Burden of Proof

[Mark 13:13]

well answer still stands except of course as well as the dragons I might find the tools for detecting them that the guy had as well.

So you might find the tools to detect these dragons, that's possible.....but god-.......no, that's off limits, impossible.

A clearer demonstration of your wish thinking and bias could not be asked for.

If i were to believe GOD was off limits then my whole faith would fall apart

I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. Jeremiah 24:7

[The Grand Nudger]

And yet you were willing to post that it was impossible to prove or test god , one way or the other, a few posts back.

You are inconsistent precisely -because- you have insulated the concept. The only context in which you are willing to entertain verification is in the context of "knowing" -your verse assumes existence. Presented with non-existence you assert mystery.

IOW, you are willing to propose that there is a means of verification if existence is assumed, but if existence is doubted you insist that this cannot be tested. This is abject ignorance.

Let me elaborate, your god didn't "create" any of us to begin with, and the heart isn't the "knowing" organ - even though the authors thought that it was at the time. Why on earth would this verse mean something to me? It managed to get everything absolutely wrong in one go.....

[downbeatplumb]

If i were to believe GOD was off limits then my whole faith would fall apart

I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. Jeremiah 24:7

The heart is just a pump, it can't know anything.

I know what are saying though.

You believe in god because you have a vague feeling that there must be "something more".

Not much of a reason when you look at it is it.

[Mark 13:13]

If i were to believe GOD was off limits then my whole faith would fall apart

I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. Jeremiah 24:7

The heart is just a pump, it can't know anything.

I know what are saying though.

You believe in god because you have a vague feeling that there must be "something more".

Not much of a reason when you look at it is it.

A niggle can be a powerful thing.

[Esquilax]

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........

And here, all you've shown is that you also don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means. So let me explain it to you, using your own example:

Say, for a moment, that we have a machine that can test for god. Finally, we have a method to know, or to find proof of his existence; the churches of the world line up behind the damn machine, convinced that what they'll get is proof of their god. Except the machine returns a negative, a hundred times or more. Now, instead of taking that as proof and leaving, religious organizations use your reasoning: "the reason the machine didn't find god was because god didn't want to be found by the machine!"

That is moving the goalposts: When there was a possibility of being proven right, those churches were all about scientific proof. Once proven wrong, they move the criteria, and now science is powerless before god. It's an argument of convenience, not intellectual honesty.

But let's go further: say a hundred years from that point, a new, more accurate machine is invented, and it returns only positive results, over and over. If the scientific community knows and reviews the machine to be accurate, they don't then refuse to accept the results because "the machine wanted to find god!" They freaking admit that their previous assumptions were wrong and work based on the new evidence.

Can you not see the difference? I hope that you were simply misinformed, but the fact that you went on to demand I prove a negative, when you can't even prove your own claim, and refuse to in fact, I highly doubt it. I thought you didn't care about proof, though? Or is it just proof that disagrees with you that's inconsequential?

[Simon Moon]

A niggle can be a powerful thing.

Depends on how credulous one is.

You seem to be very credulous.

[Mark 13:13]

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........

And here, all you've shown is that you also don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means. So let me explain it to you, using your own example:

Say, for a moment, that we have a machine that can test for god. Finally, we have a method to know, or to find proof of his existence; the churches of the world line up behind the damn machine, convinced that what they'll get is proof of their god. Except the machine returns a negative, a hundred times or more. Now, instead of taking that as proof and leaving, religious organizations use your reasoning: "the reason the machine didn't find god was because god didn't want to be found by the machine!"

That is moving the goalposts: When there was a possibility of being proven right, those churches were all about scientific proof. Once proven wrong, they move the criteria, and now science is powerless before god. It's an argument of convenience, not intellectual honesty.

But let's go further: say a hundred years from that point, a new, more accurate machine is invented, and it returns only positive results, over and over. If the scientific community knows and reviews the machine to be accurate, they don't then refuse to accept the results because "the machine wanted to find god!" They freaking admit that their previous assumptions were wrong and work based on the new evidence.

Can you not see the difference? I hope that you were simply misinformed, but the fact that you went on to demand I prove a negative, when you can't even prove your own claim, and refuse to in fact, I highly doubt it. I thought you didn't care about proof, though? Or is it just proof that disagrees with you that's inconsequential?

seems like a more scientific way to move the goal posts so its ok.

---

A niggle can be a powerful thing.

Depends on how credulous one is.

You seem to be very credulous.

Or very lucky.

[Simon Moon]

Or very lucky.

Ah, so your luck allows you to spend eternity in heaven for doing nothing more than believing without evidence, and us unlucky ones get to spend eternity in hell for a finite crime.

What a swell god...

[Esquilax]

seems like a more scientific way to move the goal posts so its ok.

Is there a single form of argumentation that isn't okay with you? Besides actually providing proof for your baseless assertions, I mean?

[Mark 13:13]

Or very lucky.

Ah, so your luck allows you to spend eternity in heaven for doing nothing more than believing without evidence, and us unlucky ones get to spend eternity in hell for a finite crime.

What a swell god...

well i don't believe the not believing will be the issue is where the non-believing lead, and I don't believe that just being an athiest on earth would preclude someone from heaven, as for hell and the finite infinite thing yes I see the issue on that but i haven't really explored deeply the upto date theological debate on that but yes that's definately something for looking at. Although as Catholics we have a concept of Purgatory which softens that a little but doesn't fully deal with it.