(April 17, 2012 at 5:27 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Why should the same evidence be usable for "proving God", I say that ironically, if it isn't allowed to discount him? Sounds like you're the one lacking the comprehension here pal.

What exactly are you trying to say Ralphie? You're all over the place. You quote me saying "If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" and tell me that this is the same thing as saying "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (which it isn't). Now you are asking me if the same evidence usable for "proving God if it isn't allowed to discount? Where did I say that? You seem to be making inferences from my quotes that just are not there.

---

(April 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Right because scientist cannot understand it, therefore it does not exist.

No, it doesn't exist because its logically impossible. That's the same reason why it also doesn't make any sense.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Yes in that there is a beginning to everything that exist. If in fact there was no God and nothing in the beginning and nature popped into existence. How then do we get all this diversity and complexity? These are the kind of questions scientist rationalize with naturalism to explain away God (but they don't do very good job at it).

So, let's get this straight. If you are provided evidence that matter can pop into existence without any cause, you'd consider it as proof against god's existence and become an atheist?

Let's put it like this. Can they prove that the universe and everything had popped into existence with absolutely no help? You're me to consider something that is illogical.

Let's put it like this. Can they prove that [ god ] popped into existence with absolutely no help? Something-something-something, illogical.

(April 17, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Let's put it like this. Can they prove that the universe and everything had popped into existence with absolutely no help? You're me to consider something that is illogical.

First of all, the universe and everything? The universe is everything. Look up its definition.

Secondly, they are working on it. Would you accept it if they could?

(April 17, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Abishalom Wrote: What exactly are you trying to say Ralphie? You're all over the place. You quote me saying "If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" and tell me that this is the same thing as saying "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (which it isn't). Now you are asking me if the same evidence usable for "proving God if it isn't allowed to discount? Where did I say that? You seem to be making inferences from my quotes that just are not there.

Are you retarded? That is *your* quote, are you having trouble understanding what *your* quote entails? You imply that knowledge of the natural world cannot be used to disprove the existence of God because God is "supernatural" making the evidence invalid yet you seem perfectly content to try and use natures mere existence to attempt to prove the existence of God:
"The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature."
I mean wow, this is just pathetic now. The sheer hypocrisy, you're like a wounded animal that refuses to be put out of its misery.
You fucked up, deal with it because all you're doing now is compounding your error.

(April 17, 2012 at 6:02 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Abishalom Wrote: What exactly are you trying to say Ralphie? You're all over the place. You quote me saying "If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" and tell me that this is the same thing as saying "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (which it isn't). Now you are asking me if the same evidence usable for "proving God if it isn't allowed to discount? Where did I say that? You seem to be making inferences from my quotes that just are not there.

Are you retarded? That is *your* quote, are you having trouble understanding what *your* quote entails? You imply that knowledge of the natural world cannot be used to disprove the existence of God because God is "supernatural" making the evidence invalid yet you seem perfectly content to try and use natures mere existence to attempt to prove the existence of God:
"The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature."
I mean wow, this is just pathetic now. The sheer hypocrisy, you're like a wounded animal that refuses to be put out of its misery.
You fucked up, deal with it because all you're doing now is compounding your error.

Ralphie I never mentioned anything about supernatural. That was you. Also it was you that implied our knowledge of the natural world cannot be used to disprove the existence of God. Nowhere in any of my quotes do I speak of such things. My question was how does our knowledge of the natural world prove God does not exists or in other words make atheism the default position.

Let's examine my original quote...
"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
From this statement I only implied 2 things 2 things. All we can see is the natural world and we have knowledge of the natural world. That's it. You claiming that this is equivalent to "the natural evidence either does not exist or does not count" is just off base. Now this was presented in the form of a question (which you never answered) instead only making ill-advised assumptions.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps when your god claims involve invocations of something in the natural world which can be shown to be complete bullshit.....Unless, of course, your god is completely removed from this natural world, and you're willing to concede that all claims made with regards to your god and this natural world are complete garbage.

In which case, who cares, still doesn't exist.

(April 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Oh, I don't know, perhaps when your god claims involve invocations of something in the natural world which can be shown to be complete bullshit.....Unless, of course, your god is completely removed from this natural world, and you're willing to concede that all claims made with regards to your god and this natural world are complete garbage.

In which case, who cares, still doesn't exist.

Why would God be in nature (His creation)? He sustains it.

Anyway, I asked simple question which has been totally overlooked by all of you. It goes like this...

If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove God does not exist?

(April 17, 2012 at 7:09 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Let's examine my original quote...
"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
From this statement I only implied 2 things 2 things. All we can see is the natural world and we have knowledge of the natural world.

It isn't an assumption if you repeatedly make assertions we live in a universe where a God exists based on the fact nature exists yet cry out "oh we don't knows thats all there is" when we point out various things in nature that go against the theory of intelligent design.
You're picking and choosing what can and can't be used in a debate based on your own severely biased preferences and its ridiculous.

(April 17, 2012 at 7:25 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Why would God be in nature (His creation)? He sustains it.

Anyway, I asked simple question which has been totally overlooked by all of you. It goes like this...

If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove God does not exist?

Excellent, a potentially falsifiable claim. Care to show us the skyhook, where does he sustain it from, how, at what point does this "sustenance" enter the natural world and how have you measured it? Does this natural world actually need "sustaining" in the first place? Is there any evidence that any "sustaining" is taking place? Are there other, better demonstrated explanations for any given thing to which you might refer? What a world without this "sustenance" look like? If we can't find god in the natural world, then how have you determined that god exists in the the first place? Are you aware of many things that exist, just not here in the natural world? How were you made aware of them? Care to provide a short list of these things that exist-just-not-here? If not here, then why should I give a shit?

You asked a simple question and I just gave you a simple answer. Are you just going to repeat the question over and over? Bit disingenuous isn't it?

(April 17, 2012 at 7:29 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 7:09 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

Let's examine my original quote...
"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
From this statement I only implied 2 things 2 things. All we can see is the natural world and we have knowledge of the natural world.

It isn't an assumption if you repeatedly make assertions we live in a universe where a God exists based on the fact nature exists yet cry out "oh we don't knows thats all there is" when we point out various things in nature that go against the theory of intelligent design.
You're picking and choosing what can and can't be used in a debate based on your own severely biased preferences and its ridiculous.
[/quote]

First of all I haven't written anything along those lines...

I asked one simple question. You dissected it into baseless assumptions, all while IGNORING my question.

"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"

It's simple. Either answer my question or leave it be.