Author Topic: I will not prove God exists  (Read 23242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #174 on: July 25, 2011, 03:00:22 PM »
Are you not aware of basic fallacies?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #175 on: July 25, 2011, 03:02:31 PM »
So, what's the proposition

Everything.

Quote
I'm trying to prove

Whether or not you're trying to prove is irrelevant, you're making claims that you leave unsupported and often so laced with a mess of non-sequiturs ( and fother fallacies ) that they are barely coherent.

Quote
while presupposing it to be true? (Please don't say "everything.")

Everything.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 03:05:48 PM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #176 on: July 25, 2011, 03:05:26 PM »

Whether or not you're trying to prove is irrelevant, you're making claims that you've leave unsupported and often so laced with an incoherent mess of non-sequiturs ( and fother fallacies ) that is barely coherent.


Since the definition of begging the question is
Quote
Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

I'd say it's very relevant that we establish what exactly the "proposition to be proven" is.

Would anyone else care to jump in here?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #177 on: July 25, 2011, 03:07:01 PM »
So, what's the proposition I'm trying to prove while presupposing it to be true? (Please don't say "everything.")

rather than let this delaying of the inevitable go on, I'll give you some instances:

that praying in some specified manner does anything

that your god exists at all

that that your various holy books are accurate

You have given no evidence to support such things.  You assume that they are true and then build more baseless claims on this house of cards. 

But I'm pretty sure you know this already. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #178 on: July 25, 2011, 03:09:58 PM »
I'd say it's very relevant that we establish what exactly the "proposition to be proven" is.

A claim and proposition are interchangeable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

In logic and philosophy, the term proposition refers to either (a) the "content" or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or (b) the pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence. The meaning of a proposition includes having the quality or property of being either true or false, and as such propositions are claimed to be truthbearers.

Do you really think trying to weasel around the definition allows you to avoid the burden of proof of any claim you make?

Do you realize that avoiding the burden of proof is another type of fallacy?

Here, let me help you out again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Philosophic burden of proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about burden of proof as a philosophic concept. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation).

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.


Quote
Would anyone else care to jump in here?

Right, because someone is going to help you obfuscate about the burden of proof.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #179 on: July 25, 2011, 03:11:01 PM »
But I'm pretty sure you know this already.

Agreed.

He likely knew it from the very second it was pointed out to him, its just been a game since then.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #180 on: July 25, 2011, 03:12:57 PM »
Fiz, why do you get to presuppose your mythology as true and without explanation to be understood?

How are we to understand your mythology as coherent ( much less true ) if you do not argue in the affirmative with a reasoned basis of any claim you make regarding your mythology?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #181 on: July 25, 2011, 03:17:15 PM »

Right, because someone is going to help you obfuscate about the burden of proof.

And while I've attempted to be polite about it, I've pointed this out several times. You need to defend that propositions have evidence they elements in involved in a proposal actually exist in the first place before worrying about internal consistency, without devolving into the navel gazing that is solipsistic thought . If there is any ambiguity involved, definitions of those element also need to be establish in order to avoid intentional or unintentional equivocation fallacies.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #182 on: July 25, 2011, 03:17:44 PM »
I'd say it's very relevant that we establish what exactly the "proposition to be proven" is.

A claim and proposition are interchangeable.


Right, so what exactly was the claim/proposition to be proven? I'm beginning to suspect you didn't read the thread title.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #183 on: July 25, 2011, 03:18:43 PM »

Right, because someone is going to help you obfuscate about the burden of proof.

And while I've attempted to be polite about it, I've pointed this out several times. You need to defend that propositions have evidence they elements in involved in a proposal actually exist in the first place before worrying about internal consistency, without devolving into the navel gazing that is solipsistic thought . If there is any ambiguity involved, definitions of those element also need to be establish in order to avoid intentional or unintentional equivocation fallacies.

No no no, you need spiritual truth.. I won't tell you what it is, why, or even offer anything to be understood.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #184 on: July 25, 2011, 03:19:58 PM »
I'd say it's very relevant that we establish what exactly the "proposition to be proven" is.

A claim and proposition are interchangeable.


Right, so what exactly was the claim/proposition to be proven? I'm beginning to suspect you didn't read the thread title.

Answered multiple times into redundancy, you even quoted it. 

Why are you pretending like you don't know what it is now?

( Not just one of course, just one of literally hundreds you've ignord )
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #185 on: July 25, 2011, 03:21:24 PM »
Right, so what exactly was the claim/proposition to be proven? I'm beginning to suspect you didn't read the thread title.

ah, finally you tried this and declared it openly.  You won't prove that god exists, but every single thing you claim to be "truth" is based on this presupposition.  And since you can't prove that god exists, every single thing that you've claimed as "truth" fails since there is nothing support it. 

Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot or more appropriately, shoot yourself in the face with a shotgun. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #186 on: July 25, 2011, 03:22:02 PM »

Right, because someone is going to help you obfuscate about the burden of proof.

And while I've attempted to be polite about it, I've pointed this out several times. You need to defend that propositions have evidence they elements in involved in a proposal actually exist in the first place before worrying about internal consistency, without devolving into the navel gazing that is solipsistic thought . If there is any ambiguity involved, definitions of those element also need to be establish in order to avoid intentional or unintentional equivocation fallacies.

I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about what kind of god is possible before proving god exists. In physics, we speculate all the time about what characteristics a particle could (and could not) possibly have before going out and looking for them. It's actually a very useful way to consider the world.

I agree the definitions here could have been more explicitly stated.

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #187 on: July 25, 2011, 03:25:03 PM »

Right, so what exactly was the claim/proposition to be proven? I'm beginning to suspect you didn't read the thread title.

Answered multiple times into redundancy, you even quoted it. 

Why are you pretending like you don't know what it is now?

( Not just one of course, just one of literally hundreds you've ignord )

OK. Someone else is going to have to jump in here. Omen says he's stated it hundreds of times and I even quoted it. Surely someone else reading this thread can clue me in.

What is the proposition I am attempting to prove while assuming it in the premise?

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #188 on: July 25, 2011, 03:26:53 PM »
What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

What about this question is impossible for you to answer?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 03:46:30 PM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #189 on: July 25, 2011, 03:33:42 PM »
I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about what kind of god is possible before proving god exists.

Who said it was unreasonable?

Quote
In physics, we speculate all the time about what characteristics a particle could (and could not) possibly have before going out and looking for them..

False analogy.

In science, we can form a hypothesis and test for that in order to conclude upon a theory.

In your nonsense the only thing we can do is make logical analysis of claims, looking for contradictions.  However, in order to make those logical analysis, we first need a coherent basis from which to work from and randomly making shit up is not a coherent basis for anything.  Also, reducing the ability to test to subjective emotional feelings makes it impossible to separate truths from falsehoods.  Even worse in that what you're trying to test for can be anything you want to insert, with no reason to propose them in the first place.

Earlier, in a post you ignored, you claimed that god didn't have to be omniscient.  You didn't offer an explanation and you did not argue in the affirmative, you also ignored the response.  You literally made something up at random, without any logical reason to suggest it or to answer for the contradiction that that would impose.  It was only a quick rationalization, using any means available, to make up an answer.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #190 on: July 25, 2011, 03:37:09 PM »
Omen, since we're clearly not understanding one another, it's not worth it to me to continue to read or answer your posts. If someone else would care to rephrase what Omen is saying, I'll gladly read and answer that. It's really nothing personal and you can feel free to reciprocally ignore my posts. I just feel like you're getting in the way of some discussions I'd like to have with others here.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #191 on: July 25, 2011, 03:41:09 PM »
Omen, since we're clearly not understanding one another, it's not worth it to me to continue to read or answer your posts. If someone else would care to rephrase what Omen is saying, I'll gladly read and answer that. It's really nothing personal and you can feel free to reciprocally ignore my posts. I just feel like you're getting in the way of some discussions I'd like to have with others here.

Of course, why would you ever want to be responsible for your claims?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #192 on: July 25, 2011, 03:43:48 PM »
I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about what kind of god is possible before proving god exists. In physics, we speculate all the time about what characteristics a particle could (and could not) possibly have before going out and looking for them. It's actually a very useful way to consider the world.

I agree the definitions here could have been more explicitly stated.

So, on both accounts, define the god you believe to exist.

Secondly, show how that god has any more validity or proof than the other 9999 mankind has believed in historically(to avoid the fallacy of special pleading)

These need to be established before discussing the premise. If you make logical errors, I will point them out, and you can attempt to modify your argument to avoid them

And while, yes, people in physics do that, but then they need to show documentated evidence that such a particle could exist by the way experimentation is affected, by showing results. Unsupported hypothesis is not considered worthy of publication.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #193 on: July 25, 2011, 03:46:52 PM »
What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

What about this question is impossible for you to answer?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #194 on: July 25, 2011, 04:08:01 PM »
Hi fiz,

I've been meaning to address the negative result. I hope this will answer jetson's question and a few others as well.  <snip>

fiz, did you forget something?  Like, something that addressed the negative result?  I don't mean to be hard on you, fiz, but how does what you posted address either the negative result or my question about what you mean by "evidence".

That's certainly unfair. I think I've done well sticking to one definition, but nobody's perfect (present company excepted). If you have objections to specific things I've said, I'd be glad to hear about it.

I pointed out where you went awry in the previous post.  The faith in god vs faith that god exists vs faith in my wife vs faith to my wife vs blind faith.  You need to use more than one of those.  I am not being critical of you when I say that.  It is just a matter of fact about modern xian - or in your case quasi-xian[1] - theology.  There is nothing wrong with that, I think, as long as it is clear which mode of faith is being discussed. It is my experience that xians, jews, muslims and quasi-xians will shift modes without warning.

This is what I'm trying to say in that blog post. Faith, meaning access to the evidence of things you can't see with your eyes, is critical because it empowers us to not only hear God's will for us, but to follow it.

I don't think we are on the same page.  I still need to know what you mean by evidence. 

Also, you seem to be trying to explain what faith is.  I want to know why god requires it.  Some flavors of xian believe that god requires blind faith[2] to get to heaven.  To them, faith is the criterion of god's judgment.  They have never explained to me why god is so hot to trot on blind faith. 

You are saying faith is how people learn and follow god's will.  I want to know why faith is the mechanism god has chosen to trigger that "evidence" or communication.  Why faith and not the ability to eat chocolate, or the ability to do push ups.  Or something practical, like why not have god's will written in flaming letters in the sky?  Why blind faith.

You see, in all other areas, faith - the blind kind we are talking about - is not a virtue.  It is a sign of a nincompoop. Blind faith in other facets of life identify you as a rube, an easy mark.  Why would a god create a person that is capable of reason ask for that person to not use reason to understand what the god wants?  How on earth does that make sense?

And God demonstrates his presence to then both in increasingly visible ways.

I was not that fortunate.

So, I submit that the reason god does not provide visible evidence of his presence is to make us listen to the Holy Spirit.

But that brings us right back to my case.  I listened.  I prayed.  The holy spirit did not talk to me.  What now?

A question well worth considering. There are plenty of people using concepts of god to get rich, oppress people and "grind the face of the poor".

Good.  The answer is Con Men.  Right conclusion.

It's critical, when you begin tuning in to your spiritual sources of truth, that you don't turn off your brain.

It was my argument several paragraphs up that it is required that you turn of your brain.  If your brain was on, you would not be engaged in such nincompoopery.

I realize we're not talking about the Mormon church specifically here, but it's important to know that clergy in the Mormon church are not paid. When you go to a Mormon service, the man running the meeting is a volunteer. So is everyone speaking and teaching. I think you'll agree it's a better way to run a church.

Neither are catholic priests. However, there is other currency than gold that motivates people, like power.  If you think Tom Monson does not live like a king, or get off on dictating how millions of mormons will live their lives, you are nuts.
 
Someone else brought up the fact that miracles are more scarce these days, but I don't think that's necessarily true.

I disagree, but this is not an important point, I think.

The reference is Acts 17:29. We've been talking this whole time about how God communicates with us. Sometimes it's through the scriptures. The way to discover whether Luke was just making it up is to read Acts and pray for God to make the truth of it know to you. When you do so, make sure you really intend to follow what you read there. God will not answer a purely academic question.

So the answer to every question about the validity of xianity or quasi-xianity is that prayer will verify.  fiz, the is literally the lamest answer I have ever heard.  It is throwing in the towel.  It says, "I have not a flipping clue.  I have no rational answer for this question."  That right there is the very core of religious faith.  It shuts up every critical question.  It short circuits them and puts them beyond scrutiny.  Fiz, in this day and age, that sort of thinking is literally putting all life on the planet in jeopardy.

If you really are a physics guy, I hope you can look at how you handle questions in science and compare them to how you handle "spiritual" questions and see the problem.


These are very good reasons not to trust any belief system that requires you to listen without independent verification. I think you'll grant that, even without God, humans have found plenty of stupid reasons to do cruel and malicious things to one another. Here's an example.

Does that mean you have heard of Ron & Dan Lafferty? 

My point is not that people need religion to do stupid or cruel things.  My point is that kind of magical thinking, that blind faith, is deeply flawed.  There is no way to know whether the still, quiet voice is the holy spirit or a government receiver planted in your head or your Id.  And if you have talked yourself into thinking it is god talking to you, then there is literally nothing you cannot justify to yourself. 

Ron and Dan were mormons too, of the fundamentalist flavor.  They had a falling out with their brother Allan, mainly over his wife.  Ron listened to his still, quiet voice.  It told him to murder Allan's wife and 18 month old daughter.  Dan's still, quiet voice confirmed it.  So they did.  Right up until he was executed, Ron believed he was doing what god wanted him to do.  Dan still thinks he was following the will of god too.  You have no argument whatsoever against them.  As far as you know, their prayers were answered and they were moved by the holy spirit.

For me it is easy.  Anyone who claims to be talking to god is either a liar or delusional.


Quote
Warning - while you were typing 30 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

oh jesus christ...
 1. not meant as a dig
 2. though they don't think it is blind faith, it is
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #195 on: July 25, 2011, 04:19:54 PM »
Hatter,
Initially, I'm asking you to explore the possibility of a god which:

1. wants humans to live by some principles
2. is not generally visible to most humans most of the time
3. can demonstrate things to you which will not be visible to someone else

I'd say this is a subset of the assumptions of a good portion of the 9999 belief systems to which people have subscribed, so I'm not disagreeing with many people yet.

You are absolutely right that all theoretical predictions are subject to experimental verification. I believe that the existence of God is something which cannot be proved in a laboratory. The only way to know is to study and pray yourself. And, from this community, I'm not looking for a lot of "Hallelujiah! I believe!" or even, "OK, I'll read your book." But maybe just some, "I guess that's not impossible."

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +14/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #196 on: July 25, 2011, 04:27:48 PM »
If you have studied and prayed for some period (a few weeks of diligent study I think is good) and you did so with the sincere intent to follow what you find, then you have satisfied your end of the bargain. At that point, it's God's obligation to demonstrate His existence to you. It's not your job to will yourself into believing. It's God's job to give you the knowledge that He exists. It takes time, but it doesn't require self-delusion. God's promise is that you will know He exists. I don't know exactly how he will show you.
Why would/should any person study any text, book or writing with the express intent to follow  or even accept what they find instead of first studying the text and evaluating it for consistency and validity? It is always any god's or gods' obligation to demonstrate their existence to an individual if that god or gods want the individual to know the god exists. Why should the individual have to jump through hoops?

Also, how much time does it take? What if I were to fulfill all of the above criteria and I die two days before this god decided to show himself to me? So I die earnestly seeking but not fully believing. Why does it take time? Is this god out golfing? On vacation? Catching up on "Real Housewives of Provo" episodes on it's DVR? Or is this god weak or forgetful?

It looks as though you are asking me (or us) to diligently study your selected religious text AFTER assuming that it is 100% accurate and truthful. Wait for an unspecified length of time for anything that could possibly be (mis)construed as a "sign" regardless of how insignificant. TA-DAAA!!! I found god!! But not just any god, it is the specific god of this religious text that I was studying and surprisingly his/it's values perfectly align with my own!!!

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #197 on: July 25, 2011, 04:28:34 PM »
3. can demonstrate things to you which will not be visible to someone else

Regardless if it could, you would never know that what you experienced is 'real' anymore then someone that hallucinates or is genuinely insane.

Quote
I'd say this is a subset of the assumptions of a good portion of the 9999 belief systems to which people have subscribed, so I'm not disagreeing with many people yet.

This is not relevant, because nothing about the number of people who accept a proposition has anything to do with the validity of that acceptance.

Quote
You are absolutely right that all theoretical predictions are subject to experimental verification. I believe that the existence of God is something which cannot be proved in a laboratory.

Non-sequitur, the verification of hypothesis is not limited to simply a laboratory, more simply the verification of a supposed condition has no limitations related to its place only the means in which it is determined through logic.  Saying you 'believe' that cannot be proven in a laboratory, is not telling anyone of anything that has an informative context to be understood.  It is again you're attempt to insert an arbitrary and pointless fallacy of special pleading, I predict you will likely use it again in this manner later; reducing the ability to 'know' anything to nothing.

Quote
The only way to know

Know is interchangeable with knowing it to be true.

Quote
is to study

Only in the relative sense of determining it to be true or not.  If i cannot determine it to be true, studying it analytically doesn't tell me anything else other than aesthetic value.

Quote
and pray

This is irrelevant, even a god were to exist, its response via a condition that makes it impossible to determine its existence from non-existence doesn't lend itself to 'knowing' anything.

Quote
yourself. And, from this community, I'm not looking for a lot of "Hallelujiah! I believe!" or even, "OK, I'll read your book." But maybe just some, "I guess that's not impossible."

You haven't presented a condition that is logically possible and ignore contradictions where it serves your purpose to obfuscate/troll.  Such as reducing the ability to 'know' to a subjective context that makes it impossible to know anything.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4714
  • Darwins +107/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #198 on: July 25, 2011, 04:33:07 PM »
Why God of the bible,why not Vishnu,Odin,Buhda, or a myriad of other Gods you dismiss?? You have as much evidence for your God as do followers of other religions a big fat ZERO. How is he visible to some humans some of the time? SPAG.? Why is he always what you picture he will be,why is he not evil to you like he can be to others even if they believe? There are plenty of Christian based areas of the world God smites with drought or other things,why has he not treated you in the same manner?

  Easy to believe in any God with a full tummy a roof over your head,warm clothes. Why does God smite poor nations?why does he treat you special and see to your care? Do you pray in the right way? Are you somehow more special?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #199 on: July 25, 2011, 05:02:48 PM »
It looks as though you are asking me (or us) to diligently study your selected religious text AFTER assuming that it is 100% accurate and truthful. Wait for an unspecified length of time for anything that could possibly be (mis)construed as a "sign" regardless of how insignificant. TA-DAAA!!! I found god!! But not just any god, it is the specific god of this religious text that I was studying and surprisingly his/it's values perfectly align with my own!!!

Its not just that, we have to also be 100% knowledgeable of his ludicrous fantasy of interpretations that he draws from it.  That is, regardless if any of it logically follows from the text.  You can of couse troll his stupid ass by using the same argument against him, by insisting only your interpretation is consistent and then rationalize the opposite of every assertion he's made.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline EV

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +52/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Philosopher, Atheist, Musician, Philanthropist
    • My Website
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #200 on: July 25, 2011, 07:10:36 PM »
Holy mother of Darwin, I missed a lot in the SINGLE day I was away...

RIGHT. *puts on authoritative voice*

It appears that I caused confrontations. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my posts / fiz didn't get it / God intervened to stop me from being clear or whatever you want to believe... It doesn't matter. I am really late in replying and apologise.

Atheists, thank you for your support.

Theists,

*AHEM*

I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.

As your use of the word "scriptures" will, for you at least, include the passages quoted by ElliotViolin. Are you simply stating that those passages, although true, have no bearing on (A) the the wisdom of reading scripture and also (B) asking God to reveal Himself?
GB Mod


What I mean is that I'm only interested in answering sincere questions. Elliot doesn't have any real problem with Jesus and Satan being brothers. He doesn't believe in either. He just copied and pasted from exmormon.org. I don't feel any obligation to respond to a question he took so little thought to ask and cares about not at all. Instead, I've been meaning to respond to screwtape...

I may have pasted it, but could I really be bothered to type it all out?

I wanted an answer quite a lot. I merely listed some examples of weird beliefs followed by your religion, and asked you:

Quote
What do you think of that? These are all doctrines of your faith, revealed as you have been brainwashed after years. New converts are never told these because they sound ridiculous and would dissuade them from converting.

How on earth are any of these premises more true than Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, etc

"What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?" was the question you asked that was the main point of this thread.

I thought that my answer was quite clear. Define how these are relevant to the determination of truth in your faith.

If they are not morally acceptible, or are plain ridiculous, how are they relevant to your religion, and why are they included in your Holy Book?

Also, why is it that there is severe historical inaccuracy involved in your holy book, i.e. the Book of Mormon? Such as horses not being around (I'll let Omen handle that one)

Lastly, some personal advice/patronising words.

Don't get yourself down. Omen is pissed off at you, yes, but you need to take a good look at your posts and think about where you are going wrong. Look at it from our point of view, there is a theist coming here and talking to us, acting as if his faith is the only true faith without any doubts, and not supporting his claims and speculating wildly without providing any evidence.

We love our evidence.

Now imagine this is the hundredth time the same thing had happened. You would get pretty tired of it.

I think that Omen is exasperated because you are not willing to concede any ground when faced with superior logic, and you are exasperated because you feel that nobody is listening to you because you aren't conceding any ground, even when faced as Omen so amusingly and repeatedly puts it:

'Logical Fallacies'

We all need to Chill out a bit. Fizix, you need to seriously try to think more rationally or we will get nowhere.

Omen, you need to carry on as before, but give him a bit of slack, he does have a LOT of questions to get through because he keeps ignoring them, thus creating an UNIMAGINABLE amount of what you may call unfiled paperwork... :P

I hope I don't sound too condescending, but I leave you alone for 24 hours and everyone is killing each other...

I love this site &)
Quote
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
- Philosopher John Stuart Mill, from a Parliamentary debate (May 31, 1866);

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #201 on: July 25, 2011, 07:37:53 PM »
I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about what kind of god is possible before proving god exists. In physics, we speculate all the time about what characteristics a particle could (and could not) possibly have before going out and looking for them. It's actually a very useful way to consider the world.

Isn't this within a framework that already includes information about other particles? Analogy doesn't compute unless you have observed other gods. Noodly ones?

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #202 on: July 25, 2011, 08:10:45 PM »
fiz, I think you're correct to encourage others to keep up the behaviour, thinking it will have an effect eventually.

Try this: put up a picture of Barack Obama in your kitchen. Every day, before you fix breakfast, stand before it and salute[1]. Do this for two years, diligently.

After two years, the very next morning go about your regular routine, but do not salute. You'll notice an empty feeling, something being missing. That is spiritual truth. It is testable, valid, and for some, will require a longer or shorter span of time to manifest itself.

You're incorrect that it cannot be reproduced, or studied. A significant body of research exists, and is available freely[2]. Turns out it fits into the evolutionary paradigm too!

c _ n d _ t _ _ n n _ ng

Fill it in with spiritual truth, or just buy a vowel.   
 1. Persinger, 1987
 2. All this, of course, only accomodates one component of the effect. Aside from learning theory, there's much more to it from study of expectation, motivation, cognition, and it is very interesting. None of it is beyond objective scrutiny.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.