|
Views beyond Atheism
|
 
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Go see the reasoning for god video I posted for one. For two, I've posted a hell of a lot of reasoning. I'll point out next time I do it k.
BTW - I'm only having to call it non empirical evidence again because you won't stop calling it evidence instead of reasoning!!! grr!! 
Because if the reasons are actually a valid reason to believe that THERE IS a God then they WOULD could as evidence of SOME form (as I keep saying; what's wrong with THIS reasoning?? I'm still awaiting a counter-argument lol!).
So, tell me, what's wrong with MY reasoning THERE? If your reasons ARE valid to believe that THERE IS a God then that would count as evidence of SOME form whether empirical or non-empirical. That's why I'm asking for evidence still k? EvF
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
I'm thinking any evidence (Dawkins made up the non empirical evidence line after all... I've not read everything he's done but hashe ever covered NE evidence? I'd put money on a debunk of that too if he had
) doesn't prove God. That may be different to what I originally said on here, but it's what I've been saying recently. The ratinalising from the Bible, for example, would only make the leap of faith rational. The leap of faith is only necessary because the rationalising doesn't ever count as proof. Because as with it's proof requiring sibling, non empirical evidence still can't prove God. Again, that goes against the signature of God. ie God has to be unprovable (for the logic to work).
How is the reasoning rational if it takes a leap of faith (non-rational)? If the reasoning was rational then you wouldn't need faith (because the rational reasoning to believe God exist would count as evidence of SOME form).
I don't expect God to be PROVEN to believe in him. I just expect there to be SOME evidence of SOME form to indicate that he is in ANY WAY likely to exist!! As for Dawkins 'not covering NE evidence' - what do you mean by cover? There is NO known evidence of God AT ALL in ANY form - so how do you mean cover it? He says no evidence. There is no empirical evidence at all any maybe he considers no other form of evidence valid OR - either way, there's zero KNOWN remotely valid NON-empirical evidence anyway!! As far as I know! (Or have any idea of whatsoever, enlighten me?) LOL  EvF
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence??
The reasoning doesn't take a leap of faith, the person does. You will never ever ever get ANY evidence of ANY form that he exists, because as we have established, that would require us to be gods too. The point of faith is to believe in something we cannot have evidence for. You say you can't have belief until you have evidence. So... you're saying that until you are a god yourself, you won't believe in God.  (May 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence?? But that makes no sense. How can you believe in something that not only is there no evidence for but also can never obtain that evidence. And how can you know what God is if you have nothing to go on? This sounds like pure fantasy. On that basis you could believe in anything. ![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
????
fr0d0 Wrote:Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence?? I would have thought that simply 'evidence' covers ALL forms of evidence and not simply emprical. He may or may not think emprical is the only valid forum in such a case but either way, when Dawkins has said time and time again that there is NO EVIDENCE of God I assume he of course means ALL evidence because there is no evidence of God whatsoever and I would have thought 'evidence' INCLUDES empirical AND non-emprical. Simply 'evidence' is just evidence! Evidence is evidence! You seem to keep hearing "evidence" as specifically empirical evidence. Since I would think that evidence unless otherwise specified includes ALL evidence empirical AND non-empirical - evidence is evidence!! If it takes us to have God like powers to have evidence of God, and therefore takes us to have God like powers to BELIEVE in God because evidence is the only rational to believe, then fine!! SURE this may give no chance for believing in God. But the point is until there is evidence there can be no rational reason to believe such an extremely improbable being exists whether it is POSSIBLE for their to be evidence or not! And besides, guess what! - one of the reasons it's so DIFFICULT to HAVE evidence of God is BECAUSE he's so extremely improbable - because he's so "God like" and he's 'God like' because he IS God by definition (hypothetically speaking lol!) And whether it's possible to have evidence of God or not - until there's no evidence there's no rational reason to believe... If you think that the fact there CAN'T be evidence means you need to believe with a reason OTHER than evidence then think again....ever thought of NOT believing? There's no evidence! That's the most rational option! One of the reasons it's so irrational to believe in "God" for ANOTHER reason is because not only with everything else is evidence required basically, but the REASON why it's so difficult (or impossible) for their to be evidence of God is BECAUSE he's extremely improbable! No evidence, extremely impossible - what more of reason could you want for NOT believing? If for sake of argument at least[ we assume, indeed, that we absolutely KNOW that there can be no evidence of God whatsoever. This is not REMOTELY reason to believe. If there's no evidence why believe? And if he's so incredibly complex and EXTREMELY improbable that he cannot even have evidence TO believe - what, is that a reason TO believe?! NO! Lol. If there's no evidence for the existence of something then there's no rational to believe that it exists. If it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence for something then there's still no reason because there's STILL no evidence! And in fact there may be even LESS of a reason because the reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence in such a case is often because of how incredibly improbable the thing in question IS! So: If there's no evidence for the existence of GOD then there's no rational reason to believe that he exists. If it's IMPOSSSIBLE for there to be evidence for "God" then there's still no reason because there's STILL no evidence of him! And in fact there may be even LESS of a reason because the reason that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be evidence of God is often because of how incredibly improbable he IS! Do you see what I mean? EvF
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe RE: Views beyond Atheism
May 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2009 at 2:31 pm by fr0d0.)
I think you're brainwashing me Evie!!!
 Can anyone tell me what my name is? (May 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm)Darwinian Wrote: But that makes no sense. How can you believe in something that not only is there no evidence for but also can never obtain that evidence. Don't YOU start! LOLYou hit this convo late Darwinian. You can have plenty to go on of course. May I bring a certain collection of books to the honorable gentleman's attention?
Books are no more evidence of God than the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is evidence of his noodliness the holy FSM tho....
OH yeah...you don't WANT evidence... Well they give no more remotely VALID 'reasoning' to believe that God actually exists than the FSM Gospel does to believe the FSM does really. (Same thing tho really....if those books DID give valid reasons to believe in God/the FSM respectively - then that would equate to evidence). About the brainwashing. Oh I do apologise lol!.. ... - Note to self: Mustn't respond to fr0d0 with too much rational thought, it brainwashes him OH, SHIT; did I just do that note to self outloud? OH....silly me. Oh well I heard that Benjamin Franklin used to mutter to himself out loud to help himself think - and he was a genius; so it's not necessarily a bad thing LOL. Although I forgot where I read that and it could be complete bollocks LOL EvF  (May 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence?? Because it can't be evidence for anything UNLESS it's empirical and thus measurable and/or verifiable (at least potentially so). Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
