show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Originally posted by Mindship
dadudemon: If a being claiming to be God showed you how he can create, say, whole universes with the snap of a finger, how would you know this simply wasn't a being just powerful enough to create utterly realistic, impenetrable illusions? Or a being just powerful enough to encase you in a bubble universe, so you could never test your perceptions with others? Essentially, how would you know this simply wasn't some entity capable of isolating you in a 'dream' for the rest of your life?

The question is philosophical useless, actually.

Answer: Then I would believe that person to be God and I have no way of knowing any better.

And if they could create a universe, they are a god. If they are not my spiritual God, it is functionally irreconcilable. If I’m an eternal being, would not the real God, in his “superior” power to this other pseudo-god, make things right? With an infinite amount of time, it’s bound to happen as the true God would be infinite and eternal and the othe would not: they'd be subject to things like heat-death. Additionally, with an infinite amount of time, there's an infinite amount of time for progression for an enternal being: who is to say that I will not eventually "grow" enough to become my own god? I'm Mormon, remember? lol

Originally posted by Mindship
Again, not me. This is what the vast resources of mystical literature say. Someone wrote a book. Ok. Yes. That's what I've been saying.

Talk about strawmanning.

I had always thought we had some common ground here. Apparently not. That's cool.

You're being childish.

Originally posted by dadudemon

What I don't like is the illogical agnostic comparison to ants and humans. An agnostic says that Creator would be to us what we are to ants. That's not true, at all. We possess intellectual abilities that are of a significantly different flavor than an ant. There is a point in cognitive progression that the human to ant comparison fails.

No dadudemon you're completely missing the point of the analogy.

Originally posted by Deadline
You're being childish.

No dadudemon you're completely missing the point of the analogy.

You're awfully antagonistic, aren't you?

Also, my reply to you is: No, Deadline, you're completely missing the point of my complaint on the analogy.

Originally posted by Deadline
You're being childish.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The question is philosophical useless, actually.

Answer: Then I would believe that person to be God and I have no way of knowing any better.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And if they could create a universe, they are a god. If they are not my spiritual God, it is functionally irreconcilable. If I’m an eternal being, would not the real God, in his “superior” power to this other pseudo-god, make things right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Additionally, with an infinite amount of time, there's an infinite amount of time for progression for an enternal being: who is to say that I will not eventually "grow" enough to become my own god? I'm Mormon, remember? lol

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I've never met a non-atheist or even talked to one.
(Pretty much everyone is atheistic towards everyone else's gods....)

Unless you're agnostic. Agnostics are non-atheists. You've surely met at least one in your life. Besides, religious people believe in God. They just deny false Gods. That doesn't make them atheistic.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not true at all

its very easy for reasonable people to disagree on issues...

That simply isn't true in this case. He said he was being reasonable in his thinking which indicates that the others with the opposing perspective aren't. There is a world of difference between disagreeing on certain issues and claiming that your way of thinking is being reasonable.

I already said that my statement was "speaking for myself." leaving the opposing debater to be using all the reasoning til the cows come home, far all it means.... my conclusions I came to with reasoning. The other side may reason all day too, if they like, by Im just clarifying that reason lay in my thinking.

But now I think about what you're saying:

Accepting creationism or any other false explanation for the various stars and planets' pathway into being, requires no reason and actually breaks down under it.

We can see how the star and their planetary systems form now. We can see that everything that has been seen comes into being via change, time and evolution.... in all the millions of lightyears we can see, with all of the various states of development of the many bodies we can see, we have never seen stuff just being created in any other way.

Now previous humans in history had no way of knowing better, not having the info and communication we have now, so they can be forgiven for having thought it possible. But Carbon dating and other testing, since we know now that Earth is WAY older than 8,000 years or whatever dating applies to the various God's alleged creation dates..

Who, when both in possession of the same knowledge, would have to be suspending their reasoning to still think that Earth is 8,000 years old?

The religious fundamentalist, or the objector to biblical claims?

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Unless you're agnostic. Agnostics are non-atheists. You've surely met at least one in your life. Besides, religious people believe in God. They just deny false Gods. That doesn't make them atheistic. [/B]

They arent theists either.

False gods....lol
'All gods are false'.

Prove otherwise.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That simply isn't true in this case. He said he was being reasonable in his thinking which indicates that the others with the opposing perspective aren't. There is a world of difference between disagreeing on certain issues and claiming that your way of thinking is being reasonable.

So now you're writing off inimalist as crazy and unreasonable right?

I mean either that or you think that the thoughts you had in the process of making that decision are unreasonable... (or maybe you don't think at all?)

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Because of the total fallacy of half of it, given what we know about it, and the vast improbability....that and that if it was meant to be the word of God, then why did it need constantly editing/revising by his primates that seem to think they have some authority to do so...?

I see no fallacy in any of it. None of what you have said in this post refutes, or even damages any argument for a creator of the universe. If you would like to bring some sort of argument or evidence forward to support your beliefs, by all means do so.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not all religions can be right, but all can be wrong.

I don't understand the point of this part of your post. That's true... but it does nothing to suggest that ANY religion is wrong.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I already said that my statement was "speaking for myself." leaving the opposing debater to be using all the reasoning til the cows come home, far all it means.... my conclusions I came to with reasoning. The other side may reason all day too, if they like, by Im just clarifying that reason lay in my thinking.

But now I think about what you're saying:

Accepting creationism or any other false explanation for the various stars and planets' pathway into being, requires no reason and actually breaks down under it.

We can see how the star and their planetary systems form now. We can see that everything that has been seen comes into being via change, time and evolution.... in all the millions of lightyears we can see, with all of the various states of development of the many bodies we can see, we have never seen stuff just being created in any other way.

Now previous humans in history had no way of knowing better, not having the info and communication we have now, so they can be forgiven for having thought it possible. But Carbon dating and other testing, since we know now that Earth is WAY older than 8,000 years or whatever dating applies to the various God's alleged creation dates..

Who, when both in possession of the same knowledge, would have to be suspending their reasoning to still think that Earth is 8,000 years old?

The religious fundamentalist, or the objector to biblical claims?

The question of the existence of God is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical one.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
They arent theists either.

False gods....lol
'All gods are false'.

Prove otherwise.

A theist is someone who believes in a God or gods, if I'm not mistaken. Not EVERY god that man has ever thought up. You aren't making a whole lot of sense here...

Originally posted by dadudemon
The question is philosophical useless, actually.

Answer: Then I would believe that person to be God and I have no way of knowing any better.

But that's at the core of the problem. Any metric you choose is one where you can be deceived by something that isn't God. If you met the real one there's nothing he could do to prove it wasn't a deception.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That simply isn't true in this case. He said he was being reasonable in his thinking which indicates that the others with the opposing perspective aren't. There is a world of difference between disagreeing on certain issues and claiming that your way of thinking is being reasonable.

I guess what I'm having difficulty with is where to draw the line between what your point is and you literally saying I'm arrogant for not seeing the world as you do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So now you're writing off inimalist as crazy and unreasonable right?

really, how wrong would she be?

Originally posted by dadudemon
All that aside, I disagree, completely. Unless you have an issue of separating reality from fantasy, it should be incredibly easy for God to prove his existence.

You're putting God on some sort of unreachable pedestal. Sure, He is on pedestal, alright, but he's not too far away that he is completely un-understandable. He created the universe/multiverse so he's understandable on at least some levels.

A powerful being can prove they are powerful, but how would the creator of a universe prove he created the universe? And is that what you want God to prove? What other traits does the God you want to prove himself have and how should he prove them?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I see no fallacy in any of it. None of what you have said in this post refutes, or even damages any argument for a creator of the universe. If you would like to bring some sort of argument or evidence forward to support your beliefs, by all means do so.

I don't understand the point of this part of your post. That's true... but it does nothing to suggest that ANY religion is wrong.

The question of the existence of God is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical one.

A theist is someone who believes in a God or gods, if I'm not mistaken. Not EVERY god that man has ever thought up. You aren't making a whole lot of sense here...

No the statement itself doesn't, but the fact that no proof exists for God, kinda makes it look very likely, paired with things stated in scriptures that contradict reality/logic/reasoning.
Problem is to state that there is a sentient, creator of the universe is a massive presumption, and theres never been evidence for it.

Religion is still trying to interfere in science, making absolutist statements that impede our natural rights and scientific progress on religious grounds, cause of this God idea.
(Statements relating to science, Cosmology, Abortion, Stem Cell research)
Creationism is a religious statement trying to make a scientific assertion. Christian Science was taught in schools..
The attempts to get anti-blasphemy laws passed......etc etc

All without a shred of proof that a god exists....

It was claimed just now that that to be an Agnostic doesnt make the person an Atheist.....'but it doesnt make them a Theist either' was just a balancing point. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's at the core of the problem. Any metric you choose is one where you can be deceived by something that isn't God. If you met the real one there's nothing he could do to prove it wasn't a deception.

Actually I'll rephrase. Assuming God is bounded by logic he can't prove a negative.

So: There's nothing he could do to prove it is real. A finite being that can trick you is more likely than an infinite one. Consider watching a magic show, only the most blindly credulous people will assume that the magician is really a wizard.

I think in practice that is how you would act as well. If a God appeared and created a universe, then told you to give up Mormonism in favor of Hinduism would you do it?

I think I can kinda see where lil b is coming from.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're awfully antagonistic, aren't you?

Also, my reply to you is: No, Deadline, you're completely missing the point of my complaint on the analogy.

Yea, sure. Maybe I'll respond in more detail but this is just boring.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
They arent theists either.

False gods....lol
'All gods are false'.

Prove otherwise.

They are theists because they believe in God.

They aren't non-religious simply because they don't believe in every God presented them.

Prove otherwise? Look it up in any dictionary. Take any English or Religion course. It's basic linguistics, it has nothing to do with God or not believing in him. Just because a statement or a term involve God, doesn't make the term or statement religious.

Being a theist doesn't mean you believe in every God. Just that you believe in a God, or several Gods within the order.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
We can see how the star and their planetary systems form now. We can see that everything that has been seen comes into being via change, time and evolution.... in all the millions of lightyears we can see, with all of the various states of development of the many bodies we can see, we have never seen stuff just being created in any other way.

our predictions about the creation of stars and planets have been supported by direct observation, however, I dont think it is fair to say we can see these bodies come into form, as the process takes thousands if years, or at least longer than a single human could observe

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now previous humans in history had no way of knowing better

so long as there has been religion, there have been atheists. society just doesnt murder them today

Exactly: we know this to be true from seeing simliar processes occurring everywhere. We havent seen any worlds being created by a god yet. Or any evidence...so is it not reasonable to conclude that its the same processes that govern the existance of everything else, govern us...?

Yes thats absolutely true.
Perhaps I should have merely stated that Atheists 'have way more reason to not believe these days with the info/knowledge'.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Exactly: we know this to be true from seeing simliar processes occurring everywhere. We havent seen any worlds being created by a god yet. Or any evidence...so is it not reasonable to conclude that its the same processes that govern the existance of everything else, govern us...?

sure, im more nitpicking your epistemology

we don't know it to be true, but we can provide evidence to support it, and our predictions have turned out to be true.

that, and yes, there is an absolute lack of evidence for any competing theory (if we define as science v. all)