soulcougher73
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 15,688
- 4,203
- 136
What evidence do you have someone made the shovel?
That is his point. He made the claim but lacks evidence.
What evidence do you have someone made the shovel?
Because it strongly implies that you need more. A point of entry requires something to enter.
That is his point. He made the claim but lacks evidence.
How am I ignoring it? I'm acknowledging it and deciding it can't be proven nor disproven.
So, if your arrogance leads you to believe that me not being able to prove something therefor means it does not exist, then it doesn't exist according to you. But that's your stance, you can't force it onto me.
How is it "arrogance" on my part to refuse to believe your assertion, when you can't provide even one bit of evidence to back up your assertion?
Are you arrogant for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Where have I asserted anything, other than a lack of evidence?
Where have I asserted anything, other than a lack of evidence?
I think what he is getting as is why would anyone believe anything without hard evidence? Its the same reason nobody believes in the FSM or unicorns that fart rainbows, or the tooth fairy.
I mean you can tell your kid all you want the tooth fairy will put a quarter under your pillow, but nobody really believes that. Why? No evidence of such a thing happening. Well other than the evidence you are lying to your kid and you yourself putting the quarter under his pillow
If I was completely sold on there being no God or afterlife, I sincerly believe I would have put a gun to my head long ago.
Because he or she sees evidence where you do not.
Re-read your posts and find that I may have assumed too much, however I remain suspicious. Regardless, how does my position make me the "arrogant" one?
Because he or she sees evidence where you do not.
Because if the stance you're taking is that if I cannot prove something to be true if I make a claim, therefor it is false, it is an arrogant stance. As in you'll take that stance whether it is true or not.
That is how you're coming across.
But shouldnt they be able to show me this evidence they see? Or are they making stuff up as well to see?
I don't say that it's False because of the lack of evidence. I merely can't accept it as True, due to the lack of evidence.
I will allude to a previous post of mine where your level of required evidence likely surpasses theirs.
If by surpasses theirs you mean they dont require any, than maybe you have a point LOL. Which all comes back to them being retarded with defective brains
But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.
What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.
Those same properties make it also impossible for them to prove. In that case these people are bat shit crazy believing in things that many would kill over and have, without a lick of proof.
The flying spaghetti monster is an analog for God. It is no more possible to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster than it is to prove or disprove the existence of God. They are both metaphysical beings which we are physically incapable of observing or detecting with any test. So the very notion of "disproving the flying spaghetti monster" is inherently as impossible as disproving God, and therefore not worthy of any serious consideration. I suppose that you are correct in the assertion that disproving the existence of one metaphysical being does not disprove the existence of all metaphysical beings, but since we can't do the former, the latter is irrelevant.But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.
What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.
But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.
What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.
But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.
What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.
Certainly, but why should I Believe?
How would you define this "God"?
The flying spaghetti monster is an analog for God. It is no more possible to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster than it is to prove or disprove the existence of God. They are both metaphysical beings which we are physically incapable of observing or detecting with any test. So the very notion of "disproving the flying spaghetti monster" is inherently as impossible as disproving God, and therefore not worthy of any serious consideration. I suppose that you are correct in the assertion that disproving the existence of one metaphysical being does not disprove the existence of all metaphysical beings, but since we can't do the former, the latter is irrelevant.