(June 21, 2010 at 7:26 pm)theVOID Wrote: If you can't prove there is a God i'm not going to believe in it, it is as simple as that.

Hi, Void. It has been a while since we last chatted.

I was wondering if you meant this statement at face value or whether you were exaggerating a bit (or maybe chose the wrong words). If it was meant at face value then I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the thread "What science can prove". It seems to me that a lot of your atheist friends here don't think that science can "prove" anything. If you agree that science cannot prove anything and I am quite sure from previous conversations that you think science is the best methodology to use for finding out what the truth is, I wonder how anyone could possibly "prove there is a God" to your satisfaction. So I guess my questions boil down to this: What do you mean by "prove" in your statement above?

---

(June 22, 2010 at 9:27 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Not to pre-empt thor's reply rjh4 but it would think it is obvious....plausibility is devoid of a 'skydaddy' getting blamed for everything.

It sounds like you are saying that "plausibility" by definition excludes the possibility of God. If so, on what grounds do you make such a statement. If not, please clarify what you mean.

(June 22, 2010 at 9:24 am)rjh4 Wrote: Yeah...I figured that. After all you are an atheist. What I would like to know, if you feel like sharing, why do you find it infinitely more plausible? What is your standard for determining what is plausible and what is not?

Plausible - Explanations that involve the natural world.

Implausible - Explanations that involve things outside the natural world.

---

(June 22, 2010 at 9:36 am)rjh4 Wrote: It sounds like you are saying that "plausibility" by definition excludes the possibility of God. If so, on what grounds do you make such a statement. If not, please clarify what you mean.

"God" is outside the natural world. Plus, there is no evidence to support the existence of this being.

When something is plausible, it is most often testable and repeatable and is based on solid evidence.

Abiogenesis is plausible for that very reason, the same reason a supernatural God isn't.

(June 22, 2010 at 9:48 am)Thor Wrote: Plausible - Explanations that involve the natural world.

Implausible - Explanations that involve things outside the natural world.

Interesting. You seem to have redefined the word "plausible" to something different than standard dictionary meanings for the word. None of the definitions I saw on dictionary.com said anything about the natural world. Can you provide any other support for reasonably taking this as your definition other than that is how you define things? Without such support, it appears to me you are just redefining the word so that it makes your position sound good (which, of course, is your right to do but why should anyone take you seriously if that is what your are doing?)

(June 22, 2010 at 9:48 am)Thor Wrote: "God" is outside the natural world. Plus, there is no evidence to support the existence of this being.

You seem to be loose with your words. Example, you say "there is no evidence to support the existence of" God. I would love to see you try to support that position at least as it is to be taken at face value. Have you seen all the evidence that exists? How can you be sure there is no evidence that you have not seen that supports the existence of God? So if you really meant to say this, I would love to hear the answer to these questions. Otherwise, I will assume you meant something more along the lines of "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists."

---

(June 22, 2010 at 10:45 am)tavarish Wrote: When something is plausible, it is most often testable and repeatable and is based on solid evidence.

What is the basis for this? It certainly does not rely on any definition of the word that I have seen. You also seem to be redefining the meaning of the word "plausible".

I have to agree with rjh.

3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>


On that basis, religion is not even "plausible."

(June 22, 2010 at 11:29 am)rjh4 Wrote: Interesting. You seem to have redefined the word "plausible" to something different than standard dictionary meanings for the word.

You asked for my standard in determining what is plausible and what is not. You didn't ask for a dictionary definition. Also, I was responding within the context of this discussion, not necessarily what I would consider "plausible" in general.

Quote:None of the definitions I saw on dictionary.com said anything about the natural world.

Nor would I expect them to.

Quote:Can you provide any other support for reasonably taking this as your definition other than that is how you define things?

Like I said, I was responding within the context of this discussion.

Quote:Without such support, it appears to me you are just redefining the word so that it makes your position sound good (which, of course, is your right to do but why should anyone take you seriously if that is what your are doing?)

Not redefining the word. If you want to provide the dictionary definition of "plausible" and ask how my views relate to it, I can do so.

Quote:You seem to be loose with your words. Example, you say "there is no evidence to support the existence of" God. I would love to see you try to support that position at least as it is to be taken at face value.

I stand behind that statement. There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity. None. Zilch. Nada.

Quote:Have you seen all the evidence that exists?

Can you show me any?

Quote: How can you be sure there is no evidence that you have not seen that supports the existence of God?

The same way I can be sure that there is no evidence that I haven't seen that supports the existence of elves that come in the night and repair shoes.

Quote:So if you really meant to say this, I would love to hear the answer to these questions. Otherwise, I will assume you meant something more along the lines of "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists."

---

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

(June 22, 2010 at 11:29 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 22, 2010 at 10:45 am)tavarish Wrote: When something is plausible, it is most often testable and repeatable and is based on solid evidence.

What is the basis for this? It certainly does not rely on any definition of the word that I have seen. You also seem to be redefining the meaning of the word "plausible".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plausibility

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible:

You see where it says valid, likely, acceptable and credible? I'll ask you to guess how most people determine such qualities. I'll give you one guess, and it has nothing to do with faith.

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

(June 22, 2010 at 9:36 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(June 21, 2010 at 7:26 pm)theVOID Wrote: If you can't prove there is a God i'm not going to believe in it, it is as simple as that.

Hi, Void. It has been a while since we last chatted.

That it has

Quote:I was wondering if you meant this statement at face value or whether you were exaggerating a bit (or maybe chose the wrong words).

I meant "prove" colloquially, as in "build a case beyond reasonable doubt". That should have been blatantly obvious as we weren't discussing math.

Quote:It seems to me that a lot of your atheist friends here don't think that science can "prove" anything.

I would disagree, much of science (namely physics) is mathematical, therefore proof is obtainable. Certain elements in genetics would also be provable. The rest however seeks to support a hypothesis, that is the 'theoretical' element of science. Either way this is beside the point.

Quote: If you agree that science cannot prove anything and I am quite sure from previous conversations that you think science is the best methodology to use for finding out what the truth is, I wonder how anyone could possibly "prove there is a God" to your satisfaction. So I guess my questions boil down to this: What do you mean by "prove" in your statement above?

Prove (Colloquial) : To provide evidence supporting a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt.

As it stands the evidence directly supporting the god hypothesis is nil - making the hypothesis of god "unproven".

(June 22, 2010 at 5:53 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

I think it's just as bad as a blatant ignoring of the post, and theists aren't the only one's who do that so I wouldn't call it a theist tactic, merely a losing/stalling tactic.