08 Jul 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThat is an arbitrary allocation of the burden of proof.
Evidence against god? None needed. The burden of proof is on those that claim it exists to provide the evidence.
What if I say the existence of the Universe is prima facie evidence of the existence of a creator of said Universe just as the existence of my computer is prima facie evidence of the existence of a creator of that computer; and the burden of proof is on you to disprove the existence of a creator?
Why is your assertion any more valid than mine?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76It's not that arbitrary. Those that make the positive claim have the burden.
That is an arbitrary allocation of the burden of proof.
What if I say the existence of the Universe is prima facie evidence of the existence of a creator of said Universe just as the existence of my computer is prima facie evidence of the existence of a creator of that computer; and the burden of proof is on you to disprove the existence of a creator?
Why is your assertion any more valid than mine?
You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that there isn't an invisible and intangible pink unicorn hovering over your head... can you? You can't see it, but it's invisible so that's expected. You can't touch it, well that's expected too since it's intangible. So where's your evidence that it's not there?
The point is that if I claim that the unicorn exists then the burden of proof is on me to provide evidence that it does.
You can claim that the universe is evidence of a creator and that argument has been made ad nauseum. The problem with the analogy of the computer is that we can observe computers being made. We make them and we have a comparison as to how to identify them. They also are inanimate and do not have the properties that life does - i.e. they don't reproduce and they don't mutate if they did.
Your claim of that being evidence is well, a claim that can be argued, but many people suggest that those that the existence of god needs to somehow be accepted as a default and disproven.
08 Jul 09
Woohoo Faux Rage! 🙂
And to add irony to the mix I will use Faux News to dispell Faux Rage.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/07/pentagon-denies-god-country-family-fesitval-fly-request/
Air Force Denies Request for Flyover at Christian Festival
A defense department official told FOX News the Air Force denied the request because it violates a Pentagon policy
Snip
A defense department official told FOX News the Air Force denied the request because it violates a Pentagon policy against supporting any event "that provides a selective benefit to any individual, group, or organization, including any religious or sectarian organization, ideological movement, political campaign or organization, or commercial enterprise, to include a shopping mall or motion picture promotion."
The Air Force was in charge of the decision-making process, meaning neither the secretary of defense nor President Obama weighed in directly, the official said.
And although the Air Force wouldn't dispute the festival board's claim of longtime military participation, the military doesn't keep records on this type of event, the official told FOX News.
Capt. Tom Wenz from Air Force public affairs told FOX News that past participation was due to the fact that the event was described only as a "patriotic tribute," and the Air Force wasn't aware until now of the apparent focus on Christianity, despite the festival's name.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76What corny, asinine hyperbole! You head into a 'substantive debate' laying this Foxsest of Fox type talking points down as your marker? You'd be more at home in the shrill chat rooms of www.freerepublic.com And what's your latest? ...if one says the existence of the Universe is prima facie evidence of the existence of God then the burden of proof is on others to disprove God's existence? This is your "clear rational debate with solid arguments based on solid reasoning"? This is what ought to be taught - and "required by law" - in public schools? Good heavens.
public schools are practically required by law to teach atheism to children
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFLOL; You're digging back 10 pages of thread for something you already responded to a few times just to have an excuse to bash me.
What corny, asinine hyperbole! You head into a 'substantive debate' laying this Foxsest of Fox type talking points down as your marker? You'd be more at home in the shrill chat rooms of www.freerepublic.com And what's your latest? [i]...if one says the existence of the Universe is prima facie evidence of the existence of God then the burden of proof is on others ...[text shortened]... s is what ought to be taught - and "required by law" - in public schools? Good heavens.
You're getting desperate, my friend.
09 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76And that is a lame retort. Daft tripe on the level of 'the evil powers that be, poisoning the good bodily essences of Americans' is as good a litmus test as any of what desparately malcontented right wing lightweights consider to be "clear rational debate with solid arguments based on solid reasoning". The extent to which you get 'bashed' - including by me, just now, for piffle about the 'burden of proof' you came up with on this, page 12 - after uttering such utherpendragonesque twaddle is a matter for you and not a matter for me.
LOL; You're digging back 10 pages of thread for something you already responded to a few times just to have an excuse to bash me.
You're getting desperate, my friend.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFYou're the only idiot who "bashed" me. Everyone else responded. Even if your insecure and petty little mind can't comprehend the distinction, the distinction exists.
And that is a lame retort. Daft tripe on the level of 'the evil powers that be poisoning the good bodily essences of Americans' is as good a litmus test as any of what desparately malcontented right wing lightweights consider to be "clear rational debate with solid arguments based on solid reasoning". The extent to which you get 'bashed' after uttering such utherpendragonesque twaddle is a matter for you and not a matter for me.
09 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76One wonders why you require uniformity and conformity from others on the internet. What political instincts drive that? Ah yes, but of course, you're a kind of intellectual fundementalist who wants public schools to tell children that they must accept that they will be taught about God because they cannot disprove his existence. Good grief. My insecure and petty little mind certainly does comprehend the distinction between your kind of credulous christian mindmap (with you champing at the bit to legally superimpose it on others) and the mindmaps of those posters who have chosen to indulge you on this thread. You named them. Me, meanwhile, just finds your pontifications - especially when couched as "clear rational debate with solid arguments based on solid reasoning" - as intellectually insulting and wearisome.
You're the only idiot who "bashed" me. Everyone else responded. Even if your insecure and petty little mind can't comprehend the distinction, the distinction exists.
09 Jul 09
Let's remove the biblical description of "God" and our genesis for a moment.
Everything that happens in the universe was destined to happen based on the conditions surrounding it. For example; the path and speed a comet will travel has been pre-decided by the conditions that caused the comet. And whatever caused the comet to take flight had conditions that led up to that taking place before that. In fact, you can trace backwards infinately to determine that everything that happens was decided an infinate time ago based on science and physics.
And.. absent some form of a higher power that is beyond what we understand to be science and physics... that includes HUMANS. You aren't really "choosing" to type on RHP. You are simply a result of the universe playing out its natural course in strict adherence to the laws of science. In other words - in the truest sense.. there is no FREE WILL.
When you really wrap your mind around it can an atheist really believe in free will? You don't really make decisions for yourself. The conjuction of chemistry and electrical impulses in your brain that make you "think" you do were predetermined infinate years ago.
Deep.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThat's a good question.
Let's remove the biblical description of "God" and our genesis for a moment.
Everything that happens in the universe was destined to happen based on the conditions surrounding it. For example; the path and speed a comet will travel has been pre-decided by the conditions that caused the comet. And whatever caused the comet to take flight had con ...[text shortened]... our brain that make you "think" you do were predetermined infinate years ago.
Deep.
Of course, there is also a good argument that you can't have free will if a god that knows the future and is always right exists. After all, if god knows you're going to choose the Toyota then you're really wasting your time at the Honda dealership since god knows you're going to buy the Toyota and he's always right.
Even if there were a "higher power" that enables free will. How does that power enable free will? Isn't that just essentially a god of the gaps argument or really a power of the gaps? We don't know with certainty why we have this will and ability to choose so it's because of some power?
If you believed that your decisions were just due to these chemical reactions etc.. as you suggest then would you act differently?
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFOkay; great. You've had your chance to blow off some steam. Feel better? Now go to work and produce something for society. Maybe by the time you get home you'll be able to figure out a way to put words in generalissimo's mouth or Macswain's mouth and bash them and we'll start the cycle again. I'll still be here in a week or two after you finish your upcoming fights with the rest of your targets. I promise.
One wonders why you require uniformity and conformity from others on the internet. What political instincts drive that? Ah yes, but of course, you're a kind of intellectual fundementalist who wants public schools to tell children that they must accept that they will be taught about God because they cannot disprove his existence. Good grief. My insecure and petty ...[text shortened]... e with solid arguments based on solid reasoning" - as intellectually insulting and wearisome.
09 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76What a dreary, evasive response.
Okay; great. You've had your chance to blow off some steam. Feel better? Now go to work and produce something for society. Maybe by the time you get home you'll be able to figure out a way to put words in generalissimo's mouth or Macswain's mouth and bash them and we'll start the cycle again. I'll still be here in a week or two after you finish your upcoming fights with the rest of your targets. I promise.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperEven religious people have taken your position. I believe they're called... Calvinists. 🙂
Let's remove the biblical description of "God" and our genesis for a moment.
Everything that happens in the universe was destined to happen based on the conditions surrounding it. For example; the path and speed a comet will travel has been pre-decided by the conditions that caused the comet. And whatever caused the comet to take flight had con ...[text shortened]... our brain that make you "think" you do were predetermined infinate years ago.
Deep.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYour first point goes back to what I said about the biblical explanation for "God"
That's a good question.
Of course, there is also a good argument that you can't have free will if a god that knows the future and is always right exists. After all, if god knows you're going to choose the Toyota then you're really wasting your time at the Honda dealership since god knows you're going to buy the Toyota and he's always right.
Even i ...[text shortened]... due to these chemical reactions etc.. as you suggest then would you act differently?
I believe in a higher power of sorts, the nature of which is a mystery to me. I do believe life is much more than random. I do not believe that random matter can suddenly become selfaware. Billions of years of evelution isn't even a blink in the scope of time and the universe.
So who is God? What is his nature? Where did GOD come from??
Excellent questions. I believe humans lack the ability to conceptualize it. It's like this....
Show a monkey a microchip. He won't know WTF it is. Go back in time 200 years and show a human the same microchip and he also won't know WTF it is. BUT, you can teach the human everything about it. The monkey you can't. Why? The human simply lacks knowledge but the monkey lacks the ability to conceptualize it.
With all of our amazing accomplishments and everything we've learned, as a species we fail to realize that our wonderful minds still has limits. There are some things we are simply incapable of learning or understanding.