stop demanding proof of God's existence

[quinn]

To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists? I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny. Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him. How ridiculous!

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists? I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny. Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him. How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]How about evidence other than hersay? Do you have any?

[FortunaMaximus]

I think I accepted the theory of gravity when I dropped a cement block off the front of my foot.

Thus far I haven't been hit by lightning, so until that or some significant weirdness happens I can't attribute to psychosis... His existence is always going to have a sliding probabilistic value depending on how I feel that particular day.

[CaseS87]

Huh? Give me a reason I should believe in a God.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists? I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny. Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him. How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. How bout this- Gravity exists because it accurately describes the reality I can sense. The theory of a god or gods does not exist (in the omnipotent, benevelent, interested in life desc.) because it clearly does not describe the reality I can sense.

-JP

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists? I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny. Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him. How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]

Do all the theists on here have the same pastor? A week doesn't go by without one of you guys trotting out the horrible belief in gravity vs. belief in god analogy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists? I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny. Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him. How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never seen anyone demand proof of gods existence before they will believe in him.

Why do you think they do?

chez

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists:

[/ QUOTE ]

i know i'm just piling on, but this post is pretty much addressed to no one.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists? I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny. Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him. How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]How about evidence other than hersay? Do you have any?

[/ QUOTE ]
be fair he probably has a friend who used to have a dog that had puppies, one of which went to the friend of someone who used to know someone who didn't believe in god because there was no proof god existed.

chez

[51cards]

Just stop already, this guy is clearly 8th leveling you all over the place. Congrats OP.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists,

[/ QUOTE ]

Like who?

[ QUOTE ]
I ask you this:

Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have any,

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
and yet if you're like most people,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not.

[ QUOTE ]
you would quite religiously insist that it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what we call "proof."

[ QUOTE ]
Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. And standing up to scrutiny is scientific proof.

[ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
To anyone who requires "proof" of God's existence in order to believe he exists, I ask you this:


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe anyone here demands absolute proof for anything...

and, as a matter of fact, I'd demand less proof that a specific god exists to believe in him than most other things.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

I require sufficient evidence...

If you don't think that it has sufficient evidence to back it up, please feel free to just off the roof of a tall building, then come tell me about it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have any, and yet if you're like most people, you would quite religiously insist that it does. This is simply because the theory of gravity has stood up to a lot of scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah..that's what evidence for a theory is..

[ QUOTE ]
Yet some of the same people who place faith in the theory of gravity because of the scrutiny it has stood up to demand proof of God's existence to believe in him

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that human reason, not faith, has concluded that gravity exists..why do you believe in it?...if not because of evidence,yes , you'd be a moran.

we don't demand proof of god's existence..we demand sufficient evidence, which in most cases I would believe, isn't even close to proof.

unfortunately, the god theory (not to mentiona specific god theory), is lacking even the slightest bit of evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous!

[/ QUOTE ]

rofl..

I guess quinn has the type of logic we are dealing with when we deal with theists..it makes me fear that there is little hope.

[vhawk01]

6:1 against quinn ever posting in this thread again?

[quinn]

Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous.

That's like saying:
A->B
B
--
A


Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
6:1 against quinn ever posting in this thread again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew, glad I didnt get any takers.

[MidGe]

I'll stop demanding proof of God's existence, when believers will stop trying to tell me s/he/it exists with not an iota of proof behind their claims.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6:1 against quinn ever posting in this thread again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew, glad I didnt get any takers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You closed the bidding too soon.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous.

That's like saying:
A->B
B
--
A


Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven.

If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition.

[Nielsio]

lol

[vhawk01]

Oh, and how can you possibly use the gravity analogy with a straight face? In what ways are the abilities to stand up to scrutiny analogous wrt gravity and God?

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6:1 against quinn ever posting in this thread again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whew, glad I didnt get any takers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You closed the bidding too soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg I look like an idiot... gotta stop scanning and start reading ALL the responses......

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous.

That's like saying:
A->B
B
--
A


Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven.

If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate."

The theory of evolution is certainly not proven.

That said, arguing over definitions is retarded so I'll just stop and let you look up the word.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are you going to blame when the inevitable anvil falls on your avatar's head? It's looking up searching for something, isn't it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous.

That's like saying:
A->B
B
--
A


Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven.

If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate."

The theory of evolution is certainly not proven.

That said, arguing over definitions is retarded so I'll just stop and let you look up the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its you who is confusing definitions. I guess I would be ok if we just never used the term prove to talk about anything in science....but it aint happening. People want to say prove, people DO say prove, and words mean whatever people consistently intend them to mean. Also, a quick scan of the dictionary (not to imply this is the ultimate ender of all disagreements) shows that my usage of the word prove is MUCH more common and standard than yours. In fact, the 4 synonyms are:

demonstrate, confirm, substantiate and verify

Thanks for stopping and letting me look up the word though. Appreciate the magnanimity.

[vhawk01]

In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous.

That's like saying:
A->B
B
--
A


Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven.

If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate."

The theory of evolution is certainly not proven.

That said, arguing over definitions is retarded so I'll just stop and let you look up the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

alright then..we need your theory to be "validated" then..and it hasn't been, not even once..gravity has been with every experiment involving gravity that has ever taken place...

quinn, wouldn't you demand sufficient evidence that Zues exists before believing in him?? so why not with the christian god?.."ZOMG it's so obvious that god exists and jesus is our savior" is not a good answer...you seem like the type of person who thinks that though.

I don't think that you understand how reasonable people accurately come to conclusions

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I don't know, but you are certainly using the word more towards the 'quinn' end of the spectrum, so perhaps its more appropriate to this thread. But then I suppose we'd say that, while it strengthens the 'proof' there is never going to be a 100%?

[FortunaMaximus]

Maybe not, but it doesn't need to be 100% to be a workable, consistent theory.

Thus far it should be taken as a certainity that evolution is a process. The quibbles, I think, come mostly from the how's and why's of evolution.

I mean, as a species, we're taller and heavier than we were even several centuries ago. Unless gravity is a metric that changes appreciably over a short timespan, and I'll head off annoyed physicists by saying that it doesn't...

It seems so complex and incomplete a theory to creationists or ID'ers that it's easy for them to say, because the proof is incomplete, it should follow that the theory is bunk to begin with.

Which certainly is not the case.

[vhawk01]

Yeah, I'm obviously not disagreeing with anything you are saying, I'm simply trying to defend madnak and others in this thread who has used the word proof to refer to things like gravity and evolution. I think they are appropriate, although they perhaps leave a little to be desired. I think a large reason for the confusion is exactly the creationists and the like obfuscating and comparing it to things like mathematical proofs.

[FortunaMaximus]

Agreed, and I find myself, lately, not taking one side or the other, but rather redefining the base points and principles of arguments. Sometimes it benefits the theists, sometimes the atheists.

And personally could care less who it helps in a specific argument, as the arguments themselves are interesting. But when something proceeds on faulty perceptions of points, the debate is always going to incrementally become more flawed.

Certainly, it's enjoyable to watch though. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[mewithoutYou]

I could be way off base here, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Isn't there some sort of debate as to whether or not gravity exists, based on the principle of curved space? The idea is that there may not actually be a force that is attracting the object towards whatever mass, but that the object is actually moving in a straight line through space, and the presence of the mass curves space around the mass, so that the object actually follows its "straight" path around curved space around or into the object?

Like I said, I could be completely wrong about this, I just seem to remember reading something about it.

[CaseS87]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be way off base here, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Isn't there some sort of debate as to whether or not gravity exists, based on the principle of curved space? The idea is that there may not actually be a force that is attracting the object towards whatever mass, but that the object is actually moving in a straight line through space, and the presence of the mass curves space around the mass, so that the object actually follows its "straight" path around curved space around or into the object?

Like I said, I could be completely wrong about this, I just seem to remember reading something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah this is one theory.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be way off base here, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Isn't there some sort of debate as to whether or not gravity exists, based on the principle of curved space? The idea is that there may not actually be a force that is attracting the object towards whatever mass, but that the object is actually moving in a straight line through space, and the presence of the mass curves space around the mass, so that the object actually follows its "straight" path around curved space around or into the object?

Like I said, I could be completely wrong about this, I just seem to remember reading something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Yeah, that's difficult to discredit, so it cannot be assumed to be wrong easily. However, looking at the Solar System, planets rotate around the Sun, and gravity is a well established, well researched force. Note how it was used as indirect evidence to discover Mercury's orbit.

The Sun is also in an orbit around the galactic core, so forth. Can't help but think it's an awesome, incredibly complex Tinker Toy.

[CityFan]

The theory of gravity explains things that happen.

God, on the other hand...


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of gravity explains things that happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Give the man a M.Sc. and a night's tab at the pub of his choice!

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[reb]

I think the fact that most people who are debating for God is pointing to is the fact that scientists are only describing things which is in existance, and that they really have no conclusive proof as to the cause of existance.

[Lestat]

This post is a joke, right?

We might not have proof of how gravity works, but proof that it exists is all around. Here, I'll prove gravity to you:

Pray to God that you can fly. Now jump off a tall bridge. If you fly, it's still not proof of God, but I'll accept it. If you fall to the ground, that will be my proof for the existence of gravity. Interested?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate."


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that the theists are always the most interested in getting into arguments about semantics? Not a thread goes by without NotReady or Sharkey (back when he used to grace us with his presence) claiming that we're mis-using a word, or using the wrong definition, or using a definition different than the one they are using. It seems that as soon as they've painted themselves into a corner, they start arguing semantics in order to deflect attention away from the weakness of their arguments. It's very irritating.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate."


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that the theists are always the most interested in getting into arguments about semantics? Not a thread goes by without NotReady or Sharkey (back when he used to grace us with his presence) claiming that we're mis-using a word, or using the wrong definition, or using a definition different than the one they are using. It seems that as soon as they've painted themselves into a corner, they start arguing semantics in order to deflect attention away from the weakness of their arguments. It's very irritating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that I THINK I demonstrated, fairly well, that he was in fact using it in an uncommon or possibly even incorrect way. And thats only after he criticized previous posters for obviously confusing the words. Prove and validate are synonyms.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]

quinn, wouldn't you demand sufficient evidence that Zues exists before believing in him?? so why not with the christian god?.."ZOMG it's so obvious that god exists and jesus is our savior" is not a good answer...you seem like the type of person who thinks that though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, as I do with all religious beliefs, including my own, but thanks for insulting my intelligence.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is a joke, right?

We might not have proof of how gravity works, but proof that it exists is all around. Here, I'll prove gravity to you:

Pray to God that you can fly. Now jump off a tall bridge. If you fly, it's still not proof of God, but I'll accept it. If you fall to the ground, that will be my proof for the existence of gravity. Interested?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about I say that I fall to the ground because my natural place is on the earth and objects tend toward their natural places?

Look, I'm not saying that gravity isn't real. I believe with very high certainty that gravity is real. But I'm not going to pretend that it's proven so I can feel better about my "knowledge" of physics; it's a theory, and it is certainly falsifiable.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[madnak]

That it's falsifiable makes it stronger, not weaker.

Also technically everything is falsifiable according to some context and nothing is falsifiable according to some context. I actually had a religious friend once argue that evolution isn't falsifiable because even if experimental results refuted evolution, then it's possible the scientists who observed those results were just hallucinating.

I don't like the word "proof" any more than vhawk does, and in fact most scientific (and atheistic) people tend to avoid the word (one problem with your OP, one of the many problems you've avoided answering).

But when a scientist does speak of proof, he's referring exactly to what I described - holding up against heavy scrutiny. This is the only kind of "proof" science has to offer.

Someone earlier raised a point about semantics. I'm not sure about its general validity. But where it applies to you, it's true. You are talking semantics here, but your OP claimed to highlight a contradiction in how atheists describe their positions. We have refuted that claim. Take whatever semantic position you will - we use exactly the same standard to evaluate claims of God that we do to evaluate claims of gravity. Moreover, we don't, as you seem to allege, accept gravity based on anything resembling faith. In fact I and many other atheists believe gravity may not exist at all, but may only be a useful way to describe certain things as we've observed them so far.

Over the thread your arguments have been torn to shreds from all sides. Now you persist in quibbling over the definition of "proof." How do you suppose we interpret that?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Did you stop reading after that and not notice where vhawk and I resolved that specific point and considered it irrelevant to the debate, that it was just a clarification?

Mama mia. Have at him.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm not saying that gravity isn't real. I believe with very high certainty that gravity is real. But I'm not going to pretend that it's proven so I can feel better about my "knowledge" of physics; it's a theory, and it is certainly falsifiable.


[/ QUOTE ]

alright...you're really twisting definitions to make it seem like if we believe that gravity is real, we should believe that god is real...

by your definition of "proof"...I don't believe that any of us in here require "proof" that god exists in order to believe in him...and that is the same for all things...

but we do require evidence....gravity has tons of it..god has very little if any.

[ QUOTE ]
it's a theory, and it is certainly falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is a bad thing?

I don't think you understand how scientific scrutiny works.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]

start making predictions for your theory...see how they work out..then come back to this thread..

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely moronic. If this sort of argument allows you to turn off your brain enough in order to believe in your god, then have at it. However, don't expect the rest of us to drink your kool-aid.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely moronic. If this sort of argument allows you to turn off your brain enough in order to believe in your god, then have at it. However, don't expect the rest of us to drink your kool-aid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Hume said the same thing about the sun rising. And yet I'd be willing to give you a million to one on a dollar it does. Want action?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why single out God's existence? It seems like you are claiming nothing is provable. If "proof" is defined tightly enough this is probably true but uninteresting.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why single out God's existence? It seems like you are claiming nothing is provable. If "proof" is defined tightly enough this is probably true but uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is known as the "Sharkey Principle".

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. This is pretty much how the whole theory of confirmation works. Each time your theory is tested and it stands up, you consider the probability that your theory is correct to have increased. So if you want to support the theory of gravity and you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, you've just confirmed your theory, but you've proven nothing. And just because you drop a pencil a billion times and each time it falls to the ground, it doesn't mean that the next time you drop it it will fall to the ground again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why single out God's existence? It seems like you are claiming nothing is provable. If "proof" is defined tightly enough this is probably true but uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is known as the "Sharkey Principle".

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a corollary to this principle that would help my gas?

[CORed]

Every time I drop something it falls to the floor. The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun. The existence of gravity is proven every day. The same cannot be said for the existence of God. If faith is good enough for you, that's fine. It's not good enough for me.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Look, I'm not saying that gravity isn't real. I believe with very high certainty that gravity is real. But I'm not going to pretend that it's proven so I can feel better about my "knowledge" of physics; it's a theory, and it is certainly falsifiable. </font>

Being falsifiable is a good thing, but that's another subject.

You're correct. I chose my words hastily and poorly. I should've said, " evidence of gravity is all around". NOT, " proof

But the fact is, there is no evidence for God except for some two thousand year old hearsay by men with a primitive understanding of the world and an ulterior motive for getting people to believe in god.

That was my point. Evidence for gravity is all around. There is not a single shred of evidence for any gods.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact is, there is no evidence for God except for some two thousand year old hearsay by men with a primitive understanding of the world and an ulterior motive for getting people to believe in god.


[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7926672&amp;page=1&amp;vc=1

[chezlaw]

LeStat on the subject of hearsay evidence, its not evidence of anything if its collected in a sufficiently biased manner. Science struggles hard to produce objective evidence and when it fails the evidence is extremely dubious.

Pharmaceutical companies have to run trials to show a drug has a significant effect but if they only publish the trials that have positive results then the evidence is worthless even if the drug works.

Government's producing evidence of wmds by exaggerating anything vaguely helpful to their case and ignoring everything against it means that the evidence they present is worthless unless some of it is hard evidence. This is true even if some of the evidence was genuine and/or WMD's exist.

The stuff about god/jesus of the sort presented by tx is so weak and suffers from confirmation bias so much that to call it evidence at all is a mistake. Again this is true even if jesus was the son of god and all that jazz.

chez

[MaxWeiss]

I do demand proof. And definitions. Beyond that, I can only speculate. But I CAN speculate and with good reason. Let me explain...

First, you must define proof. Let us define proof as evidence and data which has 100% accurately described something with at least X amount of experiments. Now let's define gravity as the name given to some force which arises from matter and pulls at stuff, on a macro scale.

Well, an inordinately large number of independent tests have confirmed that this happens, based on those definitions. So far 100% have confirmed this. That's what the scientific method is about. See something, come up with a reason why that might happen, test it, refine it, test and refine over and over, adjust your hypothesis, and then when you think you've figured it out, tell other people and see if they get the same results.

That process has happened over and over with gravity and continues to add "proof" of it. If something suddenly came along that explained all the things we attribute to gravity and then also other stuff and we could derive experiments to test whether this new thing or gravity was responsible and then it turned out gravity failed the test, we would abandon gravity (assuming a few more tests and refinements). After just ONE miss.

That is what science is about. It is simply trying to explain things. That's all. The proof is in the continuing accuracy of all these theories. That being said, science cannot disprove God. But science cannot disprove that lobsters are flying to and from Mars, and are undetectable by humans. That's because the very definition of the idea "undetectable by humans" (and presumably, their measuring instruments) makes it something that cannot be proved. Just like saying God exists, we just can't detect him. That doesn't make it reasonable to believe.

That's the beauty of science and rational thought. They stick to what they can prove but they also provide a foundation for how to think correctly.

If I were to tell you that you are a [censored] idiot, I could prove or disprove it by giving you some test (pre-defined) to guage your intelligence on various levels. Whereas if you tell me that I am going to hell or that god exists, there is no way to define or test it. So it cannot be either proved or disproved. Again, that doesn't in any way validate it--as I said, there are an infinite number of things which cannot be disproved.

I demand proof for things which do not follow form my normal thought, and I investigate my normal thoughts and new thoughts like it as well, and if I find a lack of evidence or even evidence pointing to something else, I give up my prior thoughts and adopt new ones which have more proof and are therefore more likely to be true.

When you are given proof, you keep your thoughts. The earth is over 6000 years old, we can PROVE it. We can find an almost infinitely large amount of data and evidence that the earth has rotated around the sun much more than 6000 times.

Religion and/or individual faith in a supernatural being are a poison of the mind. They are egregious attacks on truth and life itself.

[MaxWeiss]

Good man.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of gravity explains things that happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
it's a theory, and it is certainly falsifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY!!!!!!! And if it ever was proved false we would abandon it as truth. No scientific theory is PROVED because it's proof is in it's continual ability to explain things. We used to think the world is flat; that explained why it looked flat. But then we couldn't get to the edge, and now we can go into space and see a big ball. So now we think it's round. If we somehow discover that it is some other shape or higher dimension or whatever, we will CHANGE OUR MINDS and ACCEPT the new EVIDENCE. God has none of this.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?????

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?????

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing it. I'm asking a specific question: How do you know?

[MaxWeiss]

I don't "know" in the sense that I personally have tested it and concluded it. But I do have faith that the people who claim to have been in outer space and tested and seen it and so on, aren't lying. I also have independent evidence to suggest that they did what they say they did and that their results are in fact accurate. I do admit the possibility that it is a big conspiracy and a lie, but based on all the available data, that seems so small a chance that I disregard it. Though of course it is infinitely more probably than god.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't "know" in the sense that I personally have tested it and concluded it. But I do have faith that the people who claim to have been in outer space and tested and seen it and so on, aren't lying. I also have independent evidence to suggest that they did what they say they did and that their results are in fact accurate. I do admit the possibility that it is a big conspiracy and a lie, but based on all the available data, that seems so small a chance that I disregard it. Though of course it is infinitely more probably than god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at CORed's post to which I asked that question:

[ QUOTE ]
Every time I drop something it falls to the floor. The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun. The existence of gravity is proven every day. The same cannot be said for the existence of God. If faith is good enough for you, that's fine. It's not good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Put that in the context of this thread.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't "know" in the sense that I personally have tested it and concluded it. But I do have faith that the people who claim to have been in outer space and tested and seen it and so on, aren't lying. I also have independent evidence to suggest that they did what they say they did and that their results are in fact accurate. I do admit the possibility that it is a big conspiracy and a lie, but based on all the available data, that seems so small a chance that I disregard it. Though of course it is infinitely more probably than god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at CORed's post to which I asked that question:

[ QUOTE ]
Every time I drop something it falls to the floor. The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun. The existence of gravity is proven every day. The same cannot be said for the existence of God. If faith is good enough for you, that's fine. It's not good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Put that in the context of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure they're not using the same definition of "faith"

college kid has good reason to believe that it is very unlikely that there has been hundreds, if not thousands of years of fraudulent experimental and observational data..that they were all working together to fraudulently prove this theory, and that no one has discovered this fraud out

I doubt that "faith" is the word to use here

[txag007]

faith: something that is believed with especially strong conviction.

[ QUOTE ]
college kid has good reason to believe that it is very unlikely that there has been hundreds, if not thousands of years of fraudulent experimental and observational data..that they were all working together to fraudulently prove this theory, and that no one has discovered this fraud out

[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny; the same thing (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7751627&amp;page=12&amp;vc=1 ) has been said about the Bible.

And then David Sklansky said this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7754489&amp;an=0&amp;page=8# Post7754489) :

[ QUOTE ]
...I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, he brings up Bayes' Theorem, which is why we should be discussing evidence - both biblical and non-biblical - that the virgin birth and the resurrection took place.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
faith: something that is believed with especially strong conviction.

[ QUOTE ]
college kid has good reason to believe that it is very unlikely that there has been hundreds, if not thousands of years of fraudulent experimental and observational data..that they were all working together to fraudulently prove this theory, and that no one has discovered this fraud out

[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny; the same thing (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7751627&amp;page=12&amp;vc=1 ) has been said about the Bible.

And then David Sklansky said this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7754489&amp;an=0&amp;page=8# Post7754489) :
[ QUOTE ]
...I agree that to pronounce the Bible false one must believe a MASSIVE amount of "cooperation" over centuries took place. An amount FAR IN EXCESS of any other fudging of data known to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, he brings up Bayes' Theorem, which is why we should be discussing evidence - both biblical and non-biblical - that virgin birth and the resurrection took place.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) you are talking about supposed evidence from thousands of years ago...

I also included evidence from possibly thousands of years ago, but I would not take that at the value I take current evidence...of which there is plenty..

yours has no current supporting experimantal and observational data.

if you are really suggesting that the theory of christianity has as much evidence supporting it as the theory of gravity...I feel sorry for you.

2) DS's post about that made 2 clear distinctions..

the second one was that a purposeful conspiracy is not needed to prepetuate such false information..

this is especially true when we are talking about information and experiments and observations that cannot be duplicated for further investigation..

gravity on the other hand is subject to current investigation...the perpetuation of false information would have to be a concious conspiracy on the part of amatuer and pofessional scientists, not only many centuries ago, but today as well...


I don't know why we are still arguing about this...

no single god theory, or even just a general god theory is not anywhere close to the theory of gravity in the respects we are considering...

Even christians should be able to see this and admit it if they are rational...but unfortunately most aren't

[Lestat]

I'm one of the few that does consider hearsay as evidence. So I'll give you that the bible IS evidence for God. The question atheists such as myself ask is; is it sufficient evidence? Is it overwhelming evidence? Does this evidence override other evidence to the contrary? Of course, the answer we come up with is, no.

So really what it comes down to is that you place much greater significance on the evidence of the bible. I have no problem with that even though I think you're wrong to do so. What I do have a problem with are theists who try to advance the proposition that they are somehow going off of current evidence. This is simple not the case. There has been no new evidence for ANY gods for thousands of years now. It all relies on ancient hearsay. The sole reason I get involved in these threads is to try and get people like you to admit this.

[txag007]

Prodigy, you missed the point of my post, and you are missing the point of this thread.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never met anyone in my entire life who didn't believe in god because there is no proof that god exists. This is worse than arguing against a straw man--it's like arguing against an invisible man.

I know plenty of people who don't believe in god, however, because they don't think the evidence supports the belief.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Prodigy, you missed the point of my post, and you are missing the point of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point of this thread must be to beat the hell out of a strawman then.

OP is responsible for the confusion of the definitions of the terms he is using...

I don't believe that anyone here demands 100% proof that ANYTHING is true in order to commit themselves to what we call "belief"...

even so...no matter how you define any of the terms we are using, (as long as they are close to accepted meaning of course) any one specific god theory of even the general god theory is not even in the same ballpark as gravity..

---so what WAS the point of your post then?

you picked at two sentences containing the word faith..and equated them..and they weren't even your posts, and they weren't even by the same person..

and I'm still pretty sure that they didn't mean the same thing

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm one of the few that does consider hearsay as evidence. So I'll give you that the bible IS evidence for God. The question atheists such as myself ask is; is it sufficient evidence? Is it overwhelming evidence? Does this evidence override other evidence to the contrary? Of course, the answer we come up with is, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

quoted for obviousness.

[ QUOTE ]
you picked at two sentences containing the word faith..and equated them..

and I'm still pretty sure that they didn't mean the same thing

-prodigy

[/ QUOTE ]

and again.

[Lestat]

I don't get your reply.

I don't think it is at all obvious, nor do I think all atheists view the bible and hearsay as legitimate forms of evidence. Many dismiss them out of hand.

The second paragraph you quoted isn't mine. How are you relating this to anything I said?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get your reply.

I don't think it is at all obvious, nor do I think all atheists view the bible and hearsay as legitimate forms of evidence. Many dismiss them out of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, "quoted for something that i think should be obvious and makes a lot of this debate unnecessary"


[ QUOTE ]
The second paragraph you quoted isn't mine. How are you relating this to anything I said?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's from the post directly above mine and doesn't relate to what you said. i didn't want to make a second post just to quote someone else and it backfired.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
and again.

[/ QUOTE ]

what did I do? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and again.

[/ QUOTE ]

what did I do? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Sephus made a post that, to me anyhow, made a lot of sense, and you guys are getting defensive. He was basically just saying he agreed with you and your points we so clear and correct as to be obvious. Dont worry, he wasnt ripping you.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and again.

[/ QUOTE ]

what did I do? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, Sephus made a post that, to me anyhow, made a lot of sense, and you guys are getting defensive. He was basically just saying he agreed with you and your points we so clear and correct as to be obvious. Dont worry, he wasnt ripping you.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, lol..."and again" meaning "quoted for obviousness again"..I see

sephus needs to go back to posting school, and I need to go back to reading comprehension school /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, for [censored]'s sake...

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't "know" in the sense that I personally have tested it and concluded it. But I do have faith that the people who claim to have been in outer space and tested and seen it and so on, aren't lying. I also have independent evidence to suggest that they did what they say they did and that their results are in fact accurate. I do admit the possibility that it is a big conspiracy and a lie, but based on all the available data, that seems so small a chance that I disregard it. Though of course it is infinitely more probably than god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at CORed's post to which I asked that question:

[ QUOTE ]
Every time I drop something it falls to the floor. The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun. The existence of gravity is proven every day. The same cannot be said for the existence of God. If faith is good enough for you, that's fine. It's not good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Put that in the context of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

People, please learn from CollegeKid's mistake. Never use the word "faith" in any of your posts. According to txag, if you "faith" in ANYTHING, it justifies txag's faith in God.

So...I can have "faith" that the mailman will bring me my mail tomorrow. Moreover, because I believe in the mailman's ability to deliver my mail (or, more to the point, an astronomer's ability to measure the orbits of planets around the sun), I am a hypocrite for believing that txag's faith in an invisible man in the sky is delusional.

[MaxWeiss]

Umm... did you actually read my post? My "faith" is based on overwhelming amounts of evidence and critical thinking and analysis of the situation at hand. I should not have used the word "faith", especially in the context of this discussion, but shame on you for using that as your argument. I clearly did not mean "faith" as the same way you mean it, and you know that---and if you DON'T understand that, well then there is no point trying to argue rationally with you since your capacity to understand and logically reason is obviously ill equipped for the task.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... did you actually read my post? My "faith" is based on overwhelming amounts of evidence and critical thinking and analysis of the situation at hand. I should not have used the word "faith", especially in the context of this discussion, but shame on you for using that as your argument. I clearly did not mean "faith" as the same way you mean it, and you know that---and if you DON'T understand that, well then there is no point trying to argue rationally with you since your capacity to understand and logically reason is obviously ill equipped for the task.

[/ QUOTE ]
It an example of the confirmation bias I mentioned earlier. Any part of anything that even vaguely appears to support his case will be eagerly grasped and taken as positive evidence, anything that doesn't support the case is forgotten.

If you were famous then you would be misrepresented as a supporter of his case and if you were known to be clever the misrepresentation would also be taken as evidence for the jesus/god case.

If he writes down all this evidence then future generations of tx's will refer to that book as evidence for jesus/god. 'Did he just make it up?' people will say, 'was there some conspiracy?'

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't "know" in the sense that I personally have tested it and concluded it. But I do have faith that the people who claim to have been in outer space and tested and seen it and so on, aren't lying. I also have independent evidence to suggest that they did what they say they did and that their results are in fact accurate. I do admit the possibility that it is a big conspiracy and a lie, but based on all the available data, that seems so small a chance that I disregard it. Though of course it is infinitely more probably than god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at CORed's post to which I asked that question:

[ QUOTE ]
Every time I drop something it falls to the floor. The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun. The existence of gravity is proven every day. The same cannot be said for the existence of God. If faith is good enough for you, that's fine. It's not good enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Put that in the context of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

People, please learn from CollegeKid's mistake. Never use the word "faith" in any of your posts. According to txag, if you "faith" in ANYTHING, it justifies txag's faith in God.

So...I can have "faith" that the mailman will bring me my mail tomorrow. Moreover, because I believe in the mailman's ability to deliver my mail (or, more to the point, an astronomer's ability to measure the orbits of planets around the sun), I am a hypocrite for believing that txag's faith in an invisible man in the sky is delusional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along the same lines of when I say "Thank God!" or "Jesus Christ!" when I am relieved or frustrated, respectively, and my theist friend gets this look on his face and says "Ah HA!"?

[FortunaMaximus]

Oh, good, I thought I was the only one who wondered about that.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to ask that question, you probably wouldn't understand the answer. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I understand the evidence that the moon orbits the earth and that the earth orbits the sun, and what sort of things might happen if they quit doing so. I do not take gravity, etc. on faith. However, I understand that to people so intellectually limited that science and the Bible are equally inexplicable, that religious faith can be a great comfort.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to ask that question, you probably wouldn't understand the answer. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I understand the evidence that the moon orbits the earth and that the earth orbits the sun, and what sort of things might happen if they quit doing so. I do not take gravity, etc. on faith. However, I understand that to people so intellectually limited that science and the Bible are equally inexplicable, that religious faith can be a great comfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt you understand the physics behind gravity and the earth's rotation, etc. That's not what I asked. I asked how you know. Did you do all of the experiments and calculations yourself before you accepted its truth? Or did you accept its truth and then learn the theory behind how it works?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt you understand the physics behind gravity and the earth's rotation, etc. That's not what I asked. I asked how you know. Did you do all of the experiments and calculations yourself before you accepted its truth? Or did you accept its truth and then learn the theory behind how it works?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moon continues to orbit the earth. The earth continues to orbit the sun.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to ask that question, you probably wouldn't understand the answer. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I understand the evidence that the moon orbits the earth and that the earth orbits the sun, and what sort of things might happen if they quit doing so. I do not take gravity, etc. on faith. However, I understand that to people so intellectually limited that science and the Bible are equally inexplicable, that religious faith can be a great comfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt you understand the physics behind gravity and the earth's rotation, etc. That's not what I asked. I asked how you know. Did you do all of the experiments and calculations yourself before you accepted its truth? Or did you accept its truth and then learn the theory behind how it works?

[/ QUOTE ]

experiencing gravity and observing how it works is in itself, informal experimentation...

in that sense, everyone has conducted their own experiments..and they have personal experience with the effects of gravity..

txag..how about stating your point clearly..

because at the moment, your inability to admit a simple fact for no reason I can see except that you don't want to admit than atheists can make any good arguments is making me lose "faith" /images/graemlins/grin.gif that you are capable of unbiased evaluation.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you do all of the experiments and calculations yourself before you accepted its truth? Or did you accept its truth and then learn the theory behind how it works?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like he did make a palpable point right there.

[ QUOTE ]
in that sense, everyone has conducted their own experiments..and they have personal experience with the effects of gravity..

[/ QUOTE ]

As theists do in matters of faith?

&lt;shrugs&gt; Stirrer time /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
As theists do in matters of faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

if there were a few billion people who have never experienced gravity, I would doubt whether it exists, even if I, myself had experienced it

this analogy doesn't even show the full extent of it..

when considering experiencing the christian god instead of gravity, not only have billions of others not experienced the same thing, but billions have experienced things contradictory to your experiences...so in saying that these other people must be mistaken, you admit that this very "experience" is flawed...

unless you would like to naively dismiss everyone else's claims.

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, theists are in the majority on this planet. So whose naive claims are you dismissing exactly? That of the majority of people who are convinced there is a God of some sort?

Church attendance != % of people who pray or believe. Isolating the Christian God flaws your atheist argument, as there are a multitiude of religions that are convinced there is a supereme being of some sort.

So it can be said more people believe in God than understand the provable principles of gravity. It may be both things are instinctive.

People know things fall from trees, and not to put glass near a table's edge. They pray to deities too, because they instinctively believe there is an afterlife and a chance to balance the books, as it were.

What tells you that they're wrong? Your individual bias, perhaps?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, theists are in the majority on this planet. So whose naive claims are you dismissing exactly? That of the majority of people who are convinced there is a God of some sort?

Church attendance != % of people who pray or believe. Isolating the Christian God flaws your atheist argument, as there are a multitiude of religions that are convinced there is a supereme being of some sort.

So it can be said more people believe in God than understand the provable principles of gravity. It may be both things are instinctive.

People know things fall from trees, and not to put glass near a table's edge. They pray to deities too, because they instinctively believe there is an afterlife and a chance to balance the books, as it were.

What tells you that they're wrong? Your individual bias, perhaps?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they were wrong..and I didn't evaluate the truth of any claim..so I don't know where you got that from.

[ QUOTE ]
So it can be said more people believe in God than understand the provable principles of gravity. It may be both things are instinctive.

[/ QUOTE ]

these are not necessarily (I would say not) equal...

experiencing god and expeiencing gravity perhaps..in which case, my claim still stands

[ QUOTE ]
Well, theists are in the majority on this planet. So whose naive claims are you dismissing exactly? That of the majority of people who are convinced there is a God of some sort?

[/ QUOTE ]

"experiencing god" is usally attributed to an individual god..obviously experiencing jesus may be that way..and other religions are the same way..although I'm sure there is a great number of theists whose experiences are not specific to a god..or perhaps they mistakenly attribute this experience to a specific god..

still this is only talking about the fact that people "trust" in gravity because of experiences (which we are equating to experiences of god)..so this is only focusing on that one point...the others still remain since someone picked at only this one.

I do agree that there is something to be said about the large number of people who claim to have experienced some form of "experiencing god"..again not specifically..

note that with falsifiable theories such as the theory of gravity, even a few..or even just one case of someone or something not being affected by gravity is enough to shake the whole theory.

the god theory does not lend itself to this, so the fact that it has not been falsified is not evidence in support of it..whereas the fact that the theory of gravity has not been falsified IS evidence in support ot it.


it is clear that there is a reason or many reasons that so many people, both currently, and throughout history have has "experiences" of a religious nature..(again mutually exclusive experiences are another story as I discussed)..

it is certainly hard to evaluate without making crucial a priori assumptions...but I think we can go into it somewhat..

I might say that there is a natural reason for all of it...no need to invoke a god..but there is no way of coming to this conclusion without making the assumption that nothing supernatural is happening..so that doesn't work..

but I think it can still be evaluated somewhat because of the nature of the situation...

all these experiences may be compatible with eachother or
some of these experiences may not be compatible with eachother

I think that most of us could agree that at least some of the experiences are not compatible with others..not all of these claims can be exactly as they are claimed to be and not clash...

so consider that one of these may be the correct one..let's say the christian experiencing god...since an experience that is incompatible with this cannot be true, there must be another reason for this experience..since this person did not have the true experience...(basically everyone cannot have a true experience..by "true" I mean clearly indicative of the true god that exists)

so there must be an another reason for this...in claiming that theirs is the true experience, they must admit that there must another explaination for these contradictory false experiences...

they must admit that there IS another way that such an experience occurs.

those who aim to show that ALL of these experiences are like this other experiences (in that they aren't indicative of a true god that exists), we simply push it one group of experiences further...

so we go off of an accepted notion of how such experiences can occur, it is not without reason that we discredit such a large number of people..since even in giving them all full credit, the fact that these experiences are unrelaible is still shown

it is no longer based on blind a priori assumptions, but rather one of these assumptions CAN be made because it is shown to be true for either position..

this is by no means proof..and isn't even what I would call strong evidence, but it IS at least a nudge in that direction, whereas it was previously at a stalemate

EDIT: err.. I just realized that it wouldn't be even a nudge in any specific direction since it would only show that it must be due to some other cause..what that cause is not evaluated..I was thinking that the wide variety of natural causes would be contained under it, but since we are also still considering supernatural causes, there is also in an infinite number of possible supernatural causes

[vhawk01]

Prodigy, you are making a valiant effort to argue on txag's terms. What you SHOULD have done is simply state that no, you do not have faith in the theory of gravity, you simply tentatively accept it as a practical matter. Tentatively, in this case, is possibly misleading, but its still true. If someone comes up tomorrow and has a theory that fits observations and makes predictions and does so more clearly, more accurately or more parsimoniously than the current theory of gravity I, and I assume you, would ditch the theory of gravity quite easily. I do not have FAITH or BELIEVE in the theory of gravity in the way in which txag is trying to imply. I just accept them provisionally.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that I truly have faith or belief in (in the way txag means) is in causality and reason. There is no good reason to necessarily accept either reason (logic) or causality, but I do it anyway. I do it because I see no other alternative, but I can accept that I just hope and have faith that they really do work. I would have no way of finding out. I simply cannot see any other way to make it through my day if I think turning the door-knob will lead to me turning into a jaguar, or that that is just as likely of an outcome as anything else.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you require proof to believe that gravity exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

I require sufficient evidence...

If you don't think that it has sufficient evidence to back it up, please feel free to just off the roof of a tall building, then come tell me about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet.. before you jump.. and during your fall... pray to God for a safe landing and let us know whether gravity or God are the more influential force

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, here's the problem. When he finds out, he's not allowed to tell you unless you're schizophernic. See the dilemma here?

[jogsxyz]

Many also believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Most scientific insights date the cosmos at about 4.5 billion years.
Don't understand the proof for either theory. Guess that makes it 50/50.