The gig is up.

Lol, I make no claims, I merely lack belief in theistic claims, that a god does exists.

Did you miss this, then?
universaldistress said:
Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

. . . from the OP. The topic of this thread is "prove or disprove that God exists" more or less.
That's why it amounts to meaningless bullshit. A lot like how this
If however you are then the burden is still yours, it doesn't suddenly stop being your burden, because you say so.
is absolutely meaningless.

If I'm a theist, I have a "burden" ?? Nope, no burden here. A burden doesn't appear because you say so.
Or maybe I'm not a theist, I'm an atheist so that's why "no burden"?

Nope, I prefer to think I am neither a theist nor atheist. I don't believe reading a treatise is going to help enlighten me as to the presence or absence of a God. In fact, I prefer to not call what I have knowledge of "God", because then "I'm a theist", because "I have to be", right? I mean, I used the G word.
 
Last edited:
Did you miss this, then?

. . . from the OP. The topic of this thread is "prove or disprove that God exists" more or less.
No the topic is why do you believe without proof. It says nothing about lacking belief.
arfa brane said:
why it amounts to meaningless bullshit. A lot like how this is absolutely meaningless.

If I'm a theist, I have a "burden" ?? Nope, no burden here. A burden doesn't appear because you say so.
Or maybe I'm not a theist, I'm an atheist so that's why "no burden"?

Nope, I prefer to think I am neither a theist nor atheist. I don't believe reading a treatise is going to help enlighten me as to the presence or absence of a God. In fact, I prefer to not call what I have knowledge of "God", because then "I'm a theist", because "I have to be", right? I mean, I used the G word.
Lmao, You're either one or the other there is no middle ground.

"If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition of theism" - Anthony Flew
 
Lmao, You're either one or the other there is no middle ground.
Really? Then I must be the only person on the planet who knows where this nonexistent "middle ground" is.

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
What if, there is no need to establish that there is a God? Or if establishing the existence of a God has nothing to do with discussing the existence of a God? I bet you think that's crazy. It's so crazy it's true.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
Note that Mr Flew does not stipulate what the "reason for believing" is. Nor does he say anything about how to produce any grounds. Does he mean "by using logic"? By trying to discuss it in an internet forum?
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition of theism
And if that's true, since I do have proof, there is no onus, no burden for me.

Since you don't have proof (I assume this is why you believe there is no God), I think that means you have a burden, not me.

If you assume that I believe everything the Bible says, or any other scripture, then you're making a mistake. But this thread is based on a mistaken idea, a misconception, in other words.
 
Really? Then I must be the only person on the planet who knows where this nonexistent "middle ground" is.
Rotflmao, you people are so funny.

arfa brane said:
if, there is no need to establish that there is a God? Or if establishing the existence of a God has nothing to do with discussing the existence of a God? I bet you think that's crazy. It's so crazy it's true.
No, however if you or people like you want others to find them credible, they should either keep the mouth shut about the god/gods or provide proof.
arfa brane said:
Note that Mr Flew does not stipulate what the "reason for believing" is. Nor does he say anything about how to produce any grounds. Does he mean "by using logic"? By trying to discuss it in an internet forum?
And if that's true, since I do have proof, there is no onus, no burden for me.
For it to be proven it has to be verified by others, what you have is wishful thinking.
arfa brane said:
you don't have proof (I assume this is why you believe there is no God), I think that means you have a burden, not me.
I have never once said I have a belief in no god, what I have said is, "I make no claim that a god doesn't exist, as that would be infantile, I simply have no reason to believe the claims of the theist without further corroborating evidence."
arfa brane said:
If you assume that I believe everything the Bible says, or any other scripture, then you're making a mistake. But this thread is based on a mistaken idea, a misconception, in other words.
I don't know what you believe and I don't give a damn. However this thread isn't based on anything, it merely asks why do you or people like you believe without proof.
It's not a hard question, but it is a dodged question.
 
For it to be proven it has to be verified by others
No it doesn't. That's the first fundamental error in your (and Anthony Flew's) argument.
I have never once said I have a belief in no god, what I have said is, "I make no claim that a god doesn't exist, as that would be infantile, I simply have no reason to believe the claims of the theist without further corroborating evidence."
And this corroborating evidence must consist of verbal or written evidence, provided by theists whose burden it is to so provide it?
There we are, you've just repeated the first mistake.
I don't know what you believe and I don't give a damn. However this thread isn't based on anything, it merely asks why do you or people like you believe without proof.
It's not a hard question, but it is a dodged question.
That's funny (and I'm laughing at you). You don't care about what I believe enough to keep posting? Interesting.
I DO NOT believe without proof. Once more, in case you blinked: I have proof.
That this proof is not something I've written down, or recorded, only means that I'm not making the same fundamental error that you are.

No, however if you or people like you want others to find them credible, they should either keep the mouth shut about the god/gods or provide proof.
People like me, huh? Why should I care if you or anyone else finds me credible? Frankly, I don't give a damn.

You should stop with the "they should keep their mouth shut" thing.
I am keeping my mouth shut, I do that when I read too (it stops saliva from dripping on the pages).
Your attitude is noted, but this is a public forum, so ah, get stuffed, monkey-brain.
 
The meta of existence was easy and simple, as expected, and not of some humongous complication. Details of that and all else are coming right along, leaving all of the God notions in the dust, at even less than square one, as square negative infinity.
as I said, I wish you would remember that everytime you try to dress it up as a meta-narrative ....
 
mustafhakofi said:
For it to be proven it has to be verified by others
it doesn't. That's the first fundamental error in your (and Anthony Flew's) argument.
Rotflmao, As I've said you guys are hilarious.
Have you changed the meaning of the word "Proof" Cause as it is now, it means.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Evidence: in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Do you care to enlighten us with some links, or a little of you obvious intelligence, to how it is a fundamental error, lol.
arfa brane said:
mustafhakofi said:
I have never once said I have a belief in no god, what I have said is, "I make no claim that a god doesn't exist, as that would be infantile, I simply have no reason to believe the claims of the theist without further corroborating evidence."
And this corroborating evidence must consist of verbal or written evidence, provided by theists whose burden it is to so provide it?
There we are, you've just repeated the first mistake.
Lol, what mistake is that, do enlighten us. ( the reason I say us is, I'm at work, you have kept us entertained here, please don't stop this is fantastic material are you a script writer for comedy show as you should be.)
arfa brane said:
That's funny (and I'm laughing at you). You don't care about what I believe enough to keep posting? Interesting.
I DO NOT believe without proof. Once more, in case you blinked: I have proof.
That this proof is not something I've written down, or recorded, only means that I'm not making the same fundamental error that you are.
Then lol, by it's very nature it cannot be proof, see above unless you've changed the meaning of said word, and as I said please do enlighten us, as to how it is a fundamental error, lol.
arfa brane said:
People like me, huh? Why should I care if you or anyone else finds me credible? Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Tis your perogative. However your not everyone and some people like to look credible, but once they open their mouths they show there worth.
arfa brane said:
You should stop with the "they should keep their mouth shut" thing.
I am keeping my mouth shut, I do that when I read too (it stops saliva from dripping on the pages).
Your attitude is noted, but this is a public forum, so ah, get stuffed, monkey-brain.
What attitude is that, lol. merely stated a fact, if people who hold irrational beliefs dont want them laughed at, then they should hold irrational beliefs. Oh by the way love you name, very apt.
 
mustafhakofi said:
Have you changed the meaning of the word "Proof" Cause as it is now, it means.

Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Exactly. I have evidence sufficient to establish that what I experience is real. If you open your eyes, you also have evidence that what you experience--vision--is real.
Unless you want to change the meaning of the word "proof" and argue that when you see anything, proving that you are seeing means you have to describe it to someone else. Or if there isn't anyone around, you have to write it down or record it somehow then find someone else somewhere, so they can agree that you did, in fact, see something, after reading/listening to your "proof"--then they can go to where you did this and verify that what you described to them is something they can see too.

Does that sound like a dumbass argument? It's the argument you've presented. Isn't it silly?

The remainder of your post is just you continuing to make that mistake, all over again.

Perhaps you should have some more coffee, mustafhakofi.
 
Last edited:
mustafhakofi said:
Have you changed the meaning of the word "Proof" Cause as it is now, it means.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
I have evidence sufficient to establish that what I experience is real. If you open your eyes, you also have evidence that what you experience--vision--is real.
Lol, fantastic keep it coming. But you forgot this bit.
Evidence: in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence.
And your verifiable evidence is where.
arfa brane said:
Unless you want to change the meaning of the word "proof" and argue that when you see anything, proving that you are seeing means you have to describe it to someone else. Or if there isn't anyone around, you have to write it down or record it somehow then find someone else somewhere, so they can agree that you did, in fact, see something, after reading/listening to your "proof"--then they can go to where you did this and verify that what you described to them is something they can see too.
Brillient, lol. Your a star. You'll have to stop soon, my sides are splitting. But if I saw something like what your describing I would first question myself and then I would look for more rational reasons as to why I experience such an hallucination.
arfa brane said:
Does that sound like a dumbass argument? It's the argument you've presented. Isn't it silly?
Lol, maybe, but it is what the word Proof and what the word Evidence mean, something thats verified.
arfa brane said:
The remainder of your post is just you continuing to make that mistake, all over again.
What mistake is that please elaborate.
arfa brane said:
Perhaps you should have some more coffee, mustafhakofi.
Wow! thats what the name means, how astute of you.
 
I never said evolution wasn't a fact.

I said that I would b e surprised if ideas on the time frames it appears in would be constant for 60 years.
Scientific theories never progress to the level of scientific fact until they are directly observed. That's why the "theory of gravity" remains a theory: we still haven't actually observed gravitational radiation. We've seen all sorts of interactions which we can only explain through this model, and we've explained in large part how that whole model works, we've performed some rather brilliant experiments that would seem to have only worked if we're right about the model, but we haven't actually seen our model in action, and we're not likely to see it any time soon. So the scientific theory of gravity remains a theory.

Same goes for atomic theory (we can't see things that small!) and the germ theory of disease. And the theory of evolution -- huge swaths of biology make no sense if the basic theory of evolutionary origins of species is false (unless God specifically designed the universe to make it look and function precisely as if Darwin was right), but we can never actually observe the origin of species in practice because, hey, it's in the past, and the timescales for directly observing it in the present day (for anything larger than bacteria) are too massive for a timely demonstration.
 
Did you miss this, then?

. . . from the OP. The topic of this thread is "prove or disprove that God exists" more or less.

Wrong. The thread is about theists explaining why THEY believe without PROOF. Subtle difference there?

Why do theists choose to believe in something unproven.

Obviously they choose to ignore this subtle point.

The requirement to present some proof is kind of inferred I grant you.

It is just a chance to either a, explain why they believe without proof.
Or b, present some proof to invalidate the premise.

Quite simple really, for a sane person.
 
What if, there is no need to establish that there is a God? Or if establishing the existence of a God has nothing to do with discussing the existence of a God? I bet you think that's crazy. It's so crazy it's true.

We can discuss possible gods. That is conjecture. Not belief.
 
Scientific theories never progress to the level of scientific fact until they are directly observed.
That would be incorrect, please try to learn what a theory is.

That's why the "theory of gravity" remains a theory: we still haven't actually observed gravitational radiation.
Observation of gravitational radiation is a requirement for the theory. Even if (when?) we do observe it there will still be a theory of gravitation.

Same goes for atomic theory (we can't see things that small!) and the germ theory of disease. And the theory of evolution
Wrong.

huge swaths of biology make no sense if the basic theory of evolutionary origins of species is false (unless God specifically designed the universe to make it look and function precisely as if Darwin was right), but we can never actually observe the origin of species in practice because, hey, it's in the past, and the timescales for directly observing it in the present day (for anything larger than bacteria) are too massive for a timely demonstration.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
 
Scientific theories never progress to the level of scientific fact until they are directly observed. That's why the "theory of gravity" remains a theory: we still haven't actually observed gravitational radiation. We've seen all sorts of interactions which we can only explain through this model, and we've explained in large part how that whole model works, we've performed some rather brilliant experiments that would seem to have only worked if we're right about the model, but we haven't actually seen our model in action, and we're not likely to see it any time soon. So the scientific theory of gravity remains a theory.

Same goes for atomic theory (we can't see things that small!) and the germ theory of disease. And the theory of evolution -- huge swaths of biology make no sense if the basic theory of evolutionary origins of species is false (unless God specifically designed the universe to make it look and function precisely as if Darwin was right), but we can never actually observe the origin of species in practice because, hey, it's in the past, and the timescales for directly observing it in the present day (for anything larger than bacteria) are too massive for a timely demonstration.


Source:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100113195603AAfmCP8


Body:
There are actually three different things that are applicable here. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act as they do.

A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be rigorously applied outside of those conditions.

For example, gravity is a fact that we experience every day. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

That is illustrated by Newton's law of gravity, which merely states how gravity acts, and Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes what gravity is and why it acts as it does. Einstein's theory of relativity, in fact, was verified by predicting a discrepancy in Newton's law of gravity in calculating changes in Mercury's orbit around the sun because of relativistic effects. The discrepancy in Newton's law, though small, was predicted by Einstein's theory as a result of Mercury's elongated orbit and closeness to the sun and the warp in space-time caused by the sun's great mass, something that Newton's law does not account for. This shows that Newton's law breaks down in relativistic settings.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory and has been verified numerous times and never disproved, despite the numerous false claims of creationist otherwise. It has also made numerous successful predictions.

So in answer to your question, the theory of evolution will never become a law because scientific theories and laws are two different things.

Also:
Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by obversation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individial view or notion.

Evolution is a theory in Sense 1, as are general and special relativity, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, thermodynamics, and so on. The reason some people substitute Sense 2 in a perjorative manner is that they think evolution (but not the other theories) contradicts a sacred text. In fact, it contradicts only a specific type of interpretation of that text.
 
as I said, I wish you would remember that everytime you try to dress it up as a meta-narrative ....

You guys have no narrative.

You are seeing complicated up at this level, then ignoring the ever downward simplicity and placing the ultimate complexity sitting there. A tall tale narrative based on wishes. We've already seen nothing becoming something.
 
I think it is supposed to be "The jig is up".

Well pardon me from trying to move away from the term that is so entrenched in traditional minds that they can't accept or understand a new phrasing and its deeper meaning/implications.

Typical of a theist. Just being oh so in love with the stuff that came WAY before. LOL.

The "gig" refers to a more complex performance; given to fool the masses. A jig is more for personal pleasure (though I get that some use it as a performance). I was trying to be more general, rather than pinning down to one art form. The art of religion is truly on the ropes this thread. In fact 8, 9, 10 . . .ur out!

Hence, 'the jig is up' meaning hopeless - and all its implications here, and the modified version I employed.

Was it too deep for you?

I felt that the fact theists fall back on the 'personal' excuse for justifying their beliefs suggested gig could be a better expression to infer the meaning I desired.

And low and behold my thoughts are reinforced once again. The collective religion thing is over (destined to slowly fizzle out and fade away from the sane) because no global proof is available. Only solipsistic, internalised delusion is offered by the 'delusionists' attending this thread.

The performance is over. The artists have taken off their masks. The illusion is fading. Once the scenery is burnt out back on the bonfires of religious tradition, and the embers have cooled, up from the ashes will rise a bird so free and perfect; its beauty to cut through the miasmal dew formed steam of false parade will inspire the burnt-out-nest dwellers to curlicue upwards on the heated thermal of the firebirds (a)wake(ning).

Long live the Science!
 
Last edited:
atheist argue that there is no 'proof'..
atheist will not accept anything as 'proof'
theist try to show them its not about 'proof', it is about 'evidence'..
atheist cry evidence is not proof..
<sigh> it ain't about the 'proof'
 
Back
Top