steamer

Fuck the Christian god. Fuck the Muslim God. Fuck the floating great-Pumkin god. Fuck the Great Tea-pot god. fuck Odin, Fuck Isis, fuck Thor. Fuck all your imaginary gods.

It isn't gods though that need to be disparaged it is the people that cannot tell the difference between things they only imagine and things that are real that need disparagment.

Queen of Swords

Perish the thought that anyone should insult a god, especially a god that happens to be your Chosen Deity.

I'll never understand this "god is really sensitive and has the biggest ears ever, so he hears all your insults and you'd better not piss him off" mentality. You'd think that an entity supposedly so high above us would also be high enough not to care whether he's "disparaged" by people whom he's going to send to hell anyway. I see nothing admirable about such a thin-skinned creature.

Joe Bloe

All questions are open, at least potentially. After all, none of us knows everything, so there is always the possibility that some evidence will turn up that shows that one or another of our current beliefs is false.

But, the fact that none of us knows everything does nothing to negate the fact that all of us know some things. And the things we know tend to point toward some possible conclusions and away from other possible conclusions. And the more we know about a particular topic, the stronger those conclusions can be, to the point where it can be unreasonable to doubt certain claims or to accept certain other claims.

Complete honesty compels us to admit that though nothing can be known beyond all possible doubt, many things can be known beyond all reasonable doubt. So, though in theory all questions are open, in practice some questions are, for all practical purposes and pending any further conflicting evidence that might possibly be discovered, closed.


An interesting consequence of this (and something that makes boards such as this possible) is that since we all have different knowledge of different things, we can reasonably disagree on what questions are open or closed, or which conclusion closes a particular question, or on how to interpret or explain particular facts we both know. But it is dishonest to ignore or to refuse to learn facts that one cannot fit into one's current beliefs. Some disagreements are unreasonable. And some beliefs (those not derived from sound reasoning based on testable, verifiable evidence) are unreasonable (and they are unreasonable even if they happen, by chance, to be true).

post tenebras lux

Indeed. I can't even prove (to my own satisfaction) that I exist. But them 'proof' is only valid in relation to maths, logic, and alcohol.

However, in real life I'm willing to accept a slightly lower bar than absolute proof. 'Proved beyond reasonable doubt' will do me outside of the fields of maths, logic, and alcohol , and thus I consider myself a 'strong atheist (occamite)'. Well, provided I exist, of course.

Savagemutt

Savagemutt brain hurt! Brain hurt!!!

angela2

I am not arguing for the scientific reasonableness of the Christian God. I am simply arguing that such a God cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore belief that such a God does not exist is unreasonable.

BTW you make a good point. Scientific reasoning is not a sufficient arbiter of truth.

And I'm sure you know that nothing is verifiable. The discussion actually lies with the question, Are some things falsifiable? In the case of the Christian God, I would be open to evidence that a belief in that God can be falsified.

angela2

If you exist, what is your definition of 'reasonable?'

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

How do you know this god is not proud of people actually using the brains he arranged for them.
How do you know this god is not glad not everybody is bothering him (why do you think he is hiding, don' t people get the message??).
How do you know god is not testing people, the gullible people get the boring jobs running his heavenly burocracy, the skeptics get to be their bosses.
How do you know there is just one god? Maybe everone 'gets' the one they like, maybe everyone 'gets' the one they hate.

(Pascals wager? Please!)

BruceWane

This is a tired old apologetic. The original goes like this.......

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

It usually gets acceptance because it's kind of poetic and succinct.

But it's entirely wrong.

The proper expression would be "absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence"

Absence of evidence is the single most influential piece of information one could ask for in determining that something does not exist. If I'm looking for something and I find no evidence of it, I'm inclined to think that it doesn't exist. If I'm looking for my car keys and I don't see them on the kitchen counter, I'm inclined to think that they aren't there. Absence of evidence most certainly IS evidence of absence. It's just not proof of absence.

And when absence is the ONLY evidence you have, it is completely reasonable to conclude that the disputed subject probably does not exist.

The further mistake you make here is that "reasonable" is not a binary quality. For example, on a scale of 1 to 100, I'd put my confidence that there are no gods at about 95; given the complete lack of evidence, I'd say that's a lot more reasonable than saying that chances are 50/50.

Joe Bloe

Leprechauns cannot be proven not to exist. Therefore, in spite of the complete lack of any testable, verifiable evidence of their existence even when one can expect that such evidence would be there if they did exist, it is unreasonable to believe that they don't?

Besides that, which version of the Christian God are you referring to? One of the self-contradictory ones? Do you think it is unreasonable to believe that square circles do not exist?

That's not my point. It may not be completely sufficient, or sufficient for absolute truth, but (and this is my point) it's the best thing we've got. Unless you can show something that gives us demonstrably more reliable results. Unless you can do that, if the existence of one or another version of the Christian God is not scientifically reasonable, it's not reasonable to believe it exists.

Depends on what you mean by 'verifiable'. If you mean in the sense of absolute proof beyond a possible doubt, no. But if that is your standard, you couldn't believe anything. If you mean to confirm the truth or existence of something beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes verification is possible. If I doubt that the door in front of me is solid and I test that claim by trying to walk through the door, just how many times do I have to try to walk through it before you think I have reasonably verified that it is indeed solid?

What standards do you use to verify or falsify the existence of leprechauns? Do you use those same standards in the case of all the variations of the Christian God? Do you have as much belief in other believers' different versions of the Christian God, and of the gods of other religions, and of leprechauns, as you do in your version of the Christian God? If not, what are your reasons for your different levels of belief? Your different levels of belief in such things isn't unreasonable, is it?