Atheists who attack Christianity

I have to agree with Vares partly, if only to the point that some of the findings of quantum mechanics seem to be (but who knows for sure, yet?) all set to turn many of our notions of the universe and how it works neatly on their collective heads. I'm in no way emotionally opposed to the possibility of things turning out to exist that were simply beyond our previous understanding -- be it "magic" (whatever that means), deities, beings in other dimensions, all of these things and more, or none of these things at all and perhaps something we never even guessed at instead.

But being open to possibilities doesn't require embracing random made-up possibilities without evidence, of course.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the extra-ordinary claim. You are the one who has made the extra-ordinary claim (And you should carefully consider the meaning of "ordinary", look it up if you need to - hint, myths and magic are not "ordinary" - thus the burden of proof is upon the claim of the existence of the deity of Abraham, and thus necesarily the claim of the existence of magic.

I did not make a claim. You made the claim the existence of God is categorically impossible. That was the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Nothing about the Bible could be used to prove your point.

You undermine yourself when you say things like "random made-up impossibilities". You can't know that for a fact, so you shouldn't state it as a fact. This contradicts what you just said in the first paragraph.

Be consistent, either you believe "the possibility of things turning out to exist that were simply beyond our previous understanding" or you believe they are "random made-up impossibilities." It can't be both.

Actually, it was a typo. I corrected it. Thanks.

We've gone over this - your extra-ordinary speculation is neither proof of your assertion nor is it disproof of my proof.



When you have to have explained to you that your extra-ordinary speculation is neither proof of your assertion nor is it disproof of my proof-
When you have to have explained to you what a logical syllogism is -
When you have to have explained to you the difference between a positive statement and a negative position/negative claim -
When you are engaged in a debate that relies on logic, and you claim to use logic, but demonstrably do not adhere to the rules of logic, then yes, you do in fact need to have logic explained to you - if for no other reason than to demonstrate to others that you don't actually know what you're talking about.



Wrong! The universe does not allow certain prerequisites and actions to occur (Magic). The existence of your deity requires these certain prerequisites and actions (Magic). If these certain prerequisites and actions so not occur, then either the entity in question is A: Not the abrahamic deity or B: not a deity (as an independent entity) but in fact a work of fiction; Therefore, the deity of Abraham does not, in fact, exist. That's /it/. It's a simple, strightforward, logical /proof/. To upset it, you /must/ demonstrate that the universe does /in fact/ allow these certain prerequisites and actions (magic) to occur - either by performing them yourself, demonstrating that there exists a verifiable model of the universe in which such prerequisites and actions /could/ occur /on EARTH/ in the time period in question, or produce the deity in question and have it demonstrate same.

History has bourne out the fact that you will not do any of the above three requirements.



It's outdated, eh? So 2+2 =/= 4 where you come from? Apples are the same as oranges? Down is up, right is left, war is peace and three wrongs do make a Wright Amendment? (Sorry, injoke there).


There's this song, by Sting - "Nothing 'Bout Me". I love it.

It makes for a nice bit of background music as I type out the following line:

I am female. I made my argument, I delineated it, I demonstrated and supported it.

TTFN!

Ahhh, yes! Much better.

Now it's less a question of whether God exists or not, and more of a question as to what could be considered evidence either for or against that existence.

And that, my friend, is an argument that can't be won on either side. It's just too subjective.

As I've said before, it actually isn't that question at all. Not with me. In fact, it is specifically not that question, which point I tried and failed to explain to our "strong atheist" (using Wikipedia definitions again ) friend. One of the most important things I've been trying to drive home is how much not that question it really is.

I'm no more interested in discussing "whether God exists or not" than I am in discussing whether or not Zeus exists, or our dear friend Strawberry Shortcake, or Batman, or you name it. Bring me some valid evidence to peruse, and I'll take a look-see. Until then, it is simply a total non-issue.

I'm sorry - where is the rule written, besides in your cowardly requirements to weasel and hide behind the method of "god of the gaps", that nothing about the Bible could be used to prove my point - ?

The Bible is presented, has been presented, will always be presented as evidence (not proof, /evidence/) of the existence of the deity of Abraham. It is asserted that the deity of Abraham exists. The Tanakh / Old Testament / Bible / Qu'ran is presented as written eye-witness and second-hand testimony as to the deeds, actions, requisites, attributes, of not only the phenomenon of its' followers, but of the deity itself.

Claiming that "Nothing about the Bible could be used to prove my point" is in fact tantamount to claiming "You cannot use the fact that we have made an assertion to prove that our assertion is false." So in your view, the only valid proof/assertion is the one made in the complete absence of opposing views? Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

It is equivalent to "You cannot use dinosaur fossils to prove that the earth is more than 12000 years old."

The Bible exists. It is evidence of a phenomenon of Judaism and of Christianity. It is evidence that there exists followers of an alleged deity - it is evidence, and claiming that you may refer to it and build your argument from it, while I cannot even reference its' existence - is merely another way of claiming "I'm rubber you're glue" - it is an attempt to make everything you say, everything your religion has said, everything its' followers have said, inaccessible to a disproof. That is not the way that reality works.

You claim a belief in - and thus necessarily claim the existence of - this deity. The Abrahamic deity. You don't get to re-define this deity, nor make claims that you may later retract just because you don't like that they are being used to disprove the existence of the deity. That's weaselling. I'm sure your deity looks disfavourably upon that.

I have the answer to this. To receive your free "The Truth About God and Other Stuff" info tapes, please send $29.95* to cover S&H, care of "U Can Trust Gabe With Your Monies".

Rest assured, the answers you seek are blowing in the wind, courtesy of the fine folks providing Airmail at the USPS.

*Cashiers Checks only, please.

But Alex, you just prove my point. This is your subjective view on the matter. It's not proof either way.

Well, one can investigate in a similar manner to Forensic Science. Seek to verify if a specific action had an intelligent force. Forensic Science is a valid science. It is used to differentiate from natural causes and intelligent causes.

I don't think you're following me here.

Your stance is "there's no proof either way."

My stance is "in any case where there's not positive proof of a thing, no, the possibility of that thing is not disproven, but the whole thing is simply a non-issue."

The subtle difference here is that you think, or seem to think, that it's still an issue. I really, honestly don't. That's why I also needn't waste valuable time trying to discuss whether or not Space Ghost exists.

No, it is used to differentiate between various forms of human interaction - death from natural causes is ruled only as a negative position after all the various positive assertions of human causes (not "intelligent" causes) have failed, /when human causes are suspected/. There exists /zero/ - that's /none/, /null/, /empty set/ - valid scientific disciplines that can be used to differentiate between "intelligent" causes and "natural" causes - there is only human recognition of what appears to be, and what has been strictly categorised to exclusively be, human causes.

If there were a valid scientific discipline that could differentiate between natural and intelligent causes, Dembski wouldn't have been shamed on the stand in Dover Pennsylvania and Judge Jones would have handed down a significantly different verdict - one that did not chastise for the complete lack of scientific backing the notion of "intelligent design" as science.

If there currently existed a valid scientific discipline that could differentiate between natural and intelligent causes, we'd be building artificial intelligence (sentience).

I've never asserted anything as fact reguarding the existance of God, except that you have not disproven it.

Do you have a problem with reading? I'm fairly certain I've said that before.

So it's a moot point

Since you have no proof, I cannot possibly begin to disprove you.



And as soon as you can present proof to this effect, we might get somewhere.





According to the very artical you cited to try to "educate" me, yes.

Such is the risk of trying to use wikipedia in an arguement.

It's amazing to me that some who claim science proves there is no God would look to an Ex-lawyer (judge) to make an announcement as to what is truth. Judge Jones is now an authority on these issues?

They're actually not based on assumptions. I simply feel that the default position on anything that has no proof should be disbelief. I do not believe in something until I've been convinced that it exists. As long as I'm unconvinced I'm not agnostic about whatever it is. The only time I would ever claim that position is if I felt the evidence was really 50/50. I don't have one standard of evidence for religion and a different one for everything else. That's a cultural affectation that has no basis in logic. If I applied the standard you're using for god to all subjects then I'd be agnostic about everything that's ever been suggested but lacks any evidence. I think that would be irrational.

haha, nice! I KNEW those peanuts in my cupboard were talking about me!

According to the wikipedia article, Syllogistic logic is limited by being able to deal with a small number of types of valid arguments, and because it is cumbersome, complex, and restricted to categorical syllogisms, /as a method/ it has been replaced by predicate logic. I'm sorry, would you like for me to present to you my argument in first-order predicate logic form? You would be even more incapable of following it then, since it would be an argument made in (what is to you) a foreign language, and would require you to actually /define/ your deity in the first place in predicate logic primitives so that I can the represent the inverse of same in my proof. Good luck with that: Goedel, Hofstadter, and Heim await your peerage.

The fact that I used a syllogistic argument, and a syllogistic method, to present my argument makes it no less true and makes it no less of a proof. The fact that quantum theory describes the fundamental workings of particle physics in no way makes the operation of gravity any less true. The fact that there exists branches of mathematics where one can choose certain axioms and thereby demonstrate that 2 + 2 =/= 4 : does not make it correct.

I stated a proof. You have so far nay-sayed it; Tried to escape by equivocating on "magic"; tried (and poorly) to find fault in my method of stating the proof. You're still not even attempting to comprehend what it says, which is the first step in coping.

I did not claim that Science proves there is no God - that is a strawman of what I said.

I said that there is a logical proof of the categorical impossibility of the existence of the Abrahamic deity.

And, hey, guess what? Intelligent Design advocates pushed the issue in Dover, causing it to have to be taken to a court of law, wherein the legal functionary presiding over the case had recourse to actual authorities on the issue. He asked the actual experts - who all roundly and soundly demonstrated that what Dembski was proposing was not actually science, but in fact research to back up his personal religious beliefs. There is a difference. Judge Jones is an authority on the law. The law prohibits the forced teaching of religious notions in public schools. It was determined publicly, roundly, and soundly that "Intelligent Design" is

A: Not science;
B: Based in a fundamentalist literalist biblical christian interpretation of the Old Testament.

I didn't look to him to make a determination as to what is true - I look to him to separate lies from truth, weaselling from forthrightness. He did so, admirably - the facts spoke for themselves, in a public forum, on official public record - and did so because Intelligent Design Advocates demanded that it occur.

Intelligent Design advocates /made him/ undertake the process of becoming an authority on these issues. La!

Despite what you might think, you've said nothing thus far I do not understand. Nor do I expect you ever will.

Believe it or not, I can disagree with you even when I understand you. But, I shouldn't be surprised - that's one of the most common mistakes poeple make around here.



Considering you've yet to demonstrate that you even understand what my position on the subject is, I don't think you know what your talking about.

I've not tried to escape by equivocating on magic, I simply pointed out that you're using two things you have no proof of to disprove each other, which doesn't work.

I don't understand what the fascination is with trying to logic the existence or non-existence of God. Thinking gets you nowhere in the absence of some data to look at. Postulating some requirements for what God is and then shooting them down doesn't strike me as very useful. Either God exists or he doesn't.

I believe I do understand your position Alex. What I hear you saying is that if there is no proof that something exists, then it's not worth considering. Basically you are choosing to simply ignore the issue completely.

I don't personally think that is a very useful way to proceed. There is no positive proof that string theory is correct. In fact, it doesn't look like there ever can be any positive proof that it's correct.

So does that me we should simply ignore it as a non-issue?

Edit: oh, and the Space Ghost analogy doesn't hold, as there is proof that it's just a cartoon.

BUt I can prove thier is no x. The bible is a work of fiction, and all references containing within it are fictiona references to a fictional story. Thus there is no basis in observable reality for a god, and thus no god exists.

While I don't totally agree with what you are saying, I do admire the fact that you are consistent in your beliefs. That is one of the reasons I respect you and the things you post here. Since I have no way to prove you (or myself) right or wrong, consistency is really the only thing I really look for when people state their beliefs.

While it's certainly useful, I don't think your logic works 100% of the time. Like with my example of string theory to Alex. As it stands now it doesn't look like there ever can be positive proof that it's correct. But I think it would be foolish to disbelieve it based solely on that one thing. At this time things tend to suggest that it is correct, at least partly anyway, but there is no proof of that. Dismissing it out of hand because of that would be silly.