Sans Dieu Rien

Originally posted by googlefudge

You made a statement of fact.

You claimed god exists.

fine, prove it.

If you can't prove it, you can't know it, thus it isn't fact.

If I were to make claims of fact I would expect people to ask me to prove it, to back those claims up.

It is not unreasonable to ask someone claiming to 'know' something, that something is fact,
to ask them on ...[text shortened]... ve god exists neither I nor anyone else has any reason to take your word that god exists.[/b]

“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those
to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way'" -C.S. Lewis.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You made a statement of fact.

You claimed god exists.

fine, prove it.

If you can't prove it, you can't know it, thus it isn't fact.

If I were to make claims of fact I would expect people to ask me to prove it, to back those claims up.

It is not unreasonable to ask someone claiming to 'know' something, that something is fact,
to ask them o ...[text shortened]... ve god exists neither I nor anyone else has any reason to take your word that god exists.

Can you prove that there is a proton or a quark or a gluon?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Can you prove that there is a proton or a quark or a gluon?

I guess he's taking the other scientists' word for it.

😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
Can you prove that there is a proton or a quark or a gluon?

Me personally...

Proton yes

Quark no

Gluon no.

the reason being that I can build the gear needed to demonstrate the existence of a proton,
However I don't have the ability to build a particle accelerator powerful enough to probe inside
a nucleon as opposed to an atom.
Gluon's similarly.

more in the next post...

Originally posted by Suzianne
I guess he's taking the other scientists' word for it.

😵

Apples and pears.

It is impossible for any one person to discover or prove everything, heck I am not sure
it's even possible to read all the scientific literature there is in a lifetime, and we are
generating more at an exponential rate.

So you have to rely on those people studying a particular field that you are not specialist in
to describe it accurately and truthfully.

Of course because people are people and are fallible as well as occasionally untrustworthy,
science has the best currently known method for verifying that what people claim is actually true.

Peer review, and repeat experiments.

Something isn't considered 'true' or formally discovered until it has been independently verified
and confirmed. (the current investigation into possible ftl neutrinos is a beautiful example of
how it's supposed to work.)

This system isn't perfect, but it is self correcting, due to human nature. It's competitive, people want
to overturn someone else's discovery, win the Nobel Prize, be the next Einstein.
The next generation rebelling against the ideas of the last.

There is no idea in science that isn't challenged by every new generation of scientists hungry for
fame and recognition.

Thus ideas that stick do so because they stand up to scrutiny, time and time again.


Also any idea in science must be repeatable, now while I personally don't have the gear to demonstrate
the existence of subatomic particles, there are many places around the world that do.
In different countries, with different funding, with different scientists, all competing against each other.
When they all agree on something, then that something has a strong basis to trust it.

Also while I don't have the gear, I do have some of the training to analyse the results.
You can access the data and review it, and many do.


So comparing relying on peer reviewed journals and scientific consensus with 'simply taking someone's word'
for something is comparing apples and pears.
they are not the same thing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh, you really don't like typing stuff do you.


Sans Dieu Rien, ........ without god, nothing.



If god doesn't exist, and has never existed, then this is wrong. period.

If god does exist, then it may or may not be wrong. Depending entirely on the nature of god.

So, prove to me god exists and what god's nature is, and we have a discuss ...[text shortened]... your god exists and answers it should be the easiest conversion in history.

Till then...

I keep telling you that salvation is a matter of faith.

As such, there cannot be any proof.

Proof would remove man's free will choice to accept salvation or not.

The choice is up to every person, the choice is theirs alone.

Providing proof takes away that choice, and therefore there can never be proof of God. It's impossible.

If your god exists and answers it should be the easiest conversion in history.

This is precisely why there can be no proof. God will not take away your free will choice.

If you choose.... poorly, then that is your business. Don't expect to be able to talk your way out of it if you're wrong, though.

I ask that you pray to your god and ask what you need to do/say to convince me that your god exists
And is worth worshipping.

This one statement is why I maintain atheists are arrogant. How many times have I heard this from them? Countless times. They might possibly in some weird, million-to-one-odds way believe there is a God, but they can never in a million years accept that there could be a being of any kind that is *worthy* of their worship. That would be the final straw, and they can't have that. That's why we see the "your god is bloodthirsty/insane/evil" arguments.

Sans Ego Rien, I guess. This leads to the conclusion that their only god is themselves.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those
to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way'" -C.S. Lewis.

Posting a cool sounding, but irrelevant, quote, does not constitute actually answering the question,
or meaningfully responding to a point.

Do you have proof of the existence of your god?

If yes, then I would like to see it. (as would everyone else)

If no, then you can't make factual claims about a god you can't actually demonstrates exists.
This includes claiming that it does exist.


Which means discussing hypotheticals which do or not include the existence of god perfectly valid.

In short you don't get to dismiss anyone's arguments or thoughts be asserting as truth that for which you
have no evidence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I keep telling you that salvation is a matter of faith.

As such, there cannot be any proof.

Proof would remove man's free will choice to accept salvation or not.

The choice is up to every person, the choice is theirs alone.

Providing proof takes away that choice, and therefore there can never be proof of God. It's impossible.

[quote]If your ...[text shortened]... Sans Ego Rien, I guess. This leads to the conclusion that their only god is themselves.

I am aware you keep telling me that 'salvation is a matter of faith'....
I know this because you keep telling me this...
Do you ever listen to my replies?

If you are actually prepared to take in my response so we don't 'keep having'
this conversation then I will happily explain it again.

But I'm not going to just repeat my response over and over if you will never take it in.

(note this isn't a matter of you agreeing with my response or position, just that after
telling you several times you aught to know what it is.)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Me personally...

Proton yes

Quark no

Gluon no.

the reason being that I can build the gear needed to demonstrate the existence of a proton,
However I don't have the ability to build a particle accelerator powerful enough to probe inside
a nucleon as opposed to an atom.
Gluon's similarly.

more in the next post...

But can you prove it over the internet? That is what you seem to want
everyone that has a different point of view to do. What I am trying to
point out is that we are no different from you except we have a different
world view. We all believe in things we can not prove personally but
accept as true due to our world view. You accept evolution because you
are an atheist, while I accept intelligent design because I am Christian.
We each can offer what we think is proof by internet articles, etc., but
neither of us have the proof to convince the other to abandon their
world view. So it is a futile effort to try to prove anything to someone
who has made up their mind already. So why even ask for proof when
you already know you are not going to accept it?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Posting a cool sounding, but irrelevant, quote, does not constitute actually answering the question,
or meaningfully responding to a point.

Do you have proof of the existence of your god?

If yes, then I would like to see it. (as would everyone else)

If no, then you can't make factual claims about a god you can't actually demonstrates exists.
...[text shortened]... anyone's arguments or thoughts be asserting as truth that for which you
have no evidence.

We have told you guys over and over what we think is proof for the
existence of God and you refuse to accept it. You have reasons why
you think there is no God. Of course, those reasons are not convincing
to a Christian either. Our world views seem too opposite to come to
any compromise even. So the effort seems futile. Do you agree?

Originally posted by RJHinds
But can you prove it over the internet? That is what you seem to want
everyone that has a different point of view to do. What I am trying to
point out is that we are no different from you except we have a different
world view. We all believe in things we can not prove personally but
accept as true due to our world view. You accept evolution because y ...[text shortened]... mind already. So why even ask for proof when
you already know you are not going to accept it?

No I do not accept evolution because I am an atheist. Stop asserting stuff about me that you
can't and don't know and is wrong.

Why not ask people what their position is rather than decide for them?

I am not an atheist because of evolution.
My acceptance of evolutionary theory as an explanation of the diversity of life on earth is entirely
independent of my reasons for not believing in god or gods.
I know of no atheist who is so because of evolution.
And there are many theists (Christians) who accept evolution as true as well.
In fact the majority of people who accept evolution ARE Christians.
And the majority OF Christians accept evolution.

Atheism and evolution are linked only in the minds of creationists. (most of whom are not Christian
eastern creationists outnumber you by far.)

I do not believe anything personally that I can't prove (excepting the belief that the reality we experience
is real and not some illusion created by some evil demon or some such, I don't hold with solipsism) or justify.
Every belief I hold has evidence and/or reason to back it up.
If I ever come across evidence or reasons that contradict a belief I hold then I change that belief.
And this isn't abstract, as in "if I were ever to find something that contradicted my beliefs then I would change
them honest"... I have in the past encountered evidence/arguments that contradicted what I then believed and
as a consequence I have changed what I believe to accommodate the new evidence.

If I want to convince someone of something, then I will employ reasoned arguments and logic, and where relevant
direct them to the evidence (peer reviewed scientific papers if appropriate).
If I claim something as fact then I should be able to point a person to the evidence and justification for doing so.

If I can't then I don't get to claim it as fact.


If you can't prove the existence of god, then you can't claim it as fact.

If you can, then go here and win a million bucks, (not to mention the Nobel prize)

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-faq.html


I ask people to prove god exists while being confident that they cant, this is true (although if you really can, I am genuinely interested)
But the point is that because they can't do this, they can't claim the thing they cant prove as fact.

You want to avoid this, stop making assertions of fact, and say I believe such and such.
Not something IS such and such.

Knowledge requires proof, without it you have faith, as Suzianne so loves saying.

While I do disagree with your faith, and disagree that having 'blind faith' is reasonable or justified,
what really gets me is claiming what you mearly believe as facts, as knowledge.

Of claiming things as true you can't possibly know.

For one thing it's dishonest.

And I DO care about truth.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am aware you keep telling me that 'salvation is a matter of faith'....
I know this because you keep telling me this...
Do you ever listen to my replies?

If you are actually prepared to take in my response so we don't 'keep having'
this conversation then I will happily explain it again.

But I'm not going to just repeat my response over and ove ...[text shortened]... e or position, just that after
telling you several times you aught to know what it is.)

I do recall throwing a snit that you aren't ready to listen to anyone but yourself. I was probably frustrated that I wasn't getting through to you at all. Like a 0 strength signal out of 10.

I keep telling you "there can be no proof" over and over mainly because you keep asking people for proof. I'm saying "there is no proof! stop asking for it!"

Was your response some arcane logic based argument about evidence and how proof guides your every thought and...

Never mind, maybe you should just tell me again. 😳

Originally posted by googlefudge
No I do not accept evolution because I am an atheist. Stop asserting stuff about me that you
can't and don't know and is wrong.

Why not ask people what their position is rather than decide for them?

I am not an atheist because of evolution.
My acceptance of evolutionary theory as an explanation of the diversity of life on earth is entirely
in ...[text shortened]... t possibly know.

For one thing it's dishonest.

And I DO care about truth.

Why do you lie now, then?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have told you guys over and over what we think is proof for the
existence of God and you refuse to accept it. You have reasons why
you think there is no God. Of course, those reasons are not convincing
to a Christian either. Our world views seem too opposite to come to
any compromise even. So the effort seems futile. Do you agree?

Ok, could you produce a quick list of the 'proofs' (in your own words no links) of god you think you have?

because I haven't seen anything that even vaguely looks like proof.

for example.

If you were to claim (its quite common and I think you have claimed this) that 'the universe' is proof of god.

IE that the universe must have had a creator and that creator is god.

The that is what is known as the cosmological argument. and or the argument from design.

Both have been refuted, and worse, even if valid, only demonstrate A creator, and don't prove that it's your god.




Also, while I do believe that specific god ideas are ridiculous (like the god of the bible) and don't exist.
My general position is of agnostic atheism where I simply claim that the existence of a deity or deities is not proven and
so I simply have no belief that any exist.



Final point.
The point of discussing is not just convincing the other side you are right, or even of changing your own mind.
It's also to understand the other side.
Even if we disagree, it's better to understand what the other sides position is rather than be ignorant of it.

I have no hope of changing your mind, but I might maybe be able to understand your position.
And perhaps at the end you might begin to understand mine.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you lie now, then?

I don't.

I have never 'lied' on this site.

Please try to remember that I consider being accused of lying to be deeply insulting.
And you had better be able to back your assertion up with cast iron evidence.