Proof of God

[Saquist]

Yeah I have a hopless case of Miles-itis. Not even moderators can get rid of it.oke:

Some of us have work to be getting on with. One can only take so much time out to laugh at uninhibited displays of ignorance and drivel spouting from your keyboard.

That's the wonderfull thing about working from home...
Obviously you're not one those "someones", Sarkus. You must live on a steady diet of drivel.

 

[jayleew]

Looks like there are a couple of trolls here. Quit antagonizing! They can't possibly provide any scientific evidence that you are looking for ppl, so it doesn't garner a response. It's annoying. It doesn't prove anything, and serves no purpose other than to flame, and make you look fanatical.

 

[Myles]

Yeah I have a hopless case of Miles-itis. Not even moderators can get rid of it.oke:

Why waste your valuable time when you have research to do ? Will you publish your work ? A suitable title might be " The New Enlightenment"

 

[Saquist]

Why waste your valuable time when you have research to do ? Will you publish your work ? A suitable title might be " The New Enlightenment"

oke:

 

[Myles]

Now that's whatI call subtle. I underestimated you.

 

[Myles]

oke:

Is that the key you use to unlock the secrets of the Bible ?

 

[Red Devil]

This arguement has been going on in this forum since its conception and there is still no answer except "god does not exist because I know he/she/it does not" - there.

 

[Myles]

Next time take a little more time with the response.
15 minutes for that is ridiculous...

so I'm glad you've embraced your blinders...it may not be a step forward...but it is the predictable outcome

Another point for Saquist. The outcome was predicted in Revelations.

 

[Myles]

Yeah I have a hopless case of Miles-itis. Not even moderators can get rid of it.oke:




That's the wonderfull thing about working from home...
Obviously you're not one those "someones", Sarkus. You must live on a steady diet of drivel.

It's easy to work from home if all you need is a pc, a Bible and a dictionary.

When are you going to release the "Bible Diet" subtitled, "You Too Can Live As Long As Methusalah"

 

[TW Scott]

When you find a formula or some method of proving that unicorns do not exist. I will use that method to disprove god's existence. So, provide the methodology and I will follow the trail you blaze !

Unicorns do exist. Certain mutant cows grow a single horn out middle of their forehead. This also appears in several animals with antlers, horns, and even a entire species of whale. All of these are Unicorns by the traditional meaning of the word.


Again you have to be careful how you define your arguments.

 

[glaucon]

When you find a formula or some method of proving that unicorns do not exist. I will use that method to disprove god's existence. So, provide the methodology and I will follow the trail you blaze !

Unfortunately, you've got this completely backwards.

In the face of a lack of instantiation, the burden of proof falls to those who support the unsubstantiated, not those who support the obverse.

There is no such thing as a negative instantiative proof; i.e.: the omnipresent lack of evidenciary support to the hypothesis of 'unicorn' is sufficient to support the denial of 'unicorn', or, at the very least, to outweigh any valid support of 'unicorn'.

Seriously, this complete lack of logic is consistently made use of by theists to support their ghosts, and all it does is display a complete disregard for reason.

Simply because I cannot logically disprove the Easter Bunny does not warrant the assertion of its existence. This is a classic fallacy people, wake up.

Again, the onus always falls to that entity whose existence is in question.

Move along..

 

[TW Scott]

Unfortunately, you've got this completely backwards.

In the face of a lack of instantiation, the burden of proof falls to those who support the unsubstantiated, not those who support the obverse.

There is no such thing as a negative instantiative proof; i.e.: the omnipresent lack of evidenciary support to the hypothesis of 'unicorn' is sufficient to support the denial of 'unicorn', or, at the very least, to outweigh any valid support of 'unicorn'.

Seriously, this complete lack of logic is consistently made use of by theists to support their ghosts, and all it does is display a complete disregard for reason.

Simply because I cannot logically disprove the Easter Bunny does not warrant the assertion of its existence. This is a classic fallacy people, wake up.

Again, the onus always falls to that entity whose existence is in question.

Move along..

Obviously someone completely failed all their science courses, or at least should have. In the absence of hard data and fact "anecdoctal evidence" is considered proof. Of course this is tempered with the need for qualified testimony as well as a bit of research to be useful.

The Easter bunny is easily traceable to a single mythical origin. Santa Claus is a real story taken on mythical proportions. Unicorns do exist, just not the way most people envison them. The list goes on.

With the question of the Bible's veracity, there are several gray areas, several black areas and there are just as many if not more areas where other cultures confirm what is in the Bible. This does make it a hit and miss proposition. however since some of the fact bear out as truth and the WHOLE BOOK is about man's relationship with God, then it behooves any individual with a scientific mind to not dismiss it entirely.


Now this is Scientific evidence and until there is proof that there is an absence of God, then it stands. And yes there is such a thing as a negative proof, it's just harder to find. And since the "anecdoctal evidence" is there that is the proof anyone needs to satisfy the burden of proof.


Finally, just because there is a God does not mean that what we know of Evolution is false. Why wouldn't a benevolent Creator instill his creation with the means to improve and survive?

 

[glaucon]

Obviously someone completely failed all their science courses, or at least should have.

Ah, ad hominem, the last resort of the floundering...

Regardless...

...
In the absence of hard data and fact "anecdoctal evidence" is considered proof.

Incorrect.
Not that it's relevant here, but a proof, is specifically, and uniquely applied only to purely logical systems.

...
Of course this is tempered with the need for qualified testimony as well as a bit of research to be useful.

Agreed. Only insofar as it applies to any valid hypothetico-deductive analysis, which this subject is obviously not.

...
The Easter bunny is easily traceable to a single mythical origin. Santa Claus is a real story taken on mythical proportions. Unicorns do exist, just not the way most people envison them. The list goes on.

Quibbling with semantics. Although, the semantical point is relevant, if one is prepared to give at least a working definition of 'god'.

With the question of the Bible's veracity, there are several gray areas, several black areas and there are just as many if not more areas where other cultures confirm what is in the Bible. This does make it a hit and miss proposition. however since some of the fact bear out as truth and the WHOLE BOOK is about man's relationship with God, then it behooves any individual with a scientific mind to not dismiss it entirely.

Not that I made mention of the Bible, but.... the same could be said of any other work of fiction, and yet, I don't question the veracity of the existence of Moby Dick, for example.

Now this is Scientific evidence and until there is proof that there is an absence of God, then it stands.

Not at all.

...
And yes there is such a thing as a negative proof, it's just harder to find. And since the "anecdoctal evidence" is there that is the proof anyone needs to satisfy the burden of proof.

ibid.

...
Finally, just because there is a God does not mean that what we know of Evolution is false. Why wouldn't a benevolent Creator instill his creation with the means to improve and survive?

Interesting point.
But wholly aside the point.

Moreover, I believe Ockham's Razor would apply here.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Obviously someone completely failed all their science courses, or at least should have. In the absence of hard data and fact "anecdoctal evidence" is considered proof. Of course this is tempered with the need for qualified testimony as well as a bit of research to be useful.

The Easter bunny is easily traceable to a single mythical origin. Santa Claus is a real story taken on mythical proportions. Unicorns do exist, just not the way most people envison them. The list goes on.

:worship::bravo::bravo:
The difference between things that exist and things that are real is vast.
I can't ride a unicorn because it's not real, but it still exist's.

 

[Myles]

Unicorns do exist. Certain mutant cows grow a single horn out middle of their forehead. This also appears in several animals with antlers, horns, and even a entire species of whale. All of these are Unicorns by the traditional meaning of the word.


Again you have to be careful how you define your arguments.

Next time I'll spell it out for you.

 

[Myles]

Unfortunately, you've got this completely backwards.

In the face of a lack of instantiation, the burden of proof falls to those who support the unsubstantiated, not those who support the obverse.

There is no such thing as a negative instantiative proof; i.e.: the omnipresent lack of evidenciary support to the hypothesis of 'unicorn' is sufficient to support the denial of 'unicorn', or, at the very least, to outweigh any valid support of 'unicorn'.

Seriously, this complete lack of logic is consistently made use of by theists to support their ghosts, and all it does is display a complete disregard for reason.

Simply because I cannot logically disprove the Easter Bunny does not warrant the assertion of its existence. This is a classic fallacy people, wake up.

Again, the onus always falls to that entity whose existence is in question.

Move along..

Unfortunately you were in such a hurry top correct me that you failed to grasp my meaning. I was told I could not prove god's existence and my response was my way of making the same point as you have done. I was asking for a methodology which I know doesn't exist.

 

[Red Devil]

I have yet to see a "christian" argue in favour of their belief without resorting to quotations from some mythical book.

 

[Tnerb]

Expect it soon.

 

[Myles]

I have yet to see a "christian" argue in favour of their belief without resorting to quotations from some mythical book.

You are quite wrong. They say things like " how can you be so stupid as to deny the existence of god ."

 

[Red Devil]

Hey Myles, does that not appear in the bible