Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust
Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.
If you follow the discussion, the point was:
You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."
Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"
In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.
It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?
But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....
Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.
As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.
He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.
They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.
An example I used in another thread:
Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?
I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.
Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.
Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".
I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.
Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.
|
I never said anyone said otherwise.
Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.
I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.
I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...
Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.
You: Yeeeeah, I'm not so sure about that.
Me: You're right. I've made a mistake.
You: YOU'RE WRONG
Me: I just admitted that...
Seems like an ego thing to me, but hey, who am I to question your motives?
I'm already aware of that term. I just think there needs to be a stronger word for it, seperate and more severe than "atheist."
I suck at math.
Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there
are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.
Re: Guide on the Theistic argument
Hybrid Mode
