Author Topic: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.  (Read 10273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #87 on: March 27, 2015, 02:37:23 PM »
If you wish to have a conversation with any individual member, ask for a topic to be opened in the Debate Room. That way you can engage in a one-on-one discussion of any topic you chose, while everyone else can participate in a separate commentary thread.

I just want to note that the One Above All is available for a debate on any subject He has an opinion on.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #88 on: March 27, 2015, 03:00:45 PM »
^^^No doubt.

I'd like to clarify that the Debate Room need not host a debate - it can be used to limit a conversation to two people. I didn't make that very clear in my previous post.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #89 on: March 27, 2015, 03:04:16 PM »
What jdawg said.

The oft repeated silliness of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has always struck me as a particularly stupid line of argument. Why on earth would someone believe an extraordinary claim with no evidence to support it?

Jag, I'm certainly not in disagreement with you.  It's part of the reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, or fairies, or many other 'made up' things, because it is clearly understood and well-known that they are made up, and there is zero evidence to support their existence.  I think the problems atheists run into with God is that it's not well-understood that He doesn't exist (in fact, the masses tend to understand He (or something) does exist).  Why this is the case is certainly cause for debate.  But, at some level, there has been enough evidence to convince followers that there is 'something', especially those that hold so tightly to faith in spite of criticism.

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #90 on: March 27, 2015, 03:05:19 PM »
^^^No doubt.

I'd like to clarify that the Debate Room need not host a debate - it can be used to limit a conversation to two people. I didn't make that very clear in my previous post.

This is good to know, thanks Jag.

Offline Defiance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1774
  • Darwins +94/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #91 on: March 27, 2015, 03:54:47 PM »
Worldchanger, do you consider the possibility that the believers don't have evidence, rather they let their emotions drive them to believe in such things? How familiar are you with psychology and biology?
Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/miscellaneousjokes/schooljokes/physicsjokes.html

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #92 on: March 27, 2015, 04:08:06 PM »
Worldchanger, do you consider the possibility that the believers don't have evidence, rather they let their emotions drive them to believe in such things? How familiar are you with psychology and biology?
Well, then we'd be starting from a fallacy.  Believers have evidence.  Now, whether or not the evidence is valid, weak, or strong would be up for debate.  That's where we start talking about things like confirmation bias.  I think those adamant that their is no God may be open to the same charge.  I'm familiar with both psychology and biology, studied them both, but I'm not an expert in either field (I'm neither a biologist or psychologist).
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 04:10:04 PM by b.a.worldchanger »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #93 on: March 27, 2015, 04:12:56 PM »
Worldchanger, do you consider the possibility that the believers don't have evidence, rather they let their emotions drive them to believe in such things? How familiar are you with psychology and biology?
Believers have evidence.  Now, whether or not the evidence is valid

How would invalid evidence still be considered evidence?
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2015, 04:23:48 PM »
Worldchanger, do you consider the possibility that the believers don't have evidence, rather they let their emotions drive them to believe in such things? How familiar are you with psychology and biology?
Believers have evidence.  Now, whether or not the evidence is valid

How would invalid evidence still be considered evidence?

Once proven invalid, it can be discarded.  In a court of law, evidence is weighed, evaluated and decided upon.  In science, evidence is used to support a claim.  It doesn't mean such evidence is valid, it simply is evidence to be considered.  Semantics, and you're welcome to disagree.  But, evidence is not proof, it is often data, facts, observations and assertions meant to bolster a claim.   

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2015, 04:25:28 PM »
<snip>

...So how would invalid evidence still be considered evidence? You've not answered the question.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2015, 04:28:36 PM »
<snip>

...So how would invalid evidence still be considered evidence? You've not answered the question.

Once proven invalid, it's no longer evidence.  As I mentioned previously, once proven invalid it can be discarded. 

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2015, 04:38:46 PM »
<snip>

...So how would invalid evidence still be considered evidence? You've not answered the question.

Once proven invalid, it's no longer evidence.  As I mentioned previously, once proven invalid it can be discarded. 

OK. Just wanted to give you a chance to retract your earlier statement. Now that you (unwittingly) have, all's well and good.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1086
  • Darwins +131/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2015, 04:42:45 PM »
Once proven invalid, it's no longer evidence.  As I mentioned previously, once proven invalid it can be discarded.

The Noahic Flood has extensively been proven bullshit. Long before most of the proof that debunks a global flood emerged, this bullshit flood was already reasonably disbelieved, you fuck.



Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #99 on: March 27, 2015, 04:51:23 PM »
<snip>

...So how would invalid evidence still be considered evidence? You've not answered the question.

Once proven invalid, it's no longer evidence.  As I mentioned previously, once proven invalid it can be discarded. 

OK. Just wanted to give you a chance to retract your earlier statement. Now that you (unwittingly) have, all's well and good.

Again, semantics, but before proven false, it still exists as evidence.  It just has the potential of being invalid, and that was all I meant in my original statement.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 04:53:11 PM by b.a.worldchanger »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #100 on: March 27, 2015, 05:15:24 PM »
Again, semantics, but before proven false, it still exists as evidence.

Thing is, it doesn't. It exists as a delusion. False evidence isn't evidence.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #101 on: March 27, 2015, 05:27:39 PM »
Again, semantics, but before proven false, it still exists as evidence.

Thing is, it doesn't. It exists as a delusion. False evidence isn't evidence.

I think you're elevating evidence to something it is not.  Until it's proven false, it isn't false.  It's potentially false and potentially true.  It is an embodiment of facts, testimony and data to support an assertion.  If evidence is proven false, it is discarded as no longer being evidence.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #102 on: March 27, 2015, 05:32:07 PM »
I think you're elevating evidence to something it is not.  Until it's proven false, it isn't false.  It's potentially false and potentially true.  It is an embodiment of facts, testimony and data to support an assertion.  If evidence is proven false, it is discarded as no longer being evidence.

However, isn't it amazing that it could even be proven false in the first place? That (supposed) evidence given to a believer by his or her god could be proven false? That the believer could be deceived in such a manner, without their god stepping in to correct their notions?
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #103 on: March 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PM »
Welcome b.a.

These miracles I haven't experienced because I'm a highly trained atheist, what do they look like? What is abnormal/weird/amazing about them?

If I were capable of being neutral rather than highly biased against non-reality, what would I experience as a miracle? The other day the pope was holding some dried saints blood and it turned liquid. Or so he says. I doubt it, mostly because I assume were it really dried saints blood, he would have eaten it out of habit. But hey, if miracles happen, then maybe the blood did turn all wet and gushy and stuff. My reason for doubting that it did is that I have never had a similar experience.

Now of course none of us have had all of the experiences available, but I hear of many that I don't doubt, or at least don't doubt were possible. I've never died in a plane crash, but when I hear that others have, it doesn't challenge my version of reality in any sense of the word.  I can take what I know about the world, about things that fall and crash and go bump in the night and extrapolate it to a large flying vehicle smashing in to the ground at a high speed and accept fully that it is possible for large groups of people to instantly perish when that happens.

Now of course plane crashes aren't miracles, unless they just miss a nearby church. I was using them as an example of believing someone I've not experienced. But lets look at the sort of thing claimed as a miracle. Like spontaneous healing. Lets say from cancer. Which I understand has happened. It is rare, but spontaneous remission is not unheard of. Now, does it only happen to members of one religious group? Nope. Does it only happen to christians, whatever their denomination? Nope. Has it happened to atheists? Yep. Is it a miracle, using the generic, non-religious meaning for that word? Yep. Is it a religious miracle? I dunno. Why no pattern? Why don't only the religious experience them? Why do many religious people, despite prayers from all corners of the earth, still succumb to cancer?

We don't yet know enough about the disease to call a spontaneous remission a miracle. We know enough to know the rare person who experiences such a thing is darned lucky. But that wouldn't be miracle material to me.

So you need to tell us more about these miracle thingies. What constitutes a miracle? What qualifies it as a miracle? How are other possibilities discounted? How can I verify that the events happened as claimed?

Without getting completely snarky, the only miracle I think is real is the miracle of gullibility. It is a miracle that anyone believes such stories. Because the alternative (highly biased people wanting a miracle/lying about a miracle/wanting to claim that they've experienced a miracle) seems far more likely than any god/jesus/holy ghost based intervention system.

Do inexplicable things happen? Yep, all the time. They used to be far more common of course, back when we didn't have any idea what lightning and tornados and earthquakes were. We still don't understand dark matter or why the working of the female mind is so mysterious to the male. But we're working on it, and someday the list of strange occurrences might get a bit shorter.

When I was very young and told about miracles, I calmly accepted them as real because adults were telling me that they were true. Then I got old enough to think for myself (11) and realized that I was being lied to by people I could otherwise trust. Well, not lied to in the bad sense, because I'm pretty sure most of them actually believed what they were telling me, but they were obviously lies anyway.

Omnipotent gods that go in to shock when something happens that they didn't see coming will always originate in the human mind. The story will always fall apart at some point because some dufus dude just had to embellish the tale a little too much and suddenly it became obviously false. AT least to those of us not enamored by the idea of living forever in heaven or not worried about really hot places and stuff. If I am a highly trained atheist, it is because I have a better balanced view of the world; one that works rather than one that requires miracles and sky magic for everything to feel whole. I like it that my ideas and opinions and thoughts are based on demonstrable phenomena and stuff. And while I understand that you think I'm being a bit silly by setting realistic standards, it makes far more sense to me than any of the alternatives offered by religion.

A friends brother died a couple of days ago, less than six weeks after being diagnosed with cancer. He was very religious, and as he lay dying, he was, at first, angry with his god because of what was happening to him. But then started fearing that he was going to end up in hell. His last week was spent begging god to forgive him and fearing that it was too late. His last tears and last words were not about his death, but about his destination. My friend, who is only mildly religious, is sick about how frightened his brother his last day on earth.

Was that the opposite of a miracle? Because I believe in those.
What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #104 on: March 27, 2015, 06:42:49 PM »
What jdawg said.

The oft repeated silliness of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has always struck me as a particularly stupid line of argument. Why on earth would someone believe an extraordinary claim with no evidence to support it?

Jag, I'm certainly not in disagreement with you.  It's part of the reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, or fairies, or many other 'made up' things, because it is clearly understood and well-known that they are made up, and there is zero evidence to support their existence.  I think the problems atheists run into with God is that it's not well-understood that He doesn't exist (in fact, the masses tend to understand He (or something) does exist).
I want to be very very clear that my point is that you make an allowance for your favored deity, and expect other people to do so as well, whether they are followers of your faith or not. And it actually IS well-understood that no such being as the christian god exists. That understanding is just not widely disseminated because theists get all freaked out when we tell them about it.

Conditioning works, there's nothing else needed.

Quote
Why this is the case is certainly cause for debate.

As explained above, this is not actually the case. It's pretty easily explained but you have to actually understand what the theory of evolution says, and what it means, to really understand it. Most theists who visit here do not understand the TofE well enough to really get it. Nothing personal, I have no idea how well you really get it and this would need to be a separate discussion.

Quote
But, at some level, there has been enough evidence to convince followers that there is 'something', especially those that hold so tightly to faith in spite of criticism.

We can agree that there has been an adequate amount of something, but we clearly disagree about the nature of that something. You say "evidence" while admitting that you want a very ill-defined boundary to be accepted, or at least admissible for consideration.[1]

Thank you for replying, but I am curious about why you chose to completely disregard the substance of what I said.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=658292;topic=28367.58

I will await your response to the substance of my post. I put thought and effort into composing that post, and I made several points that I would like you to address directly please.

Edit: corrected an unintentional generalization
 1. You may not have been around long enough to understand this, but the vast majority of these discussions end in one of three ways - an endless circular "debate" about what qualifies as evidence, the theist
just goes away (from the thread or the forum, sometimes wandering back as though they didn't abandon a conversation when they no longer had a response to the questions), or it becomes an argument with insults, misquotes, accusations and other unruly behaviors. It doesn't matter how clearly the OP lays out their request, the theist participating can never provide a direct reply to the actual request. We all understand the nature of the evidence that is being asked for, and you know damn well you can't provide it, so why are we bothering to debate that, rather than having a meaningful discussion about what you CAN explain?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 06:44:57 PM by Jag »
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #105 on: March 27, 2015, 06:44:32 PM »
Well, define educated?  I believe many of these supernatural things actually happen in the real world.  But, I still don't believe a skeptic will be convinced by them, even if they are true.  I have witnessed things that no skeptic can explain, but that doesn't mean a skeptic will be convinced either.  But if we're simply talking intelligence and education (as measured by IQ tests, degrees, etc.), then I think you'll find there are plenty of "educated" Christians who believe in supernatural things skeptics do not.
Why do you think that no skeptic could explain these things you witnessed?

You see, when you talk about supernatural things happening, you probably don't mean stuff that is really out of the ordinary, one-in-a-zillion chance type of stuff that basically doesn't happen under normal circumstances, but things which you believe have a supernatural source, namely your god.  Because, you see, if these one-in-a-zillion events were regularly happening to Christians, that might not convince a skeptic that all the details of your religion were correct, but it would indicate that something that liked Christians was responsible.  Instead, you're talking about things which happen and benefit you, and assuming your god is responsible...but you know that no skeptic would accept that argument.

The thing is, though, claiming that something natural has a supernatural cause doesn't make it supernatural.  So you're going to need something a little better than this to support your argument.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline b.a.worldchanger

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Darwins +4/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #106 on: March 28, 2015, 04:08:43 AM »
The oft repeated silliness of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has always struck me as a particularly stupid line of argument. Why on earth would someone believe an extraordinary claim with no evidence to support it?
You'll get no argument from me here, Jag.

What factually exists but provide no evidence of it's existence? Made-up stuff, that's what. Things like fairies, unicorns, shoes that fly around your room while you sleep, settling back exactly where you left them before you wake up, leaving no trace of their activity[1]. Dragons, talking animals, Hogwart's, vampires, shape-shifters. All things that the vast majority of reasonable adults in first world nations dismiss as made up.
 1. Hat tip to Hatter for providing one of my favorite analogies
Again, no argument from me.  I, too, dismiss these as made up.

Quote
Only deities are granted a special exception of not needing to have any evidence to support their existence, and that leaves theists in an awkward position that they rarely address - even if some sort of god-like entity does, in fact, exist, with no evidence whatsoever, what makes any given theist so smugly certain that the deity they claim to follow is the one? If no evidence is required to believe in one deity, what basis do any of them have for discounting every other diety ever described?
If there is no evidence whatsoever, then it is probably not a deity.  At this point, I would say a no-evidence deity would require true "blind faith".  I don't personally know of any deities that people tend to put blind faith in, it is usually based on something.

Quote
The few arguments I've ever seen a theist raise to explain this away are inevitably disproven with little effort. Here's the easiest way to illustrate the central flaw: Religious Diversity Around the World.

Highly credible research, with information that demonstrates the problem, if only you can open your eyes and look at it.

Here are two really easy one to see - geography and number of followers.

Geography - religious diversity tends to have natural boundaries. For some strange reason, the God of Christianity couldn't get himself across the ocean until European captains figured out how to get here. The God of Islam was pretty much stuck in the desert until people started migrating in large numbers during the last 100 years or so. Notice how the beliefs common in Asia are also largely confined to Asia? The Christian God is not a special exception to the geography problem - he was just as local as any other until humans figured out how to safely move across large distances. No god can't get anywhere until his own believers take him with them.
 
Dominance by numbers: the three Abrahamic traditions combined account for 54.9% of the total global population (details of how thing were categorized and tabulated are included in the article): 31.5% Christian, 23.2% Muslim, and 0.2% Jewish. Jews, while tiny in comparative numbers, MUST be included in the consideration because it's their religion in the beginning - Christianity and Islam are both utterly dependent on Judaism. Overarching observation - the three religions that worship the same god have highly varied dogma.

In very simple terms, Judaism is the foundation, Christianity is at it's core the reinterpretation of Judaism, and Islam is in some respects a reinterpretation of both (this is a very simplistic comparison on purpose). Each tradition is following the same God - and have spent centuries killing each other over their different interpretations of what, exactly, is required by this God from it's followers.

Each tradition has multiple internal divisions, and within those divisions, each sect views every other sect as in some way, following God the wrong way.

So tell me b.a., why would a skeptic think ANY of you have any idea at all of WTactualF you are talking about?

I definitely appreciate your thoughts.  I don't expect you to necessarily agree with mine on this, but all I see this explain is that there are a lot of religious people in the world (majority), and that they hold a lot of varying beliefs.  Of course, there are many points in here that my faith (Christianity) helps to explain, but I know you're not interested in that.  It also contradicts the assertion that we're dealing with the same God, or at least an understanding of that God.  The god of Islam is far different than the God of Christianity.  Jesus also made it clear that those who deny the Son, do not have the Father.  In other words, those same Jews may claim to know God, but Jesus says they actually don't actually 'know' Him, even if they understand He exists. 

But, this isn't really the point, debating which God is right (if any).  The point is people put faith in God, I believe, because there is evidence or reason to do so, or that is my own personal reason.  I don't believe in the tooth fairy because I am the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus, and Harry Potter is just a book.  No one has ever given there life for Harry Potter, at least not on any massive scale.  But, people do that daily all over the world for Christ.  They give up everything.  They give up their lives both literally and metaphorically.  I don't think it's because they believe Jesus is not real.  They are fully convinced.  They may have grown up being taught its true and they simply accepted it.  They may have weighed the evidence and chosen.  They may have experienced something that convinced them God exists.  There are a plethora of reasons, and I'm sure this just represents a small sample.  Some (many?) may be a combination of factors.  Comparing God and the tooth fairy just doesn't hold up for many reasons, but mainly because of two (knowledge and evidence). 

Knowledge - We know the tooth fairy isn't real because we've participated in its falseness.  We've knowingly put the the money under the pillow, or wrapped the presents and put them under the tree.  We willingly and knowingly conspire in these activities as "fun", fantasy, and perpetuate it as false.  On the other hand, Christianity (and other religions) have been perpetuated with the assumption of being true.

Evidence - why varying and debatable, I believe most believers (Christians) believe there is some evidence for their faith.  You're welcome to pick that evidence apart from case to case, but they aren't just putting in "blind faith".  I suppose if you can prove (with reasonable certainty) that the evidence is weak or invalid, you can convince them to abandon their beliefs.  But even 'weak' evidence is different than no evidence.

When you combine these two factors, you end up with a much different scenario than Harry Potter.  From the get go, it is well understood and disseminated by the author, and common knowledge, that Harry Potter is fiction.  That just isn't the case with deities, especially with the "Big 3" religions you mention.  If these deities were well understood from Day #1 to be false or fictional, they would easily be abandoned and discarded like Old St. Nicholas, at least from a worship standpoint.  This would also happen if believers felt there was zero evidence of their existence.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 04:16:25 AM by b.a.worldchanger »

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • Darwins +139/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Where are all the rabbits?
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2015, 04:34:26 AM »
b.a.worldchanger; Why doesn't your god show up? Why does it not prove its existence beyond any doubt? Why doesn't it simply do whatever we need (not 'want') to have its existence confirmed? Your god wants a personal relationship with us, but it is handicapped in that goal by being imaginary.

No one disbelieves in the Sun's existence, its evidence is there for all to see. That doesn't mean we have to worship it or love it or sing it songs; we have the Sun's existence confirmed with our free will intact.

Why does your god not appear unambiguously to us all?
If your god cannot physically appear before us, then it is imaginary.

It's as simple as that.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2015, 09:00:23 AM »
b.a., I wonder if you realize that what you cite as support for your beliefs is equally applicable to every other religion in the report. People die for their faith no matter what religion they practice, this is certainly not limited the christians.

No comment on geography and natural boundaries? No reply to the observation that a God can not get itself anywhere without being brought there by it's human followers? No explanation of why the three Abrahamic religions are riddled with internal divisions? Nothing to say about how willing all three are to enact violence against the others? Just hand-waving away the reality that each of those religions are following their interpretation of the OT, because of something said in the NT, as though every organized religion's texts don't do the exact some thing? No effort to clarify why christianity alone has some 30,000+ sects? And no explanation of why the version YOU adhere to offers some level of evidence that no other faith tradition can offer, even the ones that base their dogma on the same bible?

Why would a skeptic think any of you have any idea of what you are actually talking about? You contradict each other constantly. All of you think everyone else is wrong - in that, you and I find agreement, I just disbelieve one more god than you do.

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #109 on: March 28, 2015, 09:36:20 AM »
BAworldchanger,  say I believe god exists.  Why religion?  Religion disgraces a real god.  You say the Jews did not know god but yet Christians display the laws of Moses all over the place. 

By the way Jesus was a Jew.  According to Islam the Messenger Isa is Jesus.  Can you prove Jesus was the Messiah?  He did not destroy all other religions as foretold in the OT.  His death and worship made 4,000+ more. Can you prove Moses received the ten commandments and all that other BS from a god?

Why did/do Christians murder people?  You're religion is stained with blood and shame. in the name of Jesus die, what a bunch of monsters.

https://youtu.be/kQZaMszA60Y
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #110 on: March 28, 2015, 09:48:16 AM »
https://youtu.be/7OjBSvn0C78

Saint Joan of Ark burned at the stake by Christians reenactment.

Third eye blind.  Is the pineal gland the biggest cover up in history. 

https://youtu.be/WY1tTgfxq9c
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 10:02:10 AM by junebug72 »
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #111 on: March 28, 2015, 10:10:19 AM »
Again, semantics, but before proven false, it still exists as evidence.

Thing is, it doesn't. It exists as a delusion. False evidence isn't evidence.

I have great difficulty using the word "evidence", nowadays. In a scientific usage it has meaning, because it's presumed that the evidence is only provisional, and that an eventual working theory may be useful, rather than true.

It's also difficult to use the word "proof". I have generally decided to avoid using the word "evidence" where possible. However, I am free to ask someone what evidence they have, because it's at least a starting point.

Your statement "False evidence isn't evidence" is not useful for determining if something is evidence, until it is seen to be false, by the person using it.  Many things in science have been considered to be evidence, until proven to be complete rubbish.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #112 on: March 28, 2015, 10:28:42 AM »
<snip>
Your statement "False evidence isn't evidence" is not useful for determining if something is evidence, until it is seen to be false, by the person using it.

You're missing the point. Read a few posts after that one.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #113 on: March 28, 2015, 11:02:51 AM »
I think if God stepped in and explained everything he didn't do, then we wouldn't need any evidence that he existed, due to his regular lectures about himself.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #114 on: March 28, 2015, 11:03:43 AM »
I think if God stepped in and explained everything he didn't do, then we wouldn't need any evidence that he existed, due to his regular lectures about himself.

It would certainly satisfy his narcissism...
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: It has been said that no amount of proof could ever prove god.
« Reply #115 on: March 28, 2015, 11:19:30 AM »
Knowledge - We know the tooth fairy isn't real because we've participated in its falseness.  We've knowingly put the the money under the pillow, or wrapped the presents and put them under the tree.  We willingly and knowingly conspire in these activities as "fun", fantasy, and perpetuate it as false.  On the other hand, Christianity (and other religions) have been perpetuated with the assumption of being true.

Why are you so certain that god is real? Could he not also be just as false as the tooth fairy, even though fewer people know it? If you could fall for a quarter-laden (well, that was what we got when I was a kid. Inflation probably has a tooth worth $5 or so now) tiny and flying fairy when you were six, does that not mean that you were, and perhaps still are, predisposed to believe in anything when you think it will be profitable?

That the motives for tooth fairies and gods vary doesn't mean that the methods to get you to believe do.

What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.