Two problems: firstly, you don't know whether or not to "expect some." Secondly, there's lots of evidence, and nothing can really be done about the people who are choosing not to acknowledge the evidence in front of their eyes. They'll do whatever they do.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:58 amAbsence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:11 amHow does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 am Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time.
the righteous tyrant
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22455
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=509796 time=1620181755 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=509793 time=1620179902 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=509771 time=1620173500 user_id=9431]
How does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?
[/quote]
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some.[/quote]
Two problems: firstly, you don't know whether or not to "expect some." Secondly, there's lots of evidence, and nothing can really be done about the people who are choosing not to acknowledge the evidence in front of their eyes. They'll do whatever they do.
[/quote]
Nope. The consensus of great minds is in; god is a willful delusion.
[quote=Advocate post_id=509793 time=1620179902 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=509771 time=1620173500 user_id=9431]
How does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?
[/quote]
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some.[/quote]
Two problems: firstly, you don't know whether or not to "expect some." Secondly, there's lots of evidence, and nothing can really be done about the people who are choosing not to acknowledge the evidence in front of their eyes. They'll do whatever they do.
[/quote]
Nope. The consensus of great minds is in; god is a willful delusion.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: the righteous tyrant
I suppose it depends on the kind of God we're talkin' about.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:58 amAbsence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some. The kind of all-encompassing power that god supposedly is would have infinitely greater effects, immediately, and be forever writ large in the annuls of history if verifiable evidence were ever found than life on Mars, sustainability, cold fusion, etc. would cause.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:11 amHow does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 am Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time.
The theist's God is personable, interested, involved: you might be well-justified sayin' a absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some.
The deist's God, now there's an entirely different kinda animal: creative, indifferent, uninvolved. Evidence for this God may be spare, subtle, may have to be inferred cuz observation might be impossible.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22455
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
That's because you are defining "god" as it who agrees with you. Nobody believes in your god quite the way you do. Of the billions of people past and present, why do you suppose god created a world so in tune with your understanding?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:09 amI guess you're defining "great minds" as those who agree with you. Me, I'd call them what God calls them...
Re: the righteous tyrant
LOOK, you STILL CAN NOT SEE what IS ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and is ACTUALLY True, here.
What is ACTUALLY True is NOTHING like what 'you' think here.
Also, what is 'god', to you? And, does it differ from 'God'? If so, how?
Re: the righteous tyrant
Bummer. Oh well.
God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote=uwot post_id=509871 time=1620226542 user_id=7941]
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]LOOK, you STILL CAN NOT SEE [i]what IS[/i] ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and is ACTUALLY True, here.[/quote]Bummer. Oh well.
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]Also, what is 'god', to you? And, does it differ from 'God'? If so, how?[/quote]God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
[/quote]
There is no start, there is only a finish. #igtheism
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]LOOK, you STILL CAN NOT SEE [i]what IS[/i] ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and is ACTUALLY True, here.[/quote]Bummer. Oh well.
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]Also, what is 'god', to you? And, does it differ from 'God'? If so, how?[/quote]God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
[/quote]
There is no start, there is only a finish. #igtheism
Re: the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote=Age post_id=509937 time=1620294843 user_id=16237]
[quote=uwot post_id=509871 time=1620226542 user_id=7941]
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]LOOK, you STILL CAN NOT SEE [i]what IS[/i] ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and is ACTUALLY True, here.[/quote]Bummer. Oh well.
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]Also, what is 'god', to you? And, does it differ from 'God'? If so, how?[/quote]God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
[/quote]
At the beginning.
[/quote]
There's your problem. There are no beginnings in Actuality, only in minds according to purposes.
[quote=uwot post_id=509871 time=1620226542 user_id=7941]
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]LOOK, you STILL CAN NOT SEE [i]what IS[/i] ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and is ACTUALLY True, here.[/quote]Bummer. Oh well.
[quote=Age post_id=509835 time=1620212603 user_id=16237]Also, what is 'god', to you? And, does it differ from 'God'? If so, how?[/quote]God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
[/quote]
At the beginning.
[/quote]
There's your problem. There are no beginnings in Actuality, only in minds according to purposes.
Re: the righteous tyrant
Would you know a rhetorical question if it bit you on the bum?
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote=uwot post_id=509959 time=1620302284 user_id=7941]
[quote=Age post_id=509937 time=1620294843 user_id=16237][quote=uwot post_id=509871 time=1620226542 user_id=7941]God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
[/quote]
At the beginning.[/quote]Would you know a rhetorical question if it bit you on the bum?
[/quote]
What if that was a rhetorical question?
[quote=Age post_id=509937 time=1620294843 user_id=16237][quote=uwot post_id=509871 time=1620226542 user_id=7941]God with a little g is an ontological hypothesis based on crummy evidence and hopeless logic. There are so many versions of 'God' that even 'God' differs from 'God'. Where do you want to start?
[/quote]
At the beginning.[/quote]Would you know a rhetorical question if it bit you on the bum?
[/quote]
What if that was a rhetorical question?
Re: the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
Very true.
And, this could go on forever, as already evidenced, and PROVEN.
Furthermore, do you think that that one even realizes that when the words 'a rhetorical question' are used that this means different things to different people
I wonder if they would think that this is 'a rhetorical question'?
Re: the righteous tyrant
By the way, a person who asks 'rhetorical questions' can be just more CLEAR and QUICK evidence and proof of 'the righteous tyrant'.