Quit being obtuse. We all know of examples of these things, every September we recall just one of many.
Die how? I know many who are not willing to compromise (or turn their backs on God for the sake of living) and die as a result, then you have those willing to die in the process of killing others.
You're failing to make that distinction clear, and I understand why -- it hurts your generalization of all "theists" (demonstrating again how you're not being clear, intentionally, on what "theists" you're referring to). :whiste:
All theists are not the same, don't believe the same, and don't practice their beliefs in the same manner, yet, you're being ambiguous in your assessment.
Quit being obtuse. We all know of examples of these things, every September we recall just one of many.
LOL -- so you're referring to Muslim extremists (just a small portion of their religion). Why didn't you say so?
I'm not being obtuse, I want you to be clear. I don't care for all religious beliefs myself, but I'm not going lump all religious people together, no more than I lump all whites together with the small subset of racists alive and well in this country.
Too bad I cannot say the same for you.
Actually, the Bible makes that claim. We just agree with it. Again, you cannot hold us to the standard you mean to hold the Bible to.
You preach that it's true. Why can't we hold you to the same standard?
The second you assume an all powerful God exists (purely for scientific purposes of testing), you must also assume that God, in his infinite wisdom and power, has the ability to change anything. Therefore, there is no way to tell if there would be any traces of his doings left behind, since he, like the programmer making his virtual world, can change anything. He might decide to flood the world, and then erase any evidence of such a thing happening later.I mostly agree, but will diverge on one aspect of it. That is on your first point, sorta.
All through history and even today Theists make various claims of their god(s) interacting in the Natural World. These claims vary from Miracles to Weather/Geologic events. If it were true that these things were caused by a deity, then there would be traces of unexplainable occurrences to account for them, thus indicating supernatural intervention. Still not a solid indication of god(s), but at least something to support the hypothesis.
That said, Theists claiming to Know god(s) and make pronouncements attributing various things as actions of god(s) have all been proven wrong every single time except when it's a claim of a Personal nature.
I'm really not sure how you mostly agree with me, and then say this. I just finished talking about how applying any scientific test onto God is basically useless, so how do you test this scientifically?IOW, those who support the hypothesis have always been shown to be wrong by any measure that could be used Scientifically.
Science has long since abandoned any serious theistic investigative because when you really think about it, no matter how far you go you can never prove or disprove God scientifically.Which is why Science has long since abandoned any serious theistic investigative endeavours.
I didn't lump them all together. Nor does Harris.
Because the claim doesn't originate with me. If it did, then that would be different.
I didn't lump them all together. Nor does Harris.
The second you assume an all powerful God exists (purely for scientific purposes of testing), you must also assume that God, in his infinite wisdom and power, has the ability to change anything. Therefore, there is no way to tell if there would be any traces of his doings left behind, since he, like the programmer making his virtual world, can change anything. He might decide to flood the world, and then erase any evidence of such a thing happening later.
Perhaps if God is not all powerful, then this might not be the case.
I'm not really sure how you prove that something was not the intention of God. Name any scientific theory or law of why or how something happens, and I'll tell you God designed it that way.
I'm really not sure how you mostly agree with me, and then say this. I just finished talking about how applying any scientific test onto God is basically useless, so how do you test this scientifically?
Science has long since abandoned any serious theistic investigative because when you really think about it, no matter how far you go you can never prove or disprove God scientifically.
You did, because you said "theist". You didn't say "Christian", "Muslim", or "Buddhist", for example.
A theists is just a person who believes in a personal God...a very general term.
Don't play games with me.
All of what we know of any god has always been through other Humans. These Humans have made various claims of their god(s) doing certain things within our reality. Nearly every one of those claims has been shown to be completely Natural.
IOW, I am using their record of failure as evidence to support doubt in their claims.
that might be evidence to doubt their claim if NO GOD WERE TO EXIST. In other words, if we lived in a purely scientific world where everything could be properly scientifically tested. In a world where God exists, you can collect as much failure from every human all day long as you want. It doesn't change that he's up there, and that he's in full control.IOW, I am using their record of failure as evidence to support doubt in their claims.
Here would be my next response to you:
I claim all of those humans were high on shrooms. And also that there is a God.
Or maybe I claim that God caused those individuals to give incorrect information for some purpose that I am not aware of. And also that there is a God.
Or maybe I claim that all of those individuals are still correct. And that every completely natural event those individuals described was designed by God. And also that there is a God.
Now I remember why Charles stopped arguing with Rob, haha.
Claims are easy. Evidence to support them is where they stand or fall.
If I claim that planet K may or may not exist, it is not my duty to prove it's existence, since I have never claimed that. However, if you claim, with certainty, that it does not exist, you better have good proof for that.
There is no scientific proof that God does not exist. You gave what might seem like sensible reasons for the lack of a God. I countered that with equally plausible reasons why he may still exist, showing that you haven't proven anything.
Lack of support of claims is not reason to doubt the claims more than you had before. It is not evidence of the opposite. Those people being wrong doesn't mean that it is more probable that God doesn't exist now, it simply means we have no new information. It's the same as if those people have never said anything to begin with.I never claimed to have proven anything. I merely showed that the lack of support for claims made is reason to doubt the claims. No one can Prove a Negative, but if all claims of evidence for the Positive turns out to be false, there is little to no reason to accept the Positive claim.
This ought to be good......wonder what talking point Sandorski will use this time.......pulls up a chair and pops open a coca cola.....but who are you to say what are the intentions of God.
This ought to be good......wonder what talking point Sandorski will use this time.......pulls up a chair and pops open a coca cola.....
Lack of support of claims is not reason to doubt the claims more than you had before. It is not evidence of the opposite. Those people being wrong doesn't mean that it is more probable that God doesn't exist now, it simply means we have no new information. It's the same as if those people have never said anything to begin with.
Furthermore, the very nature of thing that you will be trying to show that "there is little to no reason to accept" is itself it is not measurable. Therefore, you can wait millions of years, have not seen ANY evidence of God, and that still tells you nothing. Because I will simply point out that IF he exists, he could very well have little interaction with the world. Or interact and erase his traces. You could say that is less likely, but who are you to say what are the intentions of God.
When those who made the claims, supported those claims upon things that are demonstrably false, there is nothing supporting their claim in the first place. I am demonstrably real and have existence, this "god" has never been demonstrated to exist. That is who I am and why I can doubt any of the claims made by other Humans.
I only hold religious people to these standards when the they make the claim "I chose Jesus, and i know 100% that he's the son of God".
Actually, the Bible makes that claim. We just agree with it. Again, you cannot hold us to the standard you mean to hold the Bible to.
The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
by William Butler Yeats
If I claim that planet K may or may not exist, it is not my duty to prove it's existence, since I have never claimed that. However, if you claim, with certainty, that it does not exist, you better have good proof for that.
There is no scientific proof that God does not exist. You gave what might seem like sensible reasons for the lack of a God. I countered that with equally plausible reasons why he may still exist, showing that you haven't proven anything.