my reasons

Post Reply New Topic

No. Logically speaking, I'm saying the default position: there is no evidence for a god so therefore there is no god. You're the one making an assertion that something exists therefore the onus is on you to produce the evidence.

But, logically speaking, I didn't say ANYTHING. You made the assertion by stating the "default position." The only thing I said in this thread regarding God at all was my OPINION on the book of Job. And if you want EVIDENCE in support of my OPINION on Job, you may read the book of Job itself to see whether my OPINION is properly supported by evidence or not. You may find my OPINION is supported, which I PERSONALLY think it is, or you may find it is NOT, which is entirely your prerogative.

But I have not within THIS thread made any such assertion as to the existence or non-existence of an invisible superbeing in the sky. YOU made that assertion. Therefore the onus is on YOU (skafather) to provide such evidence.

And we're being specific here. An "invisible superbeing in the sky" is not how I think of God or gods. A god might or might not be such an "invisible superbeing in the sky." By your assertion, this has nothing to do with any God or gods that I or anyone else worship. This has to do with an "invisible superbeing..." etc. I don't have to bring forth evidence. You do.

Evidence, please.

A lack of evidence to prove something exists does not prove that alleged whatever does *not* exist. The confusion you are experiencing here is exactly what people with little intellectual honesty often actually *want* you to experience as a direct effect caused by their word dances within a rhetorical arena where mere mental masturbations take place.

So we should all keep our eyes open for aliens, the yeti, the Loch Ness monster, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, zombies, vampires, witches, Bigfoot, perpetual motion machines, time machines, and whatever else because it's not fiction, it's just not proven to exist yet.

And from that list, there's a greater likelihood of a time machine or perpetual motion machine before there's a deity.

Just because you're running around in circles does not mean you're getting somewhere, just needlessly expending energy.

Just because you accused me of running around in circles does not mean you've provided evidence.

Again, I've already explained the bit about there is no evidence needed for something to be assumed to not exist. And I won't waste my time responding your absurdities regarding trying to spin semantics to your favor when you're just plain and simply wrong. You wanna stop all the verbal gymnastics to try and avoid the point at hand then, at that point, I might take you seriously but until then I'll defer to my previous responses.

Ah, now there you go once again ...

The fact of something being "not proven to exist yet" neither proves nor disproves anything related to alleged fiction!

My own perpetual argument:

I will share my personal experience with permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism and then point-by-point at least logically disprove any explanation other than what I happen to believe as being "the power of 'God' in human transformation" ("Alcoholics Anonymous", the book) ... and I will have no need to give even the slightest flip if nobody else thus becomes convinced.

However, I will at least say me and Job do most-definitely agree.

The power of belief is what transforms humanity. The belief in mythology assists in that but it's the belief itself that does the transformation, not an outside force other than the mental changing of the paradigm. One thing I don't like about stories about recovering {x}'s is that it tends to focus on the wrong aspects of things and turns it into an all or nothing situation for those on the other side of such "miracles". However, I prefer to believe that most things have at least 3 options/choices (though, not all) and this is one such case. It's not merely a paradigm of "alcoholic or god", it's the paradigm of "alcoholic, belief in an externalized force which grants one the belief that they can change, and belief that one can change without such externalized force." It's the belief that you can change that changes you; not god...the story helps some people reinforce that belief but at the end of the day, it's the power of the human mind that gets the job done.

Why not just not?

I should have said nuk, not jo. Pole.

Fail.

Then by all means give me evidence that there isn't an "invisible superbeing in the sky." What's absurd here is the fact that you've mentally conjured up a being that by virtue (or vice) of being invisible you yourself cannot prove to exist or not exist. THAT'S what's absurd, here. You said it, not me. I don't have to twist anything around; they are YOUR OWN WORDS. So back it up.

But you can't back it up, can you? If you can't back it up, that makes you the one who is wrong. I made no such assertions to the effect you did. Another problem I have is you just changed your story--"there is no evidence needed for something to be assumed to not exist." Why is it something to be assumed to not exist? You made up a character that might or might not exist. You cannot assume it either way--either it does exist or it doesn't, and you made an assertion to the effect that it does not. I simply asked for evidence for which you refused. Also, scientific reasoning doesn't "assume" anything. It collects evidence and draws conclusions. In that sense, science cannot make up its mind about invisible superbeings other than to say that within the scope of science such a thing doesn't exist. What science CAN do is provide some basis for comparison between what science knows to be within the current realm of physical knowledge and what is known to be impossible--for example whether there is enough water on/in the planet for a complete and total worldwide flood or if a single normal-sized basket contains enough bread and fish to feed a multitude of 4000+ on two separate occasions--or whether an average-sized camel can casually walk through the eye of an average-sized needle. Whether it is possible or not is beyond the realm of scientific thought, not NOT beyond the realm of an "invisible superbeing." What we have to agree on is exactly the nature of such a being and whether we can reasonably assume that such a being exists.

If you are biased against "invisible superbeings" from the outset, you may make unreasonable assumptions about them. Bias in scientific reasoning leads to bad science, however--i.e. not science at all but merely a set of assumptions which are probably incorrect.

Your biggest mistake was not articulating exactly what you meant. I'm not playing a semantics game, I'm just going on what you said. If we are to ASSUME there is no such being, then you are correct in that science isn't concerned about digging up evidence for it. That opens up a whole other line of argument I don't care to get into at the moment, such as the admissibility and validity of certain types of evidence and whether there exists legitimate knowledge that isn't empirical knowledge.

My point of contention is you did not SAY "ASSUMING there is no superbeing..." You simply asserted "there IS no superbeing." Without ASSUMING (here we go again) that creation itself is evidence of a Creator and that Yahweh makes the most sense being said Creator, there is no empirical evidence for or against. Which means that neither the existence of God nor the non-existence of God is within the realm of science. Well, there's no empirical evidence of emotions, either, but we all accept the existence of emotions. Some people will say that psychology is not a legit science because of the specific kinds of data it collects, which is highly subjective. Psychologists might disagree. So while science doesn't assume invisible superbeings to exist, it neither makes assumptions that they cannot exist. For a long time, just as an example, certain planets were not assumed to exist based on the powers of observation at the time. It was also noted that gravity of other orbiting bodies (planets and their satellites) had a profound effect on each other. At a glance, it might appear that planetary orbits are erratic and unpredictable when those planets don't end up where they're "supposed" to be. An astronomer would have to conclude the only solution that makes the best sense is the existence of an invisible planet--EVEN THOUGH current science doesn't provide any direct observation of another planet. And, of course, as we've become better at viewing our immediate solar system we've confirmed the existence of these mystery planets.

Black holes really ARE invisible superbeings in the sky, come to think of it. They emit no light whatsoever and are prone (we think) to actually capturing light particles and bending light beams due to gravitational effects. The only evidence of black holes are x-ray emissions most likely caused from the effects of a quantum singularity on matter occurring at the event horizon. That's it. That's all we know. So does science simply dismiss black holes as merely a hypothesis? No, because that wouldn't be science at all.

So if science doesn't rest on assumptions that black holes don't exist because they are invisible, why should science rest on the assumption that other invisible superbeings in the sky don't exist? Well, it really doesn't. All you can say is "My opinion is God/gods/Invisible-Superbeings-In-The-Sky (ISITS) don't exist because of X, Y, and Z." If you make an assertion with the ASSUMPTION that God/etc. do not exist, then that ought to be made clear. But if you make a faulty assertion that ISITS do not exist, as though you have a way to determine this in any certain way, then don't be so surprised if someone calls you on it. I can determine how many (if any) oranges I have in my house and how many pounds of raw peanuts I have to put on to boil. Likewise, I can show evidence that there are none if that is so. So if you have evidence that isits don't exist, it would be greatly appreciated.

Last edited by AngelRho on 29 Dec 2010, 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You wanna stop all the verbal gymnastics to try and avoid the point at hand then, at that point, I might take you seriously but until then I'll defer to my previous responses.

Who's avoiding anything? You're the one not providing evidence. Besides, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it so.

Concepts for things unseen and merely theoretical and without satisfactory direct current evidence rest basically on their utility. It seems obvious that some people find God a necessary component of their life. I have always found the idea unjustifiable and an encumbrance to clear and useful thinking. So I ignore it as best I can and never found any value in it. Whenever it becomes useful I will reconsider.

Because God is believed, while perpetual motion, Binker, and flying saucers fueled by green cheese are not culturally normal.

I actually believe that the burden of proof is somewhat culturally relativized, as new ideas tend to carry the burden of proof, and culture can itself be viewed as a form of evidence.

You are right though, in a culture without the idea of God, there would be no meaning for "reasons to disbelief".