(June 14, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It was a symbol to a snake god of healing, and modern day ambulances still use that insignia.

Yeah, but that refers to a more cultured point in time. The Roman god Aesculap, who was worshipped as the god of healing and who's symbol was the snake named after him.

(June 14, 2015 at 10:32 am)whateverist Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 9:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What type of evidence or proof would you accept?

Couldn't begin to tell you.  Give me an adequate definition and perhaps we can come up with something.  So long as god is thought of as supernatural it is, so far as I can tell, in an empty set.  But god only knows.

Let me know if there is a definition that works for you.

(June 14, 2015 at 10:39 am)paulpablo Wrote:

Quote:If atheists say that atheism does not claim "There is no God," only that some people lack a belief in God, then atheism can't be true at all. A belief can only be true (in a non-trivial sense) when it makes a claim about the world and not just about someone's state of mind.

I think there's some confusion here, maybe from atheists you have spoke to or maybe just confusion in your own mind.
I'd never say Christianity is false and atheism is true.  I WOULD say the statements in the quran aren't miraculous and don't prove a god, and that the statements in the bible are ancient myths which most likely aren't true.  I might also say it's true that I lack a belief in god.
So in a way I agree with, the statement that atheism is true doesn't really make sense.  But most atheists don't say atheism is true [emphasis added], it's like saying communism is true, capitalism is true, table is true, lamp is true.  What most atheists do say is that the statements in the bible and quran and other religious books are false or just unproven to be true.

In their exuberance, I think some (even many) go further than that highlighted sentence.

(June 14, 2015 at 10:45 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 10:32 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I think what Horn is pointing out is that if atheism is not falsifiable, then it is unscientific.

The point is that if the atheist GotG objection is true, then it proves too much.

You're joking, right?

I may be wrong, but please point me to a quote, any quote, where the lack of belief in a god has been called a science. It seems to constantly escape you, that lack of belief is the only defining feature between atheists. Emphasis on lack. It isn't replaced by another belief, which may be hard to understand for a believer.

Right. Because believers are idiots incapable of logic and reason. Given that fact, I hope you'll show some patience with me due to my obvious handicap.

Quote:And atheism is falsifiable. God only has to make a personal appearance like he supposedly did in the olden days and boom, falsified.

Really? How many atheists would later say that everyone who saw Him was suffering from some type of mass-hysteria? Some would argue that it was an alien taking advantage of our planet's pre-dispositions in favor of divine beings and pretending to be God.

But if not everyone believed the miracles produced by God in the OT days (think Pharaoh and Moses here), the NT days (ie, the Pharisees) or today, what makes it any more likely that everyone - you included - would believe after some future "magic"?

(June 14, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In their exuberance, I think some (even many) go further than that highlighted sentence

Scrap the many. There are some, but they're rather fringe. Most of us don't feel the need to evangelize, only to be left alone.

What you see here is the gloves off compartment, since you have chosen to come here. Nothing against that, but you won't find me on a christian forum, since I haven't got any interest. You came here by your own choice and noone sees any reason to pull their punches.

(June 14, 2015 at 10:46 am)Exian Wrote: Saying that we have no evidence of God does not make atheism unfalsifiable. For starters, I don't consider atheism a claim, as stated in my earlier post. It's a response to a claim. For some, the response is strong, and for others, the response is subject to change. In either case, atheism remains a response.

Secondly, even though we have no evidence of god, all we would need to falsify atheism is clear evidence of god's existence, which we don't have presently. There's that old remark made by whom-ever-the-hell saying that all we would need to disprove evolution is to find a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian. That we haven't found that rabbit doesn't mean evolution is unfalsifiable.

As for SotG vs GotG, for me, that boils down to track record. And the two are only comparable in that they always seem to be in direct opposition. In fact, we wouldn't have the concept of GotG if it wasn't for science turning over rocks and finding nature rather than god, forcing him to find other hiding places. To respond to "science will figure that out some day" with "That's science of the gaps!" may be fair, but that doesn't change that, given the track record, science will probably figure it out someday. Conversely, there's nothing that can be said that will cram god back into the explanation of lightning.

But Exian, all you've really pointed out is that people were wrong to attribute natural events to God.

The boy who cried, "Wolf!" lost his credibility, and no one believed him when he was finally telling the truth.

I'm sorry believers did this to you, and I understand your skepticism, but not every cry is is a lie.

(June 14, 2015 at 10:48 am)Kitan Wrote: Seems to me that Randy is spouting the usual bunch of hooey.

And responding to a lot of the same.

(June 14, 2015 at 10:51 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 10:29 am)Randy Carson Wrote: That's not what Horn said. He suggests that we can start with what we know to be true - for example, of the material universe - and argue from that point that a Creator must exist.

Thus leading the evidence to your precut conclusion. Let me illustrate this.

Answers in Genesis - iirc - once came out with an interesting 'discovery'. If you started with a breeding population of just eight human Flood survivors, then assume a doubling of the population every century (as I recall), after some four thousand years you will end up with around six and a half 'billion' people. Which was the then-current world population at the time of publication. Thus proving the bible true etc etc etc.

What they forgot to mention was that they started with what they knew to be true - a world population of six and a half 'billion' - and worked out what the reproduction rate would have to be to arrive at just eight people over four thousand years.

Um...okay. Fundies will do that if you're not careful.

Thanks for standing watch, Stimbo.

(June 14, 2015 at 7:50 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But if not everyone believed the miracles produced by God in the OT days (think Pharaoh and Moses here), the NT days (ie, the Pharisees) or today, what makes it any more likely that everyone - you included - would believe after some future "magic"?

A pharao that is never named and an Exodus story that even most jewish historians consider to be fiction. Uhm, I can't for the life of me say why I'm sceptical about stories like that.

But let's say it was as it is told. He could pull these tricks again, couldn't he? And may I just note that you don't give him much credit by saying that he wouldn't be able to convince us. I'm sure an omnipotent, omniscient being could thing of something.

But good job evading my actual question when you quoted me: Got any quotes where one of us called atheism a science?

(June 14, 2015 at 11:01 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 9:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.

Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.

• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.

So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively

Randy, it's your claim that god exists, so it is up to you to come up with adequate proof for your particular claim. We are not making the claim and thus cannot tell you what proof you need to have.

The point I'm emphasizing is that there IS no evidence that atheists will accept because of their presuppositions.

Quote:One of the prime problems with your claim is that "god" is a very poorly defined and a broad term. Some people even consider aliens to be gods. some consider the sun to be a god, some worship crocodiles, and so on.... Each will require their own different proofs to back up their claim. In your case, before trying to prove it, try to properly define your god and it's attributes.

Given that I am a Catholic, the attributes I claim for God are well known. Do I need to list them again here?

Quote:Next regarding the actual proof, you need to understand how scientific proofs work. You keep saying that even if you present your proof we will come up with alternate explanations, but you should know that is how science works. Once a claim and it's associated proof/hypothesis is presented, people will try to disprove it and come up with alternative ideas, and the one hypothesis to survive all such attempts will get accepted temporarily till someone disproves it or finds a better explanation. This is what means to be a falsifiable claim. If your god claim is true, then the proof that you present will be run through the same gauntlet and it would survive. If you are not confident that your proof can pass the scrutiny, then maybe it is not a real proof? How can you be certain that the alternate explanations presented is not the correct one?

Thanks. I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty familiar with the general ideas behind the scientific method. See the avatar? I didn't choose it because I have a thing for Yellow Jackets. I've taken a class or two.

Yes, I am confident that the resurrection of Jesus actually IS the most reasonable explanation for ALL of the evidence that is available. It has been scrutinized, it has run the gauntlet, and it has survived.

How do you account for that?