Right, and you said that first one must prove the existence of the thing before making claims about it.
You forgot to prove you exist before making claims about yourself.
2 Likes
I will assume your condescending tone was unintentional.
I’m glad you put proofs and evidence in quotations, since none has been forthcoming.
I read the article and found the contortions used to dismiss the absence of evidence to be tedious and entirely unconvincing.
Not surprising in the least that he decided the catholic god was the correct one. Still sans evidence.
No matter…he is the authority you choose to exalt.
I understand you well enough.
I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you really do not see the flaws in your examples.
While mermaids have been spoken of for many years, the possibility of such has not been demonstrated. Likely the original “evidence” was a porpoise or dolphin or perhaps a whale. No mermaid has ever been properly evidenced and has most
probably been falsified by the previous examples given. Searching for something which has other demonstrable explanations would clearly be a fools errand, absent any empirical evidence.
No sane bird watcher or photographer would go searching for a bird reported by a dubious source and absent any evidence. (colloquially known as a “wild goose chase”)
However, birds are known to exist and new species are still found occasionally, so searching for a bird would be far more rational than searching for a god.
Now, the god claims contain zero evidence beyond serving as an undeserving answer to fundamental questions concerning reality and/or existence. No god has been shown to even be possible.
Possibility has to be demonstrated.
We have become aliens to our moon and are planning manned voyages to Mars and elsewhere. Possibility demonstrated.
I am unqualified to discuss dark matter.
Ah yes, the grounding argument re-emerges.
It never ceases to amaze me how far some are willing to go to justify their beliefs.
1 Like
I doubt it. A valid argument need not* have true premises or a true conclusion. On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to. I would like to see you present an argument both valid and sound for a god thing.
In the end, even if a valid and sound argument for god could be made, you would still need to produce that god. If the argument were sound and valid, all you could possibly say is that there is a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god, and not God Exists.
1 Like
Hell, I have good evidence for the existence of a god. My cell phone is god. I worship it. You can not deny that I believe my cell phone is god, nor can you deny its existence. This is not fucking difficult at all. Existence is not a problem. It’s the combination of Existence, God, and the definition of God that is the problem. Just because you define a god into existence does not mean it qualifies as a god. And as I said before, even if you have a good argument for god’s existence, all you have is an argument, you still need to produce the god.
3 Likes
So, the predictions of particles like the positron, the neutrino, or the Higgs (and their properties) was not proper science? After all, physicists made claims about the properties of these particles before their existence was confirmed experimentally. By your method, the proper way would be to first discover the positron, the neutrino, and the Higgs particle experimentally before making theoretical predictions. Are you sure you’re a trained scientist?
4 Likes
Well yes anyone can hold subjective religious beliefs, and create clever arguments, but without any objective evidence why would I care? One assumes there are very intelligent and well educated people who believe in entirely different deities and religions, so without objective evidence to support those beliefs, what is it you expect us do with this fact?
He was an atheist and now he is a theist, well it’s impossible to become a theist unless one was an atheist of course, and we all start as atheists, since we are born without beliefs, so I am always slightly puzzled at the significance some theists seem to attach to such conversion.
I have little interest in the gentleman’s story of course, as it is not in and of itself relevant to the existence of a deity, only a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence can do this for me. Does that link contain any such evidence? If so just quote it, and we will take a good look.
I think you made one right there, that you have, and can demonstrate objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of god.
There is another one, though you are specifically not using the word god, but unless you are saying this first cause is not in fact a deity, then that is a claim about a deity you made?
I never got any response to this point, and it is a very important mistake many visiting theists and apologists make, which often can skew their entire argument. If they start from the false premise that atheism is a claim, then they are from that point basing their assumptions about atheists on a straw man.
2 Likes
In fact I have asked what evidence he has to support this assertion as well, and received no real explanation of why he thinks this is a common opinion among atheists, or theists come to that, given anyone can disavow themselves in a few seconds using Google it seems pretty dubious to me?
There is plenty of objective evidence that there is in fact a longstanding antipathy towards science by religion, and again I never got a response as to why he thinks this is an erroneous opinion, rather then a fairly well evidenced fact? Starting with the RCC’s attempt to suppress Galileo’s evidence of heliocentrism, submitting him to the Inquisition threatening him with torture and execution, and ultimately imprisoning him under house arrest, up the present day, where creatists relentless attack scientific facts like species evolution, or the RCC lying that condoms don’t help stop the spread of HIV infection, as a few examples.
This is not an erroneous belief any atheist could hold obviously, in the only example offered, professor Dawkins is clearly talking hypothetically, by drawing a hypothetical inference from certain apologetics. Again this is has not really been addressed.
How is this erroneous, where is this rigorous demonstration of the existence of any deity? You can’t accuse people of holding an erroneous belief without evidencing that claim.
Again no atheist would hold any such opinion of course, as by definition they don’t believe any deity exists. As for theists, we will again require objective evidence this is a common opinion they hold, then objective evidence it is erroneous of course. So far I have seen nothing to support either claim. Beyond that I have seen no objective evidence a deity exists, so making assertions about what it has or has not done seem moot to me.
This is a nice objection.
The answer is that, to the extent the existence of these particles hasn’t been proven, then the properties they are thought to have remains putative/nominal, or if you prefer, hypothetical.
The properties of the Higgs boson can not be proven to actually exist before the Higgs boson itself is proven to exist. But we would not thereby be prevented from saying, “if the Higgs boson were to exist it would most likely have these properties.”
No particle has been proven to exist.
2 Likes
Overwhelming empirical evidence is there. These particles[*] behave and interact just as theoretical predictions said they would. For all practical purposes, the particles properties are real. To suggest otherwise amounts to semantic nitpicking bullcrap. Reserve that for the next level of understanding in physics.
[*] Whether they are[†] actual particles, or waves, or waves and particles, or strings, or unicorn droppings, is irrelevant to this, as well as musings as to how many angels or demons can fit on a pinhead, as the empirical results speak clearly shows that they interact with their environment, and do it as predicted.
[†] semantic nitpicking about stuff’s existence in the way philosophers tend to do when sucking the air and all happiness out of the room[‡], is irrelevant for this.
[‡] Yes, I’ve been exposed to philosophers with no clue about STEM fields that insist they know more[§] about physics than the physicists.
[§] Darn besserwissers[‖].
[‖] Know-it-alls, in case you didn’t know[¶]
[¶] Yes, I like footnotes.
6 Likes
I am a scientist… not sure what you’re on about.
It would help if you read what I wrote.
Likewise.
(20 characters)
So could you state your follow up objection intelligently and in a way that shows you’ve read my response? Which isn’t nit-picky. It’s a patient reexplaining of a fairly obvious point.
(Nope, don’t just respond. READ)
If you can pinpoint what you don’t understand, it would be helpful.
What you responded to is just an explanation that claims of existence precede claims about properties.
Do you find this methodological point objectionable?
Annoyance aside, @Get_off_my_lawn what’s your take on having a distinct thread to talk about the scientific method(s)?
Since you are an assumed theist, can you tell me in what Bronze, Iron Age, or New Age religion that you have swallowed in the 21st Century?
Don’t be SCARED in telling us what DIVISION of faith you accept, okay? Thank you.
.
@21stCenturyIconoclas I’m not interest in discussing religion or faith here.
If I have something like a naive belief it’s this: humans have the potential to know the truth about everything, including God.
You’ve already discussed both?
And you did again right there?
So which deity are you talking about, and why do you think humans are able to know anything about it? Indeed why do you think there is a deity to know anything about? Why do you believe a deity exists? What (if any) objective evidence can you demonstrate a deity exists, or is even possible? You claimed before you could offer objectively verifiable evidence, on here posters don’t get to make such claims then walk away. Here is your claim:
We can only infer this wasn’t true, and withhold belief otherwise.