Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
cynic said:
How about you describe this god in whose existence you have chosen to disbelieve so that I can actually understand what it is that you are objecting to?
Click to expand...

I'm not objecting to anything.
I am simply refuting the notion that there is any evidence suggestive of 'God' or the 'Awesome Overarching Albatross.'
It is not for me to define what 'your imagining of God' might or might not be.
That would be as foolish as trying to establish whether or not a barren women's' child is male or female.
 
cynic said:
How about you describe this god in whose existence you have chosen to disbelieve so that I can actually understand what it is that you are objecting to?
Click to expand...

That’s completely backward.

You need to define the god you claim exist, then we will decide whether we accept that claim based on the evidence for it.

I could define 1000’s of potential gods and give reasons why I don’t accept each ones existence, but that would be pointless, because non of them would be the god you claim exists.
 
Value Collector said:
Cynic the fact that I do believe many things that have shown to be true via evidence disproves your claim that I simply wouldn’t believe you no matter what evidence you show.

The simple fact is that if you backed up your claims with sound evidence I wouldn’t have a problem with them, and not would most people.
Click to expand...
The sad thing VC, is that I know that you have somehow actually come to believe these lies that you keep telling yourself!

I know from your demeanour that you are determined to deny any possibility of any kind supernatural being, phenomena or faculty irrespective of the quality of any presented evidence.
 
cynic said:
Okay then. So do you spend this much time protesting against beliefs in other factually unproven concepts?
Click to expand...
Yes, when I feel certain beliefs are harmful or have an impact in the freedoms of others.

Eg anti vaccination and psychic’s I have had many a conversation to try and get people to provide evidence for psychics.
 
cynic said:
The sad thing VC, is that I know that you have somehow actually come to believe these lies that you keep telling yourself!

I know from your demeanour that you are determined to deny any possibility of any kind supernatural being, phenomena or faculty irrespective of the quality of any presented evidence.
Click to expand...

No, I simply ask you to provide evidence, I only “deny” the existence when the evidence is not provided.

Take the theory of evolution for example, I accept that because of the mountains of evidence for it, even though at first glance it would seem unlikely.

If your claims had evidence, I would accept them, it all comes back to the evidence, and you don’t have any, simple as that, if you had it, it would be different.
 
Value Collector said:
That’s completely backward.

You need to define the god you claim exist, then we will decide whether we accept that claim based on the evidence for it.

I could define 1000’s of potential gods and give reasons why I don’t accept each ones existence, but that would be pointless, because non of them would be the god you claim exists.
Click to expand...
Of course you could!
And as you have correctly observed, my god would probably be nowhere to be found in that crowd! From what I can discern, your god concepts seem to be limited to stage magician like genies that materialise and resurrect decapitees upon command.

This is why it is important for the progress of this discussion that those raising the challenge, define what it actually is, that they are challenging!
 
Last edited:
Value Collector said:
Yes, when I feel certain beliefs are harmful or have an impact in the freedoms of others.

Eg anti vaccination and psychic’s I have had many a conversation to try and get people to provide evidence for psychics.
Click to expand...
And if your beliefs turn out to be wrong and others are harmed by your intrusion into their life decisions? What then?

Or do you believe yourself to be incapable of error, and therefore entitled to dictate the behaviour of others?
 
Value Collector said:
No, I simply ask you to provide evidence, I only “deny” the existence when the evidence is not provided.

Take the theory of evolution for example, I accept that because of the mountains of evidence for it, even though at first glance it would seem unlikely.

If your claims had evidence, I would accept them, it all comes back to the evidence, and you don’t have any, simple as that, if you had it, it would be different.
Click to expand...
No you don’t simply ask for evidence!
You put in a concerted effort to dismiss any claim with which you are personally uncomfortable!
The evidence of this is readily discernible from the content and demeanour of your many postings to this thread. And I know that you won't agree with me here, for the simple reason that you refuse to accept evidence of anything with which you are personally uncomfortable!

The very examples that you have presented in this post demonstrate that bias is present, and that there has been a departure from objective evidence assessment, in the formulation of your beliefs.

VC, as I have said before, you might have convinced yourself of these lies you keep telling yourself, but I am not fooled!
What you ask for, and what you actually want are two entirely separate things!

You certainly do not want the evidence that you are asking for!
That is the very last thing you want in these discussions!

I know this, because, I understand you well enough to know, that when you encounter a body of evidence, sufficient to withstand all refutation, you are not going to be at all happy about it!

Ps:Whilst I do happen to be a fan of the concept of evolution, I must say that those few pieces of interesting shaped rocks, unearthed and creatively interpreted, are a long way short of "mountains of evidence".
 
cynic said:
Of course you could!
And as you have correctly observed, my god would probably be nowhere to be found in that crowd! From what I can discern, your god concepts seem to be limited to stage magician like genies that materialise and resurrect decapitees upon command.

This is why it is important for the progress of this discussion that those raising the challenge, define what it actually is, that they are challenging!
Click to expand...
I am not in the business of defining gods.

If you think one exists, you define it, then provide your supporting evidence.
 
Value Collector said:
I am not in the business of defining gods.

If you think one exists, you define it, then provide your supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
VC you have just made the resolution of this matter terribly easy!

YOU are a god!

Do you require me to present you with any further evidence of your own existence?
 
Value Collector said:
I am not in the business of defining gods.

If you think one exists, you define it, then provide your supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not my job to convince you that God exists, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but what evidence do you have to prove that one does NOT exist ?
 
cynic said:
VC you have just made the resolution of this matter terribly easy!

YOU are a god!

Do you require me to present you with any further evidence of your own existence?
Click to expand...

If your definition of a god is me, then I would have to say yes by that definition of god then a god does exist,

but this is no different to people that say “god is love, you believe in love don’t you”, I find his defining god into existence quite unimpressive, because the neither “I” nor “love” have any of the attributes they were pinning in the god before our discussion.

Eg, I am clearly not the god you have been referring to, and playing a word game doesn’t get you any closer to proving your actual definition of a god exists
 
SirRumpole said:
It's not my job to convince you that God exists, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but what evidence do you have to prove that one does NOT exist ?
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, eg it’s not up to skeptics to disprove the existence of Big Foot (or gods) it’s up to those making the claims to prove Big foot exists.

Eg.
Can you prove I don’t own an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Off course you can’t, but it’s not up to you to prove I don’t have a unicorn, it up to me to prove I do.
 
Value Collector said:
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim,
Click to expand...

but you are always the one who's contrary on any historical social construct, but you (and bas) never carry the burden of proof about your claims? Both of you are rarely able to provide the concrete evidence of the subjects at hand to prove your points, rather you deflect to black slaves as being example of the need for cultural vandalism.
 
SirRumpole said:
and you are claiming god does not exist, so prove it.
Click to expand...

No, I am not claiming that no god exists.
Saying “I don’t believe in Bigfoot” is not the same thing as saying “I know big foot doesn’t exist”

My position is that I don’t currently hold a belief that a god exists, eg I am unconvinced of any of the god claims that have been presented to me

I do not claim to know that no gods exist.

I have explained it here before, my position is called an “Agnostic Atheist” this is the position of most Atheists eg “don’t know for sure, but don’t currently believe”
 
Value Collector said:
I have explained it here before, my position is called an “Agnostic Atheist” this is the position of most Atheists eg “don’t know for sure, but don’t currently believe”
Click to expand...

OK fair enough. I thought your position was hard core atheist ie you deny that any god exists, but if you have an open mind on it given enough evidence, then that's fine as long as you define what evidence you want or would accept.

eg if you don't accept the existence of the Universe as evidence of a god then you have to put forward a counter proposition and prove that actually happened if you want to prove there is no god.
 
Value Collector said:
No, I am not claiming that no god exists.
Saying “I don’t believe in Bigfoot” is not the same thing as saying “I know big foot doesn’t exist”

My position is that I don’t currently hold a belief that a god exists, eg I am unconvinced of any of the god claims that have been presented to me

I do not claim to know that no gods exist.

I have explained it here before, my position is called an “Agnostic Atheist” this is the position of most Atheists eg “don’t know for sure, but don’t currently believe”
Click to expand...
If you truly don't know for sure, how is it that you have attained such confidence in claiming the non existence of god?
 
SirRumpole said:
eg if you don't accept the existence of the Universe as evidence of a god then you have to put forward a counter proposition and prove that actually happened if you want to prove there is no god.
Click to expand...

Why would the existence of the universe be evidence of a god?

Wouldn’t the most logical thing be to just say “I don’t know” until we find out the answer? And that makes “agnostic atheism” the most logical position until evidence either way is found.
 
Top