Palin to pray away gays!

Werbung:
Dr.Who said:
If you are looking for a naturalistic explanation then it would be simple to do a test of that hypothesis.

If you have reason to think that there would be a supernatural explanation then the situation becomes more complicated.
Click to expand...

The only problem is there is no reason to think there is a supernatural reason.

The fact remains that god is a hypothesis of the most incredible kind and the only supporting evidence that is cited is a book that makes the Lord of the Rings look like non-fiction.

The ontological argument, the cosmological argument, Pascal's wager and all the rest of the pseudo-intellectual arguments that have attempted to add something are ong discredited.

Long ago people thought that thunder was the sound of angry gods. They didn't understand thunder so they came up with a quick but baseless answer.

Science has explained what thunder really is and now very few people think it is the sound of angry gods.

Christianity is exactly the same. It takes the question 'how did it all start? and makes up a quick but baseless answer in the same way that primitive man did to explain thunder.

In both cases it is a delusion.
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
The only problem is there is no reason to think there is a supernatural reason.

The fact remains that god is a hypothesis of the most incredible kind and the only supporting evidence that is cited is a book that makes the Lord of the Rings look like non-fiction.

The ontological argument, the cosmological argument, Pascal's wager and all the rest of the pseudo-intellectual arguments that have attempted to add something are ong discredited.
Click to expand...

All those are reasons to at least put the hypothesis on the table. I can't help it if you lack logical thinking skills, and are prejudiced in your approach.
Long ago people thought that thunder was the sound of angry gods. They didn't understand thunder so they came up with a quick but baseless answer.
Science has explained what thunder really is and now very few people think it is the sound of angry gods.
Click to expand...

It could be that people did think that. I personally I am an expert in whatever thunder cult you are referring to. Scientists once thought that frogs rained from the sky or emerged from mud. The incorrect thinking of one person in no way means that some other person is incorrect also.

Christianity is exactly the same. It takes the question 'how did it all start? and makes up a quick but baseless answer in the same way that primitive man did to explain thunder.
Click to expand...

Well since you have no proof that it is made up and it just as easily could be the actual explanation it is really just a matter of one persons opinion against another's. There is absolutely no instance in which good science is opposed to good Christianity and the great number of great Christian scientists of the past and present stand as testimony to that.
 
The hypothesis of god has been on the table for a few thousand years without anyone being able to provide verifiable supporting evidence.

I think that is enough don't you?

Oh and the fact that you can't prove a negative does not confer existence on god.

Honestly, it is a desperate argument.

Can you imagine Richard Dawkins presenting the fact of evolution and when questioned about its authenticity by a bible basher responding 'prove it isn't'.

You'd be jumping for joy at having busted him.

Except he wouldn't do it because his currency is fact and reason.

Not talking snakes and resurrection and virgin births and all that ****.
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
The hypothesis of god has been on the table for a few thousand years without anyone being able to provide verifiable supporting evidence.

I think that is enough don't you?

Oh and the fact that you can't prove a negative does not confer existence on god.

Honestly, it is a desperate argument.
Click to expand...

If you look back you will see that I have never made that argument. What I have said many times is that you cannot make the opposite argument that there is no God. God is neither verifiably proven nor disproven. Furthermore while god is provable (just as yet not proven empirically) the statement that there is no God can never be proven.

When I do say there is a God it is clearly my own faith supported by my own experiences.


Tell me, if you saw God yourself would you believe in Him then?
Click to expand...
 
If you saw father xmas would you believe in him?

I accept that from a strictlky logical point of view you cannoty prove there is no god.

But you can't prove there aren't any fairies at the bottom of your garden.

It is a worthless argument.

And anywway the onus is on those who assert existence to prove it and so far in the god debate they are proven to be wofeully lacking.
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
If you saw father xmas would you believe in him?

I accept that from a strictlky logical point of view you cannoty prove there is no god.

But you can't prove there aren't any fairies at the bottom of your garden.

It is a worthless argument.

And anywway the onus is on those who assert existence to prove it and so far in the god debate they are proven to be wofeully lacking.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the question on two threads.

I am not asking you to prove that there is not God. I am not asking about fairies. I am not asking you about the evidence that anyone else has or has not provided.

If you saw God with your own eyes would you believer in God? It is a simple question. There are no semantics here.
 
Dr.Who said:
You are avoiding the question on two threads.

I am not asking you to prove that there is not God. I am not asking about fairies. I am not asking you about the evidence that anyone else has or has not provided.

If you saw God with your own eyes would you believer in God? It is a simple yes or no question. There are no semantics here.
Click to expand...

For those of you who have seen this simple question ignored for so long here is why:

Dawkins has painted himself into a corner. By insisting that only empirical evidence has any value if he should ever see God with his own eyes the only option left to him is to conclude that his own eyes are wrong and he needs to check into the "special" wing at the hospital. Yet all of the scientific method is based on the the assumption that the observations made by scientists are to be relied on. If we can't rely on the eyes of the scientists then what they say can be ignored.
 
The question is ridiculous.

It is like saying iof god existed would you believe he existed?

It is no different to me asking if you saw father xmas would you believe in him and you are avoiding that cos it shows how stupid your question is.

You should remember you are the one who has made uip a fairy story to answer diffciult questions rather than do the adult thing and search for answers
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
The question is ridiculous.

It is like saying iof god existed would you believe he existed?

It is no different to me asking if you saw father xmas would you believe in him and you are avoiding that cos it shows how stupid your question is.

You should remember you are the one who has made uip a fairy story to answer diffciult questions rather than do the adult thing and search for answers
Click to expand...
You are still avoiding the question.

I am not asking if God exist would you think He exists. I am asking if you saw God would you think He exists. do you think that everything that is seen must be true? Then the testimony of the prophets must be believed because they saw.

And you are still the one who is claiming that my beliefs are fairy tales based on not much more than your wish that they are. Believing things that you cannot support is not very scientific.

I am quite willing to answer why I believer or do not believe in Santa Clause - right after you answer my question.


Do you think that people here do not see your avoidance for what it is? It is a simple yes or no question that puts you on the horns of a dilemma. Answering yes puts you on one horn and answering no puts you on the other horn. You have no choice but to avoid it because the alternative is to go down a path that leads to the weakening of your arguments. If you think your case is strong enough then by all means don't chicken out and answer the question.
 
There is no reason to believe the testament of the prophets.

The bible is a work of fiction

Do you believe in talking snakes?
 
I have explained why I will not entertain your ridiculous question.

What is more alarming is your belief that you have some clever mechanism for adding something to the currently empty pot labelled 'proof of god's existence'.

Believing in something on this basis normally gets people admitted to a psychaitrists surgery.
 
Werbung:
BTW this thread is supposed to be about Palin praying away homosexuality.

I wonder why she doesn't spend more time praying away war, poverty, disease, inequality, intolerance, bigotry, racism, speciesism

Oh soryy, she is in favour of all those.
 
Back
Top