If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

Zen, you are correct that simply because something is "believed"...does not mean it is so...no matter how many "believe" it to be so. But the fact that so many people "believe" the Christian thingy...IS evidence that it is so. It is piss poor evidence, as you attempted to illustrate, but even piss poor evidence IS EVIDENCE.

Why? Is the existence of the Flat Earth Society evidence that the Earth is flat?

Is the existence of the first Harry Potter book evidence that young boys can sometimes walk through walls?

Everything that exists IS evidence that there is a GOD who created it...although it also is evidence that there are no gods and that what is...simply is because that is just the way of nature. As to the question of "Is there at least one god?"...there is no evidence that conclusively shows, "YES, there is a GOD" and there also is no evidence that conclusively shows, "NO, there are no gods."

Everything is evidence that everything exists. It says nothing about how it came into existence or if a conscious being brought it into existence.

All one can do is to make a guess...essentially a blind guess, because although there is a gazillion tons of evidence...nobody can show whether it is evidence of the existence of a GOD (gods) or of no gods.

And the nonsense that "it is more likely that there is a GOD" or "it is more likely that there are no gods" are both laughable.

Evidence is OFTEN faulty evidence; evidence is often inconclusive evidence; evidence is sometimes bullshit. Although bullshit is fairly strong evidence of the existence of a bull.

Russell's Teapot is a thought experiment by philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrating that the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary, unfalsifiable claim, not on others to disprove it, often used in debates about religion and God's existence. Russell argued that if he claimed a small teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, it's absurd to demand belief because it's impossible to disprove; the claim itself is baseless without evidence, even if it can't be proven false. The analogy highlights that the absence of disproof isn't proof, and rational belief requires justification, not just the inability to disprove a assertion.

The Analogy Explained
The Claim: Russell posited that he could claim a china teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, too small for telescopes to detect.

The Problem: No one could prove him wrong, as the teapot is undetectable.

Russell's Point: It would be unreasonable to expect people to believe in the teapot just because its non-existence can't be proven; the burden of proof rests with him to provide evidence for his claim.

Application to Religion: He applied this to the existence of God, arguing that theists (or anyone making such a claim) must provide evidence, rather than asking skeptics to disprove God's existence.

 

[ZenMode]

Why did you wait until this late in the game to limit theism to the ancient deities of antiquity and the Middle Ages?

The gods that man believe in, and often structure their lives around, are much more relevant and important than any unknown, ambiguous being that could have somehow been involved in the creation of "everything".

An impersonal clock-maker god or divine spirit has been present in human religious traditions for centuries: pantheism, Spinoza's god, Deism, transcendentalism, etc. And that's primarily because humans observed design and organization in nature.

Yes...man has consistently manufactured invisible beings to explain/control the world around him.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe it can, but that doesn't negate the cause of the other movements.

You can't create energy out of nothing, Void.

Ok.

Electrons move from level to level based on energy.

Such collisions are random.

Are you a science guy or not so much?

It is YOU ignoring science.

You have denied and discarded the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, Heisenberg's law, Newton's law of motion, Einstein's law of relativity, and quantum mechanics.

It is YOU ignoring mathematics.

You have denied statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, random number mathematics, and algebra.

It is YOU ignoring English.

You have yet learned the meaning of:
* climate
* change
* random
* fact
* real
* energy
* religion
* proof
* Universe
* fundamentalism
* faith
* evidence
* proof

...and many others.

Go learn English.
Go learn mathematics.
Go learn science.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Why? Is the existence of the Flat Earth Society evidence that the Earth is flat?

Is the existence of the first Harry Potter book evidence that young boys can sometimes walk through walls?

Everything is evidence that everything exists. It says nothing about how it came into existence or if a conscious being brought it into existence.

Russell's Teapot is a thought experiment by philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrating that the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary, unfalsifiable claim, not on others to disprove it, often used in debates about religion and God's existence. Russell argued that if he claimed a small teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, it's absurd to demand belief because it's impossible to disprove; the claim itself is baseless without evidence, even if it can't be proven false. The analogy highlights that the absence of disproof isn't proof, and rational belief requires justification, not just the inability to disprove a assertion.

The Analogy Explained
The Claim: Russell posited that he could claim a china teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, too small for telescopes to detect.

The Problem: No one could prove him wrong, as the teapot is undetectable.

Russell's Point: It would be unreasonable to expect people to believe in the teapot just because its non-existence can't be proven; the burden of proof rests with him to provide evidence for his claim.

Application to Religion: He applied this to the existence of God, arguing that theists (or anyone making such a claim) must provide evidence, rather than asking skeptics to disprove God's existence.

I agree with him.

So what?

But if a person asserts that there are no gods...then the burden of proof reverts to him/her. Just as if a person asserts that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...bears the burden of proof for that assertion.'

The only reasonable, scientific answer to the question, "Are there any gods?" is...I do not know.

That is the scientific answer also.

Ask an astronomer, "Are there any sentient beings on any of the planets circling the nearest 20 stars to Sol?"...the answer would be, "I have no idea."

 

[ZenMode]

I noticed that you added this word in front of the word 'evidence'... Your opinion ABOUT any particular evidence is irrelevant to the existence of the evidence itself.

Your opinion ABOUT any particular evidence is irrelevant to the existence of the evidence itself.

So you're gonna pick up your ball and go home, eh?

With regard to faith, anything COULD be true (and is thus worth considering). That's simply the nature of faith.

This is your OPINION.

ALL evidence, both FOR and AGAINST, is worth consideration.

What do you mean by that?

Yes, relevant evidence. Meaning, I'm not counting "anything man can think can be evidence for anything else".

I'm not going home. Just not playing ball with the certifiably insane.

 

[gfm7175]

that's just so crazy it just might work.

Master of Disguise

 

[gfm7175]

Yes, relevant evidence. Meaning, I'm not counting "anything man can think can be evidence for anything else".

IOW, you're not counting ANYTHING?

I'm not going home. Just not playing ball with the certifiably insane.

So you're picking up your ball and going home then?

 

[Into the Night]

Why? Is the existence of the Flat Earth Society evidence that the Earth is flat?

Yes.

Is the existence of the first Harry Potter book evidence that young boys can sometimes walk through walls?

It's easy to walk through walls.

Everything is evidence that everything exists.

If something exists, it is proven that it exists (proof by identity, or ?A->A).

It says nothing about how it came into existence or if a conscious being brought it into existence.

The Universe is unorganized. The Earth is organized. It exists. This itself is evidence of a god or gods. Life is organized. That itself is evidence of a god or gods.

Russell's Teapot is a thought experiment by philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrating that the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary, unfalsifiable claim, not on others to disprove it, often used in debates about religion and God's existence. Russell argued that if he claimed a small teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, it's absurd to demand belief because it's impossible to disprove; the claim itself is baseless without evidence, even if it can't be proven false. The analogy highlights that the absence of disproof isn't proof, and rational belief requires justification, not just the inability to disprove a assertion.

Evidence is not a proof.
How do you know a teapot is not orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars?

A negative proof is a fallacy.

The Analogy Explained
The Claim: Russell posited that he could claim a china teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars, too small for telescopes to detect.

The Problem: No one could prove him wrong, as the teapot is undetectable.

Russell's Point: It would be unreasonable to expect people to believe in the teapot just because its non-existence can't be proven; the burden of proof rests with him to provide evidence for his claim.

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not. Evidence is not a proof. A claim is not a proof.

Application to Religion: He applied this to the existence of God, arguing that theists (or anyone making such a claim) must provide evidence, rather than asking skeptics to disprove God's existence.

No one is asking to prove God does not exist. You are deluded.

 

[Into the Night]

The gods that man believe in, and often structure their lives around, are much more relevant and important than any unknown, ambiguous being that could have somehow been involved in the creation of "everything".

Yes...man has consistently manufactured invisible beings to explain/control the world around him.

What makes you think they are manufactured?

 

[gfm7175]

also @gfm7175

I believe that water is 2 parts oxygen and 9 parts hydrogen.

Okay, but you're wrong.

The fact that I believe that is evidence that it might be true.

There is no "might be true". It's definitely NOT true. This thread is about religion, NOT science.

This is a very accurate depiction of yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

Since you can't conduct experiments or collect empirical data on these kind of philosophical questions, you have to use reasoning and logical inference to eliminate the least plausible answers, and arrive at the most likely answer.

Random words. No apparent coherency.

There are really only three explanations for the existence of the universe:

1) The universe is infinitely old, and does not require creation (this idea can be dismissed on the basis of logic and science).

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Denial of logic. Science is not involved. Buzzword fallacy.

2) Matter and energy came into existence from nothing, because of inanimate physical causes (this idea is incoherent and violates physical laws of conservation).

It is coherent, but it does violate physics.

3) Some immaterial and purposeful agency or force outside the spacetime parameters of the universe is responsible for it's origination and it's lawful mathematical organization.

Incoherent. Paradox. Irrational. Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacies. The Universe is unorganized. Organization is not mathematics. There is only one Universe.

 

[Into the Night]

Obviously.

You don't understand the topic.

Random words are not a topic.

 

[Into the Night]

So because you've never been called for Jury duty you figure it's OK that you don't understand how the justice system works?

False equivalence fallacy. Attempted negative proof fallacy.

Interesting.

Calm down, Cletus. I know it bothers you that you are unable to understand this topic. I can't simplify it anymore for you.

You currently have no topic.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't believe any... not one... of the gods that man has made up in his mind exist or ever existed.

How do you know Man made it up?

The idea of a "creator" deity/extraterrestrial force of some kind is much more ambiguous.

God is not ambiguous. Apollo is not ambiguous. The Bible is not ambiguous. Jesus Christ is not ambiguous.

Given that there's no reason to believe that any of the man-made gods is even real, belief or disbelief in an ultimate 'creator', that has never made itself known,

How do you know they are man-made?

I think it is absolutely more likely that there are no gods.. at least none of the gods in the man-written storybooks.

Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.

 

[Into the Night]

Given your views on what is relevant evidence, and what it means, there is literally no reason to have a discussion with you. By your logic, anything that anyone believes to be true is actually worth considering, no matter how insane it is or how much evidence exists to the contrary.

You are the ideal target for religion.

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Void.
Mantra 1d. Lame.

 

[Hume]

Could I get you to reword this into something coherent meaningful?

get lost troll

 

[gfm7175]

get lost troll

Is Baby Hume angwee again?!

 

[Hume]

Is Baby Hume angwee again?!

bye

 

[Hume]

The question wasn't asked if I thought Genesis 1 was an accurate scientific report on cosmic evolution.

That is a separate question.

The question posed was asking how light could exist apart from sun and stars.

zzzzzzzzzz

 

[gmark77]

Whatever.

Ummm...you are a major league dick head. Gotta give you that.

And you are way out of your depth on this one, Cletus.

Watching you post is like watching one of those videos with "Darth Dawkins" trying to debunk atheism. Equally pathetic and equally uneducated.