"I magically know something for which there is zero evidence."
That's where that came from. You claim to know something which leaves behind no trace of its existence. That's as special as special gets.
That's where you fail to understand what I am saying. I don't know nothing of God, and neither do you. It seem only logical to me to follow an idea that could reward me some day. Why do people play the lottery when they know the odds? Starting from the point we know nothing of God, I chose to believe in what I think is right, and you chose to believe in what you can prove is right. But since you can't prove what I think is right to be wrong, we are here now, discussing about it.
Say I tell you elephants do fly? What can you do? There goes Lu, grabs that 6 ton elephant and drop it from that 3 mile high cliff. "See OD, looks like a vagina now... all I can see are it's ears, and It can't fly, felt like wall street to JPMorgans' will." Ok let's do the experiment 10 more times just to recheck the data. Unfortunately to me, all 11 elephants will fall.
Is that proof that elephants do not fly? I could say NO. It is not. Why? How can possibly one make that be true. For instance if you take the perspective of someone sitting outside of the fluff, to that person, everything, including the earth itself is flying. And you in the other hand can say that the earth is the one flying, the elephant is only sitting on what is actually flying. And I can counter argue that that is non important and he is flying nevertheless. See how complicated things can become even when some proof is given?
Anyway, see you missed my point entirely, and at the same time gave me more arguments to support my model. No of course you could not make that boost, simply because the information was not mature enough to affirm that. In other words, we were ignorant to black holes. Now we are not, and now we can have undeniable proof of black holes, we can say it (for sure).
Wrong. We could certainly make predictions based on what should happen if black holes existed, and thus could test for it. What you theists do is either claim that there's no evidence (yet somehow expect your claims to be given credibility) or claim that there is evidence, but we just can't find it. You're doing both.
Of course you could make predictions. Math is a really easy thing to work with when the subject is proving something physical. I consider theoretical physics to be way more difficult and more dangerous than practical physics, as one can't just sum up and find proof. He, based on previous facts is guessing what he think is right. To make this clear, once and for all, I'm not saying I have proof God exists, I'll have that proof one day, that's a certainty, but not now, as I yet don't have.
Atheists in other hand claim magic is not possible. That it is impossible to turn lead into gold for instance. Wow, magic... isn't the cosmos just magical?
Just because you can explain it, it doesn't make any less magical. And about the alchemy I mentioned above, isn't that what we do all the time inside thermo nuclear reactors? Just because you can't do it with gold make no less magical than it is (to me of course).
Fine then. What evidence should we find if your god were real?... Right, that's what I thought. None. How does that make it any different from Zeus or Athena or Mars or Thor or Quetzalcoatl?
You well could find some CONCLUSIVE evidence one day on your own. That, I can GUARANTEE to you!
Zeus had a weapon, a thunderbolt, Thor as well had it's own weapon. The one Odin had would never miss it's target. None of these are God, they may well be gods, and if they indeed are gods and they did/do exist, we will have to make a little more complex word distinction than a mere capital letter.
I don't think the entity that, imo, created the universe has any need of a weapon, for many reasons. That sounds way more like the punitive god the three books speak of. My only claim so far here was that I believe in a God that created what we know as universe. Proof? No! Absence of that proof? No again.
What you can proof and what I believe out of faith are not incompatible, thus making the possibility real.
Maybe not probable, but still, possible.
I can take you seriously, but not your claims. Your claims become meaningless without evidence..
That makes me kinda sad, and sorry for you. Funny how we take fiction for facts in a daily basis. And BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT. We all do, otherwise most of the world would be in the middle of a revolution right now. But when the subject is God... well. Socrates for instance was probably an atheist, and not even he, one of the most clever minds to walk on this earth could prove wrong using his intellect as "weapon of choice" what you require proof for.
It is not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove yourself right.
I think this is the most intelligent thing you said to me so far. But unfortunately it's not true. The notion of God, precedes mathematical notions. Thus you are the one that has to prove God does not exist. See, considering human knowledge, the notion of God is way older than facts of science. You guys are the new kids on the block, you are the ones that should given me proof. Why did Galileo had to PROVE Copernicus' theory? Simply because a previous notion was already in place. The notion of God is there for a long long very long time, and even though it morphs itself to fit cultural aspects of different societies and time periods, nevertheless is the notion of a God creator. Now understand, you're the one that has to prove me wrong.
The fact I believe in what you do not does not make me more or less ignorant.
Uh... Yeah, it does. You believe in magic. That's ignorant. We don't. That's less ignorant.
I just proved to you alchemy happens in a everyday day basis. What one can call science, other might call magic, and both can be the very same.
This goes to Alzael as well!
You are, theoretically speaking, very wrong. Your confortable truth zone does not deal with the existence of God. Mine is a mere assumption based on ancient beliefs, beliefs that to this day were not proven to be wrong, or right for that matter. So, I don't know all. And neither do you! And for this I'm considering all options not proven to be wrong to be possible. I am not excluding what I can't prove to be wrong from a possible scenario, you are. Who's ignoring possible scenarios here? Both of you are. You can't really say to me God is not possible, unless you prove that. And yes, you should be the one to prove God doesn't exist, and not theists proving you he does. Hey we came first baby... get over it.
Do as real scientists do and, using facts, prove ME wrong.
Ignorance to me is to ignore something. That can be a fact, or the absence of some fact.
Imagine an apple tree, full of apples. And they are just about right. Some already have fallen to the ground. Can I say that all apples will fall from the tree? I could and probably would be logical, considering my knowledge of trees and apples, but one might just fall over a branch, germinate there and never ever touch the ground. Why would I be ignorant to the fact apples might never fall from the tree, when I really never see that happen. I sure never did, probably neither did you. But is a possibility, that in this case thankfully I can prove, and since the possibility exists, the one assuming that "all apples inevitably fall from their tree" is the ignorant one.
you can't prove me wrongDefine your god for me in clear, concise terms, and I will prove you wrong.
Can't. I don't know him, or if I do, I'm incapable of remembering. This would be like saying "describe J.Lo's "back hole" to me in clear, concise terms." I can... I know it is there, I know exists, I'm almost sure it has a huge diameter, but no I can't be sure. God I wish I could!
I have no pre formulated ideas of what God is like, or even if he has a form, or if he is just a counciousness by which "saved" people connect in some possible after physical life dimension.
Based on how matter behave throughout the cosmos I just think, and that is my own theory that some external (and intelligent, and there goes the assumption) force must have acted to jump start all this.
Did you even read what I wrote? He was persecuted because the evidence didn't fit the dogmatic views of the church. He had proof. You don't.
For the sake of your own mental sake, lol, try to separate God from religion. Religion for sure is bad, and THAT I can prove it to you. God in the other hand might not be. No I can't... get out of here!
Edited for engrish corrections. That happens a lot to me, the guy with no first language.