Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

It this right?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2010 11:52:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

Oh shut up you stupid troll.

Obligatory troll line, everyone who posts after this is a yadda yadda you get the drill.
_____________________________________________________________________
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 8:30:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

no... there's just no reason to THINK he exists.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 8:30:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/24/2010 11:52:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

Oh shut up you stupid troll.

Obligatory troll line, everyone who posts after this is a yadda yadda you get the drill.
_____________________________________________________________________

8)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 10:52:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not by sheer virtue of lack of evidence alone, without considering the other variables, that would be fallacious.

But an omnipotent benevolent being would probably WANT to provide evidence, and therefore would make some, so...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2010 1:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 1:12:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. The logical impossibility of God's existence means that God must not exist.

*sigh* only certain conceptions of god. the ones easy to define out of existence... the rest depends on induction :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.

But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.

But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?

Negative proof fallacy, you do not need proof to assert a negative statement unless proof has been given for a positive version of the statement.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:47:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM, GodSands wrote:
But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?

Then you dont believe that No Gods exist, either. That simple.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 7:55:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.

But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?

If God does not exist, there cannot be any evidence for that... the question of where the evidence for God's NON-existence is a nonsensical question.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 8:00:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 1:14:39 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:12:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. The logical impossibility of God's existence means that God must not exist.

*sigh* only certain conceptions of god. the ones easy to define out of existence... the rest depends on induction :P

What?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 9:29:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 8:00:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:14:39 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:12:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. The logical impossibility of God's existence means that God must not exist.

*sigh* only certain conceptions of god. the ones easy to define out of existence... the rest depends on induction :P

What?

Logic deals with concepts. A logical impossibility of god requires a specific conception to be labeled logically impossible. You can't use an amorphous term like God to disprove the concept of it without first adding limiting definitions, of which there is multiple sorts.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 9:33:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 9:29:01 PM, Puck wrote:
Logic deals with concepts. A logical impossibility of god requires a specific conception to be labeled logically impossible. You can't use an amorphous term like God to disprove the concept of it without first adding limiting definitions, of which there is multiple sorts.

So do you believe God is logically impossible? And just curious, are you a Strong Atheist a Weak Atheist?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 9:34:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/25/2010 8:30:08 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

no... there's just no reason to THINK he exists.

I think you emphasized the wrong part of that sentence.

It should read: "no... there's just NO REASON to think he exists."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 9:34:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 9:33:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/27/2010 9:29:01 PM, Puck wrote:
Logic deals with concepts. A logical impossibility of god requires a specific conception to be labeled logically impossible. You can't use an amorphous term like God to disprove the concept of it without first adding limiting definitions, of which there is multiple sorts.

So do you believe God is logically impossible?

So you understood nothing of what I wrote? :P

And just curious, are you a Strong Atheist a Weak Atheist?

Latter.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 9:57:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 9:34:20 PM, Puck wrote:
At 7/27/2010 9:33:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/27/2010 9:29:01 PM, Puck wrote:
Logic deals with concepts. A logical impossibility of god requires a specific conception to be labeled logically impossible. You can't use an amorphous term like God to disprove the concept of it without first adding limiting definitions, of which there is multiple sorts.

So do you believe God is logically impossible?

So you understood nothing of what I wrote? :P

You said a logical impossibility of God requires a specific conception. I assumed that you agreed that you must have a specific conception of God for the thought of God to even be coherent. It seemed that you admitted that specific conceptions of God with certain defining traits are logically impossible.

And just curious, are you a Strong Atheist a Weak Atheist?

Latter.

Boooo. I thought you'd be a Strong Atheist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 10:01:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 9:57:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/27/2010 9:34:20 PM, Puck wrote:
At 7/27/2010 9:33:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/27/2010 9:29:01 PM, Puck wrote:
Logic deals with concepts. A logical impossibility of god requires a specific conception to be labeled logically impossible. You can't use an amorphous term like God to disprove the concept of it without first adding limiting definitions, of which there is multiple sorts.

So do you believe God is logically impossible?

So you understood nothing of what I wrote? :P

You said a logical impossibility of God requires a specific conception. I assumed that you agreed that you must have a specific conception of God for the thought of God to even be coherent.

The term God is vague enough. Just look at different religions, sects within religions, religions through history etc. To be logically impossible it needs to be precise and clearly defined. Once you have defined concepts you can apply logic to it.

It seemed that you admitted that specific conceptions of God with certain defining traits are logically impossible.

Sure - 'God' by itself isn't a defined concept though. Once you add attributes you have something to work with.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2010 4:27:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 8:00:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:14:39 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/25/2010 1:12:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. The logical impossibility of God's existence means that God must not exist.

*sigh* only certain conceptions of god. the ones easy to define out of existence... the rest depends on induction :P

What?

say you use one of the incompatible properties arguments to prove god is logically impossible. the theist then goes- but thats not my god! tweaks their definition slightly, and god is no longer logically impossible. god has to be defined very specifically in order for the logical impossibility argument to hold.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2010 7:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/27/2010 4:08:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.

But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?

Negative proof fallacy, you do not need proof to assert a negative statement unless proof has been given for a positive version of the statement.


Negative? Why does an absence of God have to be a negative? If there is no God, then surely God is mans expression to stimulate the unthinkable 'thing' or concept that really exists instead of God, right? Oh wait, no I get it, there isn't anything, not even an unthinkable mind boggling 'thing' or concept, which isn't a 'thing' or a human concept. But something so mind boggling that it doesn't deserve to be called anything. Nothing isn't even good enough, it is beyond all understanding, even beyond an infinite God with no limitations at all. It is beyond God and more powerful, not wait, darn it, I am getting carried away again, it isn't anything. But it has to be something....'Shut up, God doesn't exist!' No I am not speaking of God, but something that brought the universe into existence, yet it so powerful, it cannot interact in anyway with this universe. The universe is probably a piece of dust for whatever it is which cannot be understood or mentioned in the slightest since people will think I or anyone else is speaking of God that does not exist.

So what created the universe out of interested, from a human understanding? 'Nothing, actually, not even that, I don't know?' So you don't know? 'No, but science will find out one day I bet my life on it.' How could science discover what created the universe if science is apart of the universe and cannot be used as a external tool? 'Now what a silly question. Science, nothing is impossible for it.' I beg to differ. 'Science will one day discover how the universe was created, right now we use philosophy, I mean the Big Bang isn't far off.' Far off! The Big Bang is speculated, firstly just because galaxies are moving apart, that doesn't mean they were once together. To say they were once together is a guess, since there is another option which is perfectly legitimate, that being a all powerful creator aka God created the universe in a perfect stable condition. 'Don't be draft, science clearly shows that the universe derived from what is called, Mr, the Big Bang. Well why then are galaxies 200 million light years away equal in appearance to galaxies 2 million light years away, for if light did actually travel from 200 million light year away, they should be 198 million light years behind the galaxies only 2 million light years away, yet their spirals are in equal distance apart from each other. How would the Big Bang theory explain that? 'I am sure there is an answer to that, we aren't stupid.' But to solve that 'challenge' almost, speculation is only on the menu. 'So your saying the majority of today's scientists are wrong?' Well if they believe that, then well yeah I am. 'Haha, go on...' Logic clearly shows that just because galaxies are moving apart, it does not mean they were once together in some kind of unformed formation. A bang went 'boom!' and that caused things to expand, allowing things to move further apart. It seems to me that you are traveling backwards, you didn't experience the Big Bang (why capitals?) but you have experienced or at least heard those who study space, cosmologists say that galaxies are moving further apart from each other. I doubt that not.

But what I do doubt although I do not see why it isn't a good explanation to how the galaxies came into being, into existence, but I would say the Big Bang is the beginning to explaining where the universe originated from. At least God gets to the point, and by going by my understanding, and by my logic, intelligence of a supreme kind only seems logical. Even a explosion, or whatever you call the Big Bang seems to have a ton of intelligence behind it's cause. For why then and why an explosion? Why are the laws of physics like they are, even Richard Dawkins admits that is something no scientists will ever answer. However, go and believe in the Big Bang and the non-existence of God, but don't call it science, it is faith based, speculated and over-rated.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2010 7:47:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/28/2010 7:45:22 PM, GodSands wrote:

Something no one will prolly take the time to read.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2010 7:50:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/28/2010 7:45:22 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/27/2010 4:08:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.

But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?

Negative proof fallacy, you do not need proof to assert a negative statement unless proof has been given for a positive version of the statement.


Negative? Why does an absence of God have to be a negative? If there is no God, then surely God is mans expression to stimulate the unthinkable 'thing' or concept that really exists instead of God, right? Oh wait, no I get it, there isn't anything, not even an unthinkable mind boggling 'thing' or concept, which isn't a 'thing' or a human concept. But something so mind boggling that it doesn't deserve to be called anything. Nothing isn't even good enough, it is beyond all understanding, even beyond an infinite God with no limitations at all. It is beyond God and more powerful, not wait, darn it, I am getting carried away again, it isn't anything. But it has to be something....'Shut up, God doesn't exist!' No I am not speaking of God, but something that brought the universe into existence, yet it so powerful, it cannot interact in anyway with this universe. The universe is probably a piece of dust for whatever it is which cannot be understood or mentioned in the slightest since people will think I or anyone else is speaking of God that does not exist.

So what created the universe out of interested, from a human understanding? 'Nothing, actually, not even that, I don't know?' So you don't know? 'No, but science will find out one day I bet my life on it.' How could science discover what created the universe if science is apart of the universe and cannot be used as a external tool? 'Now what a silly question. Science, nothing is impossible for it.' I beg to differ. 'Science will one day discover how the universe was created, right now we use philosophy, I mean the Big Bang isn't far off.' Far off! The Big Bang is speculated, firstly just because galaxies are moving apart, that doesn't mean they were once together. To say they were once together is a guess, since there is another option which is perfectly legitimate, that being a all powerful creator aka God created the universe in a perfect stable condition. 'Don't be draft, science clearly shows that the universe derived from what is called, Mr, the Big Bang. Well why then are galaxies 200 million light years away equal in appearance to galaxies 2 million light years away, for if light did actually travel from 200 million light year away, they should be 198 million light years behind the galaxies only 2 million light years away, yet their spirals are in equal distance apart from each other. How would the Big Bang theory explain that? 'I am sure there is an answer to that, we aren't stupid.' But to solve that 'challenge' almost, speculation is only on the menu. 'So your saying the majority of today's scientists are wrong?' Well if they believe that, then well yeah I am. 'Haha, go on...' Logic clearly shows that just because galaxies are moving apart, it does not mean they were once together in some kind of unformed formation. A bang went 'boom!' and that caused things to expand, allowing things to move further apart. It seems to me that you are traveling backwards, you didn't experience the Big Bang (why capitals?) but you have experienced or at least heard those who study space, cosmologists say that galaxies are moving further apart from each other. I doubt that not.

But what I do doubt although I do not see why it isn't a good explanation to how the galaxies came into being, into existence, but I would say the Big Bang is the beginning to explaining where the universe originated from. At least God gets to the point, and by going by my understanding, and by my logic, intelligence of a supreme kind only seems logical. Even a explosion, or whatever you call the Big Bang seems to have a ton of intelligence behind it's cause. For why then and why an explosion? Why are the laws of physics like they are, even Richard Dawkins admits that is something no scientists will ever answer. However, go and believe in the Big Bang and the non-existence of God, but don't call it science, it is faith based, speculated and over-rated.


(An extrea add on). 'Arr, whatever man, you haven't a clue what science is used for and what it can achieve, do something useful with your time and read a SCIENCE text book on the Big Bang, oh and on evolution, because you don't believe in that either. I mean who doesn't, in the right mind believe in evolution. Everbody has to believe in evolution. It is a FACT! Science has proved it to be long ago.'

(Add on).
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/28/2010 8:02:27 PM, badger wrote:
keep it coming godsands.. i couldn't agree more.

I will do more of those. I'll do one on Christainity next.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:18:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/28/2010 7:45:22 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/27/2010 4:08:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:55:52 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 7/27/2010 12:48:43 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/24/2010 11:35:55 PM, GodSands wrote:
A lack of evidence to support God's existence, must mean God must not exist?

Is this correct?

No. A lack of evidence to support God's existence means that it is automatically more logical to NOT believe in God.

But there is also a lack of evidence to say God does not exist, what do you say to that?

Negative proof fallacy, you do not need proof to assert a negative statement unless proof has been given for a positive version of the statement.


tl;dr

You are asserting a negative statement (e.g. God does not exist) requires proof. That's a fallacy. Unless you have presented proof in favour of the positive version of the statement (E.g. Proof that God does exist), then it's a fallacy.

In the same way if I say Unicorns do exist, and shift the burden onto you to prove they do not exist. I can't do that unless I first give sufficient proof of a Unicorn existing.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.