Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 123
Thanks Tree33Thanks

Thread: Why?

  1. #51
    Veteran Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    25,269
    Thanks
    24484

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    So no proof then, as usual. Spittle-flecked rants by religious extremists don't cut it.

  2. #52
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    It has been explained, repeatedly, that the only rational position of a thing's existence is to assume non-existence until affirmative objective, verifiable evidence to support that thing's existence is presented. "The universe could not have come into existence on it's own, So it must have been God" is not a sufficient answer, because:

    a) It is insistence that the universe was brought into being by someone/something for which there is not, yet, even evidence to demonstrate exists.
    The law of inertia, remember?

    The universe couldn't have expanded itself on its own so something outside the universe did so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I could just as easily claim a Giant Invisible Leprechaun created the universe. First, I would need to present evidence that the Giant Invisible Leprechaun exists. Otherwise, I am only asserting an unproven presumption.
    That is precisely what physical cosmology is doing -- which is called the 'cosmological constant' instead of 'giant invisible leprecahaun'.

    Aside from the fact that it is associated with empty space and that it is expanding the universe against the effects of gravity, nothing can be said about it. It does, however, give an explanation of an objective fact -- hubble expansion.

    So:

    Positing something supernatural (outside the universe) or positing a negative energy attributed to empty space capable of expanding the universe at rates faster than the speed of light. How is one different form the other, hmmmm?

    Hint -- one is more intuitive than the other.

    They are both logical, however, since leaving something at 'I don't know' puts everything you know under question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    b) it is irrational, and unproductive to simply fill every unknown with "God did it," A better solution to a question of "Why did x happen?" is simply, "I don't know, let's find out,"
    Correct.

    What is irrational is to conclude something with certainty from ignorance. Atheism concludes something with certainty from an incomplete and/or unknowable aspect of the physical world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Without objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, ascribing to God the cause of anything is irrational.
    So what objective, verifiable evidence do you have for dark matter/energy -- aside from the fact that it explains the phenomenon of an expansion of accelerating rates, hmmm?

  3. #53
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Really? And what makes "demonstrate objective evidence" perverted, or biased?
    Nothing -- except that what passes for objective evidence for one thing, you unilaterally discard for another thing. That is not only biased, it is hypocritical.

  4. #54
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You are attempting to make a philosophical argument to justify an objective claim.
    Which is what philosophy normally does. In fact, it is philosophy that sets the standard for objectivity in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    If you want to insist that God exists as a philosophical construct, okay. I can allow for that.
    Except that a philosophical construct is what defines objectivity to begin with -- something that can be said to be IMMUTABLY true. By that standard, even science cannot be said to be objective.

    The laws of motion for example -- how sure are you that they are, in fact, scientific laws? Have you verified that they hold true everywhere in the universe?

    Actually, that is a moot point. Science already said reality is not only relative, it is also probabilistic -- depending in what scale you wish to view reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Except you guys want to insist that God exists as an objective entity.
    Correct. That is what the law of inertia is saying -- that the outside force capable of moving something from an inertial state should be an objective entity to begin with. After all, wishful thinking could never move anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    As soon as you move into that arena, we are no longer in the realm of philosophical discussions, and have moved into the realm of scientific research. Either there is objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of an objectively existent God, or there isn't. If there isn't, then there is no basis for asserting that God objectively exists.
    But science, formerly called natural philosophy, is merely a philosophical subject of inquiry (among many subjects of inquiry).

  5. #55
    Established Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,089
    Thanks
    687

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why is the first reaction to anyone who criticises a religion - particularly Christianity - is "You hate Christianity," or some variation thereof? I mean, Christians consistently criticise homosexuality, yet they get offended if it is even hinted that they are homophobic, or hate homosexuals. Why would criticism of religion be any different?

    Fair warning, any response that is an attack of the poster ("You know you hate Christians", etc) will simply be ignored. Honest discussion only welcomed.
    Christianity is a religion in direct opposition to your religion, environmentalism. They're your enemies. You are theirs.

    ENVIRONMENTALISM AS RELIGION

    This was not the first discussion of environmentalism as a religion, but it caught on and was widely quoted. Michael explains why religious approaches to the environment are inappropriate and cause damage to the natural world they intent to protect.

  6. #56
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Of the existence of God. That is the only argument that rational theists have: present objective, verifiable evidence that God exists.
    That is a done deal -- in view of the law of inertia. Unless of course you have something to say about that.

  7. #57
    Established Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,089
    Thanks
    687

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    So no proof then, as usual. Spittle-flecked rants by religious extremists don't cut it.
    Well, according to, James Lovelock, you're just as much a religious extremist as anybody else. I believe he may well be right.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...alism-religion

    Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: "It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain."

    Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: "It’s become a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts." The retired scientist, who worked at the Medical Research Council, describes himself as an "old-fashioned green."

  8. #58
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Yeah, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.

    That is nonsense.

    The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim -- regardless of an affirmative or a negative claim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...ing_a_negative

    A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[13] Saying "You cannot prove a negative" has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

  9. #59
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,337
    Thanks
    323

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    No, I'm not. I am claiming that there is insufficient objective evidence to assert that God exists. "God does not exist" is the null claim. The affirmative claim is "God exists". Until such evidence is presented to support the affirmative claim, the rational position is the Null claim. You trying to turn the argument on its ear doesn't make you right. My position is not conclusively that God does not exist. There is insufficient evidence to assert conclusively that God exists. Demonstrate otherwise.

    In the meantime, feel free to explain why this position is "perverse", or "hypocritical"?
    A negative claim is merely an affirmative claim of the non-existence or exclusion of something. In this sense, algebraic operations apply to logic.

  10. #60
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,898
    Thanks
    4498

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why not? You're saying he does exist, and have no objective evidence. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

    As to Gödel's alleged "God formula", you realise that his "proof" relies on axioms that are questionable, correct? Since you linked to this story, I presume that you know the axioms of Gödel's proof, and understand the significance of the axioms, and what happens to the equation, if those axioms are not logically sound. Or did you just do a Google search for "Proof of God", and hoped that I would be unfamiliar with Gödel's work? I mean, you know that Gödel never asserted that God does exist, only that God can. I have never denied that God can exist. I have merely asked for objective evidence that God does exist.
    I responded to you. You are the one claiming God does not exist but you just spew useless opinions and democrat lies

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed