Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[BreezeWood]

.

The cyclic models - all but one - violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, have major flaws and do not work. The lone exception of the cyclic models is not really a cyclic model as it has increasing time between cycles such that it to had a beginning.

you ignore the fact all matter is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle and will in unison return to their origin at the same time and recompress to initiate a new moment of Singularity, BB is cyclical.

No. I am just ignoring you until your manners improve.

.

No. I am just ignoring you until your manners improve.

you ignore the fact all matter is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle and will in unison return to their origin at the same time and recompress to initiate a new moment of Singularity, BB is cyclical.

the Boomerang Theory answers your question irregardless your thin disposition - look it up, you won't find it in this case it is my own so you may age without ever knowing ...

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

 

[BreezeWood]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Atheism really is an intellectual dead end.

.

Atheism really is an intellectual dead end.

then you agree Flora is vibrant ...

the OP has not made their case and neither have you.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

 

[Czernobog]

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

 

[sealybobo]

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

 

[sealybobo]

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

I believe time existed before our universe but that's unknowable and i believe space stretches infinitely outward far beyond our universe

 

[Czernobog]

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.
No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

I believe time existed before our universe but that's unknowable and i believe space stretches infinitely outward far beyond our universe

I'm not so sure about time, as time is rather a human construct to describe the affect on human perception of the period between cause and effect. Would that period exist without human perception? Sure. But the measurement is purely a human construct.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

I believe time existed before our universe but that's unknowable and i believe space stretches infinitely outward far beyond our universe

I'm not so sure about time, as time is rather a human construct to describe the affect on human perception of the period between cause and effect. Would that period exist without human perception? Sure. But the measurement is purely a human construct.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I know but you can't put God in a box. Look ahead any direction. God can and is everywhere you look in every direction and you can not tell God he went too far. You can always keep going.

I think we are one bubble in a lava lamp only an infinite sea of lava lamps. Bubbles pop, merge and are born every second. Google's of them.

You see how small a Tardigrade is to us. Then you see how small our planet is, or our sun compared to other sun's. And there are how many galaxies in our universe?

We just discovered a 9th planet in our solar system. We don't know shit. I'm sure our universe is just one. We are nano nothing.

 

[Mudda]

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

You're claiming out of nowhere that you didn't rape my daughter, which would automatically seems suspicious and would warrant a closer look at you by the cops.

Again, claiming that things do not exist because man hasn't discovered them yet is like saying, just before Columbus set sail, that there was nothing to find. Well, you could say that, but you'd be wrong, whether Columbus ever sets sail or not.

 

[Mudda]

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

 

[WillReadmore]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

Sorry for the gross rambling here, but ...

I have a very different idea of what agnosticism means to me.

First, honestly not knowing can't be a sign of arrogance. And, even you point out that we don't have a way of knowing - or at least we don't have a way of proving. We only have the null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean we know.

The problem with "timid" is that it misses where the strength is being applied.

The problem here is that if we can't prove one way or the other whether God exists we need get the heck off of that issue and move on to how we are going to live together as a society with different beliefs. We're not going to write some posts here and kill Christianity, Islam AND Judaism. And, butting heads is NOT how we make progress with humans. So, not butting heads isn't a matter of "timid".

So, where to apply the pressure?

The conversation needs to turn toward what comes after we recognize that we're not going to kill religion - at least not in the next few centuries.

But, I AM ready to be an evangelist, just not one selling that God is a ridiculous concept.

What I care about is that we come to understand the importance and methods of incorporating science in our public policy decision making.

I don't need anyone to believe god is dead in order to make progress on that.

One of the very first steps in that is to demonstrate that religion and science are NOT opposing forces. Even the Pope points out that science and religion are different "realms". We need to see how that works.

I think there is a distance to go on this, as I'm sure you will agree that a lot of people don't even know what science IS.

Today, we have congressmen who actively oppose science!! They back the anti-vaccination movement. They support homeopathy. The consider colleges and universities the hot bed of evil - literally!!

Today we have a president elect who very clearly bases decisions in the moment, without any thought of creating a long term policy direction or consulting experts.

Today we have a public that would seemingly have no idea of how to detect whether what they are reading is true.

We aren't going to do well as a nation under these circumstances.

 

[sealybobo]

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.
No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

You're claiming out of nowhere that you didn't rape my daughter, which would automatically seems suspicious and would warrant a closer look at you by the cops.

Again, claiming that things do not exist because man hasn't discovered them yet is like saying, just before Columbus set sail, that there was nothing to find. Well, you could say that, but you'd be wrong, whether Columbus ever sets sail or not.

By all means go look for god. Tell us when you get there

 

[sealybobo]

Wh

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

Why would they be gods?

 

[sealybobo]

That's wh

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

Sorry for the gross rambling here, but ...

I have a very different idea of what agnosticism means to me.

First, honestly not knowing can't be a sign of arrogance. And, even you point out that we don't have a way of knowing - or at least we don't have a way of proving. We only have the null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean we know.

The problem with "timid" is that it misses where the strength is being applied.

The problem here is that if we can't prove one way or the other whether God exists we need get the heck off of that issue and move on to how we are going to live together as a society with different beliefs. We're not going to write some posts here and kill Christianity, Islam AND Judaism. And, butting heads is NOT how we make progress with humans. So, not butting heads isn't a matter of "timid".

So, where to apply the pressure?

The conversation needs to turn toward what comes after we recognize that we're not going to kill religion - at least not in the next few centuries.

But, I AM ready to be an evangelist, just not one selling that God is a ridiculous concept.

What I care about is that we come to understand the importance and methods of incorporating science in our public policy decision making.

I don't need anyone to believe god is dead in order to make progress on that.

One of the very first steps in that is to demonstrate that religion and science are NOT opposing forces. Even the Pope points out that science and religion are different "realms". We need to see how that works.

I think there is a distance to go on this, as I'm sure you will agree that a lot of people don't even know what science IS.

Today, we have congressmen who actively oppose science!! They back the anti-vaccination movement. They support homeopathy. The consider colleges and universities the hot bed of evil - literally!!

Today we have a president elect who very clearly bases decisions in the moment, without any thought of creating a long term policy direction or consulting experts.

Today we have a public that would seemingly have no idea of how to detect whether what they are reading is true.

We aren't going to do well as a nation under these circumstances.

That's why we are preaching rational thought over superstitious.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

Questionable and unsatisfactory is the evidence for god. If they would tell us why they believe despite the fact their arguments have holes in them I'd like to hear it.

I have gotten theists to admit they believe because they want to believe or the classic "you just have to have faith". Sorry it doesn't work that way

 

[Czernobog]

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.
No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up.

I. Don't. Need to back it up. The negative assertion is the default position. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around. "I did not rape my your daughter," That is not a claim that I have to "back up". It is assumed to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.

On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...

Of course it is. First, there is no evidence that it was made. Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested. An untested theory is always considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.

Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

No it's not. No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise. This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions. That doesn't make us agnostics. It makes us atheists. You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist". We're not. We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.

If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement.

No I don't. If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter. Period. Full stop. I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim. You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it," Welll...I mean you can do that. You can make that the entirety of your case. Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.

I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there is evidence. You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science. If a thing exists, there will be evidence. Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.

You're claiming out of nowhere that you didn't rape my daughter, which would automatically seems suspicious and would warrant a closer look at you by the cops.

You're missing the point. The point is that negative assertions do not require proof. one is not required to prove a negative. Flip that around. If one were to make the assertion that I raped your daughter, I am required to do nothing, but sit back, and watch the claim fail to be proven. I am not required to try and prove the negative.

Again, claiming that things do not exist because man hasn't discovered them yet is like saying, just before Columbus set sail, that there was nothing to find. Well, you could say that, but you'd be wrong, whether Columbus ever sets sail or not.

And, yet, that was precisely the presumption. It was presumed that Columbus would end up coming ashore in China, or more likely that he was going to fall off the edge of the world. That was the default position - that there was nothing there. So, that was the rational position taken by the explorers, and scientists of the day. Now we know better, but then, it was a perfectly reasonable expectation that there was nothing there.

Same with "God Exists". Once evidence is provided to make that position untenable, then the position will be revised. Until then, "There is no God" is the perfectly reasonable, rational position based on the current evidence available.

 

[Czernobog]

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

 

[Czernobog]

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

It doesn't matter what you see. It matters what you can demonstrate with repeated results. We all know that perception is subjective. So, just because you "see" something, that is not proof that that something actually exists. However, let us be crystawl clear. Is it your contention that "God" actually exiosts in the known physical universe, and we have just not, yet, discovered the evidence to prove his existence? Because that is a very different claim than either Ding, or Mudda are making.