Of course he is. In fact I did ask my mom and she confirmed there is no god. I’ll check with my doctor next visit.
No, but the point is – you could, using the same reasoning you apply to the question of god’s existence. If the justification you’ve given for being non-committal about the god thing is good enough, then it’s good enough for being non-committal about anything, be it people’s ages or elves on the moon; you can’t prove or disprove whether we’re living in a world created last Thursday with the appearance of having a consistent past, or whether or not moon elves exist on an unknown biochemical basis that makes them invisible to our eyes anymore than you can prove or disprove god. Thus, either we judge the justification to be insufficient, or we lose the ability to reason about the world completely.
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.
This thread’s exceeded an acceptable signal to noise ratio, so I’m just going to go on my merry way. Thanks for at least debating the issue honestly, which is more than some of your fellows did. You don’t seem to understand the position I’m trying to describe, but that’s likely as much my fault for linguistic imprecision as it is yours.
I don’t accept “within the scope of human imagination” as equivalent to “relevant”. Otherwise, everything is relevant except the word ‘relevant’.
I’ve spent more time than I care to explaining and re-explaining the same points, so as noted above, I’m leaving the thread, but I thought this was worthy of addressing, as a sort of final stab to get my point across :
This is true if you are forming a hypothesis about observable reality. So long as the matter under consideration is a scientific one. Minimizing entities isn’t relevant in philosophy because you can’t test philosophy.
And for the second time in this thread, two separate posters have admitted god is not real.
No. One needs to have this epistemological groundwork in place in order to even be able to formulate any hypotheses/consider anything in a scientific way. That’s the problem.
In any case, the stance that god’s existence somehow is not a question that has bearing on the real world is something bizarre in and of itself – certainly, you might fail to detect god, because of him cunningly hiding his existence for whatever mysterious reasons he might have, but you also might fail to detect the existence of black swans, for whatever reason, perhaps just because there aren’t any scientists around where black swans live. Does that mean that the existence of black swans is not related to observable reality?
It is **absolutely possible **to verify the existence of God or Gods for almost every conceivable form of such, except the no-see-um kind that we appear to have in this particular version of reality. There are an infinite number of deities, including those in the historical scriptures and traditions of the world’s major religions, who are demonstrably active in the lives of their worshippers. So why is it only now, in an age of reason, science, and information, that they stop providing concrete evidence of their existence? And why does what evidence we have of the past so often fail to correlate with what is presented as historical truth by these religions?
No we can’t–the faeries might be hiding!!! Do you understand what it means to have a nonfalsifiable belief? Religion, faeries, alien abductions, ESP… these all fall under this heading. Freud was really good at this kind of thing, too–if there wasn’t any imagery in your dreams that correspended to what he wanted the interpretation to be, well, even better, because it just meant you were **really **repressed!
If you **truly **believe that religious belief is qualitatively equivalent to atheism, then you **must **give equal creedence to every single other nonfalsifiable belief.
Gee, it’s almost as though these different religions have all evolved from and borrowed from each other, like they were made up (though not necessarily with any intent to decieve) instead of being observed truth. Huh. Go figure. How odd.
The thunder god went for a ride
Upon his favorite filly.
“I’m Thor”, he cried,
The horse replied,
“You forgot you thaddle, thilly”.
Wrong.
I Know The Truth.
The universe was created so that a lusty naked red-head will serve me home-made Belgian Waffles (covered in butter and maple syrup) in bed. Then she’ll turn to me, after we’re done eating and say “Oh Fenris! I seem to have gotten maple syrup all over my firm yet perky breasts and we have no washcloth! Do you know of any way to get them clean for me?”
That there’s war, strife and famine is directly related the fact that, to date, the universe has not fulfilled it’s primary purpose.
You may deny it, but it’s as true as gravity.
You eat waffles? I thought you’d still be full from chowing down on Tyr’s hand…
Eh. I bet his hand is like Chinese food. A hour later and you’re hungry for red-head…
Do atheists know the truth? I am not sure but we know well the religious people do not. There are thousands of religions. They all can not be correct. Therefore it is likely yours is fucked up. Purely on statistics. So lets cull out the ones with contradictions in them. Oops. All gone.
I’m confused here. We’ve had eight pages on “there is (not) God”. Mayhaps if somebody could define God so that we know what it is that is (not) existing?
But that’s the tricky part. Theist apologists say that atheists can’t know the truth because there can’t be a definition of what they don’t believe in.
Hey, Robert Heinlein, since you’re back from the dead, maybe you can confirm or deny the existence of God for us and put an end to this stupid thread.
God: An ethereal almighty creature that exists outside of human knowledge & awareness, while doing absolutely nothing with his superpowers.
Religion: Makes sense of the above through endless and varied childish stories.
Faith: What makes you believe in both absurdities.
Mother: Person who is very disappointed in you when you realize it doesn’t make any damn sense and stop getting up early on Sundays.
Oakminister, with all this bullshit hairsplitting you’ve been doing, you’ve convinced me that theists are even more worthy of disdain than I thought.
You have completely abandoned logic and reason in order to insist that belief in the existence of a god is intellectually respectable and defensible.
You have pretty much achieved the complete opposite of your stated intent in the OP.
Pop Quiz, no looking back through the thread.
- Am I a theist?