Scientific Proof Of God

[Svartalf]

Huh? Since when does belief in x prove the existence of x?

Anyway, what pErv said.

Exactly!

Therefore the only logical position is Agnosticism.

Atheists can't exist because they'd be relying on belief, not proof.

I tend to agree, which I why I don't identify as hardline atheist... then again, there's a very thin line between being a nominal agnostic (because you know proof could overthrow your attitude at any time), and just being atheist because you have no reason to believe proof of any kind of divine is so unlikely to arrive, soon or ever, that possibility can simply be discounted, until and unless it actually happens.

[Svartalf]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Dorkins, him, that one.

If the God Delusion was his best effort in the field, he does a piss poor job of it. Maybe his selfis genes want belief in the soupyernatyooral for some reason?

[Svartalf]

Joe, tell me what this is... No cheating,..

Looks like something from the Book of Revelations or some other work of fantasy. The four horsemen perhaps, guessing from the emaciated dude and steed at the bottom. I could be wrong and it's something from World of Warcraft though.

Now, tell me what you see in this picture.



Cheat all you want. JimC has already given you a generous hint.

It must be the Steed of Death, ergo it's not only a pale horse, but also a major lab at Los Alamos, what did I win?

[pErvinalia]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Dorkins, him, that one.

Got any evidence of him attempting to prove the non-existence of Gods?

[Joe]

What an idiotic question... Can you just start your own thread called: "Who created God?"


I'm sure it with be earth shaking....

Why should I when the question is beyond you?

Let me give you something easy. What is this and where is it? Maybe god will help you.

Don't we have a game thread for this?

Yeah, but Soupy doesn't look at other threads.

[superuniverse]

Joe, tell me what this is... No cheating,..

Looks like something from the Book of Revelations or some other work of fantasy. The four horsemen perhaps, guessing from the emaciated dude and steed at the bottom. I could be wrong and it's something from World of Warcraft though.

Now, tell me what you see in this picture.



Cheat all you want. JimC has already given you a generous hint.

It must be the Steed of Death, ergo it's not only a pale horse, but also a major lab at Los Alamos, what did I win?

911 stuff

[Svartalf]

Duck off and Call them for yourself, how can you dare comment when you don't even have the slightest idea what the place is? at least I did try a faire guess.

[rainbow]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Dorkins, him, that one.

Got any evidence of him attempting to prove the non-existence of Gods?

The God Delusion

[rainbow]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Dorkins, him, that one.

If the God Delusion was his best effort in the field, he does a piss poor job of it. Maybe his selfis genes want belief in the soupyernatyooral for some reason?

The bus:

[rainbow]

Huh? Since when does belief in x prove the existence of x?

Anyway, what pErv said.

Exactly!

Therefore the only logical position is Agnosticism.

Atheists can't exist because they'd be relying on belief, not proof.

I tend to agree, which I why I don't identify as hardline atheist... then again, there's a very thin line between being a nominal agnostic (because you know proof could overthrow your attitude at any time), and just being atheist because you have no reason to believe proof of any kind of divine is so unlikely to arrive, soon or ever, that possibility can simply be discounted, until and unless it actually happens.

Exactly my point of view on Abiogenesis.

This got me into a lot of trouble on The Forum that Shan't be Named

[Brian Peacock]

Burden of proof lies on you shtheads who start these forums... where is your "proof"?

What kind of proof that I don't find your claims and assertions convincing would you accept?

[Brian Peacock]

Another quote, for the more pissed-off atheist:

"Mankind will never know peace until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

Yes but the position is Secularism rather than Atheism.

The existence or not of a God or Gods is of no consequence unless that is tied to religious control. King, dictator or politician using religion for the purposes of power is the problem.

...but take away Religion, and there are other Symbols of belief:
The Great Leader - personality cult
The Party - the Revolutionary zeal
The Nation - the hatred of others whether inside or outside of the country.
Technology - the belief that a Technocratic Regime will save us from ourselves.

There are perhaps others.

Indeed, my colourful friend. Atheism is and can only be a coherent position in the face of theism. If nobody was making claims for universe-creating supernatural entities that need you to wear a special hat on a Tuesday etc then bounding around the quad earnestly telling people that universe-creating supernatural entities that need you to wear a special hat on a Tuesday etc do not exist would probably see you housed in a nice soft room with no sharp implements.

[pErvinalia]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Dorkins, him, that one.

Got any evidence of him attempting to prove the non-existence of Gods?

The God Delusion

Quotes please. I don't recall him doing such a thing in the book. Although, it's been a long time since I read it.

[Svartalf]

IIRC, he indeed doesn't. He just shows (or says he does, because seriously that's one of the least convincing books on the subject I've ever read) how there's precisely no valid or convincing evidence for the existence for the divine, no matter how any number of morons insist on the contrary. I can't remember he trying at any point to demonstrate that not only is there no evidence for the divine, but the available evidence gives serious reason to believe that there is none.

[Hermit]

I got kicked out of Dawkins' for pointing out that showing the inconsistencies in one belief system doesn't prove the non-existence of Gods.

Which atheists are in the business of proving the non-existence of Gods? Sounds like a straw man argument.

Dorkins, him, that one.

Got any evidence of him attempting to prove the non-existence of Gods?

The God Delusion

I challenge you to cite a single sentence or paragraph in which Dawkins asserts it is possible to prove the non-existence of Gods. You will not find any because he speaks of probabilities rather than proofs. In fact, he explicitly rejects the very notion that the non-existence of Gods can be proven.

Russell's teapot, of course, stands for an infinite number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved.

and

That you cannot prove God's non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable.

(my emphasis)

He devised a scale of probabilities from 1 to 7 and wrote "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated".
Here is the scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’

Dawkins places himself at 6.

The bus:

Again, it's about probability. It does not say "There's provably no God". The choice of words is not an accident. It is very deliberate, and consistent with what Dawkins keeps saying.

Here is a much better picture of it. Without Dawkins it would even better.