Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amie · 01-22-2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Not an Angel that was EROS.

Eros is visible weither you believe in him or not.

I would like to see Eros as well...

Infinity Lover · 01-23-2003, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amie
I would like to see Eros as well...

Keep feeding the Admiral them martinis and who knows...

rdalin · 01-23-2003, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
I don't think that's close-minded. I also think it's a logical conclusion drawn from available evidence or lack thereof. But if we both agree that evidence to the contrary would be impossible to provide, why can't we agree that nothing could possibly make you believe in the god of the bible? (Possibly being the key word.) Yes, it's true that we don't have the authority to declare what is absolutely impossible and what is possible, and yes if "anything is possible" than evidence could be provided, but then evidence could also be provided that two plus two equals five. Since we can logically examine evidence, we find that there are certain things that have such a low probability of occurring that we call them "impossible." Though it is technically possible for a zealous fundamentalist to encounter evidence that would cause him to renounce his faith, he sees this as such a low probability that he relegates it to the "impossible" category. He doesn't bother with examining what could possibly shake his faith because it has a next to zero chance of occurring.

I suppose that, from a technical standpoint, declaring evidence that would be, for all intents and purposes, impossible to provide is more honest (or at least more correct) than declaring that nothing could make you believe. Though the fundamentalist is being honest when he says that nothing could make him disbelieve, if we assume that anything is possible then this is technically not the case. Though you mean the same thing, you didn't say the same thing after all.

I think you got me on a technicality.

Well, thank you for the concession, but at the risk of being overly pedantic, I'll have to quibble slightly. I'll discard the word 'impossible' since that seems to be the sticking point; instead, I'll say that I think there's no reasonable chance that evidence of any deity will ever manifest itself. However, intellectual honesty forces me to admit that I know of no logical reason why evidence can never be found, so my position can best be described as conditional. A fundamentalist would never concede even this much, I think, so to me there is a difference in the two positions.

Richard

long winded fool · 01-23-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
So no amount of possible evidence could make you believe, but impossible evidence might?
I'm really very easy with this one.
If you wanted me to believe in Big Foot I would need to see a Big Foot.
Believing in the Loch Ness Monster would require a Loch Ness Monster.
Having faith in little gray men from outer space then you would have to come up with some little gray men from outer space.
You want me to believe in God then just trot out God.

I'm not concerned that I'm going to be tricked. I imagine that the Loch Ness monster is going to look just like a sea monster. And I imagine that you wouldn't mistake God Almighty for anybody else.

As soon as you suggest that the proof of God is the same proof you would need for any other claim Theists treat you like you are crazy. "You want to see God? That's ridiculous!!!!"
But I don't need any magic books or miracles. No tricks, no special effects. You would know a god when you saw one.
The same common ordinary type of proof that you would use to prove anything else existed, that would do just fine for this claim too.

So what if I walked up to you with an old man with a white beard in flowing rodes and said, "Biff, meet God,"?

If you've seen the old supposed footage of a bigfoot walking through the woods, then why don't you believe in bigfoot? Haven't you seen one? What is the nature of the evidence you require? I don't think it's just seeing with your own eyes because your eyes can be decieved. How much "proof" is enough proof? If footprints, pictures, eye-witness testimony, video captures, and recorded sounds aren't enough proof, then the question remains, "What would it take?" Answerable enough in the case of a legendary animal, but a little harder in the case of the god of the bible. You reject the "proof" that theists present, so "What would it take?"

VonEvilstein · 01-24-2003, 03:47 AM

Probably nothing short of the Second Coming of Christ, in my own personal case.

Asha'man · 01-26-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
So what if I walked up to you with an old man with a white beard in flowing rodes and said, "Biff, meet God,"?

Why is this such a difficult concept for you? To prove the supernatural, it�s going to take a clear demonstration of the supernatural!

Pictures are useless, unless you believe that Close Encounters of the Third Kind is proof of aliens. Books are worthless, unless you believe that The Lord of The Rings is proof of Hobbits. And a person�s appearance and testimony is worthless, unless you think a guy dressed in red and a white beard is proof of Santa Claus!

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
You reject the "proof" that theists present, so "What would it take?"

Theists have never produced anything that even comes close to proof. They also appear utterly unable to produce any. Do you know why? It should be obvious: you can�t prove something that simply isn�t true. The fact that they fumble so badly at providing proof is one of the reasons I am convinced that it�s all lies.

To prove the supernatural, you have to provide a clear personal demonstration of the supernatural.

Show me something that I think is impossible. Demonstrate that it can�t possibly be a trick. Let me be the one on stage waving my hands above and below the levitating body. Change the stick into a snake while it is in my hand. Tell me what 9 digit number I am thinking of, 100 times in a row!

Give me a Holy Book that mankind is incapable of forging!

Don�t bitch anymore about that type of proof being impossible: that is the whole point! If it is impossible, then I am correct about theism being all lies. If the theists are correct, then it is not really impossible, and your complaint is meaningless.

long winded fool · 01-26-2003, 12:16 PM

I'm not complaining. I'm simply stating that impossible proof is the same as no proof. Therefore logically, no proof is capable of converting you. I've restated your position. If you don't like it, you ought to reconsider your position. Nothing can possibly make me believe in the literal Bible. Even if I met someone who performed exraordinary miracles and claimed to be Jesus, I would still assume that there was physical laws at work that I simply don't understand and that this person was somehow manipulating them. If a bright light claiming to be God started talking to me at night, I would assume I was having some sort of psychological episode. I wouldn't assume that it was the supernatural God as interpereted by the theists from the Bible. Anything that could possibly occur I would interperet as a natural occurance and not a supernatural one. Since I'm not in possession of absolute knowlege, I don't have to be able to explain phenomena to assume that it isn't supernatural. I don't believe "supernatural" exists. So my answer to the op is the same as the atheists and the theists. Nothing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2003, 03:47 AM	#35
VonEvilstein Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: .nl Posts: 822	Probably nothing short of the Second Coming of Christ, in my own personal case.

01-26-2003, 12:16 PM	#37
long winded fool Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,113	I'm not complaining. I'm simply stating that impossible proof is the same as no proof. Therefore logically, no proof is capable of converting you. I've restated your position. If you don't like it, you ought to reconsider your position. Nothing can possibly make me believe in the literal Bible. Even if I met someone who performed exraordinary miracles and claimed to be Jesus, I would still assume that there was physical laws at work that I simply don't understand and that this person was somehow manipulating them. If a bright light claiming to be God started talking to me at night, I would assume I was having some sort of psychological episode. I wouldn't assume that it was the supernatural God as interpereted by the theists from the Bible. Anything that could possibly occur I would interperet as a natural occurance and not a supernatural one. Since I'm not in possession of absolute knowlege, I don't have to be able to explain phenomena to assume that it isn't supernatural. I don't believe "supernatural" exists. So my answer to the op is the same as the atheists and the theists. Nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.