(March 21, 2016 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 9:39 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Neither can you prove universal or absolute existence. In the grand scheme of things, everything's uncertain so rational people deal with the most probable scenarios, given the available data. That's logic & demonstrable evidence all rolled in to one, handy model.

Read the OP old sport. I never made any claims in it. I only pointed out that the OP was not logically possible and the following supporting platitudes were also deeply grounded in logical fallacy.

I say this very lightly if a god does exist which one probably more than likely doesn't. It doesn't give a fuck about anyone or anything.

(March 21, 2016 at 12:06 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote: Read the OP old sport. I never made any claims in it. I only pointed out that the OP was not logically possible and the following supporting platitudes were also deeply grounded in logical fallacy.

I say this very lightly if a god does exist which one probably more than likely doesn't. It doesn't give a fuck about anyone or anything.

Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't.  How could we know anything about something that we cannot even verify has a basis in reality?

(March 21, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Panatheist Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 12:06 pm)dyresand Wrote: I say this very lightly if a god does exist which one probably more than likely doesn't. It doesn't give a fuck about anyone or anything.

Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't.  How could we know anything about something that we cannot even verify has a basis in reality?

We have a pretty good understanding of reality i mean you know science and observation.  No one can observe a god since
you know the going claim is god is outside of time and space which is nonsense.

(March 21, 2016 at 10:56 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I feel quite comfortable that my belief in God is justified. Since the OP does not present any evidence justifying his belief, I feel no need to do so either. That said, I would be interested to hear how he does justify his belief.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't believe in gods. I have no need (or ability) to justify my belief, simply because I don't have one. This god thing is YOUR belief not mine, the burden of proof is on you not me.

(March 21, 2016 at 8:52 am)Drich Wrote: I hate to break up the circle of self gratifying platitudes you all created here, with something most of you don't seem to get. (logic)

But... 'one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.'

And fortunately we don't have to.  Otherwise one might spend all their days working out nuanced stands against the many faces of god and a host of mythic beings, to say nothing of the stable of amazing characters offered up by Disney, D.C. Comics and Warner brothers.  I don't intend to waste my days hammering out position papers on Daffy Duck, Superman, Thor or Jehovah.  Take your pick.  They all have their points to recommend them.  Just don't expect me to talk you out of it.  You're on your own.

I would bet even the most hardened gnostic atheist would change their mind pretty quickly if some actual evidence did show up. About god's existence that is. It doesn't mean they'd fall to their knees.

It never does, though. So for all practical purposes, it's the same position as agnostic atheism. If God was a pot of eye yoghurt, he's about 2000 years past his see by date.

(March 21, 2016 at 11:47 am)Ben Davis Wrote: ...When the actions of those with rationally justifiable beliefs are as anti-social as those with god beliefs,

I guess by anti-social you mean gathering together in large groups to sing, pray, and eat casseroles in basements, then I suppose you have a point. ;-)

(March 21, 2016 at 2:15 pm)robvalue Wrote: I would bet even the most hardened gnostic atheist would change their mind pretty quickly if some actual evidence did show up. About god's existence that is. It doesn't mean they'd fall to their knees.

It never does, though. So for all practical purposes, it's the same position as agnostic atheism. If God was a pot of eye yoghurt, he's about 2000 years past his see by date.

If i see some convincing, testable evidence of a god I would convert in a second... that's what convincing means, but I have not been convinced in 61 years!

(March 21, 2016 at 3:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Certitude ≠ factuality.

I'd go further.  I think it is definitely a sign of weakness and quite likely a holdover from a primitive fundamentalist form of belief.

I see no qualms, as some people do, in finding certitude in the non existence of something. After all, I highly doubt that people are agnostic in relation to every single man-made myth. There comes a particular time, if one is going to be intellectually honest, that he realizes enough time has passed with zero evidence in support of something to conclude that something does not exist.