Where’s The Evidence?

[Questionmark]

I understand your perspective Wyman, but like you I too must disagree ever so slightly.

The possibilty of 'an architect' versus 'a random coincidence' as the first cause of all and beyond, is not like discussing Santa Claus or other fairy tales and such to be real, yes?

Yet you say "If we look at probabilities and proceed in a pragmatic, empirical spirit (leaving talk of absolutes and 'proofs' behind us as nonsensical), we can indeed meaningfully speak of evidence tending against the existence of God.", based on evidence that works the other way around just as easy. ( for the discussion, if you would like to defend this by examples do so)

And like the article also mentions; “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” but the whole problem remains it seems impossible to prove the absence of any deity, but that is nor prove nor hard evidence, which like you said yourself, may perhaps ever be.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to draw here, I'll take some more time later on to put more precisely in words what I mean.

[Conde Lucanor]

And like the article also mentions; “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” but the whole problem remains it seems impossible to prove the absence of any deity,

Actually, it is quite possible to prove the absence of a deity, if the essential attributes that define that entity, the realm where it dwells and what drives its actions, have been established.

[uwot]

Actually, it is quite possible to prove the absence of a deity, if the essential attributes that define that entity, the realm where it dwells and what drives its actions, have been established.

Well, yes, all sorts of gods have been shown to be false, but there will always be a god that is just beyond what science can see, and there will always be nutters who think they know what that god wants from us.

[Impenitent]

Well, yes, all sorts of gods have been shown to be false, but there will always be a god that is just beyond what science can see, and there will always be nutters who think they know what that god wants from us.

Lemmy wants you to rock on...

-Imp

[uwot]

Lemmy wants you to rock on...

I'd be amazed if Lemmy gives a fuck, I haven't seen him in twenty years.

[Questionmark]

Well, some thing has done some fucking thing some where one fucking way or the other, else earth and life wouldn't be here. But now to say, if this creator was God, it obviously doesn't care, well because, we as a human species are fucking up in too many ways to describe, and therefore God probably doesn't exist.

Maybe this 'moment' caused itself own its own, anyhow its safer to say we as a species don't care and are ruining all other life on this planet. Don't blame it on what might have made us..

Sorry for the swearing, but the quantity and quality of humanity is the only fucking problem this planet has.
Maybe God is just as dissaspointed in us, or do you think the absence of a creator allows us to go on like this?

Mark

[attofishpi]

Arising? Can you at least answer one of my points (below) before bowing out from the argument you started.

Take a holistic consideration of the universe and intelligent species exsiting and developing within it. Ok lets take ourselves as an approach. We are likely in the future to discover a way for immortality. At some point in said universe increasing entropy is gonna be a real pain in the ass for such an existence. Does a conditional 'God' now sound appropriate?

Why do you think it probable that immortality will be discovered? It's more probable that we'll just go extinct.

And if we don't\didn't? You do now agree that a conditional 'God' would be appropriate?

[Questionmark]

Attofishpi, Arising obivously doesnt agree since the condition for your God is your own egocentric delusion thinking that humanity is "likely in the future to discover a way for immortality." and thus, eh neither do i..

Maybe i miss the effect because there is not really anything close to half a cause for 'your conditional God'.

[attofishpi]

Attofishpi, Arising obivously doesnt agree since the condition for your God is your own egocentric delusion thinking that humanity is "likely in the future to discover a way for immortality." and thus, eh neither do i..

Maybe i miss the effect because there is not really anything close to half a cause for 'your conditional God'.

Egocentrically deluded?
You've obviously read barely a thing i've stated and are now allowing your arrogance to get the better of you.
If i thought someone of your meagre intelligence worthy of answering for the likes of Arising then perhaps i would let it stand, but alas you are dim.

Still over to you Arising..

[Questionmark]

Attofishpi, Arising obivously doesnt agree since the condition for your God is your own egocentric delusion thinking that humanity is "likely in the future to discover a way for immortality." and thus, eh neither do i..

Maybe i miss the effect because there is not really anything close to half a cause for 'your conditional God'.

Egocentrically deluded?
You've obviously read barely a thing i've stated and are now allowing your arrogance to get the better of you.
If i thought someone of your meagre intelligence worthy of answering for the likes of Arising then perhaps i would let it stand, but alas you are dim.

Still over to you Arising..

Yes, i might be wrong, maybe you are, maybe we both are wrong. Lets wait for Arising.

In the mean time though, let me say i did read more than you think.

Perhaps as an atheist you should attempt to prove otherwise.
Perhaps you ought to show how it can govern all of our reality. Better still, just show me this 'God'?

Personal experience Arising...for 17 years i have been tested and i have tested it back. This God is all that you are and all that you see\taste\touch\smell\hear.

Just shaking the palm tree here, no offense intended, but reality is what ever is real to me, maybe thats all there is, maybe its a deception, or maybe heck do i know, all i can tell you if the balance soon isnt right, things are going to go downhill..

[uwot]

Mr fishpi, if all you want is a personal squabble with Arising, perhaps you could start a dedicated thread and see how he responds. Otherwise, do you not think it rich to demand answers to your questions, when you have yet to respond to this exchange?

Is there a reason for DOUBT?

Have a think about it, I think there is.

The thing is, there could be any number of reasons for doubt. I've heard all sorts of variations of the free-will argument, which are nearly always consistent with the hypothesis that there exists a god of the sort that would demand or create such free-will. I don't know what sort of god you are pondering, but after years of doing so, a coherent story should be the least of your achievements.
I've seen you say that you have personal experience of god. What role does doubt have in your relationship with her?

And by what standards do you judge Questionmark 'dim'? I don't see anything to suggest that you are appreciably less so.

[attofishpi]

Mr fishpi, if all you want is a personal squabble with Arising, perhaps you could start a dedicated thread and see how he responds. Otherwise, do you not think it rich to demand answers to your questions, when you have yet to respond to this exchange?

I don't consider my argument with Arising a personal squabble. Arising is one of the few people on this board that on the whole will argue sensibly and rationally and for that i have the utmost respect for him. The answer i am requesting from Arising, as he would be fully aware is the key to my argument, since we have gone toe to toe for so long on this journey i thought he would be at least man enough to provide one..

Is there a reason for DOUBT?

Have a think about it, I think there is.

The thing is, there could be any number of reasons for doubt. I've heard all sorts of variations of the free-will argument, which are nearly always consistent with the hypothesis that there exists a god of the sort that would demand or create such free-will. I don't know what sort of god you are pondering, but after years of doing so, a coherent story should be the least of your achievements.
I've seen you say that you have personal experience of god. What role does doubt have in your relationship with her?

I have every intention of answering this, having just returned from a holiday and now entertaining a large contingent of my 'pommie' family, i was simply hoping for a simple answer from Arising.
Perhaps you can address where my 'story' is incoherent.

And by what standards do you judge Questionmark 'dim'? I don't see anything to suggest that you are appreciably less so.

You call me deluded, i'll call you dim...pretty simple tit-4-tat really.

[uwot]

Perhaps you can address where my 'story' is incoherent.

Various people are credited with the quip that truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense; Mark Twain and Tom Clancy are two that I know of. A coherent story is no big deal; you can make a story that is consistent with any premise; it doesn't follow that the premise is true. What evidence, apart from your story, do you have that god is directing the evolution of language?

[attofishpi]

Various people are credited with the quip that truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense; Mark Twain and Tom Clancy are two that I know of. A coherent story is no big deal; you can make a story that is consistent with any premise; it doesn't follow that the premise is true. What evidence, apart from your story, do you have that god is directing the evolution of language?

Sorry uwot for the delayed response -tad busy.
I don't agree with your reasoning behind the quip that truth is stranger than fiction. The reason for the quip truth is stranger than fiction for me is because the very fact that a such an absurd set of circumstances exist that are true renders it stranger than if someone was to simply make it up.
"Reality is a convoluted apparition of the truth." - though i wouldnt consider it a quip, it is one of mine.

Knowing that God\'God' exists and the fact that its 'being' is all existence made me look at reality from a different angle and search for anomolies that could be used to convince others. Apart from a few landmark anomolies, i was pursuaded by a sage (that i have never met in the flesh-that's part of the story you wish to avoid) to delve into the anomolies within language.
So though I don't KNOW that God has been manipulating the English language (being all pervasive and also within the minds of man- panentheism) I certainly do believe it do be so.
The evidence is within many of the words of the English language where there are further logical intracies embedded within the word where that reason to be there is totally unrelated to the natural etymology of the word.

[uwot]

So though I don't KNOW that God has been manipulating the English language (being all pervasive and also within the minds of man- panentheism) I certainly do believe it do be so.
The evidence is within many of the words of the English language where there are further logical intracies embedded within the word where that reason to be there is totally unrelated to the natural etymology of the word.

For all I know, you are right. But it is a very odd way for an almighty being to communicate. Why now? and why you? It does seem very personalised. Why do you suppose this god cannot find a way to communicate with the likes of me?