Positive proof?

Post by **Blind groper** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:38 am

It is a truism that you cannot prove a negative. For this reason I cannot prove God does not exist.

However, there is a corollary to this truism. It is really easy to prove a positive. Proving God does exist falls into this category. All that is needed is for the Big Man himself to come down to Earth, shining his golden radiance, and perform a bunch of miracles. He has not done so.

Why?

Post by **JimC** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:07 am

To test our faith, of course...

Post by **cronus** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:05 am

He's having some problem with his nails....?

Post by **Blind groper** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:06 am

That is the obvious reply, Jim. However, it is a pretty crappy one , although I know you were not being serious.

I have another name for 'faith'. I call it gullibility.

Post by **JimC** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:09 am

Blind groper wrote:That is the obvious reply, Jim. However, it is a pretty crappy one , although I know you were not being serious.

I have another name for 'faith'. I call it gullibility.

Yes. What such a reply from a religious person assumes is that his god is petty, jealous and vindictive.

In other words, just like any bronze age ruler, upon which their god was modelled...

Post by **Svartalf** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:48 am

Well, it's easy to prove through biblical evidence that god is not omniscient, plus we have a supposedly good and omnipotent god tolerating evil in the world... no theodicy will convince me to worship that.

Post by **cronus** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:54 am

Svartalf wrote:Well, it's easy to prove through biblical evidence that god is not omniscient, plus we have a supposedly good and omnipotent god tolerating evil in the world... no theodicy will convince me to worship that.

That's not evil. It is good in another form, depending on perspective. God is old and gray...

Post by **Svartalf** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:05 am

good is easy to recognize... so is evil.

Post by **cronus** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:22 am

Svartalf wrote:good is easy to recognize... so is evil.

I thought like that one time. It's when the shit-list becomes very long and you realize you are the one writing it....doubts set in.

Post by **pcCoder** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:04 pm

Even if the Big Man comes down, can the Big Man really prove that he is god? After all, theists like to say just because atheists don't know a greater being exists doesn't mean one doesn't. Couldn't the same apply to the "Big Man"? Just because he/she/it thinks of itself as god and doesn't know a bigger being exists, maybe one does. Maybe a grandgod and a great grandgod, etc.

Post by **cronus** » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:16 pm

pcCoder wrote:Even if the Big Man comes down, can the Big Man really prove that he is god? After all, theists like to say just because atheists don't know a greater being exists doesn't mean one doesn't. Couldn't the same apply to the "Big Man"? Just because he/she/it thinks of itself as god and doesn't know a bigger being exists, maybe one does. Maybe a grandgod and a great grandgod, etc.

No, because the big man can invest time in talking to every cell, every neuron, with far advanced knowledge...whether he be ET or actual God, a million years of techno gap will make you a frigging ant in comparison.

Post by **Seth** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:16 am

Blind groper wrote:It is a truism that you cannot prove a negative. For this reason I cannot prove God does not exist.

Sure you can. All you need is perfect knowledge.

However, there is a corollary to this truism. It is really easy to prove a positive.

Is it? Then why are they having so much trouble proving that life began through "naturalistic" (ie: without intelligent involvement) means?

Proving God does exist falls into this category.

Only if God wants to allow you to prove he exists.

All that is needed is for the Big Man himself to come down to Earth, shining his golden radiance, and perform a bunch of miracles.

You need to watch more "Stargate SG-1"

He has not done so.

Where is your critically robust scientific evidence that he has not done so? Don't have any? How unsurprising.

On the other hand, people have been reporting that he has done so from time to time for about the last 5000 years. Where's your critically robust scientific evidence that these reports are false? Don't have any? How unsurprising.

QED

Why?[/quote]

Post by **Blind groper** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:19 am

Seth wrote: Is it? Then why are they having so much trouble proving that life began through "naturalistic" (ie: without intelligent involvement) means?

The question you are asking is : "Can we prove that life did not begin with an intelligent agency?"

Note, Seth, that this is a negative proof, which supports my thesis.

How do we know God has not been around showing himself some time in the last 5000 years? Obviously we do not. But we cannot trust writings that were intitally passed down as word of mouth information, and only written down later when a suitably educated person was available.

Certainly we have seen nothing of the Big Man in the last cople centuries, and if the Christians are correct, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and wants us all to know and worship him. If they are correct, then why is he hiding?

Post by **JimC** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:43 am

Blind groper wrote:

If they are correct, then why is he hiding?

He's just waiting for most of the world to become atheist, then he'll jump out from behind a cloud and shout "BOO"!

Post by **mistermack** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:29 am

Blind groper wrote:It is a truism that you cannot prove a negative. For this reason I cannot prove God does not exist.

However, there is a corollary to this truism. It is really easy to prove a positive. Proving God does exist falls into this category. All that is needed is for the Big Man himself to come down to Earth, shining his golden radiance, and perform a bunch of miracles. He has not done so.

Why?

He's been there. Done that.
He would come again, but he can't find a virgin.

rationalia.com

Positive proof?

Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Re: Positive proof?

Who is online