Wyz_sub10

I must admit that I am not familiar with that definition. But even so, I do not get the connection between the definition you've given and the way you used the term in your response.

I suppose it depends on what you call "objective proof". In any case, I doubt there are many atheists who would apply this definition to 99% of their beliefs.

You do, I'm assuming, understand the difference between asking someone to believe they had a grandfather, and asking someone to believe that an invisible being controls all aspects of the universe without producing any visible traces? (and not just any being, but your being)

I think you may have missed the point. It seems that you do not differentiate between levels of probability. Rather, you seem to think any proposition is equally true (or false) because none can be proven with absolute certainty.

This is just absurd. Should we shut down the justice system because nothing can be proven beyond doubt? If there was a man in your neighbourhood accused of killing little kids, and this was supported by eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, and a confession, would you feel it was reasonable to let him go because the evidence could never be enough?

I understand that you are saying that this is "atheistic reasoning" (and not necessarily yours), but you are applying this in error. It is not atheistic reasoning. It is spurious reasoning. It is not reasoning that anyone I know would hold.

You also seem to overlook the fact that I not be included in the scenario. My "willful speculation" is irrelevant because I do not need to be involved in anything you may do to try and uncover proof of his existence.

I was waiting for this. Tell me SOMMS, do 80% of people belive in the same god? Can they agree on his attributes and characteristics? Do they agree on his commandments?

Tell you what - start with getting 80% of Chrisitians to agree on who and what god is, then you can start trying to use that as support.

A further problem with this, of course, is that your knowledge - or my mom's, or my grade 9 religion teacher's - is not first hand. Many people may have met my grandfather, but none of you have met Jesus or god. I do not claim that 1,000 who "know" my grandfather because I told them about him is the same thing as 1,000 people who know him personally.

Do you not see a difference?

You seem to repeatedly ignore the fact that I do not have to do anything. Really - you can run the show as you like. As I said, provided you are a honest man (and I have no reason to believe you are not), you can set up whatever tests and fact-finding exercises you like. I'll step out.

Additionally, I would only attempt to defraud others if I have some deep-rooted, vested interest in proving the exisitence of my grandfather. Besides the fact that it's biologically necessary, I really have no such interest. I never knew either of my grandfathers (to be quite honest), and I'm here alive and well, so whether they existed or not really doesn't change my situation or memories.

??? I don't understand this. What do you mean they haven't done it? There are no third-party confirmations of my grandfather's former existence? The cemetary people will be surprised. As will Algoma Steel, Immigration Canada, and the Royal Bank.

Nevertheless, if we begin our "quest" tomorrow, someone could do it.

And there is. I am simply suggesting that the proof could be "mined" or validated by people other than me or my family.

You are simply admitting that you are comfortable maintaining a position without evidence...faith. That's fine, but do not equate faith in a supreme being or defined characteristics with faith that the blue cup in front of me is indeed blue...and a cup.

(Methinks you are also impying that atheists do not bother to look for god because they "know" he is a product of self-delusion. I cannot speak for others, but in my life, you could not be more wrong.)

See above - there is nothing uniform about the claims being made by this 80%. It's like saying 90% of people believe in justice. Therefore, justice should be easy to maintain. In reality we know this is not true because 'justice' (like 'god') is meaningless unless the concept is defined. Once it is, you will see that % shrink dramatically.


You could, but if those photos were accompanied by documentation, eyewitness accounts, sasquatch DNA embedded into the skin of JFK, previous sightings of JFK and sasquatch arguing over Marilyn Monroe, etc., then your tale becomes more plausible.

People do not question accounts of alien abductions just because testimony could be falsified. They doubt because testimony (which could be falsified) are usually the *only* bits of evidence that exist.

Once more, you seem to overlook the compounding effect of multiple sources of evidence.

Perhaps...that would be a bizarre (and somewhat unfounded, I would think) assertion on your part. Unless, unbeknownst to me, my gandfather promised her eternal life, absolution from her sins, and protection from demons. (I suppose the proof would then be on you - as it is your hypothesis - to prove this is a valid claim).

Perhaps. Paying them, I could see. Scaring them into believing in my grandfather...well, if I could do that, I would sooner scare her into adding $100K to my account every month.

Again, there is no connection between your suggestions and any plausible motive. God, be definition, controls your eternal fate. My grandfather, rest assured, does not.

Again again again you separate one piece or evidence from all others. I can only believe you are purposely ignoring the concept or corroborative evidence because it provides discomfort to your position.

If you can think of a good reason why the teller, bus driver, human resources manager, immigration office, accountant, etc. would all lie about my grandafather's existence, then I'd be interested to hear it.

I like that you've echoed my tactic, but I want to take each of the opportuities you provided me to add to my position.

Your personal realtionship is unquantifiable. If I am wring, please feel free to excplain how. Do 80% of the people you mention share this trype of relationship? I understand that these relationships are all unique, but I am asking if they feel they are sharing a relationship with the same being as you? My guess is 'no'.

(I'll leave the fact that, if nothing exists without the cause, then god cannot exist, for another thread).

Sure, that possible. Are you still throwing out eveything else? Could you hypothesize why the employer would do this? (Or why 'Joe Smith' would?) If you are going to dismiss evidence, then you should have a reason for doing so, right?

I dismiss many stories of the bible, but I have solid reasons for doing so, none of which are so simple as "the writer of Exodus could have lied".

I wonder...how many of those people believe that Jesus was god incarnate. How many Muslims would agree with you? That knocks the 80% down a bit, huh? How many people believe Mary was perfect? That whittles it down a bit (excludes you among them, I'll guess).

We can keep going with this, but I can easily show that no where near 80% of the people on this planet believe what you believe.

No. There are two big differences that you cannot (or will not) accept:

1) you are asking me to believe in a concept far more complex, extraordinairy, illogical and impacting than the existence of a man, yet you feel that no evidence is necessary

2) you cannot provide even a fraction of the evidence for an omnipotent, eternal being that I can provide for a simple, relatively unimportant man

The three things you provide as corroborating evidence are flawed.

1) this is untrue at the level of detail that makes it meaningful (unless you think my belief in Bhaal is the same as Jesus)

2) this is an unproven assertion that betrays itself under scrutiny

3) your personal relationship is subjective (note that I never referred to my personal realtionship with my grandfather as proof)

My position is not hypocritical, because I believe wholeheartedly in the exisitence of your grandfather.

The problem with your logic, as I said at the onset of this response, is that you seem to feel that *any* claim is of equal validity. I truly do not believe that you hold this position.

You must believe that some claims are more plausible than others. I am simply trying to show you that your claim that my grandfather's existence cannot be demonstrated is false. And further, that your claim of an omnipotent, eternal, invisible, aloof being is not in the same ballpark.

You are saying that, because I don't apply the utmost scrutiny to everything, that I should not apply the utmost scrutiny to anything.

That's just ridiculous.

Of course I do not have as much reason to doubt the bus driver who tells me that the fare is $2.25, as I do the caller who tells me I've just won a prize, and all I have to do is give him my credit card information.

Your claims are extraordinary. Mine are ordinary.

You may be expecting me to tell you that you require extraordinary proof.

Actually, you can begin with any proof at all.

Radcliffe Emerson

I'd say what convincing argument is there that a god does exist?
Not one, in my opinion.
Some stupid book, written entirely by men, and controlled and tampered with by men over the centuries?

JERDOG

Did god know 911 would happen?
If no then he is not omniscient.
If yes then the following question arises.
Did god have the power to stop it?
If no then he is not omnipotent.
If yes then he is not benevolent.

Because allowing 3000 people to be vaporized is not anybodys definition of benevolence.

This is where the believer usually says."Oh but we can't understand gods will". Which is a retreat into agnosticism.

AsimovsProtege

You can also use that argument with the Holocaust.
The Black Plague, the 10 Plagues of Egypt, AIDS, cancer...or any disease known to mankind.