In regards to atheism.

Michael 345 said:
Not necessarily our senses but interact with senses or some sensing device we have built to detect something we suspect exist but our senses by themselves are incapable of detecting

ex·ist
\ig-ˈzist\
  • : to have actual being : to be real
  • : to continue to be or to live
Mirriam-Webster



None of the examples given meet the standard of having a existence

:)
Click to expand...
IMO:
A rock exists, but does not live and it becomes 'no longer a rock' by chemical and physical degradation and disolution over geologic time.
Radiation exists, but was not recognized or understood until we developed methodologies to detect radiation and hypotheses/theories to explain radiation.
God exists, but is not recognized by 'nonbelievers' (atheists) until methodologies are developed to detect and evidentially demonstrate God. Believers (theists) recognize God as real regardless of evidentiary demonstration of His existence.
 
karenmansker said:
IMO:
A rock exists, but does not live and it becomes 'no longer a rock' by chemical and physical degradation and disolution over geologic time.
Radiation exists, but was not recognized or understood until we developed methodologies to detect radiation and hypotheses/theories to explain radiation.
God exists, but is not recognized by 'nonbelievers' (atheists) until methodologies are developed to detect and evidentially demonstrate God. Believers (theists) recognize God as real regardless of evidentiary demonstration of His existence.
Click to expand...
I should go to hell in your mind?
 
Jan Ardena said:
This isn't even an analogy. This is the perspective of someone who does NOT comprehend God.

If it is a dragon,...

  1. a mythical monster like a giant reptile. In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens.
  2. 2.
    another term for flying lizard.
... it will be what it is. If you add the quality of invisibility to it, and no feel of heat when it breathes fire, then you have to explain how something that is perceived as visible, can become invisible, even breathing heatless fire.
Click to expand...

You are being deliberately obtuse. E̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶a̶l̶o̶g̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶ ̶

E̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶l̶l̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶s̶m̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶d̶s̶.̶ ̶ ̶
J̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶D̶r̶a̶g̶o̶d̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶g̶a̶r̶a̶g̶e̶.̶ ̶
D̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶S̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶e̶.̶ ̶
J̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶.̶ ̶
D̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶G̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶
J̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶e̶s̶t̶.̶ ̶
D̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶S̶o̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶

No. you're being obtuse.

You're a classic troll, Jan.

You have ticked off every troll tactic in the book. I gave you more credit than others, who saw through you right away.
 
Last edited:
Beer w/Straw said:
I should go to hell in your mind?
Click to expand...
Did I say that? . . . . .NOT!!

Science historically has employed the Scientific Method to examine and observe otherwise unexplainable phenomena, and via the Method to determine and explain the underlying causes of such phenomena. But phenomena are seemingly not finite in number. Newly recognized or observed phenomena will require application of the Method to determine new causalities that are perhaps yet unrecognized.
 
Dave, explain why the dragon cannot be detected at all. After all it is a dragon.
We have Comodo dragons with us. They don't breath fire but they are called dragons.
If Sagan's dragon was a Comodo dragon, we would expect to see it. If it was invisible, we would expect an explanation. If one wasn't forthcoming, or if it was stupid, we would resort back to what we know.

Jan.
 
karenmansker said:
Radiation exists, but was not recognized or understood until we developed methodologies to detect radiation and hypotheses/theories to explain radiation.
Click to expand...
Radiation did have a physical effect whether we understood it or not. What physical effect do we need the hypothesis of god for? And then, how do you propose we test that hypothesis?
 
karenmansker said:
IMO:
A rock exists, but does not live and it becomes 'no longer a rock' by chemical and physical degradation and disolution over geologic time.
Radiation exists, but was not recognized or understood until we developed methodologies to detect radiation and hypotheses/theories to explain radiation.
God exists, but is not recognized by 'nonbelievers' (atheists) until methodologies are developed to detect and evidentially demonstrate God. Believers (theists) recognize God as real regardless of evidentiary demonstration of His existence.
Click to expand...
Is this not a fallacious argument, in that you're assuming that radiation and rocks are of the same category as God for the purposes of detection. Do you honestly think that being able to evidence God is just a matter, say, of refining our lab equipment?
And you state that God exists in your opinion, but do you have anything other than your opinion to support that assertion? I.e. is there anything you are able to add to the discussion other than "I think God exists"? For example, why do you think God exists?
 
Jan Ardena said:
Your ability to understand?
...
See if you can understand stuff?
Click to expand...
That seems to just beg the question that God is the source of our ability to understand. Since there are theories for the ability to understand that do not include the need for God, the question almost certainly remains: what physical effect do we need the hypothesis of god for?
Are you able to offer anything that perhaps does not beg the question?
 
Jan Ardena said:
We have Comodo dragons with us. They don't breath fire but they are called dragons.
If Sagan's dragon was a Comodo dragon, we would expect to see it. If it was invisible, we would expect an explanation. If one wasn't forthcoming, or if it was stupid, we would resort back to what we know.
Click to expand...
Comodo Dragon is a freeware web-browser. As such we do not see it but we do see it's implementation.
What you are referring to are the Komodo dragons. Just thought I'd point that out.
 
Sarkus said:
Comodo Dragon is a freeware web-browser. As such we do not see it but we do see it's implementation.
What you are referring to are the Komodo dragons. Just thought I'd point that out.
Click to expand...

Thank you Sarkus.
Your obsession with insignificant detail is duly noted.

jan.
 
gmilam said:
Troll.
Click to expand...

According to a definition by Princeton, Internet trolls are individuals who purposely post inflammatory, off topic or extraneous posts on websites in an effort to stir up drama or harass other members. It is important to define the Internet troll as an important factor in maintaining the cyber safety of children.

jan.
 
Sarkus said:
That seems to just beg the question that God is the source of our ability to understand. Since there are theories for the ability to understand that do not include the need for God, the question almost certainly remains: what physical effect do we need the hypothesis of god for?
Are you able to offer anything that perhaps does not beg the question?
Click to expand...

Already done. That you disagree with it is your prerogative.

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top