Burden of Proof

[FallentoReason]

Haven't checked this thread in a while... why are you guys talking about penises?

Burden of proof: the person making the claim needs to provide the reasoning and/or evidence for said claim.

Got any Mark?

[Simon Moon]

Burden of proof: the person making the claim needs to provide the reasoning and/or evidence for said claim.

Got any Mark?

Strangely enough, Mark doesn't value reasoning and/or evidence.

He thinks there are other 'tools' that are applicable in the evaluation of the truth claim about the existence of a god. He has yet to provide us a list of those tools, how to apply them, or how to test their efficacy, but I'm all for taking his word on the subject.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Tools, like for instance a hammer to bash your head with.

[Mark 13:13]

Seems Einstein didn't wait for logic either

Albert Einstein wrote on the discovery of laws:

“There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind appearance.” (Beveridge, 1950)

I wonder did Einstein every prove conclusively that feeling as correct or were there still questions unanswered that he still needed that feeling to continue looking for an answer he expected was true. [/quote]

To use your tool analogy, intuition is a great tool for imagining what could be, science a great tool for what is, reason for helping you distinguish between the two.

I agree entirely that the scientific method is a great tool and imagination provides many possable avenues, intuition suggests which are most likely and scientific method proves if intuition was correct. But there is no way to test the GOD hypothesis that there would not be flaws in because of course should GOD exist then He would have to be amenable to co-operate with the test.

[FallentoReason]

How convenient that you don't value reasoning and/or evidence. Is it because none exists to support your version of GOD? I would have to disagree. Part of your belief is that this god inspired men to write exactly what he wanted to tell humanity. The evidence [I would accept] lies embedded in history if that's the case.

The challenge [to convert me] is to show how the Bible is the Word of God. Are you willing to go there though? Is your faith strong enough?

[Esquilax]

I agree entirely that the scientific method is a great tool and imagination provides many possable avenues, intuition suggests which are most likely and scientific method proves if intuition was correct. But there is no way to test the GOD hypothesis that there would not be flaws in because of course should GOD exist then He would have to be amenable to co-operate with the test.

Oh, come on! If you moved the goalposts back any further they'd circumnavigate the goddamn planet!

This is a child's logic, Mark. This is the theological version of the kid on the playground playing pretend with his friends and claiming that he has an "everything-proof shield." There is no point in continuing a discourse with someone willing to seriously present this kind of reasoning.

Please, please tell me you're joking, and I've gotten myself riled up over nothing, here.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm bored with this thread and satisfied with my position to this point (burden of proof rests on the claimant).

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree entirely that the scientific method is a great tool and imagination provides many possable avenues, intuition suggests which are most likely and scientific method proves if intuition was correct. But there is no way to test the GOD hypothesis that there would not be flaws in because of course should GOD exist then He would have to be amenable to co-operate with the test.

I've heard enough of this shit, have you even attempted to explain why the god hypothesis cannot be tested? No, you have not, you simply wish to exclude it from testing. "Should god exist" - then what? Then nothing, because even if a god did exist you know absolutely nothing about it, same as the rest of us. None of the shit we call god has any bearing on whatever that thing would be, if this concept has merit in the world beyond our minds none of the gods described thusfar qualify for the title. You can't tell me how your god would spoof a system even after assuming that some-thing- exists because you have no fucking clue as to what it can do, or why it would even spoof a system to begin with. What you meant to say here is, "should god exist, and assuming some thing I think about this god is accurate, -specifically that it wishes to remain hidden - for some reason that i cannot explain, nor can I offer any justification for assuming that it wishes this-then"- Well, sorry bud, no dice. That is the weakness of your position, not it's strength - a massive list of unspoken assumptions for which you cannot shoulder the burden of proof. I understand that you'd rather imagine that it will forever remain a mystery than consider whether or not it has failed. The best you can do is emphasize your own failure and then attempt to lay it over the fabric of the cosmos as if your inability to do something somehow made it impossible? Unfortunately the world beyond our imagination does not always align with our wishes.

I cannot fathom the respect and credence people give this position, I simply cannot. I have never in my life given any serious consideration as to whether or not Tyler Durden (or any other character from any other work of fiction) ever existed real life. It is pointless, and there is no difference between Tyler Durden and God. What is supposed to be mysterious about this? Grown adults, that seem to honestly believe that they might someday meet a figment of someone else's imagination? That's not mysterious, it's just embarrassing - and that's the only thing that's actually going on with regards to subject of god. That's not untesteable, open your damned bible, there god is, now close it- look around you...gone. He cannot leave the page any more than Tyler Durden. Your god is as material and testable as the ink he is continuously recreated with. As material as your own desires that motivate this continual endeavor to favorably redefine it. A "mystery" wholly devoid of mystery. Easily the least impressive thought that has ever crossed the mind of man.

If you want to have a deep discussion about god, fine, start at the very bottom, do work. Stop excusing the idea for it's shortcomings, and don't expect anyone to excuse you for your incompetence in advocating for it. Hopefully this post makes it absolutely clear what my opinion of the subject is, and the kind of work involved in this whole business. Is this the kind of work you're interested in, or would you first demand that I pretend it had already been done-before you're willing to have a conversation about it?

[Mark 13:13]

I agree entirely that the scientific method is a great tool and imagination provides many possable avenues, intuition suggests which are most likely and scientific method proves if intuition was correct. But there is no way to test the GOD hypothesis that there would not be flaws in because of course should GOD exist then He would have to be amenable to co-operate with the test.

I've heard enough of this shit, have you even attempted to explain why the god hypothesis cannot be tested? No, you have not, you simply wish to exclude it from testing. "Should god exist" - then what? Then nothing, because even if a god did exist you know absolutely nothing about it, same as the rest of us. None of the shit we call god has any bearing on whatever that thing would be, if this concept has merit in the world beyond our minds none of the gods described thusfar qualify for the title. You can't tell me how your god would spoof a system even after assuming that some-thing- exists because you have no fucking clue as to what it can do, or why it would even spoof a system to begin with. What you meant to say here is, "should god exist, and assuming some thing I think about this god is accurate, -specifically that it wishes to remain hidden - for some reason that i cannot explain, nor can I offer any justification for assuming that it wishes this-then"- Well, sorry bud, no dice. That is the weakness of your position, not it's strength - a massive list of unspoken assumptions for which you cannot shoulder the burden of proof. I understand that you'd rather imagine that it will forever remain a mystery than consider whether or not it has failed. The best you can do is emphasize your own failure and then attempt to lay it over the fabric of the cosmos as if your inability to do something somehow made it impossible? Unfortunately the world beyond our imagination does not always align with our wishes.

I cannot fathom the respect and credence people give this position, I simply cannot. I have never in my life given any serious consideration as to whether or not Tyler Durden (or any other character from any other work of fiction) ever existed real life. It is pointless, and there is no difference between Tyler Durden and God. What is supposed to be mysterious about this? Grown adults, that seem to honestly believe that they might someday meet a figment of someone else's imagination? That's not mysterious, it's just embarrassing - and that's the only thing that's actually going on with regards to subject of god. That's not untesteable, open your damned bible, there god is, now close it- look around you...gone. He cannot leave the page any more than Tyler Durden. Your god is as material and testable as the ink he is continuously recreated with. As material as your own desires that motivate this continual endeavor to favorably redefine it. A "mystery" wholly devoid of mystery. Easily the least impressive thought that has ever crossed the mind of man.

If you want to have a deep discussion about god, fine, start at the very bottom, do work. Stop excusing the idea for it's shortcomings, and don't expect anyone to excuse you for your incompetence in advocating for it. Hopefully this post makes it absolutely clear what my opinion of the subject is, and the kind of work involved in this whole business. Is this the kind of work you're interested in, or would you first demand that I pretend it had already been done-before you're willing to have a conversation about it?

I wish people would not keep telling me of the weakness of my position, I'm the only one standing in my position so I should know if its weak or not. From where I stand its perfectly strong and can withstand any assault, just because it breaks all the custom and practice rules does not weaken it. I don't excuse the idea for its supposed short coming but I wont accept that because your mindsets can't accept it somehow its weak. When we discuss God we are dealing with a potentiality outside the cosmos, where everything is either infinite or eternal and you are trying to say the laws and rules that function within our finite world, developed by intelligent apes, who have only existed for a blink in the age of the earth let alone the universe. The rules and structures that serve us well start to creak at the edges when we approach even the extremes in what we can try to understand and you never even consider that a different set of rules and approaches are needed beyond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f7zsk
After exploring George Cantor's work on infinity and Henri Poincare's work on chaos theory, he looks at how mathematics was itself thrown into chaos by the discoveries of Kurt Godel, who showed that the unknowable is an integral part of maths, and Paul Cohen, who established that there were several different sorts of mathematics in which conflicting answers to the same question were possible.

Scientist hate infinity because all rules go bonkers there so they continue to wait in hope for someone to get them out of the conundrum of the singularity. Still it does make for interesting new theories which can be entertained and discussed if scientists raise them....heres a new one on me..But an Indiana University professor has a new theory, reports New Scientist: We’re inside a black hole that exists in another universe. Specifically, a black hole that rebounded, somewhat like a spring.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...ntist-says

I feel a little like the guy who leaves platos cave and comes back to find that rather than listen to the guy they have become so identified with world they have been imprisioned in that they find him a nuisance and could even become aggressive towards the one who challenges their reality.

---

I agree entirely that the scientific method is a great tool and imagination provides many possable avenues, intuition suggests which are most likely and scientific method proves if intuition was correct. But there is no way to test the GOD hypothesis that there would not be flaws in because of course should GOD exist then He would have to be amenable to co-operate with the test.

Oh, come on! If you moved the goalposts back any further they'd circumnavigate the goddamn planet!

This is a child's logic, Mark. This is the theological version of the kid on the playground playing pretend with his friends and claiming that he has an "everything-proof shield." There is no point in continuing a discourse with someone willing to seriously present this kind of reasoning.

Please, please tell me you're joking, and I've gotten myself riled up over nothing, here.

Well I suppose when we do it its called moving the goal posts but in science its called refining theories or even changing theories that were never wrong but just based on insufficient information, and of course if a theory has any issues unresolved in it not to worry we know for sure that someone will come along soon with the missing bit were missing and it will all be sorted. So mr scientist who will admit you don't know everything and have never been wrong just not quite correct why should I just accept what you say when you tell me I'm wrong about the existance of the GOD I believe in. Have you been outside the universe to collect any data to justify your conclusions........

[The Grand Nudger]

I wish people would not keep telling me of the weakness of my position, I'm the only one standing in my position so I should know if its weak or not. From where I stand its perfectly strong and can withstand any assault, just because it breaks all the custom and practice rules does not weaken it.

It hardly needs assualting, you haven't supported it in any way. It's DOA.

I don't excuse the idea for its supposed short coming but I wont accept that because your mindsets can't accept it somehow its weak.

It';s not weak because my mindset won't accept it, but because yours...that does...is incapable of supporting it.

When we discuss God we are dealing with a potentiality outside the cosmos,

Yet another bare assertion. Are you going to offer any support for this position? Of course not, but it hardly matters to me- because you're clearly mistaken. You're here, within the cosmos, imagining god, the god stories exists, here, in the cosmos.

where everything is either infinite or eternal and you are trying to say the laws and rules that function within our finite world, developed by intelligent apes, who have only existed for a blink in the age of the earth let alone the universe. The rules and structures that serve us well start to creak at the edges when we approach even the extremes in what we can try to understand and you never even consider that a different set of rules and approaches are needed beyond.

You're one of those intelligent apes, and that cuts both ways now doesn't it. Did you just tell me how things where beyond the cosmos? How would you know? Do you think that your god story is somehow excused for all the failings of these intelligent apes, with their short time here? I hardly think so. Case in point, your god story seems to emphasize our limitations and history very, very well. Beyond what? Beyond the beyond, in the gaps? This is appealing to ignorance, google it and enrich your understanding.

Scientist hate infinity because all rules go bonkers there so they continue to wait in hope for someone to get them out of the conundrum of the singularity. Still it does make for interesting new theories which can be entertained and discussed if scientists raise them....heres a new one on me..But an Indiana University professor has a new theory, reports New Scientist: We’re inside a black hole that exists in another universe. Specifically, a black hole that rebounded, somewhat like a spring.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...ntist-says

All well and good, is this how you plan to support your position? It won't work.

I feel a little like the guy who leaves platos cave and comes back to find that rather than listen to the guy they have become so identified with world they have been imprisioned in that they find him a nuisance and could even become aggressive towards the one who challenges their reality.

Are you the guy who left? I'll be frank here, anyone who thinks that those who actually -did- dwell in caves answered some question about the fabric of our cosmos better than we can answer it today has no grounds to even imply that he has somehow stumbled upon knowledge or enlightenment. This is a sad joke.