Quote:You have some nerve to post crap like you just did and then tell me I failed ... sorry but you're an idiot if you think that.

@Kyu

Ad hominem response mate, although although I share your frustration.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that Frodo is clinically stupid.

However,our perceptions are so different that I really can't be bothered trying to discuss anything with him--OK,I'm lying,I don't because I can't guarantee I won't say something unkind and get myself banned. I've concluded the problem is the dear little hobbit has the chutzpah to be almost as opinionated as me, except HE'S usually wrong.

(March 24, 2009 at 5:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'll give you time to think about an actual response Kyu.

You've HAD my response ... it's YOU who is not responding.

I will respond properly (and politely) when you provide an adequate response to the piece I include in my last but one reply rather than the one line blow off you actually did or provide an actual reasoned response as to why science cannot deal with the existence of your god or any other.

Let me put it this way ... how would you deal with claims to the existence of Thor, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus or any other god but yours. You would deal with it much the same way as I have done with yours. What's the difference between the god you believe in and all the gods you reject? Absolutely NOTHING!!!!!!

If those gods do not exist, if you reject any or all of them, then you have NO CASE to dismiss similar arguments against your god.

Deal with the points I have made!

Kyu

---

(March 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm)padraic Wrote: Ad hominem response mate, although although I share your frustration.

Yesssss [gritted teeth]

(March 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm)padraic Wrote: I haven't yet seen any evidence that Frodo is clinically stupid.

No just "clinically" devious!

Kyu

Quote:God creating the universe could be evidence of his existence. That's the claim.

The universe being 'created' is not evidence of his existence if we are talking about 'the big bang' or something like that....
It would have to be evident that the universe was created by a supernatural creator if the universe 'began' - or just came out of - with a big bang....then that wouldn't be "God" because it would have began by natural means and not supernatural means....

There needs to be evidence of a SUPERNATURAL being, a God - otherwise to postulate a supernatural super being, a super creator/ designer - A God - is getting way ahead of yourself....
There is no evidence of a God - a supernatural being...

And if no evidence means you HAVE to resort to faith - then that's not a good reason to resort to faith!!
There's no evidence of Zeus or the Flying spaghetti monster - how come you don't resort to faith in order to believe in them?

Or any number of supernatural things - not just Gods....anything paranormal that there is no evidence of - or whatever how come you don't need faith simply because there is no evidence of them?

Why believe in your God more than anything else supernatural or paranormal or whatever - if there's no more evidence of your God than any other?

Because after all, as you say; 'it is ridiculous to require evidence of God'.

Quote:It's all a non question isn't it

If the God you believe in doesn't have an effect on the universe and he didn't 'create it' then he's not God....
And you believe he did - and that would mean you need evidence...

If he created the universe you need evidence - if he intervenes you need evidence....
There are countless things without evidence...the only reason you'd 'need faith' to believe in them is because you can't believe them on evidence because there isn't any evidence.

So how come you don't 'have faith' in all the other countless unprovable things that lack evidence?

Why 'have faith' in what you believe in particular?

There's countless other things without evidence to believe in :p

Quote:Intervening in it would suggest effect yes. Like I'm postulating elsewhere, the nature of that intervention is it's non provability.

But if there's no evidence of God...why is his non-provability a good reason to believe in him???

There's dozens of things that lack evidence...and plenty of other Gods and unfalsifiable things to believe in that lack evidence....
So why believe in YOUR God? Whatever you believe in? If there's no more evidence in him than anything else supernatural?

There's dozens of things you could 'have faith it' because there's no evidence.
Absence of evidence is not a good thing. When something is unfalsifiable because there's no evidence - that's not a GOOD reason to believe in it - on the contrary...

And there's so many non-evident things to believe in - why don't you believe in all of them? Why pick out one or a few in particular?

Quote:It seems to follow that because God created the universe, he is both outside it and able to be in it too. It is inferior to him. The two aren't equal. (just thinking this through here with you)

But the fact that you simply define God of being outside AND inside of the universe so its harder to argue against is not a remotely good reason to believe...
There is no evidence of God....therefore you need faith to believe in him.....and you SHOULD have faith in him because there's a lack of evidence follows why????

There's no evidence so you would need faith to believe...but there's countless things with no evidence to believe in! Countless absurd unfalsifiable claims/ideas! Why don't you believe in EVERYTHING absurdly unfalsfiable, unprovable and totally lacking evidence?

Why pick out one God? Having no evidence is NOT a good reason to believe something! WHY have faith?

Quote:I don't think it follows that he would be detectable. Scientific study of everything known and unknown is all study of God's handiwork. Ultimately indistinguishable to us because to us it's all natural.

If God is undetectable by science - and there's no evidence at ALL of God, never mind scientific evidence - then that's a good reason to believe in God because??? ??
No evidence of God so you need faith TO BELIEVE. But you DON'T 'need faith'...you only do TO BELIEVE - why should you believe?

Is lack of evidence a good reason to believe in something?

I don't think so :p

EvF

(March 25, 2009 at 6:33 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why believe in your God more than anything else supernatural or paranormal or whatever - if there's no more evidence of your God than any other?

Because after all, as you say; 'it is ridiculous to require evidence of God'.

Indeed ... for to claim, as Frodo is doing, that his god requires no evidence, no justification essentially means this is just a case of special pleading.

Frodo ... if you want someone to take your warped logic seriously you have to justify why and just claiming that your god requires no evidence is not sufficient justification ... as Dawkins says, why should religious beliefs (like yours) be given a get-out-of-jail free card, why should your god be an exception to the normal rules of evidence and logic.

Kyu

(March 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yet this is exactly what the Bible tells us, fellow Christian.

God is other dimensional.

I don't agree with literal translation of Genesis. I like your idea of no beginning. I think it has mileage.

I'm not a Christian, or at least I don't want to be. I mispoke when I said "we Christians." I want to be a free thinker. I want the only dogma I follow to be my own. For instance, I believe that nature is monistic, just like Parmenides and Zeno, and I believe that humans exist to evolve the consciousness of nature. I believe the first one can be proven scientifically, and the second one proven via rational argument and philosophy. I'm not saying I don't privately put my own religious overlays onto those theories, and that I find a lot of support in the teachings of Jesus Christ for those theories. But as is painfully evident, everyone finds a lot of support in the teachings of Jesus Christ for everything they want to believe and do. They even favor some teachings of his over others of his so they can do and be what they want.

I don't believe God exists. I do believe nature is conscious. So, when someone asks what I am, I say, I'm an atheist, I think.

(March 25, 2009 at 6:33 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:God creating the universe could be evidence of his existence. That's the claim.

The universe being 'created' is not evidence of his existence if we are talking about 'the big bang' or something like that....
It would have to be evident that the universe was created by a supernatural creator if the universe 'began' - or just came out of - with a big bang....then that wouldn't be "God" because it would have began by natural means and not supernatural means....

You're missing it EvF. If God made the spark that was the big bang then God created everything. You don't need any extra creator in this scenario.

I believe that answers everything you said there.

(March 25, 2009 at 4:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 25, 2009 at 6:33 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The universe being 'created' is not evidence of his existence if we are talking about 'the big bang' or something like that....
It would have to be evident that the universe was created by a supernatural creator if the universe 'began' - or just came out of - with a big bang....then that wouldn't be "God" because it would have began by natural means and not supernatural means....

You're missing it EvF. If God made the spark that was the big bang then God created everything. You don't need any extra creator in this scenario.

If all you are saying is that creation COULD be evidence of a creator then yes, of course it could but that doesn't mean it is (which I think was Ev's point).

Ultimately you're still reaching, still trying to somehow infer that a lack of evidence is what is to be expected and so is proof of god ... all it (the creation for lack of a better word) is is proof that something happened ... what that something is has yet to be established.

Kyu

(March 25, 2009 at 4:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: began by natural means and not supernatural means....

You're missing it EvF. If God made the spark that was the big bang then God created everything. You don't need any extra creator in this scenario.
[/quote]

If the spark was the beginning then we don't need to postulate a God before it to 'create it'. If God can just 'be there' from the beginning then why not just say the 'spark' was there from the beginning instead and we wouldn't have to postulate the supernatural complexity of a "God". We wouldn't have to postulate an extra entity. In this case a particularly complex entity - an all powerful deity.

If the 'big bang' the initial simplicity of a 'spark' can just be there then it is more parsimonious, less complex and more probable to just postulate that than to postulate that AND also add a "God" on the end of it for what seems to be just for the sake of it.

A God complicates things. If it could begin with a 'spark' then there is no real need to add a "God" on the end to create the 'spark'. If God can just 'be there' from the beginning then so can a 'spark'. And a 'spark' is a lot more simple and parsimonious and a lot more probable than a "God".

EvF

Please note that Edward has apparently got the hump so bad that he has packed up his toys and gone home (unregistered) ... before doing so he apparently had a tantrum and threw several of his toys out of his pram (destroyed the original post by editing and deleted at least 2 subsequent posts in this thread). I have done my best to recreate them (see the original post #1 in this thread).

EDIT: Adrian has now restored Edward's posts.

Kyu