(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Who says that the xtian defintion of god is true?

Yet again, you are failing to provide logical evidence either way.

The Xtian definition is set, and so you have that to address if you choose to, and you seem to be choosing to. Through belief you can find out if it's true or not, and not in any other way. You either address the problem or don't. It matters not to me either way.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: It is only logically impossible for you to know he exists empirically, if we know that the christian non-empirical definition of him is true. We don't know this, and to a rational person there is no sound basis to believe it.

There is sound rational basis there for you to consider. It is your choice to act upon that either way.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: prove he exists! You can't? I can guess why!

Because your illogic defies it?

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

Quote:You state that there isn't a god. A bold claim. On what evidence? A: Because you say so.

No, not because I say so but because there is no evidence to support the existence of god and no reason to believe in a creator either.

You denying evidence =/= it not being there.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: no evidence = no god - I can state that reasonably boldly in a debate with a theist without worrying about being shown up.

Yet here you are being shown up. The burden of proof is shouldered by anyone making a claim. You have made a strong claim that there is no God and then failed to show any rational support for that claim. I'm afraid the burden is still yours.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

Quote:I'm sorry: not good enough. This life is what you've got and you ought to face up to it rather than theorise about what might have been.

I can't believe a theist has just said that to me. With a straight face.

Yet here you are suggesting that reality is in error

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

Quote:We have a choice and that's how it works in this reality.

Yes WE (Atheists) have a choice, theists seem not to. You're told to believe from an early age, this is not a choice. The choice given by god (believe in me as your saviour OR go to hell and suffer) is not a choice, it is an instruction to do something or pay the price.

You make a lot of assumptions for your supposed non assumptive stance.

Your choice, given God or not given God, is to suffer the hell of doing bad stuff or live in heaven and do what's right. Those are scary words I know. Reality will get you which ever way you decide to play it.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The burden of proof is shouldered by anyone making a claim. You have made a strong claim that there is no God and then failed to show any rational support for that claim. I'm afraid the burden is still yours.

Can't the lack of evidence in the existence of god considered as a logical evidence to back up his claims?

(November 13, 2011 at 11:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yet again, you are failing to provide logical evidence either way.

The Xtian definition is set, and so you have that to address if you choose to, and you seem to be choosing to.

I addressed it but it seems to be incomprehensible to you. I addressed it by asking how we can know it is true. If we can't know it is true your argument fails there and then.

Quote: Through belief you can find out if it's true or not, and not in any other way. You either address the problem or don't. It matters not to me either way.

Aaah, we can know it's true not by establishing facts, but by "believing" it is true. Says who? With what authority?

Quote:There is sound rational basis there for you to consider. It is your choice to act upon that either way.

Belief that something is true is not sound rational basis to establish it is true.

Quote:Because your illogic defies it?

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

Quote:You state that there isn't a god. A bold claim. On what evidence? A: Because you say so.

No, not because I say so but because there is no evidence to support the existence of god and no reason to believe in a creator either.

You denying evidence =/= it not being there.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:12 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: no evidence = no god - I can state that reasonably boldly in a debate with a theist without worrying about being shown up.

Yet here you are being shown up. The burden of proof is shouldered by anyone making a claim. You have made a strong claim that there is no God and then failed to show any rational support for that claim. I'm afraid the burden is still yours.

When somebody is telling you that no evidence to support that gods exists is NOT a rational reason to state that there are no gods, you've won.

Quote:Yet here you are suggesting that reality is in error

You make a lot of assumptions for your supposed non assumptive stance.

Your choice, given God or not given God, is to suffer the hell of doing bad stuff or live in heaven and do what's right. Those are scary words I know.

They aren't scary words, they are nothing words meaning nothing and based on superstitious belief, nothing more.

Quote: Reality will get you which ever way you decide to play it.

Reality got me years ago, I live in it and embrace it every day. You seem to be claiming that reality includes the invisible sky dude.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:53 am)Blam! Wrote: Can't the lack of evidence in the existence of god considered as a logical evidence to back up his claims?

Saying there's a total lack of evidence that earwigs climb into people's ears and shit icecream is reasonable because there is a lack of evidence that could be collected. But to say we can safely say that there is no God because of a lack of evidence that cannot ever be collected is not.

fr0d0, Could you not say the same for the invisible hyenas that live in my shower?

(November 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: [quote='fr0d0' pid='205964' dateline='1321198798']
Yet again, you are failing to provide logical evidence either way.

The Xtian definition is set, and so you have that to address if you choose to, and you seem to be choosing to.

I addressed it but it seems to be incomprehensible to you. I addressed it by asking how we can know it is true. If we can't know it is true your argument fails there and then.
[/quote]
The point you are addressing is the provability of the Xtian God.

As I have already said, the truth of the reality of God is there to be tested if you wish to do so. I have also provided you with the exact methodology to use.

I've also already stated that the existence of God cannot be emprically known.

Where's the problem?

(November 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

Quote: Through belief you can find out if it's true or not, and not in any other way. You either address the problem or don't. It matters not to me either way.

Aaah, we can know it's true not by establishing facts, but by "believing" it is true. Says who? With what authority?

Look at the infomation I have already preseted you with. The information is readily available to you to assess. No one cal tell you what to believe. That's a choice only you can make, based upon the evidence.

(November 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

Quote:There is sound rational basis there for you to consider. It is your choice to act upon that either way.

Belief that something is true is not sound rational basis to establish it is true.

Quote:Because your illogic defies it?

[quote='Norfolk And Chance' pid='205961' dateline='1321197168']
[quote]You state that there isn't a god. A bold claim. On what evidence? A: Because you say so.

No, not because I say so but because there is no evidence to support the existence of god and no reason to believe in a creator either.

Are you citing logically impossible evidence? If so then that is no reason.

(November 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: When somebody is telling you that no evidence to support that gods exists is NOT a rational reason to state that there are no gods, you've won.

Sorry whut??

(November 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Your choice, given God or not given God, is to suffer the hell of doing bad stuff or live in heaven and do what's right. Those are scary words I know.

They aren't scary words, they are nothing words meaning nothing and based on superstitious belief, nothing more.
[/quote]
What we have there are universal truths. If you deny those then you deny reality.

---

(November 13, 2011 at 12:42 pm)frankiej Wrote: fr0d0, Could you not say the same for the invisible hyenas that live in my shower?

Like I said in the other thread... the model stands because it logically follows. Substituting nonsense produces something of equal value to nonsense.

(November 13, 2011 at 12:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(November 13, 2011 at 11:53 am)Blam! Wrote: Can't the lack of evidence in the existence of god considered as a logical evidence to back up his claims?

Saying there's a total lack of evidence that earwigs climb into people's ears and shit icecream is reasonable because there is a lack of evidence that could be collected. But to say we can safely say that there is no God because of a lack of evidence that cannot ever be collected is not.

Who says we cannot collect evidence of god? Those that have an interest is protecting the god delusion? christians with their "definition".

Logic Norf

(November 13, 2011 at 12:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The point you are addressing is the provability of the Xtian God.

As I have already said, the truth of the reality of God is there to be tested if you wish to do so. I have also provided you with the exact methodology to use.

I've also already stated that the existence of God cannot be emprically known.

How do you know this?

Quote:Where's the problem?

Where's the problem? hock:

The problem is you saying that the existence of god cannot be empirically known, but this does not make it true! What gives you the authority to claim this? You are making this statement as fact, I do not accept "christians say so" as a fact.

Quote:Look at the infomation I have already preseted you with. The information is readily available to you to assess. No one cal tell you what to believe. That's a choice only you can make, based upon the evidence.

We agree there. You've provided "information" (based on belief) but no evidence for me to believe. You have only posted intellectual sounding, meaningless, word salad - AKA theology.

Really if we strip away your contribution on this thread all the way back to the building blocks of your argument, your start point is - "we cannot empirically know god exists", not because that statement is based in fact, but just because christians defined it so. "The only way to know god exists is to believe". Because christians said so. This just isn't good enough for me.

Ultimately any argument starting from that point can only be meaningless drivel, no matter how much you back it up with more meaningless shite. You just can't build castles in the sand, and theists try and do it all day long.

---

(November 13, 2011 at 1:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Logic Norf

Nooooooo, it is logical to be able to expect to be able to collect evidence of a real phenomenon.

It is NOT logic, to say "well you can't, but it is real nonetheless".

(November 13, 2011 at 12:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But to say we can safely say that there is no God because of a lack of evidence that cannot ever be collected is not.

I don't think logic works in that way. [correct me if I'm wrong]

Considering the lack of reliable/scientific evidence in the existence of fairy - we can conclude they may not exist. The same concept could apply to the existence of god.

For example, people considered the picture of unicorn is reliable/scientific evidence to support the existence of unicorn. However, we can't find the physical evidence whatsoever. So claimers had to refute their claims to "There may be or may not" to avoid the burden of proof. Unicorn believers, in beginning, are the ones making the claims so 'tis the burden of proof still belonged to them.