09 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo dog exists in your room? You should feel deeply ashamed for wasting everyone's time with such a ridiculous example. Most of all, you waste my time by compelling me to respond to such grade school gibberish.
I notice you have not capitalized the word "God". You do know the difference I hope.
If you have evidence that there are no dogs in the room then it is evidence that a dog does not exist in the room. If I have evidence that God has not communicated with me then it is evidence that a God who communicates with every living person does not exist.
I take yo ...[text shortened]... because one supernatural being might exist then all possible supernatural beings might exist.
Dogs are known physical entities. Having been largely responsible for breeding them, we know about every type of dog there is, and their size ranges. "Big Boss", a Yorkshire Terrier, has been listed as the smallest known dog, at 4.7 inches tall. Likewise, "the room" you are referring to (whichever room it is) could be measured and examined in exacting detail. We could even consult the architect and builders, if need be, and inquire about any hidden passages and whatnot. We could search every space capable of harboring a 4.7" tall dog and produce evidence that there is no dog in that room. These are all things that are well within our grasp.
A non-corporeal god (or God), situated within, or encompassing, the vastness of the universe, is another matter altogether. You can never produce evidence that there are "no dogs in that room." It is always possible that God has eluded your detection, or is beyond your means of detection altogether. So you are left with absence of evidence, which, in this case, is NOT evidence of absence. Because you have picked up no communications from God does not mean he hasn't sent communications to you, and certainly doesn't count as evidence that he hasn't communicated with anyone else. If you want to talk about strawmen, then look at your own posts. You set up a god to your liking and then knock him down. Bravo! Excuse me if my applause for your efforts is not forthcoming.
This is now the third day since you've set out to regale us with your evidence that God does not exist. In three days the Lord allegedly created the heavens, the earth, all the waters and vegetation. Not too shabby. In your three days you've managed to introduce the dubious claim that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence, and briefly pointed out that young earth creationists are idiots. *Yawn*. I think RBHill could have done a better job in that timeframe. As a judge who is inclined to be sympathetic to your case, I must say that thus far you have disgraced yourself in these proceedings. Unless you're saving your best evidence for last, I'm prepared to award this one to the theists.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by rwingettWow, I never thought of you as such a pretentious and obnoxious kind of poster. Live and learn.
No dog exists in your room? You should feel deeply ashamed for wasting everyone's time with such a ridiculous example. Most of all, you waste my time by compelling me to respond to such grade school gibberish.
Dogs are known physical entities. Having been largely responsible for breeding them, we know about every type of dog there is, and their size ran ...[text shortened]... aving your best evidence for last, I'm prepared to award this one to the theists.
I'll just put you in the no1marauder cabinet file. I'm sure you'll feel at home. Who knows? Maybe even flattered to be there.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaSince when did you become twhitehead's obedient lackey? Every time I make a post to him in this thread, there you are. But I've always been pretentious and obnoxious, and fully intend to continue being so.
Wow, I never thought of you as such a pretentious and obnoxious kind of poster. Live and learn.
I'll just put you in the no1marauder cabinet file. I'm sure you'll feel at home. Who knows? Maybe even flattered to be there.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaHowever, the fact remains that if that the event itself is testable and there's no reason for the scientist to actually exclude the circumstances, especially when the event is so peculiar.
[b]As a person who views reality on many levels, an individual scientist may find such an event remarkable; but with her "scientific hat" on, she only sees what's properly within the domain of her science.
Very likely to be true for a vast number of scientists, you might even call it professional defect. However, the fact remains that if that the even ...[text shortened]... vist concept) aside all those things can and are studied by several branches of science.[/b]
As I said, the circumstances are simply irrelevant for the particular science that investigates the phenomenon. The preceding conversation would be relevant to a sociologist or psychologist; but the following genetic explanation would not; vice-versa for a neurophysiologist.
The term 'miracle' might be meaningless in modern science exactly because there is no evidence for its existence.
No, the term 'miracle' would be meaningless because the language of science simply cannot express or comprehend such a term.
Why aren't they? Mathematics ... and beauty ... aside all those things can and are studied by several branches of science.
No, they aren't. Mathematics is a non-scientific discipline as it is not in the least bit empirical. Beauty is the subject of aesthetics (a philosophical discipline). Sure, psychologists and sociologists may examine what people think and how they behave when they encounter what they call "beauty", but the term itself has no meaning in those sciences.
09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe question is that the circumstances are scientifically observable, so there's no reason to claim that they cannot be taken into account.
[b]However, the fact remains that if that the event itself is testable and there's no reason for the scientist to actually exclude the circumstances, especially when the event is so peculiar.
As I said, the circumstances are simply irrelevant for the particular science that investigates the phenomenon. The preceding conversation would be releva ncounter what they call "beauty", but the term itself has no meaning in those sciences.[/b]
The term beauty has no absolute meaning as it is a relativistic and subjective notion. It seems unfair to pretend that science needs an absolute definition for a relativistic notion. However, like we both said, some sciences do study how individuals process it neurologically and psychologically, so even relativistic notions can be studied. The point is that 'beauty' as an entity does not exist.
If you wish to claim that God falls in such a relativistic and individually subjective definition then your analogy may be valid. If not, then we're simply debating over a strawman.
PS: I did say apart from Mathematics (for the reasons I gave before) and beauty, though.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by rwingettObedient lackey? Pray tell how you came to such a bright conclusion.
Since when did you become twhitehead's obedient lackey? Every time I make a post to him in this thread, there you are. But I've always been pretentious and obnoxious, and fully intend to continue being so.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYour dogged defense of twhitehead's very mediocre posts in this thread are reminiscent of Condoleeza Rice defending George Bush. One might suspect he's paid you a little something under the table.
Obedient lackey? Pray tell how you came to such a bright conclusion.
09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett2 votes for me now. One day I though I'm smart enough but now I see I was overestimating myself.
You may not be the only idiot here, but you definitely are one of them.
But there something I don't see here, what is the reason?
Palynka one before but I'm curios to know the others, my be I can understand why GOD exist/doesn't exit.
09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettRight. Twhitehead is the Big Satan and you can call me Azazel.
Your dogged defense of twhitehead's very mediocre posts in this thread are reminiscent of Condoleeza Rice defending George Bush. One might suspect he's paid you a little something under the table.
By the way your derogatory posts to twhitehead have clearly raised the level of this thread.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaMy posts are the only thing worth reading in this entire thread.
Right. Twhitehead is the Big Satan and you can call me Azazel.
By the way your derogatory posts to twhitehead have clearly raised the level of this thread.
My entire point here is that if you start a thread with a title as grandiose as "Evidence that there is no God" and then provide as little evidence as twhitehead has done, then you're going to be taken to the woodshed by somebody. I'm not going to abet twhitehead's dismal display of evidence just because he's ostensibly on the same side as me.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting, I don't see the title as grandiose. Even if the evidence is 'little' (which is a somewhat subjective description), it is still evidence. Your view of his posts is contradictory.
My posts are the only thing worth reading in this entire thread.
My entire point here is that if you start a thread with a title as grandiose as "Evidence that there is no God" and then provide as little evidence as twhitehead has done, then you're going to be taken to the woodshed by somebody. I'm not going to abet twhitehead's dismal display of evidence just because he's ostensibly on the same side as me.
PS: Side? There are 'sides' here? Do I need to sign up for a 'side'?