Evidence there is no god - Page 3

joesixpack · 30th December 2011, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Looks to me like you're really determined to leave a back door open to god.

I'm not gonna' touch that one with a ten foot pole.

Skeptic Ginger · 30th December 2011, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Sigh...

I don't have beliefs, that was the point I was trying to make. I guess it wasn't clear enough.

That and the fact it is impossible not to have beliefs unless you are in a persistent vegetative state. Perhaps you meant you have no current god-myth beliefs? Other than of course, the belief a god could exist we are unable to detect. Since we have enough evidence to determine people-made myths explains 'gods', why bother with such a baseless premise? Why not just go with the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns?

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

As far as my analogy, saying that it sucks... sucks.

It's not exactly an insightful dissection of my comment.

I was tired and didn't know where to start.

The people in your example are not demonstrating how one exercises critical thinking or the scientific process. Rather, your example people are exercising superstitious uncritical thought. So if that analogy is supposed to represent how we would approach the unknown, it is wrong from the beginning.

You've completely missed the point of addressing the evidence to understand the Universe.

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Ok.. you know I'm not referring to an actual door right?

In the case of God (s) or their absence, the fact is that we can speculate all we want but lacking a specific definition makes it impossible to determine much.. if anything as to what would constitute evidence of existence or evidence of absence.

What "we"? I don't lack a specific definition. I look at the evidence and I see a repeating pattern with confirmable evidence for the conclusion I draw about what gods are. The pattern is one of humans inventing god myths for a number of reasons both involving nature and nurture. And the pattern includes perpetuating the myths by indoctrinating children and in the case of some religions, recruiting and indoctrinating people in other groups.

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Let's say we are looking at a God (s) that is omniscient and omnipotent. Of course He/She/It could act and we could not prove a thing if such proof was, for some obscure reason, unwanted.

God (s) could just do a huge miracle and then make us all forget about it. Or have everything planned out in advance so nothing is needed. Etc.

Again, if you want to reference my so-called beliefs.... speculation is useless, though sometimes fun, unless you have some facts to back them up.

We just don't.

There is irony in your reference to 'speculation'. I would describe your example as defining an irrelevant god, which is a useless speculative exercise that takes your ball off the science playing field. I addressed that in post #43 above.

slingblade · 30th December 2011, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

@ slingblade et al.

Well... I'm going to ignore the ad hominems since you seem to be emotionally attached to the subject. I usually don't like these sorts of conversations because everyone seems to want to insult everyone else. I'm more interested in the logic of the op.

The logic of the OP is that god is evidently absent, because of the absence of the evidence for a god that all our religions tells us is there, but which no one can empirically produce.

The statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is like all statements of conjecture that people produce: it is not iron-clad, 100% true, 100% of the time. There are exceptions. Refuting it exceptionally isn't difficult to do.

If there were a fully-grown African elephant in this room with me, there would be certain, specific evidence of it, and we both know that. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is an elephant in the room with me. None.

I may, with perfect logic and in perfect safety, conclude there is no elephant in this room with me. The complete absence of evidence for an elephant is most certainly evidence of the elephant's absence.

I needn't then speculate that there may be some kind of elephant I can't detect in the room. Why should I do so? Of what conceivable benefit to me or anyone else would it be to grant the possibility that a completely undetectable elephant, that impacts my life in no discernible way whatsoever, may in fact be somewhere in this room with me?

Why should we waste five seconds' thought on this notion? Give me just one sound, valid reason for that. Just one.

"I should consider there may possibly be a completely undetectable African elephant in my room, because....?"

Quote:

Irrelevant statement.

No it's not. It's perfectly relevant. You apparently either want to discuss--or else just toss out ideas you have no intent of discussing, which is a waste of everyone's time--evidence for god.

You haven't shown any, because there is none to show. There is only speculation, and in order to evaluate mere speculation, we must analyze it--what else would you do with it?

Analysis shows that if these speculations are attributes of a real god, he's inept, no smarter than a human child playing hide-and-seek, and expecting not to be found!

So these cannot be attributes of a superior being; they are too much like attributes you'd find in a not-very-bright human child. This is evidence that they are only invented speculation, not reflected by reality.

Quote:

My statement was simply a couple of examples from a list of possible definitions for God (s) that obviate the need to answer prayers in a way that is obviously miraculous.

The subject of answering prayers is an ancillary one at any rate. How do we know what criteria a deity would have for answering prayers, if it does at all. Maybe it does so randomly, or for some secret purpose either benign or not so benign. Maybe it throws a dart at a board.

Maybe it isn't even there. Maybe speculating about it at all is pointless and a waste of time, just as speculating about that completely undetectable elephant in my room is an equally pointless waste of time?

Quote:

That statement has nothing to do with the subject.

Yes, it does. You can't make it irrelevant by simply stating it is. You have to prove the irrelevancy.

Why would we speculate that a god or gods may exist, when we can detect no discernible evidence for god(s)? What's the point? Either it is there, and has no interaction with us whatsoever, so we not only don't need to worship it, we can't worship it, because we don't even know it's there or it wants worship; or it isn't there, and the entire point is moot, without substance, merit, or foundation.

Quote:

It's about whether or not you can prove that there is no such thing as God(s).

Nothing about gods can be proven at all.

I can't prove there is no such thing as an undetectable elephant in my room, either, but why should I even want to? What would be the point of trying? The undetectable elephant has no effect on me that I can discern, or can't explain in other ways besides being the influence of an undetectable elephant.

Quote:

Your analysis of it's intent or psychology is irrelevant.

You keep making these statements as simply saying it makes it so. It doesn't.

If there is no evidence for god(s), and if god(s) may exist, but can't be detected, then what is the point of our being concerned with it, with them?

Quote:

There is a third possibility. We made them up but something exists that we don't know about that may or may not fit our imaginary concepts.

So what? Who cares? Why should we care?

Originally Posted by myself

If it never contacted us or engaged with us, then we clearly made it and all its attributes up. Even if it is real, if it has never contacted us, we cannot know any of its attributes, so we must have invented them.

And if all that is true, IF it is true, then what's the point of bothering with a god idea at all? If a god exists that we do not know about, why should we care? We don't even know so much as to say it cares, so why should we?

All these ideas we conceive about what god is or what god wants are totally useless, without any evidence such a being even exists.

If that was your point, there were better ways to make it.

Quote:

I did say it clearly and I didn't claim it was original.

You did not say it clearly. You played Poe with it, and rendered the point ridiculous. Hardly necessary for simply re-hashing an unoriginal notion.

TheGoldcountry · 30th December 2011, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Well.. statements in big letters obviously must be addressed.

I bolded my replies simply to differentiate them from you. Is this better?

Not insults, ad hominems. For example...

That is obviously not an actual argument.

No, it was obviously an invitation for you to elaborate on a vague metaphor, which you ignored.

It largely depends on your definition of God and what you base your estimate of sophistication and intelligence on. Something could be intelligent and sophisticated without necessarily thinking like a human would, just to name one example.

I have no definition of God. I respond to the definitions given by others. So far, I have seen none that suggest that God is anything but an invention of the human psyche.

I know that this seems difficult for everyone to comprehend so I will attempt to be very clear.

1. I am not in any way saying that anyone should worship, pay attention to or even give a rat's ass about any deity without actual evidence of that deity existing.

2. I am simply pointing out the logical mistake in the OP. Claiming that you can logically prove that God does not exist depends on a host of definitions that are not established in the op, or elsewhere in this thread and do not take into account a number of possibilities. Ergo, it is not logically proven.

If you folks want to think that I have some religious view point that I don't.. that is hardly my fault. I hope I have been clear enough.

I was originally simply responding to your point that believers and nonbelievers alike should ignore the issue of God without proof. I continually point out that I do ignore God, but as long as people feel the need to "prove" His existence, and by doing so, "prove" that the rest of us should pay attention to their beliefs, I will argue the opposite. I'll stop as soon as they do.

RobDegraves · 30th December 2011, 10:43 AM

So far their are only a few responses worth bothering with. Sorry if you think this ignores many points but since I really feel that what I am saying is either misunderstood or misconstrued, I don't see a real point in spending a lot more time on this.

@TheGoldCountry

Quote:

I was originally simply responding to your point that believers and nonbelievers alike should ignore the issue of God without proof. I continually point out that I do ignore God, but as long as people feel the need to "prove" His existence, and by doing so, "prove" that the rest of us should pay attention to their beliefs, I will argue the opposite. I'll stop as soon as they do.

Actually that is close enough to my point as to allow me to say that I agree completely. I think that, without proof of presence or proof of absence, the matter is moot. If someone tries to argue one or the other without proof or logic, I will argue against it.

@Slingblade

Quote:

The statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is like all statements of conjecture that people produce: it is not iron-clad, 100% true, 100% of the time. There are exceptions. Refuting it exceptionally isn't difficult to do.

If there were a fully-grown African elephant in this room with me, there would be certain, specific evidence of it, and we both know that. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is an elephant in the room with me. None.

However, your example is a bit of a false dichotomy. Just because there are situations where absence of evidence is proof of absence does not mean that all situations can be resolved in the same way.

Quote:

So these cannot be attributes of a superior being; they are too much like attributes you'd find in a not-very-bright human child. This is evidence that they are only invented speculation, not reflected by reality.

Again, your analysis means nothing.

1. Define God, specifically. Is He all powerful, all knowing, thinks just like us, exists in time, inside the universe or out of it? etc.

2. Superior how? Based on what criteria?

Quite frankly your attitude is turning me off this conversation entirely. If you want to shout me down, I am fine to simply leave it be and you can pretend you won. Will that be better?

@Skeptic Ginger

Quote:

The people in your example are not demonstrating how one exercises critical thinking or the scientific process. Rather, your example people are exercising superstitious uncritical thought. So if that analogy is supposed to represent how we would approach the unknown, it is wrong from the beginning.

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

TheGoldcountry · 30th December 2011, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

@Slingblade

However, your example is a bit of a false dichotomy. Just because there are situations where absence of evidence is proof of absence does not mean that all situations can be resolved in the same way.

Again, your analysis means nothing.

1. Define God, specifically. Is He all powerful, all knowing, thinks just like us, exists in time, inside the universe or out of it? etc.

2. Superior how? Based on what criteria?

Quite frankly your attitude is turning me off this conversation entirely. If you want to shout me down, I am fine to simply leave it be and you can pretend you won. Will that be better?

To be fair, this was directed at slingblade. She usually articulates my arguments better than I can, but I want it made clear that I don't speak for her. As to your points:
1)No. I refuse to define the belief of someone else. It's a losing game, as the other person can simply continue to redefine their deity, leaving me to chase phantoms. I refuse to play.
2)It is not my claim that there is any kind of superior being, yet you want me to define it for you. I can only refute the existence of superior beings that others propose. If I don't believe in any of them, how am I supposed to define them? All I can say is that all the descriptions I have ever heard of God either attribute human qualities to Him, making him significantly less than "God-like", or outside of human definition. Either these Gods that I hear described are not Godlike at all, or they are totally outside of our perception. Either way, I see no value in debating the importance or value of their existence.
I don't want you to leave the debate, BTW.

Mudcat · 30th December 2011, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

Are you kidding me? If Yahweh actually existed than the evidence would be hard to miss, indeed you'd have to be functionally brain dead not to notice the heaps of evidence for him. The most damning evidence of all: We're still alive.

And yeah, I'm familiar* with the notion that there may be a deity of which we have no concept of. To which I say bullocks. There's no point in investing in the idea at all**.

_{*Evidence is earlier in this thread. I have pointed it out before, because God botherers like to try to use the concept.

**As was pointed out by a few here.}

RobDegraves · 30th December 2011, 12:07 PM

@TheGoldCountry

Quote:

1)No. I refuse to define the belief of someone else. It's a losing game, as the other person can simply continue to redefine their deity, leaving me to chase phantoms. I refuse to play.

1. I'm not defining any deity.

2. The op says "Evidence there is no God". Ergo, I ask which God.

Quote:

2)It is not my claim that there is any kind of superior being, yet you want me to define it for you. I can only refute the existence of superior beings that others propose

Again, it's the op in question. If you say "There is no evidence for a deity, based on the common notion of deity.. no problems.

If you say "I have evidence that God doesn't exist", I will want to see what evidence this is and what you mean by God.

Seems reasonable to me.

Skeptic Ginger · 30th December 2011, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

I have already clearly stated how one does that. One follows the evidence to the conclusion. One does not start with the conclusion and then look for evidence.

Following the evidence one finds overwhelmingly that evidence supports the conclusion that gods are mythical fiction generated by humans. One finds zero evidence that gods are any more than human generated fiction. And just as it is unscientific to start an investigation searching for Harry Potter's Hogwarts based ONLY upon the evidence found in a fictional story, it is equally unscientific to fabricate a god myth where the god would be undetectable and then proclaim science cannot disprove said fiction.

TheGoldcountry · 30th December 2011, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

@TheGoldCountry

1. I'm not defining any deity.

2. The op says "Evidence there is no God". Ergo, I ask which God.

Again, it's the op in question. If you say "There is no evidence for a deity, based on the common notion of deity.. no problems.

If you say "I have evidence that God doesn't exist", I will want to see what evidence this is and what you mean by God.

Seems reasonable to me.

Fine, after thousands of years, the only God I have seen proposed is the one who mirrors the ideals of each individual.

I am incapable of disproving the existence of the millions of personal deities of billions of people. I see no significance in this. Please explain to me why I should.

tsig · 30th December 2011, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Are you kidding me? If Yahweh actually existed than the evidence would be hard to miss, indeed you'd have to be functionally brain dead not to notice the heaps of evidence for him. The most damning evidence of all: We're still alive.

And yeah, I'm familiar* with the notion that there may be a deity of which we have no concept of. To which I say bullocks. There's no point in investing in the idea at all**.

_{*Evidence is earlier in this thread. I have pointed it out before, because God botherers like to try to use the concept.

**As was pointed out by a few here.}

Would that be a God That Exists In Mysterious Ways?

Mr. Scott · 30th December 2011, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?

How about the quite scientific Templeton study of intercessionary prayer? Financed by people who wanted to show it was effective. Proven ineffective, to the point that people who knew they were being prayed for didn't do as well. Prayer had a negligible or negative effect. Evidence at least the god they were hoping to find scientific evidence for was absent.

Of course, there would need to be an infinite number of scientific studies to perfectly disprove the infinite number of possible gods people will invent. Instead, maybe we can just stop worrying and enjoy our lives.

RobDegraves · 30th December 2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Of course, there would need to be an infinite number of scientific studies to perfectly disprove the infinite number of possible gods people will invent. Instead, maybe we can just stop worrying and enjoy our lives.

Pretty well what I do.

I also think that the concept of God granting prayers is a childish concept. Though I accept the idea that it's remotely possible, and I do mean remotely, it would be a really stupid system at best.

Mr. Scott · 10th January 2012, 09:35 PM

Evidence at least this god is nonsense (I bet they thought their god would protect it):

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

IanS · 11th January 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

What about the miracles in the Bible? Nobody was asked to take them on faith. Talking snake, staff turned into snake, pillar of fire, burning talking bush, wife turned into pillar of salt, water into wine, oil lamp staying on longer than expected, walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection, and on and on. God's tire gauge was working fine in Bible days. What happened?

As you probably realise, you were right in the first place - there is no genuine evidence of a biblical-type God. Is that lack of evidence, actually evidence that he does not exist? Yep, it is. Because what we are talking about is ancient beliefs which 2000 years ago claimed that God was the cause of almost everything that happened on earth (and in the heavens) ... only now, since modern science, we know that none of those things were due to any God ... all those things have perfectly normal explanations.

That is very direct and abundant evidence to show that the original beliefs and claims about God were entirely wrong ... every single one of them.

Today of course, many religious people wish to drop all those ancient miracle claims, and claim instead that God somehow fits nicely together with whatever we discover from modern science ... eg, the Christian church now officially accepts evolution, but says (contrary to it's original claims) that God created man indirectly simply by setting the universe itself in motion in the first place ... but that's obviously a rather pathetic attempt to keep shifting the goalposts by God-in-the Gaps type arguments.

Can we "prove" that a god does not exist? No, not literally by a 100% certain "proof". Because we can't absolutely prove anything in that 100% literal sense, not even in pure maths (there is always a defining assumption somewhere).

The only valid question is "what is the evidence?". And the answer to that is - there is zero evidence for any God, but mountains of evidence for perfectly natural explanations in every single thing we have ever discovered and investigated.

Minoosh · 11th January 2012, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

I needn't then speculate that there may be some kind of elephant I can't detect in the room. Why should I do so? Of what conceivable benefit to me or anyone else would it be to grant the possibility that a completely undetectable elephant, that impacts my life in no discernible way whatsoever, may in fact be somewhere in this room with me?

Why should we waste five seconds' thought on this notion? Give me just one sound, valid reason for that. Just one.

Why assume the thought is "wasted"? People speculate. Some ideas are useful and some aren't, but is the thinking itself a waste?

Minoosh · 11th January 2012, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Indeed, if you want to get sciency ...

I don't think I'd ever heard that word "sciency" - thanks!

Minoosh · 11th January 2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains.

There are believers who say that's a fair enough statement. Does that prove there's no god - no, I don't think so. My opinion.

devnull · 11th January 2012, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

Tim Tebow is a famous American Football player who is currently know for annoying atheists by praying excessively to Jesus before or after plays. He's been quite successful, but on Christmas day, his team was demolished by an opponent not know for atheist-annoying public praying.

Why on earth would a footballer praying annoy anyone?

Skeptic Ginger · 11th January 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

There are believers who say that's a fair enough statement. Does that prove there's no god - no, I don't think so. My opinion.

No, but the evidence all gods are mythical human creations is overwhelming. IMO.

porch · 11th January 2012, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Leumas

If we GROW UP and don't need the FAIRY TALES any longer then we should accept that SANTA does not exist...... I agree with you.... we should grow up in exactly the same way in regards to the fairy tale of the bible and YHWH.

Oh, woe is me! The arrogance and insults of the asantaists!

It seems you are talking about the children's Santa. That's fine. But what about the grown-up, sophisticated Santa? Many believe that Santa isn't actually, literally, a beardy man in a red outfit that pops up and down chimneys, but instead he manifests himself as The Spirit Of Giving, or something, so in a way, he really does make the presents appear under the trees even though he doesn't. And okay, some good children get little or nothing, and some bad children get an embarrassment of riches, but maybe Santa's just like that and we don't understand the mysterious ways of the Claus. Ever think of that?

Or maybe Santa exists but he doesn't even have anything to do with Christmas. You can't say he doesn't! Or, um, what else? Oh, I've got one! We don't know everything and who's to say what we'll discover in the future . . . so . . . .erm, Santa? Or something that could be called Santa, but we've never even conceived of it before?! Take that! TOUCHDOWN!! HO! HO! HO! *strikes Tebow pose. And then, with a gleam in his eye he puts his finger to the side of his nose, and whooshes up the chimney.*

ynot · 11th January 2012, 06:58 PM

Evidence of a thing can only exist if the thing exists. Asking for evidence for or against the existence of a thing for which no evidence exists is stupid. To claim that such a thing exists is even stupider.

Leumas · 12th January 2012, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by porch

Oh, woe is me! The arrogance and insults of the asantaists!

It seems you are talking about the children's Santa. That's fine. But what about the grown-up, sophisticated Santa? Many believe that Santa isn't actually, literally, a beardy man in a red outfit that pops up and down chimneys, but instead he manifests himself as The Spirit Of Giving, or something, so in a way, he really does make the presents appear under the trees even though he doesn't. And okay, some good children get little or nothing, and some bad children get an embarrassment of riches, but maybe Santa's just like that and we don't understand the mysterious ways of the Claus. Ever think of that?

Or maybe Santa exists but he doesn't even have anything to do with Christmas. You can't say he doesn't! Or, um, what else? Oh, I've got one! We don't know everything and who's to say what we'll discover in the future . . . so . . . .erm, Santa? Or something that could be called Santa, but we've never even conceived of it before?! Take that! TOUCHDOWN!! HO! HO! HO! *strikes Tebow pose. And then, with a gleam in his eye he puts his finger to the side of his nose, and whooshes up the chimney.*

I think the best response to the above is the below

Originally Posted by ynot

Evidence of a thing can only exist if the thing exists. Asking for evidence for or against the existence of a thing for which no evidence exists is stupid. To claim that such a thing exists is even stupider.

P.J. Denyer · 13th January 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Let's say you have a group of people in a room and they are sitting around a table. There is just one door but no one knows what is beyond it because it's locked.

Everyone speculates endlessly about what is on the other side. Eventually some people come up with some interesting theories but there is still no way to find out without opening the door. Is it another room, outside, a big hole?

One person starts to tell everyone else that there is a monster on the other side of the door. If you open the door, it will eat you. Others scoff and say that the door monster doesn't exist.

Eventually the scoffers try to open the door and a large goat kills them.

On what basis does the person who says that there is a monster make his claim? Has he heard it? Seen it? Smelled it? If so why can't he provide evidence to the others?

"We can all hear that loud noise that sounds like something's smashing everything on the other side of that door, we'd better wait here until it stops" is a very different proposition from "I have no evidence what so ever, but it's just occurred to me that we can't rule out that there isn't a totally silent and undetectable monster on the other side of that door. We'd better just sit here until we die of dehydration among piles of our own bodily waste"

RobDegraves · 13th January 2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

On what basis does the person who says that there is a monster make his claim? Has he heard it? Seen it? Smelled it? If so why can't he provide evidence to the others?

You do know that it's an analogy right?

It was meant to illustrate the idea that without information at all, there is no point in speculating.

I don't know if they saw the monster because it's just an analogy.

I don't know if they have food and water or a tv, because it's an analogy.

Next time I will just state things rather than use analogies. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp.

Sheesh.

P.J. Denyer · 13th January 2012, 07:41 AM

You know that my response was an analogy as well, right? Obviously not, 'Sheesh' yourself.

Your analogy wasn't hard to grasp, it just wasn't very good. Fantastical circumstances tortured to give an unrealistic result normally aren't.

Mr. Scott · 15th January 2012, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by devnull

Why on earth would a footballer praying annoy anyone?

If you think his god is a lot of superstitious nonsense then this constant interruption of the flow of the game is damn annoying.

Now that the praying wonder has failed, wouldn't it make sense if his fans abandoned his religion in favor of the Catholic religion of the star who smacked him down?

Tebow: Grandstanding Evangelical Christian Virgin -- looses!
Brady: Swearing Catholic with supermodel wife -- wins!

Why isn't this evidence to believers that Tebow's god is weaker than Brady's god, and that evangelicals should switch teams? The Bible is full of these kinds of persuasive demonstrations of God's power, so why not now?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Skeptic Ginger · 15th January 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

.....

Now that the praying wonder has failed, wouldn't it make sense if his fans abandoned his religion in favor of the Catholic religion of the star who smacked him down?

Tebow: Grandstanding Evangelical Christian Virgin -- looses!
Brady: Swearing Catholic with supermodel wife -- wins!

Why isn't this evidence to believers that Tebow's god is weaker than Brady's god, and that evangelicals should switch teams? The Bible is full of these kinds of persuasive demonstrations of God's power, so why not now?...

Good point.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Bill Thompson · 17th January 2012, 03:22 PM

There is no such thing as Nature.
There is no Universe.
There is no such thing as Existence.
So there is no God.

ynot · 17th January 2012, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

There is no such thing as Nature.
There is no Universe.
There is no such thing as Existence.
So there is no God.

Was going to reply but apparently I don't exist to do so.

dafydd · 17th January 2012, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Was going to reply but apparently I don't exist to do so.

If I don't exist then who played guitar and sang at the Mayor's Ball last Saturday? These are deep waters.

Mr. Scott · 17th January 2012, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

There is no such thing as Nature.
There is no Universe.
There is no such thing as Existence.
So there is no God.

What doesn't exist is thoughtfulness behind that remark.

30th December 2011, 09:52 AM	#81
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by tsig Looks to me like you're really determined to leave a back door open to god. I'm not gonna' touch that one with a ten foot pole.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

30th December 2011, 09:53 AM	#82
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,621	Originally Posted by RobDegraves Sigh... I don't have beliefs, that was the point I was trying to make. I guess it wasn't clear enough. That and the fact it is impossible not to have beliefs unless you are in a persistent vegetative state. Perhaps you meant you have no current god-myth beliefs? Other than of course, the belief a god could exist we are unable to detect. Since we have enough evidence to determine people-made myths explains 'gods', why bother with such a baseless premise? Why not just go with the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns? Originally Posted by RobDegraves As far as my analogy, saying that it sucks... sucks. It's not exactly an insightful dissection of my comment. I was tired and didn't know where to start. The people in your example are not demonstrating how one exercises critical thinking or the scientific process. Rather, your example people are exercising superstitious uncritical thought. So if that analogy is supposed to represent how we would approach the unknown, it is wrong from the beginning. You've completely missed the point of addressing the evidence to understand the Universe. Originally Posted by RobDegraves Ok.. you know I'm not referring to an actual door right? In the case of God (s) or their absence, the fact is that we can speculate all we want but lacking a specific definition makes it impossible to determine much.. if anything as to what would constitute evidence of existence or evidence of absence. What "we"? I don't lack a specific definition. I look at the evidence and I see a repeating pattern with confirmable evidence for the conclusion I draw about what gods are. The pattern is one of humans inventing god myths for a number of reasons both involving nature and nurture. And the pattern includes perpetuating the myths by indoctrinating children and in the case of some religions, recruiting and indoctrinating people in other groups. Originally Posted by RobDegraves Let's say we are looking at a God (s) that is omniscient and omnipotent. Of course He/She/It could act and we could not prove a thing if such proof was, for some obscure reason, unwanted. God (s) could just do a huge miracle and then make us all forget about it. Or have everything planned out in advance so nothing is needed. Etc. Again, if you want to reference my so-called beliefs.... speculation is useless, though sometimes fun, unless you have some facts to back them up. We just don't. There is irony in your reference to 'speculation'. I would describe your example as defining an irrelevant god, which is a useless speculative exercise that takes your ball off the science playing field. I addressed that in post #43 above.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 30th December 2011 at 09:58 AM.*

30th December 2011, 10:01 AM	#83
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by RobDegraves @ slingblade et al. Well... I'm going to ignore the ad hominems since you seem to be emotionally attached to the subject. I usually don't like these sorts of conversations because everyone seems to want to insult everyone else. I'm more interested in the logic of the op. The logic of the OP is that god is evidently absent, because of the absence of the evidence for a god that all our religions tells us is there, but which no one can empirically produce. The statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is like all statements of conjecture that people produce: it is not iron-clad, 100% true, 100% of the time. There are exceptions. Refuting it exceptionally isn't difficult to do. If there were a fully-grown African elephant in this room with me, there would be certain, specific evidence of it, and we both know that. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is an elephant in the room with me. None. I may, with perfect logic and in perfect safety, conclude there is no elephant in this room with me. The complete absence of evidence for an elephant is most certainly evidence of the elephant's absence. I needn't then speculate that there may be some kind of elephant I can't detect in the room. Why should I do so? Of what conceivable benefit to me or anyone else would it be to grant the possibility that a completely undetectable elephant, that impacts my life in no discernible way whatsoever, may in fact be somewhere in this room with me? Why should we waste five seconds' thought on this notion? Give me just one sound, valid reason for that. Just one. "I should consider there may possibly be a completely undetectable African elephant in my room, because....?" Quote: Irrelevant statement. No it's not. It's perfectly relevant. You apparently either want to discuss--or else just toss out ideas you have no intent of discussing, which is a waste of everyone's time--evidence for god. You haven't shown any, because there is none to show. There is only speculation, and in order to evaluate mere speculation, we must analyze it--what else would you do with it? Analysis shows that if these speculations are attributes of a real god, he's inept, no smarter than a human child playing hide-and-seek, and expecting not to be found! So these cannot be attributes of a superior being; they are too much like attributes you'd find in a not-very-bright human child. This is evidence that they are only invented speculation, not reflected by reality. Quote: My statement was simply a couple of examples from a list of possible definitions for God (s) that obviate the need to answer prayers in a way that is obviously miraculous. The subject of answering prayers is an ancillary one at any rate. How do we know what criteria a deity would have for answering prayers, if it does at all. Maybe it does so randomly, or for some secret purpose either benign or not so benign. Maybe it throws a dart at a board. Maybe it isn't even there. Maybe speculating about it at all is pointless and a waste of time, just as speculating about that completely undetectable elephant in my room is an equally pointless waste of time? Quote: That statement has nothing to do with the subject. Yes, it does. You can't make it irrelevant by simply stating it is. You have to prove the irrelevancy. Why would we speculate that a god or gods may exist, when we can detect no discernible evidence for god(s)? What's the point? Either it is there, and has no interaction with us whatsoever, so we not only don't need to worship it, we can't worship it, because we don't even know it's there or it wants worship; or it isn't there, and the entire point is moot, without substance, merit, or foundation. Quote: It's about whether or not you can prove that there is no such thing as God(s). Nothing about gods can be proven at all. I can't prove there is no such thing as an undetectable elephant in my room, either, but why should I even want to? What would be the point of trying? The undetectable elephant has no effect on me that I can discern, or can't explain in other ways besides being the influence of an undetectable elephant. Quote: Your analysis of it's intent or psychology is irrelevant. You keep making these statements as simply saying it makes it so. It doesn't. If there is no evidence for god(s), and if god(s) may exist, but can't be detected, then what is the point of our being concerned with it, with them? Quote: There is a third possibility. We made them up but something exists that we don't know about that may or may not fit our imaginary concepts. So what? Who cares? Why should we care? Originally Posted by myself If it never contacted us or engaged with us, then we clearly made it and all its attributes up. Even if it is real, if it has never contacted us, we cannot know any of its attributes, so we must have invented them. And if all that is true, IF it is true, then what's the point of bothering with a god idea at all? If a god exists that we do not know about, why should we care? We don't even know so much as to say it cares, so why should we? All these ideas we conceive about what god is or what god wants are totally useless, without any evidence such a being even exists. If that was your point, there were better ways to make it. Quote: I did say it clearly and I didn't claim it was original. You did not say it clearly. You played Poe with it, and rendered the point ridiculous. Hardly necessary for simply re-hashing an unoriginal notion.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

30th December 2011, 10:04 AM	#84
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,535	Originally Posted by RobDegraves Well.. statements in big letters obviously must be addressed. I bolded my replies simply to differentiate them from you. Is this better? Not insults, ad hominems. For example... That is obviously not an actual argument. No, it was obviously an invitation for you to elaborate on a vague metaphor, which you ignored. It largely depends on your definition of God and what you base your estimate of sophistication and intelligence on. Something could be intelligent and sophisticated without necessarily thinking like a human would, just to name one example. I have no definition of God. I respond to the definitions given by others. So far, I have seen none that suggest that God is anything but an invention of the human psyche. I know that this seems difficult for everyone to comprehend so I will attempt to be very clear. 1. I am not in any way saying that anyone should worship, pay attention to or even give a rat's ass about any deity without actual evidence of that deity existing. 2. I am simply pointing out the logical mistake in the OP. Claiming that you can logically prove that God does not exist depends on a host of definitions that are not established in the op, or elsewhere in this thread and do not take into account a number of possibilities. Ergo, it is not logically proven. If you folks want to think that I have some religious view point that I don't.. that is hardly my fault. I hope I have been clear enough. I was originally simply responding to your point that believers and nonbelievers alike should ignore the issue of God without proof. I continually point out that I do ignore God, but as long as people feel the need to "prove" His existence, and by doing so, "prove" that the rest of us should pay attention to their beliefs, I will argue the opposite. I'll stop as soon as they do.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

30th December 2011, 10:43 AM	#85
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	So far their are only a few responses worth bothering with. Sorry if you think this ignores many points but since I really feel that what I am saying is either misunderstood or misconstrued, I don't see a real point in spending a lot more time on this. @TheGoldCountry Quote: I was originally simply responding to your point that believers and nonbelievers alike should ignore the issue of God without proof. I continually point out that I do ignore God, but as long as people feel the need to "prove" His existence, and by doing so, "prove" that the rest of us should pay attention to their beliefs, I will argue the opposite. I'll stop as soon as they do. Actually that is close enough to my point as to allow me to say that I agree completely. I think that, without proof of presence or proof of absence, the matter is moot. If someone tries to argue one or the other without proof or logic, I will argue against it. @Slingblade Quote: The statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is like all statements of conjecture that people produce: it is not iron-clad, 100% true, 100% of the time. There are exceptions. Refuting it exceptionally isn't difficult to do. If there were a fully-grown African elephant in this room with me, there would be certain, specific evidence of it, and we both know that. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is an elephant in the room with me. None. However, your example is a bit of a false dichotomy. Just because there are situations where absence of evidence is proof of absence does not mean that all situations can be resolved in the same way. Quote: So these cannot be attributes of a superior being; they are too much like attributes you'd find in a not-very-bright human child. This is evidence that they are only invented speculation, not reflected by reality. Again, your analysis means nothing. 1. Define God, specifically. Is He all powerful, all knowing, thinks just like us, exists in time, inside the universe or out of it? etc. 2. Superior how? Based on what criteria? Quite frankly your attitude is turning me off this conversation entirely. If you want to shout me down, I am fine to simply leave it be and you can pretend you won. Will that be better? @Skeptic Ginger Quote: The people in your example are not demonstrating how one exercises critical thinking or the scientific process. Rather, your example people are exercising superstitious uncritical thought. So if that analogy is supposed to represent how we would approach the unknown, it is wrong from the beginning. All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way?
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

30th December 2011, 11:38 AM	#86
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,535	Originally Posted by RobDegraves @Slingblade However, your example is a bit of a false dichotomy. Just because there are situations where absence of evidence is proof of absence does not mean that all situations can be resolved in the same way. Again, your analysis means nothing. 1. Define God, specifically. Is He all powerful, all knowing, thinks just like us, exists in time, inside the universe or out of it? etc. 2. Superior how? Based on what criteria? Quite frankly your attitude is turning me off this conversation entirely. If you want to shout me down, I am fine to simply leave it be and you can pretend you won. Will that be better? To be fair, this was directed at slingblade. She usually articulates my arguments better than I can, but I want it made clear that I don't speak for her. As to your points: 1)No. I refuse to define the belief of someone else. It's a losing game, as the other person can simply continue to redefine their deity, leaving me to chase phantoms. I refuse to play. 2)It is not my claim that there is any kind of superior being, yet you want me to define it for you. I can only refute the existence of superior beings that others propose. If I don't believe in any of them, how am I supposed to define them? All I can say is that all the descriptions I have ever heard of God either attribute human qualities to Him, making him significantly less than "God-like", or outside of human definition. Either these Gods that I hear described are not Godlike at all, or they are totally outside of our perception. Either way, I see no value in debating the importance or value of their existence. I don't want you to leave the debate, BTW.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten Last edited by TheGoldcountry; 30th December 2011 at 11:39 AM.

30th December 2011, 11:47 AM	#87
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,686	Originally Posted by RobDegraves All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way? Are you kidding me? If Yahweh actually existed than the evidence would be hard to miss, indeed you'd have to be functionally brain dead not to notice the heaps of evidence for him. The most damning evidence of all: We're still alive. And yeah, I'm familiar* with the notion that there may be a deity of which we have no concept of. To which I say bullocks. There's no point in investing in the idea at all*. _{Evidence is earlier in this thread. I have pointed it out before, because God botherers like to try to use the concept. **As was pointed out by a few here.}
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven. Last edited by Mudcat; 30th December 2011 at 12:00 PM.

30th December 2011, 12:07 PM	#88
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	@TheGoldCountry Quote: 1)No. I refuse to define the belief of someone else. It's a losing game, as the other person can simply continue to redefine their deity, leaving me to chase phantoms. I refuse to play. 1. I'm not defining any deity. 2. The op says "Evidence there is no God". Ergo, I ask which God. Quote: 2)It is not my claim that there is any kind of superior being, yet you want me to define it for you. I can only refute the existence of superior beings that others propose Again, it's the op in question. If you say "There is no evidence for a deity, based on the common notion of deity.. no problems. If you say "I have evidence that God doesn't exist", I will want to see what evidence this is and what you mean by God. Seems reasonable to me.
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

30th December 2011, 12:21 PM	#89
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,621	Originally Posted by RobDegraves All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way? I have already clearly stated how one does that. One follows the evidence to the conclusion. One does not start with the conclusion and then look for evidence. Following the evidence one finds overwhelmingly that evidence supports the conclusion that gods are mythical fiction generated by humans. One finds zero evidence that gods are any more than human generated fiction. And just as it is unscientific to start an investigation searching for Harry Potter's Hogwarts based ONLY upon the evidence found in a fictional story, it is equally unscientific to fabricate a god myth where the god would be undetectable and then proclaim science cannot disprove said fiction.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 30th December 2011 at 12:23 PM.*

30th December 2011, 12:28 PM	#90
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,535	Originally Posted by RobDegraves @TheGoldCountry 1. I'm not defining any deity. 2. The op says "Evidence there is no God". Ergo, I ask which God. Again, it's the op in question. If you say "There is no evidence for a deity, based on the common notion of deity.. no problems. If you say "I have evidence that God doesn't exist", I will want to see what evidence this is and what you mean by God. Seems reasonable to me. Fine, after thousands of years, the only God I have seen proposed is the one who mirrors the ideals of each individual. I am incapable of disproving the existence of the millions of personal deities of billions of people. I see no significance in this. Please explain to me why I should.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

30th December 2011, 05:40 PM	#91
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,784	Originally Posted by Mudcat Are you kidding me? If Yahweh actually existed than the evidence would be hard to miss, indeed you'd have to be functionally brain dead not to notice the heaps of evidence for him. The most damning evidence of all: We're still alive. And yeah, I'm familiar* with the notion that there may be a deity of which we have no concept of. To which I say bullocks. There's no point in investing in the idea at all*. _{Evidence is earlier in this thread. I have pointed it out before, because God botherers like to try to use the concept. **As was pointed out by a few here.} Would that be a God That Exists In Mysterious Ways?

30th December 2011, 06:35 PM	#92
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,282	Originally Posted by RobDegraves All right.. then to be more direct, how would you investigate the existence of a deity in a scientific way? How about the quite scientific Templeton study of intercessionary prayer? Financed by people who wanted to show it was effective. Proven ineffective, to the point that people who knew they were being prayed for didn't do as well. Prayer had a negligible or negative effect. Evidence at least the god they were hoping to find scientific evidence for was absent. Of course, there would need to be an infinite number of scientific studies to perfectly disprove the infinite number of possible gods people will invent. Instead, maybe we can just stop worrying and enjoy our lives.
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012

30th December 2011, 09:09 PM	#93
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	Quote: Of course, there would need to be an infinite number of scientific studies to perfectly disprove the infinite number of possible gods people will invent. Instead, maybe we can just stop worrying and enjoy our lives. Pretty well what I do. I also think that the concept of God granting prayers is a childish concept. Though I accept the idea that it's remotely possible, and I do mean remotely, it would be a really stupid system at best.
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

11th January 2012, 10:58 AM	#95
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,029	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott What about the miracles in the Bible? Nobody was asked to take them on faith. Talking snake, staff turned into snake, pillar of fire, burning talking bush, wife turned into pillar of salt, water into wine, oil lamp staying on longer than expected, walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection, and on and on. God's tire gauge was working fine in Bible days. What happened? As you probably realise, you were right in the first place - there is no genuine evidence of a biblical-type God. Is that lack of evidence, actually evidence that he does not exist? Yep, it is. Because what we are talking about is ancient beliefs which 2000 years ago claimed that God was the cause of almost everything that happened on earth (and in the heavens) ... only now, since modern science, we know that none of those things were due to any God ... all those things have perfectly normal explanations. That is very direct and abundant evidence to show that the original beliefs and claims about God were entirely wrong ... every single one of them. Today of course, many religious people wish to drop all those ancient miracle claims, and claim instead that God somehow fits nicely together with whatever we discover from modern science ... eg, the Christian church now officially accepts evolution, but says (contrary to it's original claims) that God created man indirectly simply by setting the universe itself in motion in the first place ... but that's obviously a rather pathetic attempt to keep shifting the goalposts by God-in-the Gaps type arguments. Can we "prove" that a god does not exist? No, not literally by a 100% certain "proof". Because we can't absolutely prove anything in that 100% literal sense, not even in pure maths (there is always a defining assumption somewhere). The only valid question is "what is the evidence?". And the answer to that is - there is zero evidence for any God, but mountains of evidence for perfectly natural explanations in every single thing we have ever discovered and investigated.
IanS Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,029	Last edited by IanS; 11th January 2012 at 10:59 AM.

11th January 2012, 04:17 PM	#96
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by slingblade I needn't then speculate that there may be some kind of elephant I can't detect in the room. Why should I do so? Of what conceivable benefit to me or anyone else would it be to grant the possibility that a completely undetectable elephant, that impacts my life in no discernible way whatsoever, may in fact be somewhere in this room with me? Why should we waste five seconds' thought on this notion? Give me just one sound, valid reason for that. Just one. Why assume the thought is "wasted"? People speculate. Some ideas are useful and some aren't, but is the thinking itself a waste?
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

11th January 2012, 04:30 PM	#97
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott Indeed, if you want to get sciency ... I don't think I'd ever heard that word "sciency" - thanks!
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

11th January 2012, 04:39 PM	#98
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott When pressed, all believers in god end up with no evidence of any god except for their testimony of what's only happening only in their brains. There are believers who say that's a fair enough statement. Does that prove there's no god - no, I don't think so. My opinion.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

11th January 2012, 05:00 PM	#99
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott Tim Tebow is a famous American Football player who is currently know for annoying atheists by praying excessively to Jesus before or after plays. He's been quite successful, but on Christmas day, his team was demolished by an opponent not know for atheist-annoying public praying. Why on earth would a footballer praying annoy anyone?
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

11th January 2012, 06:23 PM	#100
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,621	Originally Posted by Minoosh There are believers who say that's a fair enough statement. Does that prove there's no god - no, I don't think so. My opinion. No, but the evidence all gods are mythical human creations is overwhelming. IMO.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

11th January 2012, 06:58 PM	#101
porch Muse Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 521	Originally Posted by Leumas If we GROW UP and don't need the FAIRY TALES any longer then we should accept that SANTA does not exist...... I agree with you.... we should grow up in exactly the same way in regards to the fairy tale of the bible and YHWH. Oh, woe is me! The arrogance and insults of the asantaists! It seems you are talking about the children's Santa. That's fine. But what about the grown-up, sophisticated Santa? Many believe that Santa isn't actually, literally, a beardy man in a red outfit that pops up and down chimneys, but instead he manifests himself as The Spirit Of Giving, or something, so in a way, he really does make the presents appear under the trees even though he doesn't. And okay, some good children get little or nothing, and some bad children get an embarrassment of riches, but maybe Santa's just like that and we don't understand the mysterious ways of the Claus. Ever think of that? Or maybe Santa exists but he doesn't even have anything to do with Christmas. You can't say he doesn't! Or, um, what else? Oh, I've got one! We don't know everything and who's to say what we'll discover in the future . . . so . . . .erm, Santa? Or something that could be called Santa, but we've never even conceived of it before?! Take that! TOUCHDOWN!! HO! HO! HO! strikes Tebow pose. And then, with a gleam in his eye he puts his finger to the side of his nose, and whooshes up the chimney.
porch Muse Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 521

11th January 2012, 06:58 PM	#102
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,654	Evidence of a thing can only exist if the thing exists. Asking for evidence for or against the existence of a thing for which no evidence exists is stupid. To claim that such a thing exists is even stupider.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

12th January 2012, 05:00 AM	#103
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	Originally Posted by porch Oh, woe is me! The arrogance and insults of the asantaists! It seems you are talking about the children's Santa. That's fine. But what about the grown-up, sophisticated Santa? Many believe that Santa isn't actually, literally, a beardy man in a red outfit that pops up and down chimneys, but instead he manifests himself as The Spirit Of Giving, or something, so in a way, he really does make the presents appear under the trees even though he doesn't. And okay, some good children get little or nothing, and some bad children get an embarrassment of riches, but maybe Santa's just like that and we don't understand the mysterious ways of the Claus. Ever think of that? Or maybe Santa exists but he doesn't even have anything to do with Christmas. You can't say he doesn't! Or, um, what else? Oh, I've got one! We don't know everything and who's to say what we'll discover in the future . . . so . . . .erm, Santa? Or something that could be called Santa, but we've never even conceived of it before?! Take that! TOUCHDOWN!! HO! HO! HO! strikes Tebow pose. And then, with a gleam in his eye he puts his finger to the side of his nose, and whooshes up the chimney. I think the best response to the above is the below Originally Posted by ynot Evidence of a thing can only exist if the thing exists. Asking for evidence for or against the existence of a thing for which no evidence exists is stupid. To claim that such a thing exists is even stupider.
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	__________________ "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't." - Jules Renard "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson

13th January 2012, 06:55 AM	#104
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,159	Originally Posted by RobDegraves Let's say you have a group of people in a room and they are sitting around a table. There is just one door but no one knows what is beyond it because it's locked. Everyone speculates endlessly about what is on the other side. Eventually some people come up with some interesting theories but there is still no way to find out without opening the door. Is it another room, outside, a big hole? One person starts to tell everyone else that there is a monster on the other side of the door. If you open the door, it will eat you. Others scoff and say that the door monster doesn't exist. Eventually the scoffers try to open the door and a large goat kills them. On what basis does the person who says that there is a monster make his claim? Has he heard it? Seen it? Smelled it? If so why can't he provide evidence to the others? "We can all hear that loud noise that sounds like something's smashing everything on the other side of that door, we'd better wait here until it stops" is a very different proposition from "I have no evidence what so ever, but it's just occurred to me that we can't rule out that there isn't a totally silent and undetectable monster on the other side of that door. We'd better just sit here until we die of dehydration among piles of our own bodily waste"
	Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 13th January 2012 at 07:16 AM. Reason: Stupid fingers

13th January 2012, 07:20 AM	#105
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	Quote: On what basis does the person who says that there is a monster make his claim? Has he heard it? Seen it? Smelled it? If so why can't he provide evidence to the others? You do know that it's an analogy right? It was meant to illustrate the idea that without information at all, there is no point in speculating. I don't know if they saw the monster because it's just an analogy. I don't know if they have food and water or a tv, because it's an analogy. Next time I will just state things rather than use analogies. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. Sheesh.
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

13th January 2012, 07:41 AM	#106
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,159	You know that my response was an analogy as well, right? Obviously not, 'Sheesh' yourself. Your analogy wasn't hard to grasp, it just wasn't very good. Fantastical circumstances tortured to give an unrealistic result normally aren't.
	Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 13th January 2012 at 07:51 AM. Reason: Still have stupid fingers.....

17th January 2012, 03:22 PM	#109
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	There is no such thing as Nature. There is no Universe. There is no such thing as Existence. So there is no God.

17th January 2012, 03:41 PM	#110
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,654	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson There is no such thing as Nature. There is no Universe. There is no such thing as Existence. So there is no God. Was going to reply but apparently I don't exist to do so.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

17th January 2012, 03:53 PM	#111
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,478	Originally Posted by ynot Was going to reply but apparently I don't exist to do so. If I don't exist then who played guitar and sang at the Mayor's Ball last Saturday? These are deep waters.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

17th January 2012, 08:14 PM	#112
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,282	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson There is no such thing as Nature. There is no Universe. There is no such thing as Existence. So there is no God. What doesn't exist is thoughtfulness behind that remark.
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012