Your argument is nonsense - I don't owe you ANYTHING..!

If you choose not to believe - fine - that's your choice.

And If I choose to believe - fine - that's my choice.

You obviously NEVER read my post - the POINT was that neither side will NEVER be able to prove or disprove their position.

Your post is referring to logic as if the resurrection, for example, is something as commonplace as the sun coming up in the morning - or you brushing your teeth - or me combing my hair.

Believers' don't owe you anything - they're spouting opinions - JUST LIKE YOU..!!

If you believe, you believe.  No argument from me.

If you want me to believe, you have to offer proof.  If you don't offer proof, then I won't believe.  Why would that make you mad? 

You come onto this board where we clearly don't believe in your sky daddy, and say, "I don't have any proof of what I believe.  You can't disprove my nonexistent proofs because there are none."

That's really good.  What you came on here to say amounts to absolutely nothing.

How about I tell you that I believe in unicorns even though there's no evidence that they exist.  You prove that my proofs of unicorns are wrong, ok?

Exactly - there's no evidence that unicorns exist. So if you choose to believe in something that offers no evidence of its existence, be my guest.

As far as "evidence" is concerned, again I have to laugh.

If you poll 100 people, you might get 50 that say OJ Simpson was guilty of murder and 50 might say he wasn't.

So here's an "earthly" example of an incident that consumed months and years with the best legal minds having different opinions based on the evidence.

And you expect a believer to provide you with "EVIDENCE" that will prove the existence of God..??

We can't even say with certainty that a person murdered his wife - and you expect somewbody to offer "PROOF that a man 2,000 years ago arose from the dead..???!! 

You have the same things as I have - OPNIONS..!! Nothing less - nothing more..!!

When a belief contradicts logic, the reasonable course of action is not to declare logic inapplicable but to discard the belief.

Not if one plays by the rules of religious apologists. Compare these two hypothetical discussions:

Atheist: Any intelligent being is too complex to simply pop into existence by chance. Evolution by natural selection is required to produce intelligence. There can therefore be no god.

Theist: God just exists. Logic is not applicable to him.

vs.

Asantaclausist: Reindeer cannot fly. It would violate the law of gravity.

Santaclausist: These are magical reindeer. Logic is not applicable to them.

If you play intellectual tennis, the net cannot be down for you and up for the opponent. Either the net is down and we have to accept both the Catholic god and Santa Claus (and a million other equally unlikely beings) or the net is up and we must reject both Santa Claus and the gods.

Belief in a deity is by no means justified, morally or epistemologically.

It is nevertheless rather curious that a theist should admit the unprovability of the existence or nonexistence of the deity. After all, if a deity did exist, its existence might very well be provable. It is only because there is no deity that one can be reasonable certain that neither claim will ever be proven.

So you can't know if god is real, okay got that.

 And if you think that the disbelievers have to prove there side, then I have this big list 'O gods for you here.

If 'god' claims defy logic, then you are forced to concede that god claims are irrational/incoherent, and you must remain silent.

Why not? There is a falsifiable claim: that a man died and rose again.  

Are you trying to say that naturalistic explanations will always be more parsimonious than appeals to the supernatural? If so, I agree.  

 However, again, if you want to insist that the claim is beyond logical examination, then again, you have to concede that any positive claim for it is irrational.  You have to concede that your belief is irrational. 

True, but you're just arguing in a circle here.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever heard of a category error? 

 Seriously, we 'can' weigh sadness in a way.... we could weigh the areas of the limbic system and cerebal cortex devoted to sadness... I say this only because you appear to be arguing for 'immateriality' here... at least implicitly. 

Hamby:

You don't get it so I don't see the point in talking to you anymore.

Ophios:

Are you an adult who's able to read properly..??

I'm throwing this out because I'm wondering how well you can read..??

I know God is real - the point is that I can't prove it nor will I ever be able to do so - in this lifetime.

 Does that clarify things for you.

The discussion is about either sides' ability or inability to prove their position.

Todganst:

LOL - I have NO choice BUT to appeal to the supernatural because that's EXACTLY what an event like the resurrection of Christ is, for example - A SUPERNATURAL EVENT..!! 

I love my wife, Pamela and my son, Brandon - but I can't prove it.

What should I do - refute my love for them..?? Disavow the feelings I have as something irrational and illogical..??

If each and every one of you are sitting here telling this man is wrong for believing in the Christian God...then in what point and time did he ever say he believed in the Christian God that "wrote" the Bible?

Did he ever say that?

So look, there is the burden of proof on YOU. What does he believe in?  An illogical God that killed a lot of people?

Or a Logical God, that by my defintion, CAN'T be proved. I can't prove that God. The Bible can't prove that God. You for sure can't prove that god. SO WHY ASK ME OR SOMEONE ELSE TO?

Why can't a "god"(any fucking god) have created this universe, came up with the Big fucking Bang himself, came up with Darwinist Evolution, hell even gave you the fucking technology to use I-pods(cough electrcitiy)

So PROVE to me, why GOD couldn't have created ALL of those things.

ohhh.. the universe is getting colder, and by cosmic photograph blah blah BORE ME. I know all of this. I know how science works.

HOW HAS SCIENCE DISSPROVED GOD?

Please guys, get this CHRISTIAN thinking out of your head. Some of us Theists (ME) Don't have an ounce of real rational thinking behind what is the Christian God, because we all know he isn't real. Right?

I'm just trying to show you guys to think outside the box. And outside the known universe.

I have a lot of theories on how the universe/s work because I've watched a lot of Brian Green, and have read a lot of Stephen Hawkings. Does anything, any fucking word they say mean shit in comparison to ANYTHING when you and they know full well they might be COMPLETELY RIGHT or COMPLTELY WRONG.

Because that is how you are labelying god. Right or Wrong.

Is GOD right or wrong? Is he both at the same time?

Answer those questions first, then, take the time to say, God isn't real. Because the truth is, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS REAL IN THIS WORLD. (you can't even tell me how REAL Jesus Christ was, so please, choke on a big fat stick of Scientific burden) WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

I was more referring to stories like Noah's ark, which not only could not have happened, but were actually stolen from earlier cultures.

You are wrong in two ways here. First, even religion doesn't claim that god itself showed up(unless I somehow missed something). All we've got is some guy who claimed to be it's son.

Second, the one who did something was in the middle east. All very well and good for those in the middle east. But what about the America's, Australia, and Africa? All the isolated communities in Europe and Asia? The places that even today have never heard of your religion at all? There was no internet or phones back then for this message to somehow be communicated around the world, and even today not even half the global population is connected. I say it's highly unreasonable to expect the world to believe the claims of a group of people in a few countries. Especially when the few countries have at least 3 major religions(each with it's own interpretation of the events) that each have a bunch of offshoots that came about when people disagreed with the church about something.

I hardly think that's necessary. A being with such power would have no trouble proving it's existance conclusively to all in one fell swoop every generation or 3. Though it's never done that even ONCE. If it had, there would be one united global religion, not millions of contradicting ones. People everywhere would have heard the message. Not a select few.

Bad analogy. You are equating a subjective human emotion such as love, to a historical account in the bible of a human being resurrected. 

Well there are alot of weaker atheist who would acknowledge the possibility of a being (or God for the lack of a better term) that we presently have no conception of that could have created all of existence as we know it. However there is a big leap in acknowledging that idea and getting on your knees every night and praying to it.  

I can NOT agree with you more Vastet. My Theist AND Atheist nature tells me that hey, maybe there is no God, and that single point(Albert Einstein) which throughly connects Science to God(if it even connects) is going to be a discovery that maybe we can't ever achieve as humans. Is there a point which connects Science to God.

Better yet, may I ask, is there a point in life which connects Science to Science. Cough, Quantum Physics and Theory of Relativity.


sooooo...

Why do we need to believe in him? Why do you need us to? Why does he need us to? If he needs us to, why doesn't he let us?


--Because people are stupid. And people don't believe fully in Science. So what do they believe in? Themselves? Other good people? Maybe God doesn't need any one of to believe in it. But does that really change anything in this world? Does that make God think any different then it already does?

I believe in God because God to me connects the supernatural and the Natural. It's just too fucking bad, all I know is the Natural. And if you tell me that Nature has been proven to come full circle and answer every question in this universe, then please, enlighten. But if God could explain how the Big Bang started, what is beyond this universe, and the rest of the universes, and why human nature is how it is. Then why not give God a chance? Have you proved anything in this world that has furthured the Human Advancement?

You know who has furthured the Human Advancment? The Christian God. And if you can't agree on that, then you mind as well through the history books STRAIGHT out the window. Does that mean the Christian God is THE God? No. Noone said a god damn word about anything crazy like that.

So basically, take those beliefs, then strip the idea of "my god" away from and what am I left with? I bet you I'm left with a whole lot more knowledge of the world then any Christian or Muslim as ever had. But probably not Buddha....

Didn't that Christian God that you hate so very much... Didn't "he" give you Free Will? I mean if you are attacking "my view of God" then go ahead and assums that "my Christian view of God" gave YOU the Free Will to believe in WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT.

LOL! You missed the point for a second time!

The point is that a logical ramification of appeal to the supernatural is that you must concede that your claims are illogical.

You must then remain silent evermore on concerning anything else related to your claim.  You've conceded that your claim makes no sense at all. You just believe regardless.

First of all, this is a false analogy fallacy. Love is a natural phenomena. Yes, 'it's irrational' as an emotion, but it's not an irrational concept itself.

Second, you're wrong. You can 'prove' your love for a person. You can demonstrate it through behaviors and avowals of love. So your claim here is simply preposterous for a second reason.

Third, supernatural claims are not irrational because they are emotional, they are irrational because they make reference to a concept that violates basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity!

It is for this reason that supernatural claims are incoherent!

You're very, very, very confused. Emotions like love are not supernatural phenomena. We can demonstrate the existence of love.

It's a logical ramification of what you've said. You seem unable to follow it.

No. The opposite is true. You're unable to see the ramifications of your own words.

The point is that a logical ramification of appeal to the supernatural is that you must concede that your claims are illogical.

If you agree that your claim is illogical, then it follows that you can't make any rational claims about your claim.

This should be obvious enough.

Again, supernatural claims are not irrational only because they are emotional, they are also irrational because they make reference to a concept that violates basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity!

Ans it is for this second reason that supernatural claims are incoherent!

Hey, man,

I wouldn't talk to me anymore either, if I were you. Todangst has gone out of his way to explain to you that what I said was absolutely correct. Others have refuted your arguments over and over and over.

It is you who doesn't understand that my very first post destroyed your argument, and you are still saying the same things, with emotional appeals and the ever-so-lame: "You don't understand."

Afraid to tell you, I do understand, and I demonstrated the fallacy that is the foundation of your beliefs. Sorry that it only took me a couple of sentences. I could write a much longer rebuttal if that would suit your pseudo-intellectual tastes.

It's ok to admit that you're wrong. We're not here to make you look bad. We're here to help you.

Thanks.

I think our friend's behavior is understandable. When one is confronted with ramification of our claims that we ourselves were unable to follow, it can be painful. We tend to feel attacked. We lash out.

When a person says "you don't understand' and then fails to follow up with a correction, their claim can be ignored.

Quite.

I've actually lost a good bit of respect for the guy, as he was just called out for using someone else's critique of cosmological arguments as his own over on another thread.

I'm all about honest discourse, but stealing someone else's words to try to look smart in the face of real debate is... what's that word I'm looking for? ...  uber-lame.

I do understand, though.  I did the same kinds of things when I was fighting the internal battle -- when I knew that I could either retreat, or redefine reality without the supernatural, it was a very, very trying time.  I fought against the logic in very similar ways, holding onto any straw (man?) I could, just to avoid having to admit that my definition of reality allowed no knowledge at all, and couldn't be correct.

I never sought to argue this point in the first place.

Science never claims to have all the answers.

I haven't because I don't disagree in the first place.

We are debating something quite different.

So you are being very dishonest here.
 

And I refuted it.

Sure you can. Stop being so obtuse. You can demonstrate your love in many ways. In fact, how else would you know that someone loved you in the first place?!

The fact that some might lie about being in love doesn't remove the possiblity that someone can in fact demonstrate love, so your counter reply was ridiculous.

Right. But this has no relation, whatsoever, to supernatural claims, as I have demonstrated for you numerous times. Love is a natural phenomena, we can discuss love. It's not 'beyond logic'.

 Yes, it confirms my thoughts. You can't prove your god is real, so you take your god's existance in faith. For how can you "Know" something is real if you can't prove it's real.

 Say....doesn't the love example involve you putting logical constraints on god?  I could have sworn you just chewed out hamby and todangst for doing the same thing.  Funny, that.

It seems evident markgtrplyr that you need to learn HOW to think first before learning WHAT to think. Your arguments are entirely fallacious in form and function.

Theists, the ‘faith based,’ or true believers fail to understand that a ‘non theist’ does not deny the ‘possible existence’ of an omnipotent entity most would call a ‘god’ or gods. Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist. For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human. There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny. One cannot deny the nonexistent. It exists or it does not exist given the valid evidence. No matter if an atheist, a so called agnostic or a theist, the default position for all humanity is that of nonexistence for any omnipotent ’supreme’ beings not proven to exist. We, or humanity, must assume things do not exist unless we have factual evidence proving otherwise.

Atheism does not deny anything. There is not a ‘god’ existence for the atheist, or the agnostic to deny. There is NOTHING to deny! The default position in critical thinking requires a nonexistent stance for ‘gods’. A ‘believer’ or theist can only present a presumptive premise for the ‘existence’ of some omnipotent entity humans would call god WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL PROOF. Believers typically engage in a fallacy called “a priori” reasoning - in this case basing fact after fact ad nauseum on typically ancient heresay, false or unproven statements and myths.

There is no valid reason nor argument any human has presented to believe a God exists. Believers are presuming the existence of ‘god’ or gods not proven to exist. No matter if one’s faith based belief is anthropomorphic in God or biblical based, and regardless if it is a Christian God, a Jewish God, Yahweh, Allah, or any god muddling the minds of man, it has been invalidated in form and function as fallacious from within the rules of inductive and deductive reasoning. One simply cannot presume the existence of ‘god’ or gods never rationally proven to exist.

It is expected and accepted in critical thinking that we (as in ANY human) must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule “most” of the time; they don’t believe in Santa Claus, even though they can’t conclusively prove that no Santa Claus exists anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which cannot be tested in any reliable method. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God “might” be to prove that he doesn’t exist anywhere. So in any form of critical thinking, ‘we including you all,’ must take the default postion that God does not exist, since that is the only reliable position we can test.

One can ‘try’ to present proof for the existence of the nonexistent, but the again, the burden of proof needed is on those trying to prove the existence of something in its present form of nonexistence. There is no valid reason or argument to believe a God exists. To do so would be presuming the existence of ‘god’ or gods not proven to exist. This is called faith. Faith is the antithesis of reason and critical thinking. Faith is irrational and a deragatory personal characteristic rather than the one drilled into the masses by educators and societal leaders in schools, churches (of course) and government as a commendable trait.

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one’s mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one’s world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of mental destruction. A mentally deranged state of mind defined as a psychotic individual. Psychosis: severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. The deeper the faith, the more severe the psychosis.

ALL arguments presuming the existence of a god or gods, even an agnostic presuming a ‘possible’ existence of such an entity without valid proof, are all invalid from the start. Yes it is always possible valid reliable proof may ‘pop up;’ as in the actual arrival on earth of some all knowing, all powerful supreme being that created the universe or mult-verse, but the reality of this ever happening is highly unlikely given proven scientific laws in quantum mechanics.

What an elegant way of demonstrating the problem in his argument.  The "god is beyond logic" argument cuts both ways....

Sadness weighs about as much as an Internet forum, or as digestion. This Internet forum is not a "thing"; it is the name given to the interaction between the electrons, processors, magnetic memory media, fiber-optic Internet cables, and all the various other fancy computer stuff between my computer and the Rational Response Squad's webserver. Digestion is not a "thing"; it is the name given to the interaction between stomach acids, foods, the muscles along the digestive system, and the nutrient-absorbing organs along the intestine. Likewise, sadness is not a "thing; it is the name given to a particular interaction between hormomes, neurotransmitters, synapses, and ganglia.