Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[NYcarbineer]

no....some things can be proven impossible.......

If there are things that are provably impossible, that would be proof that an omnipotent God cannot exist,

for with such a God, anything would be possible. That's how omnipotence works.

would an omnipotent God make your arguments lucid?.....

I will walk you through it:

1. You claimed that some things can be proven to be impossible.

2. With an omnipotent God, anything is possible.

3. 1. and 2. are unequivocally incompatible. Whichever is the truth, 1. or 2., the other cannot also be the truth.

So you have taken the position that because some things are in fact impossible, then an omnipotent God cannot exist...

...1. is true therefore 2. cannot be true.

Did you wish to change that position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because there's no proof that a god can't exist.

Is there proof that you can't flip a coin a billion times and end up with a billiion consecutive 'heads'? (no tricks involved...)

usually the test fails around ten.....

That's not an answer. Is there PROOF you can't flip a coin a billiion times heads in a row?

If you set a machine to work that simulated coin flips one per second and let it run for, say 5 billion years,

what number of consecutive flips of heads (or tails of course) would it prove was the maximum number possible?

Or would it actually prove anything?

 

[NYcarbineer]

that which they cannot prove......

That principle would render our system of justice irrational, since the standard for proof of guilt is only beyond reasonable doubt,

not beyond all possible doubt.

Is our justice irrational? Is it justice to put a man's fate in the hands of the outcome of an irrational system?

do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

 

[PostmodernProph]

That makes believing - with certainty - IN God without proof irrational,

true, if you are an atheist......If, on the other hand, you don't agree that believing in something without proof is irrational, it does NOT make believing in God without proof irrational....

it is the inherent self contradiction which makes the atheist irrational.....

I base that on what you accuse atheists of - irrationality. You set the standard of what constitutes irrationality, and by your standard, a firm believer in unobservable supernatural beings is irrational.

no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......

btw, an atheist does not have to reject the idea that an unobservable supernatural being might in fact exist.

of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....

I don't believe that unicorns exist. I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one. Why does that make me irrational?

do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

If there are things that are provably impossible, that would be proof that an omnipotent God cannot exist,

for with such a God, anything would be possible. That's how omnipotence works.

would an omnipotent God make your arguments lucid?.....

I will walk you through it:

1. You claimed that some things can be proven to be impossible.

2. With an omnipotent God, anything is possible.

3. 1. and 2. are unequivocally incompatible. Whichever is the truth, 1. or 2., the other cannot also be the truth.

So you have taken the position that because some things are in fact impossible, then an omnipotent God cannot exist...

...1. is true therefore 2. cannot be true.

Did you wish to change that position?

not at all.....you see, I assumed you were rational and were thinking about things that naturally occur.....there are things that do not naturally occur and can be proven not to occur......you have now added another dimension......can something be caused supernaturally that cannot naturally occur......the answer is yes.....however, my argument is still perfectly accurate and you have gained nothing.....thus we see that God has not intervened and made your argument lucid.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Is there proof that you can't flip a coin a billion times and end up with a billiion consecutive 'heads'? (no tricks involved...)

usually the test fails around ten.....

That's not an answer. Is there PROOF you can't flip a coin a billiion times heads in a row?

If you set a machine to work that simulated coin flips one per second and let it run for, say 5 billion years,

what number of consecutive flips of heads (or tails of course) would it prove was the maximum number possible?

Or would it actually prove anything?

I am not aware of any such proof but I am prepared to let you experiment as long as you want......

however, if your only purpose is to find something that can be proven impossible, why not use something that takes less time.......can H20 boil at a temperature of 31 F?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

That principle would render our system of justice irrational, since the standard for proof of guilt is only beyond reasonable doubt,

not beyond all possible doubt.

Is our justice irrational? Is it justice to put a man's fate in the hands of the outcome of an irrational system?

do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that which they cannot prove......

That principle would render our system of justice irrational, since the standard for proof of guilt is only beyond reasonable doubt,

not beyond all possible doubt.

Is our justice irrational? Is it justice to put a man's fate in the hands of the outcome of an irrational system?

do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....

I know to an absolute certainty that Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist. Because to do that, they would have to prove everything that does exist in the universe and from that demonstrate that the evidence shows nothing in terms of God's existence.

So, the fact that we, as a species, know only an insignificant percentage of what does exist in the universe... we have no means to even know what questions one might ask, to even begin to learn what we'd need to know before we could begin to understand the ideas that might lead us to know what we'd need to know to even think about what God might be, pretty well precludes any potential legitimacy for the Anti-theist premise.

It' foolishness on a grand scale.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't know....does this person who believes in ghosts claim its a rational conclusion?......

Did you not claim above, implicitly, that atheists are not rational?

Why aren't they?

Because there's no proof that a god can't exist.

LOL! Not true.

God is the creator of the universe. The universe exists, therefore, the creator of that which exists, exists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....

First of all I asked you if our legal system was irrational because it only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to beyond all doubt,

because that was the standard you set for the rationality of atheists. You wouldn't address that.

Secondly, the atheist 'standard' for belief is essentially unchallenged at any level, since there is no demonstrable material evidence whatsoever to support the argument for the existence of an unseen supernatural being. Hence the word 'faith' to describe belief in such.

Again, you are defining 'irrational' as the refusal to believe in something just because there is no evidence of it existing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

true, if you are an atheist......If, on the other hand, you don't agree that believing in something without proof is irrational, it does NOT make believing in God without proof irrational....

it is the inherent self contradiction which makes the atheist irrational.....

I base that on what you accuse atheists of - irrationality. You set the standard of what constitutes irrationality, and by your standard, a firm believer in unobservable supernatural beings is irrational.

no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......

btw, an atheist does not have to reject the idea that an unobservable supernatural being might in fact exist.

of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....

I don't believe that unicorns exist. I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one. Why does that make me irrational?

do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....

Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?

 

[PratchettFan]

Did you not claim above, implicitly, that atheists are not rational?

Why aren't they?

Because there's no proof that a god can't exist.

LOL! Not true.

God is the creator of the universe. The universe exists, therefore, the creator of that which exists, exists.

That assumes your initial definition is correct. Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

would an omnipotent God make your arguments lucid?.....

I will walk you through it:

1. You claimed that some things can be proven to be impossible.

2. With an omnipotent God, anything is possible.

3. 1. and 2. are unequivocally incompatible. Whichever is the truth, 1. or 2., the other cannot also be the truth.

So you have taken the position that because some things are in fact impossible, then an omnipotent God cannot exist...

...1. is true therefore 2. cannot be true.

Did you wish to change that position?

not at all.....you see, I assumed you were rational and were thinking about things that naturally occur.....there are things that do not naturally occur and can be proven not to occur......you have now added another dimension......can something be caused supernaturally that cannot naturally occur......the answer is yes.....however, my argument is still perfectly accurate and you have gained nothing.....thus we see that God has not intervened and made your argument lucid.....

All I did was introduce the idea of anything is possible, and you claimed that was wrong.

Now you're distorting what I said so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

Are you CERTAIN that supernatural intervention can occur and thus make anything possible?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me just bring things up to date.

PostModern is claiming that a rational human being MUST believe in the supernatural, in order to be rational.

I don't.

 

[PratchettFan]

I base that on what you accuse atheists of - irrationality. You set the standard of what constitutes irrationality, and by your standard, a firm believer in unobservable supernatural beings is irrational.

no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......


of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....

I don't believe that unicorns exist. I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one. Why does that make me irrational?

do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....

Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?

Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?

 

[NYcarbineer]

do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....

Who is more dogmatic, a devout Christian or an atheist?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....

First of all I asked you if our legal system was irrational because it only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to beyond all doubt

I know.....I said it was irrelevant, I didn't say I didn't read it....

because that was the standard you set for the rationality of atheists. You wouldn't address that.

no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....

Secondly, the atheist 'standard' for belief is essentially unchallenged at any level, since there is no demonstrable material evidence whatsoever to support the argument for the existence of an unseen supernatural being. Hence the word 'faith' to describe belief in such.

and that is where they violate their own standard by saying "there is no god", something with no demonstrable material evidence whatsoever in support....again, hence the word "faith" to describe what they claim is reason......

Again, you are defining 'irrational' as the refusal to believe in something just because there is no evidence of it existing.

not at all....irrational is claiming that believing in something without evidence is irrational when simultaneously believing in something without evidence and pretending its rational......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I base that on what you accuse atheists of - irrationality. You set the standard of what constitutes irrationality, and by your standard, a firm believer in unobservable supernatural beings is irrational.

no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......


of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....

I don't believe that unicorns exist. I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one. Why does that make me irrational?

do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....

Atheism is not a belief system.

lol.....

As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby

.
never was a very intelligent saying......still isn't....

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've explained it clearly several times.....if you haven't understood it yet, you likely never will.....

I don't think you can call me irrational.

hard to say, you may alternatively be willful or ignorant....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Let me just bring things up to date.

PostModern is claiming that a rational human being MUST believe in the supernatural, in order to be rational.

I don't.

why would you want to repeat a false statement.....to reinforce the possibility that you are debating dishonestly?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I will walk you through it:

1. You claimed that some things can be proven to be impossible.

2. With an omnipotent God, anything is possible.

3. 1. and 2. are unequivocally incompatible. Whichever is the truth, 1. or 2., the other cannot also be the truth.

So you have taken the position that because some things are in fact impossible, then an omnipotent God cannot exist...

...1. is true therefore 2. cannot be true.

Did you wish to change that position?

not at all.....you see, I assumed you were rational and were thinking about things that naturally occur.....there are things that do not naturally occur and can be proven not to occur......you have now added another dimension......can something be caused supernaturally that cannot naturally occur......the answer is yes.....however, my argument is still perfectly accurate and you have gained nothing.....thus we see that God has not intervened and made your argument lucid.....

All I did was introduce the idea of anything is possible, and you claimed that was wrong.

it IS wrong....everything is not possible, everything is not impossible.....that proves nothing with respect to the existence of a deity.....