference on Craig that you made above. I found it a sieve which did not deal with the topic. Check out this debate in England.



Agnosticism is not the topic so I will leave it here despite my disagreement with some of your opinions. I don’t think it is Craig’s position that an Atheist or agnostics have no meaning. Again off topic so I won’t pursue it.

Can you provide me with compelling reasons why I should abandon theism.

[gamesguru]

If you wish to remain stubbornly dogmatic in your contention that only conclusive evidence for atheism or against theism warrants a change of opinion, I shall point you toward some arguments against theism, and in turn to some for atheism/agnosticism.

See this, starting at 2. Arguments against Theism: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5657.

See these two as well: http://www.philosoph...or-agnosticism/, and http://www.philosoph...ts-for-atheism/.

My mention of "sentimental illogicality" was meant to argue against your position that God's existence is self-evident ("For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse."), by virtue of nature, he reveals himself subtly to every individual heart. Rousseau held a similar position as evidence by, "I believe...that a will moves the universe and animates nature. This is my first dogma, or my first article of faith...This ‘being’ which wills and is powerful, this being active in itself, this being, whatever it may be, which moves the universe and orders all things, I call God...But as soon as I want to contemplate Him in Himself, as soon as I want to find out where He is, what He is, what His substance is, He escapes me, and my clouded mind no longer perceives anything...I do not need to be taught this worship; it is dictated to me by nature itself". I bitterly oppose this sort of thinking. Though, you could also have been implying that the ontological argument is self-consistent and self-evident. I would also challenge that contention, were you to uphold it.

And let's not throw careless ad hominems around. Having a thought disorder doesn't necessarily invalidate the beliefs you're expressing.

Edited by dasheenster, 11 June 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: The members of the church I grew up in would be appalled by the nasty, insulting and gratuitously offensive nature of your replies. But then, they were christians. You should remember that the basic level of education on this forum is probably degree (or studying for one) and that many of us have gone further than that. We are mostly trained in argument and the weighing of evidence,and enjoy a good debate. Some people would call the moderators in after your reply to my last post.

Not only to you trash Theists but you even can tell who is not a Christian. More name calling. What does this have to do with anything related to the topic? Why don’t you call the moderator so he or she can read your bigoted posts?

johnross47: The point I made in the last paragraph, still stands. Most people accept that the universe as we know it had a finite point of origin. (I realise that infinite universes have been proposed too). The information available to astronomers goes as far back as that same point, the big bang. What neither astromomers nor logicians have, is any evidence as to what came before, or if there was a before. W. Craig's arguments are only consistent up to that same point and then he makes a leap of faith, and like a conjuror producing a rabbit, reveals the god of his bible, falling back on the unsupportable claim that this is the most probable conclusion. Before that point he makes a great show of his skills with modal logic and his manipulation of the finer points of the Kalam. At that point, he leaves logic behinds and leaps into the dark. This not a logical fallacy, but if you think it is please give an analysis of where the logic falls down and where evidence has been missed or misused.

I know it overwhelms you to have to deal with multi-media but here is a video on this very point by Craig. You are misrepresenting him. Again, tell me why I should abandon theism based on what he said.

johnross47: The answer to the question asked therefore, is, a demonstration that the evidence for a god fails to go beyond the origin, which is obviously where a god must be if it exists.

There isn’t absolute evidence for anything. Tell me how your argument supports me changing my mind from theism. I never argued most of the straw man you presented above. The topic isn’t, “The answer to the question asked therefore, is, a demonstration that the evidence for a god fails to go beyond the origin,” Insane! That is not a question I ever asked nor is it on topic. Where do you come up with this junk?

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 June 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[johnross47]

some fine reading there Dasheenster. It might take a year or two to work through the list at commonsenseatheism however. I doubt if Shadowhawk will do anything but dismiss it in his usual contemptuous style.

[johnross47]

Not only to you trash Theists but you even can tell who is not a Christian. More name calling. What does this have to do with anything related to the topic? Why don’t you call the moderator so he or she can read your bigoted posts?



I know it overwhelms you to have to deal with multi-media but here is a video on this very point by Grain. You are misrepresenting him. Again, tell me why I should abandon theism based on what he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z79FGmh50Xo



There isn’t absolute evidence for anything. Tell me how your argument supports me changing my mind from theism. I never argued most of the straw man you presented above. The topic isn’t, “The answer to the question asked therefore, is, a demonstration that the evidence for a god fails to go beyond the origin,” Insane! That is not a question I ever asked nor is it on topic. Where do you come up with this junk?

You continue to be viciously gratuitously abusive; I begin to suspect that the abuse is directly proportionate to your innability to answer the points. Your objections to what I said are totally off the point, because they impute interpretations of my words that no sensible person could possibly arrive at. The point I'm making is perfectly obvious; what should change the mind of a rational theist is the realisation that the supposed proofs of the existence of god, are flawed. He should become an agnostic. You will no doubt say that this does not answer the question because only changing to being atheist would be sufficient, but for me, accepting that the belief previously held, is false, is a reversal.

[johnross47]

We would all have happier lives if you could calm down Shadowhawk.

""The topic isn't "the answer to the question asked therefore, is, a demonstration that the evidence for a god fails to go beyond theorigin," Insane! That is not a question I ever asked nor is it on topic. Where do you come up with this junk?"" from #54

There's no way to ask this without upsetting somebody as touchy as you, but, without meaning to be impolite, do you have a reading deficit that we should take into account.? It is quite clear that "the question asked" above, refers to the topic. I am not replying to any imagined questions you asked. The topic isn't about you. I am proposing that a demonstration that all current "proofs of god's existence" fail, is an acceptable answer to the question of the topic. This is a general description of a possible category of evidence and not an example of the evidence itself. Meaningful replies are respectfully requested. If you think this a logically flawed explain where the logical error is instead of sending the usual furious scream of "Logical Fallacy!" without explanation.

I have no problem with multi media but I do a have a problem with watching endless clips of Craig. I have watched quite a few, and whilst his skills are impressive, it does become repetitive and ultimately, since his arguments suffer from the previously mentioned flaws, unedifying. As usual your attack is ad hominem and on an irrelevant aspect of the text being criticised.

Edited by johnross47, 12 June 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

Many people are convinced God exists from the evidence.

What evidence? There is no evidence.

You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that a god exists in any form.

[mikeinnaples]

As a non-believer I cannot provide any proof that something 'you' would define as a god doesn't exist somewhere in the cosmos, now or ever. In order to do so, I would have to possess the very qualities that a believer calls divine. I would also GLADLY change my position on the subject if a divinity were to make its presence known to me. I want there to be an eternity in paradise where everyone gets a mansion, is surrounded by their loved ones, and are all basking in the light of the jolly old man in the sky. I wouldn't have to fear death and would in fact welcome it because I have done my best to live a good life and be a good person. Unfortunately, logic, reason, and rationality will not allow me to believe in such a fantasy without evidence. Believing in the bible or the words of other religious texts without evidence, to me, is the same as believing in the Lord of the Rings or some other work of fantasy/fiction. I can no more accept the existence of a 'god' as a rational person than you can accept the existence of Frodo, Aragorn, or Legolas as written.

What bothers me the most though about religion are the fake Christians (insert any religon in its place). People like certain posters here that claim to be Christian, yet do not follow the philosophy. People that use a bible (koran) as a weapon to beat you over the head instead of being true followers of their religion. Hypocrites that do a disservice to their entire system of beliefs that they wrongly profess to follow.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 12 June 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[johnross47]

I'll second that whole post mikeinnaples.

I've thought further about this question and there appears to be a basic problem built into it. God in general, as a vague concept, is an untestable hypothesis. What we can do is look at three categories of answer. One is whether "proofs of god" are valid.The second is to look at whether individual features of a specified god are consistent and coherent, or whether different features of a specified god are consistent or contradictory. The third, which suffers from the same problems as the general question is whether there is any evidence to prove atheism. (I suspect most of us would agree that is not possible.) It might make sense to stick to the questions we can examine.

Therefore, before we can answer this question for any theist, we have to ask them to specify the features of their god. There is no point debating the features of a monkey god if the person you are talking to is a muslim.This not only has the advantage of generating testable hypotheses but it means that the topic can't be about Shadowhawk; rather, it will be about his god. If he doesn't specify in examinable detail, we can't answer.