Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 12-09-2002, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:


I disagree with that. Is the intelligent design of a car blown out of the water by flat tires, engine failure, and the like?

The fact that a product malfunctions occasionally is not evidence that it was not designed.

It is if the intelligence and power of the designer is claimed to be unlimited.

Philosoft · 12-09-2002, 07:46 PM

Keith Russell:
'God' is not possible: not only does 'God' not exist; 'God' cannot exist.

luvluv:
I'd love to see this demonstrated.

Inasmuch as you lack a positive definition of whatever it is God is supposed to be, combined with the inability of the word "exist" to encompass whatever it is you are talking about, I'd say there's not much yet to demonstrate.

12-09-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach:
[QB]

Again it depends on the definition of God. If God is not a being but a natural phenomenon of the cosmos that creates universes, sets them in motion, then other forces of physics determine the future course. That definition fits what we know pretty well...

In summary: Generic God cannot be proven and naturally not disproven since there is no evidence over which to argue.

Fiach,

The whole point of God is that it is some all-powerful, or all knowing being. Even in the case of a non-interventionist God, we have no limitations on his behavior and we have no explanatory gains to compensate for this vast violation of parsiomony.

The only reason it is consistent with the universe is that it is consistent with absolutely every concievable set of knowledge. This is a definite reason to reject the theory.

There's no sound way that we can know about God and any of the qualities attributed to him. If we have no way to find out about God, we have most probably not found God. Thus the hypothesis should be rejected as extraneous and insupportably complicated.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]

Jayhawker Soule · 12-10-2002, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
It is one thing to deny the possibility that any sort of God exists, but it is quite another to reject all God theory as untenable and a creation of human gullibility.

What God theory? Or, are you speaking in the vernacular?

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-10-2002, 09:17 AM

It's disheartening to see so many people discarding one unsupportable dogma for another unsupportable dogma.

Quote:

I know god does not exist

How? And how can I come to this world-shaking absolute conclusion? Enlighten me, and together we might enlighten the world. If you can know that there is no God, than anyone can know it, just like a physics formula.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-10-2002, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
It is if the intelligence and power of the designer is claimed to be unlimited.

It's called "planned obsolescence".

Jayhawker Soule · 12-10-2002, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk:
It's disheartening to see so many people discarding one unsupportable dogma for another unsupportable dogma.

And I find it very disheartening that one would draw an equivalence.

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-10-2002, 09:31 AM

One side uses vague rhetoric and a distinct lack of hard facts to promote a claim.

The other side does it differently... how?

Jayhawker Soule · 12-10-2002, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk:
One side uses vague rhetoric and a distinct lack of hard facts to promote a claim. The other side does it differently... how?

As I'm sure you know, 'God' is a horribly difficult term to pin down. Let's talk about something more specific: the Daoine Sidhe.

The Daoine Sidhe constitute what you probably refer to as the Faerie Kingdom, but I feel it far more respectful to use the correct term. The Sidhe (pronounced shee) populate a fairly broad area, so let's deal specifically with the Ellyllon, i.e., the Sidhe of Wales, and their Queen, Mab (sometimes Mabh or Medbh).

Apparently, there are two sides to the debate about Mab's existence (but certainly not about Her claim to royalty). One side uses vague rhetoric and a distinct lack of hard facts to promote Her existence. The other side absurdly claims that She is merely myth, even though they are incapable of proving that Mab does not exist. Perhaps some are even agnostic, claiming that both positions are equally flawed.

Where do you stand?

===================

There are a plethora of things that cannot be proven, including universal existential negatives and the proposition that driving blindfolded on the highway will result in an accident. In both cases, it's best to keep your eyes open.

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-10-2002, 10:54 AM

The existance of Mabh is a testable hypothesis. There are criteria attributed to her, particularly residency criteria, that can be objectively observed.

We're back again to the top of Mount Olympus. We're here, there are no gods, the Greeks were wrong. The existance of the Greek gods is testable and, when tested, found to be false. The case is similar for any entity, be it a Bean Sidhe or a mountain goat, that is hypothosized to exist temporally on a physical plane. The properties attributed to a specific entity can also be disproven, thus disproving the specific entity.

However, attempting to say the entire concept of a god/creator being is fictitious because the Greek gods turned out to be false is a composition fallacy.

The existance of aliens is also untestable at this time, and specific examples of types of aliens (for instance, say, something supposedly Neon-based) can be discredited and discarded. But can anyone say with the absolute certainty of a strong atheist that aliens do not exist in any form whatsoever?

12-09-2002, 07:46 PM	#32
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	<strong> Keith Russell: 'God' is not possible: not only does 'God' not exist; 'God' cannot exist. luvluv: I'd love to see this demonstrated.</strong> Inasmuch as you lack a positive definition of whatever it is God is supposed to be, combined with the inability of the word "exist" to encompass whatever it is you are talking about, I'd say there's not much yet to demonstrate.

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

12-10-2002, 09:31 AM	#38
Living Dead Chipmunk Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 312	One side uses vague rhetoric and a distinct lack of hard facts to promote a claim. The other side does it differently... how?

12-10-2002, 10:54 AM	#40
Living Dead Chipmunk Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 312	The existance of Mabh is a testable hypothesis. There are criteria attributed to her, particularly residency criteria, that can be objectively observed. We're back again to the top of Mount Olympus. We're here, there are no gods, the Greeks were wrong. The existance of the Greek gods is testable and, when tested, found to be false. The case is similar for any entity, be it a Bean Sidhe or a mountain goat, that is hypothosized to exist temporally on a physical plane. The properties attributed to a specific entity can also be disproven, thus disproving the specific entity. However, attempting to say the entire concept of a god/creator being is fictitious because the Greek gods turned out to be false is a composition fallacy. The existance of aliens is also untestable at this time, and specific examples of types of aliens (for instance, say, something supposedly Neon-based) can be discredited and discarded. But can anyone say with the absolute certainty of a strong atheist that aliens do not exist in any form whatsoever?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.