Zeus who is the Father of the Greek Pantheon, uses lighting bolts, portrayed as a older gent with white hair and beard. Lives in Mt Olympus.
But again, proving that the physical Mt Olympus doesnt have any trace of Zeus does not disprove Zeus. Disproving one myth about a being does not disprove that being.
Which os course is one hallmark of a Supernatural being. But again, **Disproving one myth about a being does not disprove that being.
**
No, you disproved one myth about Zeus- maybe. Disproving one myth about a being does not disprove that being. No goalposts were moved. You are simply under the odd idea that Disproving one myth about a being proves that being does not exist, which is palpably false.
You didn’t just move the goalposts-You’ve torn them down completely. What would you accept as evidence that Zeus doesn’t exist? I’m not in the mood to jump through your hoops, only to get a smug “No-that ain’t it” every damn time. For someone who claims to want to know the answer to a question you sure are doing your best to insulate yourself from any and/or all possible answers.
Show me the body…
What’s interesting about this example is that we don’t respect Washington because of Parson Weems’ made up miracles, but because of his historically demonstrable actions. On the other hand we are expected to revere Jesus, say, specifically because of miracles, the resurrection being the most important one. If we removed the miracles we get Jesus as a not very successful Messiah candidate.
That we can prove Washington did not throw the dollar across the Potomac hasn’t caused anyone to say his picture should be taken off the one dollar bill. If we could prove there was no resurrection, I’d hope Jesus would come down off a few crosses.
But I’m sure they’d come up with some justification.
So, you’ve convinced me that Zeus, the father of all gods exists. All hail Zeus.
I am perfectly sure that you can’t disprove Zeus. Or Thor. Or YHWH. In light of your pathetic idea that disproving one myth about a being somehow disproves that being I am even more sure.
**Since the great philosophers and skeptics for the last thousand years have been unable to prove G-d doesn’t exist, **I pretty much know you can’t. I was surprised you’d even try, but seeing as you thought that disproving a myth would disprove the being, now I understand.
Look, you can say "The evidence for a deity is weak, biased and unconvincing. My personal philosophy is rather that no gods exist. " and that’s fine. But the idea that *you *could succeed where the great philosophers and skeptics have failed was at best hubris and at worst laughable. I was rather surprised that you thought you could. Haven’t you read up on this?
Look, I have little faith- if any. But I know I couldn’t possibly succeed at a proof that G-d does exist as the great philosophers and believers have failed. I have many faults, but hubris isn’t one of them.
I, personally have doubts. But the Greek Myths are very important in Western Civilization.
I revere and respect Jesus due to His Teachings, not his miracles. However, if you look at His miracles, you’ll see that most are pretty explainable. Healing the sick? Any good tent revivalist can do the same- and any quack with sugar pills can too.
Jesus the man is worthy of our respect and admiration. Your Faith or lack thereof will decide whether or not Jesus the Son of G-d is worthy of your worship.
I gave you the two conditions.
You not only failed those two conditions, you did your best not to provide.
Come back when this isn’t a snide little game for you.
I gave you them. But honestly Czarcasm did you really think that you could succeed where the great philosophers and skeptics for the last thousand years have failed? Hubris much?
Did you *really *think that disproving a single myth about a being disproved that beings very existence?:dubious: Come on now.
But now I can prove that Sherlock Holmes isn’t fictional. By Sherlock Holmes of course I mean the father of our country whose face appears on the dollar bill. I just had to change a few of the attributes normally associated with Sherlock Holmes.
Unless you are willing to settle down on some of the aspects of the God you want us to disprove there is not a lot of point.
Cut the crap,
I asked for two things-a description to the best of your ability of the particular god you you want disproved and the place it resides so that I know where to look for it. What have he extremely reluctantly got from you in return?
A demand that ALL gods be disproved.
Just a name-Zeus.
The name and a a demand the we “Google” it ourselves.
The name and a wiki link…which YOU later said wasn’t accurate!
When the location provided doesn’t show any evidence that any gods resided there, you made the claim that he resided in a magical version of the same place(how convenient for you).
When it was shown that Zeus couldn’t be throwing lightning bolts because lightning doesn’t work that way, you claimed that the myth was disproved, but Zeus wasn’t.
And to top it all off, when asking more than once what you would accept as proof, you said…absofuckinglutely nothing.
I am done with your nonsense on this subject.
You set a challenge that no one asked or demanded.
I say, I don’t see any need to believe in a god to explain the universe.
You reply, you can’t prove there is no god. As if that has any relevance to the atheist position.
While it is also explained that to be an atheist doesn’t mean that you claim to have knowledge or proof of the absense of the divine, it is also put to you that if you would define a specific god, then we can have a discussion about what the chances of that actual god existing. We are willing to play your little game.
But then you keep changing the rules of it, and trying to declare victory.
People who had doubts a little ways back got fed to the lions.
And that’s all well and good as well. It is when you start telling other people how to live their lives, because your god said so, that there is an onus upon those who are claiming to be speaking for god to at least prove that he exists.
Disproving an aspect or a myth does not disprove the being. where on earth do you guys get that idea? Why do you think you can succeed where thousands of years of great minds have failed?
Perhaps they too had people “helping” them by being extremely vague and evasive, giving responses that they knew would stall legitimate inquiry?
I did. *Zeus who is the Father of the Greek Pantheon, uses lighting bolts, portrayed as a older gent with white hair and beard. Lives in Mt Olympus.
And yes, you can no more prove that G-d doesnt exist than Kant, Hume, Nietzsche and Russell could. Do you honestly think that you are smarter than they are? That you can come up with some marvelous proof that those great minds failed to notice? You can’t honestly think that disproving a single aspect of a myth disproves the being. Here are the philosophical arguments against G-d:
Do you see: “Proving a myth is false disproved the deity”? No. It’s not even considered a *bad *argument. The closest thing you have is the “Argument from inconsistent revelations”.
I mean, thousands of years ago no doubt some young skeptic climbed to the top of Mt Olympus and loudly proclaimed that he saw no sign of Zeus, et al. Do you think that spelled the end of Greek religion? Or do you think that Plato, etc all laughed him out of town? Did you think that would work? When it hasn’t worked for three thousand years? I mean, when you first posted that, I didnt even think you were serious. No one would think that was a “proof”. I honestly expected you to come up with some version of The Problem of Evil or something, which is at least, a interesting philosophical argument.
I suggest you read that page, and maybe some Kant, Hume, Nietzsche and Russell. I have. They have some pretty great ideas and minds, but still, they failed (but made some interesting points). At least you’d know what arguments have been tried and have failed. Instead of something pathetic like you did. 
Sad, really.
Oh no. **Czarcasm **made a claim he could disprove any Deity i cared to mention. Since I was pretty sure he couldnt, since many great minds have failed, I took him up on it.
I never changed the rules, as I never set any rules. Czarcasm made a offer, so i accepted. I even named one. Czarcasm tried to set some rules after he made and accepted the offer. I didnt accept those new rules. Disproving a myth about a being does not disprove that being.
What is the difference between “telling other people how to live their lives because your god said so” or because Miss Manners sez so, or because society sez so, or because great philosophers say so, or because it simply is “the best way to live”?
Are you somehow hurt because I tell you to "Do unto others are you would have them do unto you" because Jesus said so (and so did Hillel the Elder) or because that is just a good way to live your life?
This is a factual claim you have made repeatedly:
Furthermore, you haven’t backed up that claim with any evidence. Which of course you couldn’t, both because it’s not an empirical proposition, and more simply because it’s wrong.
But that response is only effective if the claim you base it on (see above) is right. But it isn’t; so your response is inadequate.
So you honestly think the claim ‘2 + 2 = 4’ isn’t credible, because there’s no evidence for it. It’s an interesting point of view I grant, but not one you’ll find much agreement with.
You keep claiming that, but this is itself a claim one would have to argue for (or, well, if it were true, present evidence for). Why should something that is presented without evidence in every case be capable of dismissal without reason? Again, I present you the example of mathematical truths: they have no evidence, yet they can’t be dismissed. So far, you haven’t addressed this at all.
Why not? Many people are convinced that mathematical entities have at least some kind of Platonic existence; why wouldn’t that be relevant to god? Does god have to exist in the same, physical way a table exists, or, if you hold that the kind of existence a prime has is different from that of a table, why couldn’t god have that kind of existence? Why couldn’t there be another kind of existence, if you’re already admitting two?
I’m not sure which proofs you’re talking about. God as a necessary being is part of the definition, not something which is proven about god. Take for instance the Stanford Encyclopedia article on God and Other Necessary Beings, which states that
So that’s I think something a theist could plausibly hold of their conception of god.
That’s an entirely different discussion, though. I point out the possibility that a god could exist such that at least some persons have direct knowledge of that god, in the same way that some of us have knowledge of abstracta like mathematical objects, or certain subjective states. “Proof” of such a god would be just as mistaken as “proof” of really experiencing what we seem to experience. If I have a certain experience—say, of a sharp pain in my left ankle—I need not further prove to myself that I have this experience; I simply have it, and that’s that. As far as I know, there’s nothing that says knowledge of god couldn’t be like that.
As for how one could prove this to others, I don’t know. But then, how do I prove to you that I actually have phenomenally conscious states? I trust you believe me that I do based on the fact that you have them (I believe), and we’re overall pretty similar beings.
No, I’m saying that as far as I can tell, there’s nothing that says that knowledge of god couldn’t be similar to knowledge of my subjective states. Mathematical entities are not ‘internal sensations’, yet I have knowledge of them that isn’t mediated by evidence.
Furthermore, it’s not entirely clear whether the distinction ‘external’ and ‘internal’ really applies to a divine being. On most conceptions, god is thought to be omnipresent and immanent; on certain flavors of mind / body dualism, god is thought to mediate between mental states and the physical world, thus being in direct contact with our internal sensations.
Again, this misunderstands the analogy I’m drawing. On that conception, knowledge of god isn’t caused by something external, it’s caused, if you will, by god’s direct presence in experience. Such knowledge isn’t subject to the kind of doubt that knowledge of the external world is—even Descartes found limits to doubt, after all.
If you have experience of god in this way, it’s just as impossible to doubt as your experience of a headache—which after all is what a headache is.
Maybe think of it this way. There are several channels through which we can acquire knowledge. One is evidence: we believe something because we have good evidence it is true. Another is inference: from some set of items of knowledge, something else follows necessarily. A close cousin is (mathematical) proof: from accepted axioms, we conclude facts about abstract entities. And finally, there’s experience itself: if you have a certain pain, or see a certain color, hear a certain sound, you have immediate
and incorrigible knowledge of your experience of that pain, that color, or that sound (this does not imply having knowledge of the causes of the pain, the color- or sound-experience—there might neither be a color nor a sound out there in the world at all—but you have privileged access to your experience of these things; you do have those experiences, and you know it).
So the following are possible: having knowledge of things without evidence; having existential knowledge without evidence (as in about the existence of abstract entities); and having incorrigible knowledge without evidence. There does not seem to be any reason (that I can see) those should not be capable of occurring together: having incorrigible existential knowledge without evidence. Call this ‘revelation’, if you will.
That doesn’t mean I think it’s likely. Indeed, I have no reason to believe it’s possible, never having experienced such knowledge. But then, there’s lots of knowledge I haven’t experienced, and that mere fact isn’t grounds for dismissing its possibility. I’m a ‘weak disbeliever’ in this kind of knowledge, you might say.
Note that nothing I’ve said above implies that if somebody claims to have perfect revelatory knowledge of god, we’d have to believe them, or even alter our beliefs about the existence of perfect revelatory knowledge. Even if that somebody believes themselves to have that kind of knowledge, that doesn’t mean they’re right. For instance, you might believe to have had the experience of eating salmon, but, unbeknownst to you, it was actually halibut. The experience you had, and your knowledge of it, is genuine, but it’s not the experience you thought it was. Once you get to eat salmon, you’ll realize your error—so that’s what salmon actually tastes like!
And indeed, there’s no reason to believe that every religious person in history hasn’t been victim to such a misidentification—that what they thought was experience of god was in fact just gas from too many beans.