The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: cut to the chase...

Re: cut to the chase...
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Thursday, December 8 2011, 20:50:52 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

>Sorry. I have to answer your question with a question. It is the same question you have not answered. The question is: “Does the possibility of an uncaused instigator sound more illogical than its alternative: infinite regression?”


..that's a classical dodge. If you refuse to answer questions why do you expect me to? This whole started out with a simple.."what evidence is there for the existence of a god?" We didn't start out bandying about philosophical conundrums...it may be "philosophical" to you, but to me it's very simple. Give me evidence...I say there is no god....I don't have to prove a negative. Either you agree, or not. If you disagree, then you must have some basis for believing there is one...and there this discussion is stalled...stalled because you won't address the issue. Had I claimed there was a god, I would have to give my evidence....since you think there is one; give me yours, don't turn around and ask ME a question...we can get to your question after you answer mine. It's really very simple and your avoidance of such a simple question, substitution instead another one which looks, to the simple, to be "complex"...well, it makes one wonder why you won;t back up your beliefs but choose to question mine instead....what are you afraid of?

>Francis Collins also answers with a question. Check out his lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXFwmOy-2eQ&feature=related . His question is “which of those conclusions requires more faith?”.

...I manage very well thinking for myself...it must be so because obviously I've asked a question you either can't answer or refuse to...I didn't need his help, or Einsteins. With all do (sic) respect, you remind me of conversations I overheard in college where people would be discussing heavy issues by merely re-stating what some author du jour, or from antiquity, said...these conversations went like this..."Collins says that Einstein really meant X"..."oh no no, you see Aristotle confirmed that the opposite is true, and I believe, with Conrad, that Daffy Duck got it wrong"...this would go on and on without a single original or unattributed "idea" being expressed.

...what has Collins or Einstein or Aquinas got to do with anything? They had their ideas, and I have mine. Let's discuss MY ideas and YOURS. So, what is YOUR idea on evidence for the existence of god?
>
>Which one?
>
> what is there to debate about the earth being flat? There can be no debate. 700 years ago you might have been able to have such a debate...but not any longer. There is no evidence for the existence of a god...period!
>
>Again with the period? 700 years ago, our debate would have been like this:
>
>A: “The earth could be round”
>P: “show me the proof”.
>A: “I don't have one, but...”
>P: “NO PROOF, PERIOD”

...that was not the set-up. Years ago most people believed, not thought, but BELIEVED the world was flat..as they did that the sun revolved around the earth....where was the proof for that? There began to be evidence that both positions were not true...but the church would not allow that. Without any evidence, and contrary to scientific proof, they killed people for refusing to believe their dogma...which brings us back to the core of this discussion; church dogma and what it has cost us, regardless of whether or no there is a god behind said dogma.

...they did not say, "the earth COULD be round"...that is not what I posited anyway. They said the earth is FLAT...take it from there.
>
>Did you read the fallacy I gave you? The fallacy says:
>
> “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.”
>http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

...they are not the same. The burden of proof does not fall equally on both sides....the one making the fantastic claim has the obligation to provide evidence. If you say pigs fly on Mars, YOU have to prove it...it is ridiculous to say that because I can't prove they DON'T, that both our positions are worthy and equally plausible. No they are not!

>
>By saying “it is a FACT that there is no God BECAUSE there is no evidence”, you are committing a fallacy.

...not at all. YOU say there is a god and YOU provide no evidence. And then you turn around and say..."now YOU prove I'm wrong". I'm under no obligation, legal or logical, to prove whatever theory you have wrong. There is no end to the outlandish ideas you could get...and you mean to tell me that I have to accept each and every one as possible or plausible unless I can show PROOF that they're not??? Really???? Come on....get real.
>
> What you claim to be evidence, isn't.
>
>Show me when, through a quotation, I have ever claimed something to be “EVIDENCE” for God's existence. Just show me.

...you haven't. That's the WHOLE POINT. You merely make a statement, outlandish and ridiculous to my ears, and then insist I prove it wrong...and if I can't, "then it might be true"...what kind of logic is that?
>
> we don;t know who if anything made trees....you say god...I say there is no evidence for that...and then you say that because I can't match you with some answer...because I don;t have a competing god, or some other idea I am certain of, or, since I can't prove to you that your god didn't create trees...there fore i MUST accept your explanation....no way. There's no logic there.
>
>No. I never said you “MUST” accept my explanation. When did I say that? Just show me when... SHOW ME!

...fine, then what are we discussing? I say the Yankees are the best team and you say they are not...where is there a discussion? I say there is no god, you say there is...what's to discuss? The discussion was not about that..it was about what the EFFECTS have been on humans of religions which claim they are backed by god.....I said it matters not at all if there is a god or not...what matters is what people do when they BELIEVE there is one...you said believing in him makes better Nazis, or something like that...I said believing in him makes people INTO Nazis, if they want to become Nazis.
>
>Our argument went like this (I'm paraphrasing):
>
>P: “For SURE there is no God”
>A: “No, it's NOT for sure...”
>P: “Do you belief in God?”
>A: “Yes I do but...”
>P: “Show me the proof then”
>A: “There's isn't because you see...”
>P: “YOU HAVE NO PROOF, PERIOD”!

...here it is again..

P: For sure there are no pigs flying on Mars
A: No, it is NOT for sure
P: (at this point I should call the mental hospital, but I don't) Do you believe in pigs flying on Mars?
A: Yes I do but...
P: (again I am tempted to call someone, maybe the police, but I don't) Show me the proof then.
A" There isn't any you see..
P. YOU HAVE NO PROOF PERIOD!

....seems pretty clear-cut to me. The burden of proof for fantastic statements rests with the one making the statement. If you run back to me from over the hill and say, "Wow, I saw bananas growing there"...I don't need evidence...I know bananas grow on earth, I know they grow all around us, so I can easily believe that you saw a banana tree growing over the hill....but if you say you saw a 1955 Chevy growing on a tree, I'd be allowed to ask you to prove it. And if you refused to prove it, I'd be forgiven for not believing you...and you'd be considered nuts for making such a claim, and then expecting ME to prove you wrong or else BELIEVE you.


>
>I never said “for sure there is God”. Yes I do believe there is God, but that's something personal. I never said DURING the debate that “there is God for a fact”. You, on the other hand, confirmed, “for a fact” that there is no God. Fact?

...yes, of course. I see no reason why I have to prove it...do I have to prove every hare-brained idea humans come up with? Do I have to prove Blacks are inferior to Whites? I simply do not believe it because I see no evidence for it.

...anyone not bitten by the disease has no need to prove the obvious...even the god-people break down when a child asks, "well then who made god"? At which point they simply say, "you have to take it faith"...since we finally have to take god on faith...then my faith tells me there is no god and my eyes tell me that no one who believes there is has ever produced evidence.
>
>I didn't say you must accept my argument. All what I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with CONSIDERING God as one of the possibilities.

...yes there is. It is unhealthy for human beans to believe in fantasies...especially when they make weapons of mass destruction..it is not sound to think you are going to live on a cloud when you die....it is especially dangerous to warp the minds of young children with this crap.
>
>Check out this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbPZd2DXlE
>
> You find some poop on the ground and say "Jesus did it"! I find the same poop and say, "I don't know who did it". One of us is being reasonable and the other is shoveling poop.
>
>No you do not say "I don't know who did it". You do not say “I don't know how the universe came into existence”. You say “I do not 'believe'... I KNOW for a FACT that there is no God, no creator, no superior intellect behind all this”. And how did you, dear Pancho, come to know this for a fact?

...because the people who believe in god have never provided the evidence. I DON'T believe in god and don;t believe there is a shred of evidence that he exists...but, I'm not the one making the fantastic claim...it is fantastic to think to explain anything away by calling on god....god-people make the fantastic claim, it is not MY job therefore to prove THEM wrong...it is THEIR job.

...when someone makes a claim...he can't right after say, "now you prove me wrong"....to make a claim is no proof...it is just words...especially if it is a fantastic claim...once the person has PROVEN or backed up his claim, THEN I can have a go at him....but you haven't done that, except to say "it is a personal matter". As a "personal matter" there are 456 people, locked away, who believe they are Napoleon. As long as they are safely put away we don;t care what their personal beliefs are...but when they become politicians and doctors and teachers, we SHOULD care what their personal beliefs are.
>
>“NO PROOF, PERIOD”.
>
> it is not a belief that there is no god...it is a belief that there IS a god. It is a FACT that there is no God...it is not a belief.
>
>See?

...yes, it is a fact because the people who believe in him, who first make the statement that there is one, have provided no proof. The world didn;t begin by people saying there is NO god...it began by people saying there IS a god...had it been the other way around you might want to ask them why they are sure there isn't...but that's not the sequence of events; it begins with people insisting, to the point of murder, that there MUST be a god...therefore it is valid to ask them why they believe it..and why they kill for that belief. The burden is still on THEM and not on me.
>
> >>[b] Aquinas starts out by saying "we know a god exists"...and then he thinks to prove it.
>>>
>>>Source? Quote? I don't think so.
>>
>>...his first point or premise or whatever...he states that we know SOMETHING must be behind all of this...his four or five other steps are merely to prove that that someone is HIS god...very silly.
>
>Ah so he does NOT start out by saying "we know God exists”. Let us have a look at what Aquinas said:
>
>1. Everything is caused by something other than itself or else it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
>2. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
>3. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, then there must be a first cause.
>4. This first cause is referred to as "God".

..."everything is caused by something"....is the same as "there must be a first cause"....and his last statement merely picks a name. This is so silly!
>
>Yes he said “something” is behind all this. Do you have an objection to that? Of course you do: “It's silly”, isn't it?

...he goes on to give fingers and toes to god...he isn;t content to say "something exists behind all this"...he goes on to tell us what pants god wears...I also think he's the one who claimed to fly around Notre Dame cathedral..or one of them fathers. Aquinas is speaking in circles...he already believes ther is SOMETHING...there he and I agree....but he's trying to MAKE that something HIS god..and not only that but to go on and tell me what his god says and thinks and wants and what will happen to me if I displease etc. Like I said, I am willing to concede the mystery, that does NOT mean I accept whatever huckster comes up with a looney tune, carnival EXPLANATION of that mystery.
>
> >>God is one of the possibilities. Not only you reject it, you reject also the search for an alternative explanation. It would be foolish to do so, you say.

..it is foolish for humans, who can't balance their checkbooks, to think they can define god. I'm not the foolish one...I admit my wonder AND my limitations...god-people are measuring the distance to heaven already.
>>
>>...he is not a possibility...any more than a red wagon is a possibility. YOU think he is a possible explanation...but based on what?
>
>Based on what? Was I talking to myself all the time? Our argument went as follows (I'm paraphrasing):
>
>P: “God is not a possibility”
>A: “Well, let's look at the alternative possibilities”
>P: “I don't care”
>
>Well, LET's look at the other possibilities:
>
>1. Infinite regression (Aquinas and Aristotle)
>2. Infinite parallel universes (from Francis Collin's lecture above)
>
>You have not successfully refuted Aquinas. How about SHOWING us that he is silly instead of just SAYING he is silly. And how about showing us that Francis Collins is also silly.

...it is silly to believe in what you can't prove...especially when that belief is used to slaughter humans. There is no need to prove a god's existence...not unless you're planning some huge mischief.

...again I end with the simple fact that the burden of proof lies with those making fantastic claims...and NOT with those who refuse to believe...because it comes down to BELIEF..and there is no reason for me to believe in what you can't PROVE!

...YOU provide the evidence for your fantastic statement...and I'll back mine up,,,but you go first...since it is god-people who started this thing.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9