trouble

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"There's trouble down at the mill!"

[amused]

"Do you believe in god?" almost always means, do you believe in a specific man-made god?

No, I don't believe in any of the man-made gods, they are too silly and there is no evidence that any of them will withstand the test of time. The current crop are popular at the moment through accident of history and will fade away with all the others in the past.

I suppose there could be some amorphous intelligence that hangs around in some as yet undiscovered dimension, and is holding all this together through force of will. But without a way to define it, there's still nothing to believe in.

So then I'm left with the natural world, which *could* be Spinoza's 'god'. But how does one believe in that, other than just living in existence?

'I don't know' is the most intellectually honest answer to the question of a generic undefined god that might have created everything, but the possibility that it exists raises the infinite regression problem of what created it, and it, and so on. Not probable, so doesn't really warrant belief, but agnostic is the only position on firm ground.

I'm an atheist when it comes to all the specific man-made gods. That is not a belief, but is arrived at by looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion. It's certainly not a religious position.

[Seth]

Nor do I, Rum, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit that I don't know for a fact that there is no god or afterlife or whatnot. Until some evidence is presented for them, it's perfectly reasonable for me to live as though they don't exist, without making any dogmatic metaphysical claims along the way. As in Pyrrhonist skepticism, I mean.

My position exactly.

I don't make claims, I challenge the claims others make. "What proof do you have that any god or gods exist?"

The miracle of the sun at Fatima, Portugal, October 13, 1917.

Now prove that God didn't do the things observed by tens of thousands of people in that place at that time. Don't speculate. Don't hypothesize. Don't evade. Just provide the rational, critically robust scientific evidence that the events witnessed were NOT the actions of God.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

First, prove that any god or gods actually exist. Then we can start talking about eye color and tastes in beers.

[FBM]

The miracle of the sun at Fatima, Portugal, October 13, 1917.

Now prove that God didn't do the things observed by tens of thousands of people in that place at that time. Don't speculate. Don't hypothesize. Don't evade. Just provide the rational, critically robust scientific evidence that the events witnessed were NOT the actions of God.

It's anecdotal. Eye witness accounts contradict each other. Greater probability of residual retinal images resulting from staring at the sun too long. There were no reports from anywhere else on earth of anything actually happening to/with the sun, which is normally visible from half the planet at any time. Even if the sun were to change its luminosity and apparent location, how does that prove the existence of a supreme deity? It only proves that the observers interpreted their experience that way. Why would they do such a thing? They were primed in advance for it. They "saw" what they were told to see and what they wanted to see.

[Animavore]

If God done the things which supposedly occurred at Fatima we'd all be dead now.

[amused]

Prove that god didn't fake the fossils to test your 'faith'.

A call to disprove a claim of a miracle is a dishonest nonsensical challenge.

[Tero]

Invisible magic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Prove I don't have an indivisible burple garage in my dragon.

[laklak]

What's a "burple"?

[FBM]

Must be pretty big, if it takes a garage to store one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What's a "burple"?

Something between blue and purple, I think.

[Seth]

The miracle of the sun at Fatima, Portugal, October 13, 1917.

Now prove that God didn't do the things observed by tens of thousands of people in that place at that time. Don't speculate. Don't hypothesize. Don't evade. Just provide the rational, critically robust scientific evidence that the events witnessed were NOT the actions of God.

It's anecdotal. Eye witness accounts contradict each other. Greater probability of residual retinal images resulting from staring at the sun too long.

Evasion. Speculation and opinion not permitted, only validly reproducible scientific evidence demonstrating that the event reported did not occur as reported and providing proof that the cause of the event observed was not God.

There were no reports from anywhere else on earth of anything actually happening to/with the sun, which is normally visible from half the planet at any time.

Evasion. Prove using critically robust scientific proofs that God is incapable of producing a localized phenomenon observable only to witnesses at Fatima.

Even if the sun were to change its luminosity and apparent location, how does that prove the existence of a supreme deity?

Evasion. Questions not permitted, only valid scientific evidence proving that the events at Fatima were not caused by God.

It only proves that the observers interpreted their experience that way.

Evasion. Supposition and conjecture. Not permitted. Only valid scientific evidence proving that the events at Fatima were not caused by God permitted. Otherwise your claim may be summarily rejected without further review as unsupported.

Why would they do such a thing? They were primed in advance for it. They "saw" what they were told to see and what they wanted to see.

Hypothesis and conjecture. Please provide critically robust and rigorous scientific proofs that the events did not occur as observed and reported by hundreds of people (including news media and other non-religious persons) who were actually at the event.

[FBM]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the audience.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the audience.

Oh, come on, it's the best he can come up with.