Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion > Atheism


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 9th, 2012, 04:01 PM   #91
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 04:03 PM   #92
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because in IT's mind the two hypotheses are equally valid: "invisible pink unicorns do not exist" vs "invisible pink unicorns exist". The fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of the existence of invisible pink unicorns is irrelevant to him.

[/quote]



Couldn't you throw a little more ridicule into your ghostwriting of my opinion, please?
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 04:19 PM   #93
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1331310497' post='388714
"I don't know" is an appropriate response sometimes. Another pertinent question: "Can it be known?"



Can it be known why water droplets split visible light into colors? You are a deep thinker Nwolfe. Can it be known?



Some characteristics of a forest - such as its size and shape - cannot be seen or understood by standing in the middle of it. Some scientists believe that some answers to some questions cannot be answered without a viewpoint which is outside of the universe. Probably, they are correct.



The answer to why all physical laws work will not reduce any farther than "Because the laws are inherent to the observed characteristics of matter/energy/time/space." The final question is: Why does matter/energy/time/space have the characteristics observed?



Science increasingly unravels the laws governing the physical universe in ever-increasing detail. It does not, and most likely cannot, explain why the laws exist and apply.


Can we ever know is just another question that gets the answer "I don't know"



I don't assume that we can never know these answers....I don't assume that we ever will know these answers....but more importantly, I don't assume it's because of God.


The answer to why all physical laws work cannot reduce any farther than "Because the laws are inherent to the observed characteristics of matter/energy/time/space." The final question which there is no logical basis to assume we'll ever have an answer is: Why does matter/energy/time/space have the characteristics observed?



This question doesn't rely upon any assumptions. While our understanding of matter/energy/time/space is not complete, nothing suggests that we, existing in this space-time continuum will ever will have the answer to why does matter/energy/time/space have the characteristics observed?



Assumptions based on a lack of knowledge or evidence often are shaky. This assumption isn't shaky.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 08:09 PM   #94
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.

[/quote]



No, it's your attempt to put the possibility of pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster into some other category than the question about the existence of God that trivializes reality.



The hard cold fact is that the evidence for God is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster...namely none whatsoever.



To assume a God exists is the EXACT same thing as assuming that pink unicorns exist....becuase the evidence you have for either one is EXACTLY the same.



"I don't believe in God becuase I don't believe in Mother Goose" - Clarence Darrow.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:08 PM   #95
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1331341315' post='388921

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.

[/quote]



No, it's your attempt to put the possibility of pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster into some other category than the question about the existence of God that trivializes reality.



The hard cold fact is that the evidence for God is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster...namely none whatsoever.



To assume a God exists is the EXACT same thing as assuming that pink unicorns exist....becuase the evidence you have for either one is EXACTLY the same.



"I don't believe in God becuase I don't believe in Mother Goose" - Clarence Darrow.

[/quote]



I'm tiring of your dishonesty. Unless you are suggesting that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe, then your equivocation is purely dishonest. Your rationale I've encountered with other atheists, and they like you make this comparison of the likelihood of God being on a par with the likelihood of pink unicorns. However, your equivocation reeks of desperation.



Look, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I'm not evangelizing you owing to my Universalist beliefs, which I hope you understand fully. However, your logic is false as is the equivocation you're attempting to make here.



I'm content to accept your beliefs, and I hope the acceptance is mutual. However, equivocating the existence of God and pink unicorns is illogical to me and disgracing to you.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:23 PM   #96
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331356154' post='388937

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331341315' post='388921']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.

[/quote]



No, it's your attempt to put the possibility of pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster into some other category than the question about the existence of God that trivializes reality.



The hard cold fact is that the evidence for God is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster...namely none whatsoever.



To assume a God exists is the EXACT same thing as assuming that pink unicorns exist....becuase the evidence you have for either one is EXACTLY the same.



"I don't believe in God becuase I don't believe in Mother Goose" - Clarence Darrow.

[/quote]



I'm tiring of your dishonesty. Unless you are suggesting that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe, then your equivocation is purely dishonest. Your rationale I've encountered with other atheists, and they like you make this comparison of the likelihood of God being on a par with the likelihood of pink unicorns. However, your equivocation reeks of desperation.



Look, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I'm not evangelizing you owing to my Universalist beliefs, which I hope you understand fully. However, your logic is false as is the equivocation you're attempting to make here.



I'm content to accept your beliefs, and I hope the acceptance is mutual. However, equivocating the existence of God and pink unicorns is illogical to me and disgracing to you.

[/quote]



For the sake of argument, lets say I AM claiming that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe.



Now, how does my claim differ from yours?



You have no proof your God exists....I have no proof that the pink unicorns exist.



You have no idea where your God came from....I have no idea where the pink unicorns came from.



You call it a false equivocation to compare God to pink unicorns....How?



To claim the existence of A with no evidence is the same as claiming the existence of B, C, D and E that are all without evidence.



A thousand years ago there were men claimng that Zeus was real....or Thor....or Ra....or a host of other Gods that other cultures had. What makes YOUR God any more real or any more likely than the thousands of other Gods that have come before, and are now almost universally not believed in?
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:33 PM   #97
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1331359689' post='388940

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331356154' post='388937']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331341315' post='388921']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.

[/quote]



No, it's your attempt to put the possibility of pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster into some other category than the question about the existence of God that trivializes reality.



The hard cold fact is that the evidence for God is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster...namely none whatsoever.



To assume a God exists is the EXACT same thing as assuming that pink unicorns exist....becuase the evidence you have for either one is EXACTLY the same.



"I don't believe in God becuase I don't believe in Mother Goose" - Clarence Darrow.

[/quote]



I'm tiring of your dishonesty. Unless you are suggesting that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe, then your equivocation is purely dishonest. Your rationale I've encountered with other atheists, and they like you make this comparison of the likelihood of God being on a par with the likelihood of pink unicorns. However, your equivocation reeks of desperation.



Look, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I'm not evangelizing you owing to my Universalist beliefs, which I hope you understand fully. However, your logic is false as is the equivocation you're attempting to make here.



I'm content to accept your beliefs, and I hope the acceptance is mutual. However, equivocating the existence of God and pink unicorns is illogical to me and disgracing to you.

[/quote]



For the sake of argument, lets say I AM claiming that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe.



Now, how does my claim differ from yours?



You have no proof your God exists....I have no proof that the pink unicorns exist.



You have no idea where your God came from....I have no idea where the pink unicorns came from.



You call it a false equivocation to compare God to pink unicorns....How?



To claim the existence of A with no evidence is the same as claiming the existence of B, C, D and E that are all without evidence.



A thousand years ago there were men claimng that Zeus was real....or Thor....or Ra....or a host of other Gods that other cultures had. What makes YOUR God any more real or any more likely than the thousands of other Gods that have come before, and are now almost universally not believed in?

[/quote]



I don't know the exact nature of the force that set his universe into motion. You don't either.



Your claim differs from mine in that in all of recorded history no culture has ascribed the creation of the universe to pink unicorns.



You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. Neither does science.



Correct, I have no idea of the origin of God. You have no idea of the origin of the energy that resulted in the universe.



Again, and I'd like you to acknowledge the fact, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If you want to be obtuse, and attribute the origin of the universe to pink unicorns, please, be my guest. It's an interesting suggestion.



Your noting that the gods of the past are universally rejected now is noted. However, nothing science has uncovered rejects the existence of God.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 9th, 2012, 09:46 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Have you ever considered this, Nwolfe?



Our mathematics, applied to some physical principles, physical laws, established through observation, imply or include the idea of infinity.



We live in a finite universe. The concept of infinity implies something outside of our universe, something larger than the universe, the "space" into which the universe "expands." Infinity does not exist in our universe.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 10th, 2012, 03:11 AM   #99
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331360588' post='388943

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331359689' post='388940']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331356154' post='388937']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331341315' post='388921']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.

[/quote]



No, it's your attempt to put the possibility of pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster into some other category than the question about the existence of God that trivializes reality.



The hard cold fact is that the evidence for God is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster...namely none whatsoever.



To assume a God exists is the EXACT same thing as assuming that pink unicorns exist....becuase the evidence you have for either one is EXACTLY the same.



"I don't believe in God becuase I don't believe in Mother Goose" - Clarence Darrow.

[/quote]



I'm tiring of your dishonesty. Unless you are suggesting that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe, then your equivocation is purely dishonest. Your rationale I've encountered with other atheists, and they like you make this comparison of the likelihood of God being on a par with the likelihood of pink unicorns. However, your equivocation reeks of desperation.



Look, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I'm not evangelizing you owing to my Universalist beliefs, which I hope you understand fully. However, your logic is false as is the equivocation you're attempting to make here.



I'm content to accept your beliefs, and I hope the acceptance is mutual. However, equivocating the existence of God and pink unicorns is illogical to me and disgracing to you.

[/quote]



For the sake of argument, lets say I AM claiming that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe.



Now, how does my claim differ from yours?



You have no proof your God exists....I have no proof that the pink unicorns exist.



You have no idea where your God came from....I have no idea where the pink unicorns came from.



You call it a false equivocation to compare God to pink unicorns....How?



To claim the existence of A with no evidence is the same as claiming the existence of B, C, D and E that are all without evidence.



A thousand years ago there were men claimng that Zeus was real....or Thor....or Ra....or a host of other Gods that other cultures had. What makes YOUR God any more real or any more likely than the thousands of other Gods that have come before, and are now almost universally not believed in?

[/quote]



I don't know the exact nature of the force that set his universe into motion. You don't either.



Your claim differs from mine in that in all of recorded history no culture has ascribed the creation of the universe to pink unicorns.



You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. Neither does science.



Correct, I have no idea of the origin of God. You have no idea of the origin of the energy that resulted in the universe.



Again, and I'd like you to acknowledge the fact, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If you want to be obtuse, and attribute the origin of the universe to pink unicorns, please, be my guest. It's an interesting suggestion.



Your noting that the gods of the past are universally rejected now is noted. However, nothing science has uncovered rejects the existence of God.

[/quote]



IT you will be happy to know that you have changed my mind on something....



"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...this is something that I have always accepted as a truism. Now I realize I was wrong.



Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence....it's just not PROOF of absence.



If I think a dog has been running around my backyard...and I go out and look for evidence of that and find none....that doesn't PROVE that a dog has not been in my backyard, but it is does help build the case that there hasn't been one.



If I go further and question my neighbors...and none of them have seen a dog in my backyard....or even seen a loose dog in the neighborhood...that again does not PROVE that there hasn't been a dog in my backyard, but the case that there has not is even stronger.



If every time I look for some kind of proof of the existence of the dog...and I get nothing....it doesn't PROVE that there is no dog.....but it is awfully strong evidence that there isn't a dog.



(Can you guess why I'm using a dog in this example?)
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 10th, 2012, 05:52 AM   #100
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1331361198' post='388944

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331360588' post='388943']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331359689' post='388940']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331356154' post='388937']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331341315' post='388921']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1331337881' post='388912']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331308967' post='388697']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1331269080' post='388664']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1331261706' post='388652']

"God" made gravity happen. Good as any explanation presently.


Yep, about as good as the explanation for earthquakes that the gods are bowling......it ends the debate, and there's no point for further investigation.


This false dilemma that supports your atheistic view is wrong. Theists have made many, many discoveries. One need not close one's mind to scientific investigation because one believes in God. And nothing yet revealed by science proves that God doesn't exist, or that there is any logical reason to assume God doesn't exist.

[/quote]



There is the greatest logical reason of all to assume that God does not exist....there is no evidence!



That is how we treat everything in every other aspect of our lives....I assume the Easter Bunny does not exist becuase there is no evidence. I assume that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because there is no evidence. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence.



The question is why WOULD you assume something exists that there is no evidence for?

[/quote]



Because, the lack of evidence proves nothing in the case of God. No scientific evidence excludes the existence of God, unless you are hiding some from the rest of the world. In the case of God, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Your equivocating the possibility of pink unicorns and Loch Ness monsters with the possibility of God trivializes reality.

[/quote]



No, it's your attempt to put the possibility of pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster into some other category than the question about the existence of God that trivializes reality.



The hard cold fact is that the evidence for God is EXACTLY the same as the evidence for pink unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster...namely none whatsoever.



To assume a God exists is the EXACT same thing as assuming that pink unicorns exist....becuase the evidence you have for either one is EXACTLY the same.



"I don't believe in God becuase I don't believe in Mother Goose" - Clarence Darrow.

[/quote]



I'm tiring of your dishonesty. Unless you are suggesting that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe, then your equivocation is purely dishonest. Your rationale I've encountered with other atheists, and they like you make this comparison of the likelihood of God being on a par with the likelihood of pink unicorns. However, your equivocation reeks of desperation.



Look, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I'm not evangelizing you owing to my Universalist beliefs, which I hope you understand fully. However, your logic is false as is the equivocation you're attempting to make here.



I'm content to accept your beliefs, and I hope the acceptance is mutual. However, equivocating the existence of God and pink unicorns is illogical to me and disgracing to you.

[/quote]



For the sake of argument, lets say I AM claiming that pink unicorns are responsible for the creation of the universe.



Now, how does my claim differ from yours?



You have no proof your God exists....I have no proof that the pink unicorns exist.



You have no idea where your God came from....I have no idea where the pink unicorns came from.



You call it a false equivocation to compare God to pink unicorns....How?



To claim the existence of A with no evidence is the same as claiming the existence of B, C, D and E that are all without evidence.



A thousand years ago there were men claimng that Zeus was real....or Thor....or Ra....or a host of other Gods that other cultures had. What makes YOUR God any more real or any more likely than the thousands of other Gods that have come before, and are now almost universally not believed in?

[/quote]



I don't know the exact nature of the force that set his universe into motion. You don't either.



Your claim differs from mine in that in all of recorded history no culture has ascribed the creation of the universe to pink unicorns.



You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. Neither does science.



Correct, I have no idea of the origin of God. You have no idea of the origin of the energy that resulted in the universe.



Again, and I'd like you to acknowledge the fact, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If you want to be obtuse, and attribute the origin of the universe to pink unicorns, please, be my guest. It's an interesting suggestion.



Your noting that the gods of the past are universally rejected now is noted. However, nothing science has uncovered rejects the existence of God.

[/quote]



IT you will be happy to know that you have changed my mind on something....



"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...this is something that I have always accepted as a truism. Now I realize I was wrong.



Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence....it's just not PROOF of absence.



If I think a dog has been running around my backyard...and I go out and look for evidence of that and find none....that doesn't PROVE that a dog has not been in my backyard, but it is does help build the case that there hasn't been one.



If I go further and question my neighbors...and none of them have seen a dog in my backyard....or even seen a loose dog in the neighborhood...that again does not PROVE that there hasn't been a dog in my backyard, but the case that there has not is even stronger.



If every time I look for some kind of proof of the existence of the dog...and I get nothing....it doesn't PROVE that there is no dog.....but it is awfully strong evidence that there isn't a dog.



(Can you guess why I'm using a dog in this example?)

[/quote]



Yep. Glad to be of service to you.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion > Atheism

Tags
aren't, atheists, frightened, hasidic, jews, muslims



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teabaggers Aren't Racist. Not One Bit. skrekk Conservatism 61 October 29th, 2012 09:29 AM
Grave Domestic Threats To National Security (Hint: They Aren't Muslims) imaginethat Americas 0 December 16th, 2010 12:42 PM
You can't be Miss USA if you aren't pro gay marriage? tyrone_det Gay and Lesbian Rights 507 May 27th, 2009 08:21 AM
If guns aren't the problem... hevusa Gun Control 160 May 6th, 2009 04:42 AM
When did America become a Nation of Frightened Wimps? tadpole256 Political Talk 25 April 16th, 2007 09:14 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.