News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Present Evidence Here II

Started by Fidel_Castronaut, February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LostLocke

Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.
So you're a polytheist then? By this definition it means ALL gods must exist.

Cassia

I will post all the evidence for any gods between the two parallel lines below:
_____________________________________



______________________________________

OK, that was easy.


aitm

I can tell ole tiger is a so called christian. Not enough intelligence to recognize the writings of Epicurus. Probably studied with coloring books.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hydra009

Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PMThis is quite amusing.  In order to confirm existence an atheist first wants evidence.  However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.  Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist
If this "evidence" is beyond our senses, then how can you (or anyone) claim that it exists?

And don't you find it strange that this god stuff is taken as a given (this is apparently a *serious* theological argument) - merely assumed to be true?  Isn't that rather telling that no such evidence is either accessible or in existence?

Shiranu

QuoteHow did you confirm this ?

Again, both from my post and trdsf said, logic; it's a field of study that has been around for at least 2400 years in the West (and most certainly predated Plato) and god knows how long in India where the field developed separately from the Greeks, so it's not some new-fangled post-modern conspiracy either.

If you are arguing the existence of the Abrahamic God, then you are arguing for something that simply cannot exist because there are so many contradictions and logical fallacies in his depiction.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hydra009

Quote from: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PMThen he is not omnipotent,

How did you confirm this ?
Something something iron chariots.  LOL

SGOS

It's odd that chariots play such a big role in Christianity, or maybe I've seen too many Cecil B. DiMille movies when I was little.  I suppose chariots back then were like Corvettes and Porshes.  When Jesus returns, I doubt that he will come back in a Ford Focus.  He will most likely arrive at the stadium in a limo, escorted by body guards as he makes his way to the speakers platform where he will make an urgent plea for donations.

aitm

Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
It's odd that chariots play such a big role in Christianity, or maybe I've seen too many Cecil B. DiMille movies when I was little.  I suppose chariots back then were like Corvettes and Porshes.  When Jesus returns, I doubt that he will come back in a Ford Focus.  He will most likely arrive at the stadium in a limo, escorted by body guards as he makes his way to the speakers platform where he will make an urgent plea for donations.
Tut tut….one will have to pay admission for such an event…..and no doubt, there will be no republicans at it.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

trdsf

Did the ferrous kitty bugger off? Apparently iron tigers are no match for iron chariots...
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Hydra009


Blackleaf

"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Mike Cl

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 06, 2021, 09:59:24 PM
This...has to be a joke.
Considering this was a video of all christians, of course it is a joke.  Only none of them realize it.  All that they believe is a joke.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hydra009

I finally found one!  Tell me this isn't a miracle, lol.

https://i.imgur.com/RuLQkuA.mp4

LinuxGal

WINDOWSGUY: Things that are verified exist. Things that are not verified, but are at least verifiable in principle, may exist. Things that are not verified may not exist. Things that are not verifiable, even in principle, can not exist. Do you accept those premises?

LINUXGAL: I do, Senciner, but only provisionally.

WINDOWSGUY: The afterlife is consciousness after death. Consciousness is exclusively self-verifiable. No one else can verify your consciousness and you cannot verify anyone else's consciousness. Provisionally, therefore we can say that the afterlife may exist, because it is verifiable in principle by the person who is conscious of it, if in fact it exists.

LINUXGAL: Good.

WINDOWSGUY: But if the afterlife does not exist, this is not verifiable, even in principle, because consciousness is required to make any verification. Now: since the truth value of the proposition 'no afterlife exists' is not verifiable, even in principle, and the negation 'the afterlife exists' is at least not excluded, then the afterlife must exist, by the following rule: if not non-A then A.

LINUXGAL: Your logic can be used to prove anything. For instance, Our Lady is defined as an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the sky who is verifiable in principle by whoever goes to Her post-mortem.

WINDOWSGUY: But She is also verifiable publicly by other people who go to Her, while consciousness is only privately verifiable.

LINUXGAL: The IPU is not publicly verifiable by any of our senses. She can only be seen while outside of a living body. .

WINDOWSGUY: No! She must have been seen by a living person, specifically, that person who first stated that She is pink.

Mike Cl

Quote from: LinuxGal on January 02, 2023, 09:44:47 AMWINDOWSGUY: Things that are verified exist. Things that are not verified, but are at least verifiable in principle, may exist. Things that are not verified may not exist. Things that are not verifiable, even in principle, can not exist. Do you accept those premises?

LINUXGAL: I do, Senciner, but only provisionally.

WINDOWSGUY: The afterlife is consciousness after death. Consciousness is exclusively self-verifiable. No one else can verify your consciousness and you cannot verify anyone else's consciousness. Provisionally, therefore we can say that the afterlife may exist, because it is verifiable in principle by the person who is conscious of it, if in fact it exists.

LINUXGAL: Good.

WINDOWSGUY: But if the afterlife does not exist, this is not verifiable, even in principle, because consciousness is required to make any verification. Now: since the truth value of the proposition 'no afterlife exists' is not verifiable, even in principle, and the negation 'the afterlife exists' is at least not excluded, then the afterlife must exist, by the following rule: if not non-A then A.

LINUXGAL: Your logic can be used to prove anything. For instance, Our Lady is defined as an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the sky who is verifiable in principle by whoever goes to Her post-mortem.

WINDOWSGUY: But She is also verifiable publicly by other people who go to Her, while consciousness is only privately verifiable.

LINUXGAL: The IPU is not publicly verifiable by any of our senses. She can only be seen while outside of a living body. .

WINDOWSGUY: No! She must have been seen by a living person, specifically, that person who first stated that She is pink.
I would be nice if you would go to the intro section and do that--tell us a bit about yourself.  You look like you will fit right in, humor and all! :))
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?