Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 16:35:56 GMT -4
You are all missing the main point: The Devil uses Imperial. I always knew the Devil couldn't be a Blue Bonet man. Oh, you meant the Imperial system of measurements.Nah, better armagedon than trying to switch to metric. You'll have to pry my bushels and hogsheads from my cold, dead, fingers.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 10, 2008 16:37:46 GMT -4
Can you prove that? It sounds like an unsupported claim to me. While it's logically impossible to prove a negative it is not impossible to prove a positive. It's impossible to prove that there are not nor have ever been any black swans - all you can do is prove that you have never encountered one, or that because you have searched rather thoroughly for black swans that their existence is unlikely. But the moment you discover an authentic black swan then you have proved that at least one does exist. For that matter, I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. I can't prove that Martian bacteria didn't start life on Earth. But the question at hand is whether there is any reason to think such things are true. For unicorns, martian bacteria and god, the answer is no. Yes. If Zeus is real, he can prove it. If birds could talk, they could ABSOLUTELY tell you what they had for breakfast. If pigs could fly.... Assuming that this has ever happened. Germ theory can be tested. The roundness of the Earth can be tested. It does not follow to claim that the existence of god can be tested in the same way.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 16:57:35 GMT -4
For that matter, I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. I can't prove that Martian bacteria didn't start life on Earth. But the question at hand is whether there is any reason to think such things are true. For unicorns, martian bacteria and god, the answer is no. That is not the question at hand. Bert said "what if I knew, hypothetically, that God did not exist." I'm not discussing whether it is likely that God exists, but whether it can be known. Logically it can only be known in a positive sense. We cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but if He does then it can. Whether it can be proven without any cooperation on His part, or whether we consider it likely that it will ever be proved are different questions. Since they are different subjects they can't be tested in the same way, no, but have you personally tested germ theory, or that the Earth is round, or do you rely on the testimonies of others to that effect? Aren't you, ultimately, relying on your faith in those who say these theories are true rather than your own personal experience? The belief of many people in God is based in the same way on the credibility of others rather than their own experiments - they are similar in that respect. In some respects I am more sure that God exists than I am of the germ theory of disease and the roundness of the Earth, because I have personally conducted experiments and obtained positive results in that area.
|
|
|
Post by altair4 on Mar 10, 2008 17:16:06 GMT -4
God exist!! and makes himself known "from within"..small inner voice,independent of ones consciouness
consciousness is a point source of energy,it is another dimension
spirit is ethereic energy
and the athiest are going to find...Richard Dawkins so much for your "science"
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 10, 2008 17:17:56 GMT -4
If we didn't have a thread in this section that didn't end up being an argument between Jason and wdmundt about the wexistance or non-existance of God....
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 17:26:24 GMT -4
If we didn't have a thread in this section that didn't end up being an argument between Jason and wdmundt about the wexistance or non-existance of God.... ...It would be another sign of the apocalypse?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 10, 2008 17:35:26 GMT -4
Since they are different subjects they can't be tested in the same way, no, but have you personally tested germ theory, or that the Earth is round, or do you rely on the testimonies of others to that effect? Aren't you, ultimately, relying on your faith in those who say these theories are true rather than your own personal experience? The belief of many people in God is based in the same way on the credibility of others rather than their own experiments - they are similar in that respect. So, by your reckoning, I have no reason to believe that humans have visited the moon, since I was not one of those humans. But -- I don't have to have faith to believe that humans have visited the moon -- I can study evidence of it. You have to have faith to believe in God, because that is all there is. Even if original copies of the Ten Commandments existed and the fingerprints of Moses himself were found on them -- you'd still have to rely on faith to believe that the commandments came from God. I don't have to rely on faith to look at the records of the Apollo missions and conclude that humans have visited the moon. And your results are not scientific and not of the type that can be recorded or shared in any meaningful way. Your results are your perceptions and human perceptions are notoriously suspect.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 10, 2008 17:37:13 GMT -4
If we didn't have a thread in this section that didn't end up being an argument between Jason and wdmundt about the wexistance or non-existance of God.... Who is arguing about the existence or non-existence of God? I'm not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 17:48:32 GMT -4
So, by your reckoning, I have no reason to believe that humans have visited the moon, since I was not one of those humans. No, I'm saying you would be unable to personally know that humans have visited the moon. That's different from having no reason to believe they did. You would still be relying on faith - faith that the evidence you have available for study is authentic, and faith in the credibility of those who provided you with that evidence. True, having the original Ten Commandments would not prove the existence of God. But if God Himself revealed His existence to you as He did to Moses then you would no longer have to rely on faith. You would have personal knowledge. And if God exists then He can do just that. They can be shared in a way that many find meaningful. You are correct that they can't currently be recorded, but something does not have to be scientifically provable to be true or important.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 17:49:34 GMT -4
Who is arguing about the existence or non-existence of God? I'm not. Ahem:
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 10, 2008 17:52:41 GMT -4
Ahem -- to argue that there is no reason to believe in a thing is not the same as to make an argument that a thing does not exist. I am not making an argument that God does not exist -- as there is no need. Why argue that a thing does not exist when there is no reason to believe that it does?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 18:02:51 GMT -4
Ahem -- to argue that there is no reason to believe in a thing is not the same as to make an argument that a thing does not exist. I am not making an argument that God does not exist -- as there is no need. Why argue that a thing does not exist when there is no reason to believe that it does? Arguing that there is no reason to believe a thing exists is itself an argument that the thing does not exist. If a thing exists then there is evidence (a reason) to believe it does, whether or not we are aware of that evidence, or even capable of perceiving that evidence.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 10, 2008 18:19:00 GMT -4
Ahem -- to argue that there is no reason to believe in a thing is not the same as to make an argument that a thing does not exist. I am not making an argument that God does not exist -- as there is no need. Why argue that a thing does not exist when there is no reason to believe that it does? Arguing that there is no reason to believe a thing exists is itself an argument that the thing does not exist. Arguing that there is no reason to believe in God is a very different argument than arguing there is no God. An argument that there is no God would involve arguing reasons for why there is no God -- arguing that there is no reason to believe in God is to argue about reasons for believing. Evidence that we are not aware of is not evidence. Evidence that we are not capable of perceiving is not evidence we are capable of judging.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 10, 2008 18:22:03 GMT -4
Altair4, see what you started... ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 10, 2008 18:46:09 GMT -4
Arguing that there is no reason to believe in God is a very different argument than arguing there is no God. An argument that there is no God would involve arguing reasons for why there is no God -- arguing that there is no reason to believe in God is to argue about reasons for believing. But an argument that there is no reason to believe is an argument that there is no evidence, and an argument that there is no evidence for a thing's existence is an argument that a thing doesn't exist, because anything that exists effects other things, producing evidence that it exists. If a thing exists it creates evidence of its existence for those who can find it. Not being able to find it does not mean that it isn't there. That I agree with, but it doesn't seem particularly relevent.
|
|