nobody else can prove god to you with words or telling you experiences, you would need to prove it to yourself. howcomes you don't seem content in your words when you post about god.
peace.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
God is a crutch for the weak minded
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
nobody else can prove god to you with words or telling you experiences, you would need to prove it to yourself. howcomes you don't seem content in your words when you post about god.
peace.
nobody else can prove god to you with words or telling you experiences, you would need to prove it to yourself.
Incorrect, one cannot prove the existence of a certain entity "by himself", (unless he squeezes real hard and makes himself believe in it or see it, while hoping it doesn't lead to a permanent coma).
If we are going to talk facts instead of nonsense then 'experience' in such matters is the only important factor. If I saw a leprechaun today by tomorrow I'd believe in their existence. One visit from a god and the problem is dealt with - voila, it's a miracle :bugeye:
In the meantime, (I assume the big guy's a little bit busy right now and so can't take the time out to offer me his eternal love), I can only make do with arguments. Arguments for the existence of such entity and arguments against. Now, as unfortunate as it might be being a human, I cannot squeeze myself into being convinced by an argument. I either find it compelling or I don't. Alas the theist doesn't even have a remotely worthwhile argument to make. Hence I still don't believe in your particular brand of tripe. It's not my fault, find a better argument.
howcomes you don't seem content in your words when you post about god.
Please, quote me if you have a specific issue regarding what I have written.
Actually, you can prove the existence of yourself, to yourself, it isn't hard at all.SnakeLord said:Incorrect, one cannot prove the existence of a certain entity "by himself"
The existence of a certain entity, namely you, does not require that you "talk" to anyone, or think a load of nonsense; the only "nonsense" involved is the erroneous idea that there is some external, all-powerful being who's going to rescue you somehow.
That's the fantasy side of it.
God does exist because you do - you are your own god. You just have to realise how actually insignificant that god is, then you should see it.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
1. Not really with concerns to statements to the non-existence of something. I'm sure many times in your life you have made such statements: "santa claus does not exist" without ever being under the impression that there is some onus on you to 'prove' that he doesn't. It only works the other way around - a positive claim to the existence of something. For example: "santa claus does exist". Interestingly, this applies to any unobserved, claimed existing entity.
2. It comes down to statement types. Consider the following:
- all swans are white
- there is a black swan in London
As you can see, the first statement is falsifiable, (show one non-white swan and it's falsified) but it isn't verifiable, (regardless to how much you search you could have missed a non-white swan).
The second statement is the opposite - it is verifiable, (you see the black swan) but not falsifiable, (if you don't see it that's because it flew somewhere else etc).
'god/leprechaun/fairy exists' statements are of the second type - they are verifiable, (show a god, leprechaun etc), but are not falsifiable, (if you don't see one it's because it's invisible etc) - hence the onus can only be upon the claimant to the existence of.
Now, along with fairies, dragons, demons, sasquatch and el chupacbra I can quite happily state that a god "doesn't exist" and go about my merry way until such time when you have evidence to show that this entity does exist. There is simply no reason to take the claims of theists as credible. If they contend otherwise I give them ample opportunity to make their case. Alas it typically ends up with, "it says in this book.." which is utterly pathetic.
There is no future.
There is no past.
The self does not continue through time.
There are no electrons.
There was no big bang.
Of course a negative sentence is an assertion of knowledge. It means you know something CANNOT be the case. This is a major claim abou what is possible and what must be. It implies a great deal of knowledge since one is completely eliminating a possibility.
To say there is no God must be working from knowledge that one knows the way universes work or at least how this one does and there is no way a God could have anything to do with it. Or it means one is making a claim to have looked everywhere, in some completely thorough way not limited by current technology, somehow.
There are no five legged frogs
is a claim to knowledge - about the possibilities of frog birth defects and mutation for example.
(and I realize there are experiments that seem to show two of the above unobservables - and in fact I believe in them, myself - but the existence of these unobservables is very hard to prove, we can only point to effects and make claims of the essential things that caused them.)
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
1a
2a
2b
I am trying to reconcile the various things you say. At the very least you must be able to see how what you are saying is confusing.
Notice the 'Anyone', a category that would include your children who are Christians.
Notice that your children, including the Christian ones, have lives that are 'abundant'. Despite what you said about them elsewhere. Despite what you say about theists and followers of the Abrahamic religions elsewhere and above. If they can be an exception, why not others? Why not many? If they are not evil, or do you think this, why not others? You say of theists
And so on.
There are other contradictions between your beliefs - or at least how you describe them, but these were the most obvious ones.
Now you have said twice that I do not know you. Again, of course I don't. I do know what you have written in this thread. Do you?
1bOriginally Posted by Medicine*Woman
*************
M*W: My children who are adults now can make their own decisions about what they believe. They don't need my influence to what they believe. I will accept whatever religion they choose. I will support them with whatever religion they choose. I love my children enough that I will accept whatever religion they may choose. Life goes on, long after the feel of living is gone. Rock on.
Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
Anyone who professes devotion to the Abrahamic religions are evil. That goes for Christians, Muslims and Jews.
2a
Even though I raised my children as christians, I had to leave them behind spiritually, because they wanted to live in their trite little world of fear, hell and damnation.
2b
I wasn't speaking about the "trite little world" of my children. Actually, they are all doing quite well, and I see their lives as being quite abundant.
I am trying to reconcile the various things you say. At the very least you must be able to see how what you are saying is confusing.
Notice the 'Anyone', a category that would include your children who are Christians.
Notice that your children, including the Christian ones, have lives that are 'abundant'. Despite what you said about them elsewhere. Despite what you say about theists and followers of the Abrahamic religions elsewhere and above. If they can be an exception, why not others? Why not many? If they are not evil, or do you think this, why not others? You say of theists
and of your children that you 'act' like they are not hopeless. As if this acting was not matched by your belief. But if their lives are abundant, why are they hopeless? If they are not hopeless why not others?They are hopeless
And so on.
There are other contradictions between your beliefs - or at least how you describe them, but these were the most obvious ones.
Now you have said twice that I do not know you. Again, of course I don't. I do know what you have written in this thread. Do you?
God does exist because you do - you are your own god.
Sure, if we define 'god' to mean human being. Even my cup of tea is god if we define 'god' to mean cup of tea. I don't quite see the point.
There is no future.
There is no past.
The self does not continue through time.
There are no electrons.
There was no big bang.
You should notice that all of your above statements are of the first type.
To say there is no God must be working from knowledge that one knows the way universes work or at least how this one does and there is no way a God could have anything to do with it. Or it means one is making a claim to have looked everywhere, in some completely thorough way not limited by current technology, somehow.
The same would be true for invisible leprechauns. What is your point? Being of the first type, you could never verify the negative, you could only falsify it by showing it to be wrong. The onus lies on the person making the positive - "invisible leprechauns exist" - because he can verify it, (by presenting his invisible leprechaun).
Once again: Now, along with fairies, dragons, demons, sasquatch and el chupacbra I can quite happily state that a god "doesn't exist" and go about my merry way until such time when you have evidence to show that this entity does exist. There is simply no reason to take the claims of theists as credible. If they contend otherwise I give them ample opportunity to make their case. I am waiting.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
1) you are assuming that the only two classes of people are those asserting there is a _________. and those who are asserting there is no ___________. People who do not know or are not sure ABSOLUTELY deserve some evidence that the second group has some evidence, presumably deductive.The same would be true for invisible leprechauns. What is your point? Being of the first type, you could never verify the negative, you could only falsify it by showing it to be wrong. The onus lies on the person making the positive - "invisible leprechauns exist" - because he can verify it, (by presenting his invisible leprechaun).
2) I do not think this holds in scientific contexts. One scientists says that there are no other universes or nothing happened before the big bang. Other scientists would quite rightly ask for deductive proofs or evidence to back up such a claim, whether they believed these things were true or not.
3) There are obvious exceptions to you rule around private experience or impressions that one is sick. In fact in recent history we have medical examples where people were told by doctors they were not sick and later it was found that they indeed were - Epstein Barr virus/Fibromyalgia. Some doctors took a more careful line and said - before the illness was found - we cannot find anything wrong with you.
The one's who said that there was nothing wrong with them were wrong. There is a difference between the claims ' I can find/I cannot see any evidence to support your assertion' and 'There is no___________' Scientists eliminating that distinction professionally will run into professional problems.