Scientific Proof Of God

[rainbow]

You annoying twats are everywhere..

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/2 ... cna1286808

You need to learn hard lessons...

And does he need to mention he is one of you little godless little bastards?

We in Africa have many Gods, including our Ancestors.

Tell me how your Gods are better than ours?

* He said knowing that Dennis is too much of a COWARD to answer*

[rainbow]

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.

My view is that this is Secularism. The "God" idea of Theism, is a mere pretense to control the masses.
I will assert with no evidence that Religious Leaders actually know that their doctrine is bullshit, but useful.
The funny hats and incense are just the icing on the plaster-of-paris cake.
Therefore going to Religion to answer the question of existence of Deities is a pointless exercise.

[rainbow]

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 scale is meaningless. There is no metric, no standard of measurement.

Agnosticism is NOT the halfway point between Atheism, and Theism.
A number 7 Atheist is the only one I'd accept, but then they'd have to be able to provide a testable Thesis on the non-existence of any Gods. This I've not seen. Correct me if such exists.
Dawkins' number 6 is a cop-out. Theywant to wear the badge, but they're not prepared to put up the argument of a Real Atheist, a #7. They want to shift the burden of proof.

The wishy-washy middle doesn't represent the Agnostic view at all.

A number 1, relies purely on Faith, not Logic - so the argument is entirely pointless. You either have the Faith, or you don't.


"I live my life on the assumption that he is/not there."
Pure drivel.
Many non-believers live their lives according to a moral code so close to that of the Religions, that it makes no difference. I'm guessing, but I'd say most do.
Many believers live their lives in complete contradiction of their religious moral code, examples abound.

...and here Endeth the Lesson.

[Svartalf]

You annoying twats are everywhere..

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/2 ... cna1286808

You need to learn hard lessons...

And does he need to mention he is one of you little godless little bastards?

We in Africa have many Gods, including our Ancestors.

Tell me how your Gods are better than ours?

* He said knowing that Dennis is too much of a COWARD to answer*

He'd telll you that, since his ancestors enslaved and colonized yours, it is obvious that they are better than yours, but he won't, because it would show to all the kind of racist moron he is.

[pErvinalia]

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 scale is meaningless. There is no metric, no standard of measurement.

Agnosticism is NOT the halfway point between Atheism, and Theism.
A number 7 Atheist is the only one I'd accept, but then they'd have to be able to provide a testable Thesis on the non-existence of any Gods. This I've not seen. Correct me if such exists.
Dawkins' number 6 is a cop-out. Theywant to wear the badge, but they're not prepared to put up the argument of a Real Atheist, a #7. They want to shift the burden of proof.

Real atheist? You still seem to be struggling with the definition of atheism. Please refer to the definition Hermit provided. It's simply a lack of belief in gods.

[Hermit]

You started this website and now you have to pay the price for lies. That will be your "proof".

Brian Peacock did not start this forum. Pappa and Charlou did.

[superuniverse]

Hey Little Peacock,

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

[Svartalf]

You started this website and now you have to pay the price for lies. That will be your "proof".

Brian Peacock did not start this forum. Pappa and Charlou did.

Does that guy even KNOW who Pappa and Charlou are?

[Hermit]

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 scale is meaningless. There is no metric, no standard of measurement.

I cited Dawkins's scale of probabilities merely as additional evidence that the author has never suggested that the non-existence of God can be proven.

Agnosticism is NOT the halfway point between Atheism, and Theism.
A number 7 Atheist is the only one I'd accept, but then they'd have to be able to provide a testable Thesis on the non-existence of any Gods. This I've not seen. Correct me if such exists.
Dawkins' number 6 is a cop-out. Theywant to wear the badge, but they're not prepared to put up the argument of a Real Atheist, a #7. They want to shift the burden of proof.

This does not make sense. Get rid of your hangup concerning proof. For those of us, that is the majority of atheists who accept that the non-existence of God cannot be proven, proof is not an issue. Only people in positions 1 and 7 have that problem.

The wishy-washy middle doesn't represent the Agnostic view at all.

Yes, it does. I, for one, lack a belief in the existence of a God, but I also lack 100% certainty that there isn't one. I am an agnostic atheist by the definitions of "atheism" (lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) and "agnosticism" (the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable).

[Hermit]

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.

I respectfully decline your challenge, as having read the God Delusion, I went away with the feeling that it amounted to a waste of my life reading the drivel.
So accepting that he didn't state any proof of the non-existence of God was possible, we are in the realm of probability.

OK. So, your assertion regarding The God Delusion and the Atheist Bus were about proving the non-existence of God is just wrong.

Fair comment?

[Brian Peacock]

Hey Little Peacock,

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

Your testimony alone.

I mean, if you didn't believe me why would you pretend that you did? Similarly, if you did believe me why would you pretend that you didn't?

Howevy, as you don't seem to accept my testimony, what kind of proof (that I find your claims and assertions unconvincing) will you accept?

[superuniverse]

You started this website and now you have to pay the price for lies. That will be your "proof".

Brian Peacock did not start this forum. Pappa and Charlou did.

More about the fools who keep it going, like you...

[superuniverse]

Hey Little Peacock,

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

Only a person with a real fragile ego would pose such a ridiculous question. As if what you do or do not believe matter in the slightest.

Obviously you are struggling to prove something...

[Svartalf]

Hey Little Peacock,

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

Your testimony alone.

I mean, if you didn't believe me why would you pretend that you did? Similarly, if you did believe me why would you pretend that you didn't?

Howevy, as you don't seem to accept my testimony, what kind of proof (that I find your claims and assertions unconvincing) will you accept?

At last we have a PROOF
markuze prays to the god of double standards

[superuniverse]

I'm not going to go through the entire WTC bit again as enough people have bled for that...