1. "I am assuming that your 'mar' is a typo and it should read mark." yes, certain keys have stopped working.
2. "If god does not exist ..." is a very big "if" Not only is it an undeniable fact that there never has been, and there isn't at the moment, any evidence to convince us that there is no God anywhere but we can say with certainty that there will never be any evidence that there is no God anywhere.
3. Whereas it is true that there never has been, and there isn't at the moment, any evidence that there is a God somewhere, we cannot say with certainty that there will never be any evidence that there is a God somewhere.
4. So there is that small difference between the God and the No God positions. The door is firmly shut on the later whereas the jury is still out on the former, so there is still hope for it.
There is no evidence to show that there is no Thor, Zeus, Yahweh & son or a flying spaghetti monster either, so that puts them on the same level as all the other hundreds of gods along with fairies, goblins, trolls and things that go bump in the night.
While it is true that there is no evidence of a god, so why oh why would anyone believe in such a thing without evidence, especially now that so much of what is claimed for him has clearly been shown to be a load of unmitigated bollocks.
It would appear that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof and as we both know it is not possible to prove a negative, yet it is possible to prove a positive but for thousands of years since man first invented the first god no one has proven that such a thing exists. so I will put it this way, anyone who without just cause believes in anything is a bloody fool.
1. I agree with you that "There is no evidence to show that there is no Thor, Zeus, Yahweh & son or a flying spaghetti monster either, so that puts them on the same level as all the other hundreds of gods along with fairies, goblins, trolls and things that go bump in the night."
2. "..why oh why would anyone believe in such a thing [as God] without [direct] evidence"? >>> I think there are a few "reasons" we could explore.
3. If "so much of what is claimed for him has clearly been shown to be a load of unmitigated bollocks" then those who value reason should not believe in those claims.
4. If "we both know it is not possible to prove a negative" meaning that it is not possible to prove that there is no God, then we both should not enter the No God tunnel because we both know that there will never be any proof there. It does not make sense to choose that tunnel because it is a dead cert that it is a hopeless dead end. True the God tunnel is pitch dark too, but it is NOT a dead cert that it is a hopeless dead end. So there is more sense in us both choosing this tunnel than the other one.
5. I don't have any great problem with the claim that "for thousands of years since man first invented the first god no one has proven that such a thing exists." Not only that, no one has yet come up with a credible and sensible way to prove that such a thing exists.
6. I think I would also have no great problem with "anyone who without just cause believes in anything is a bloody fool." though I might not phrase it so.
The only parts of your last reply worth commenting on are the 'I think there are a few "reasons" we could explore', I await your 'reasons' and point out that you are welcome to go crawling around in tunnels if you wish but I for one am not trying to disprove god, the burden lies with the person making the claim that there is a god.
1. "The only parts of your last reply worth commenting on are..." >>> I assume you meant "require commenting on" and not "WORTH commenting on" because they are almost entirely based on what you stated.
2. So why does man "believe in such a thing [as God] without [direct] evidence"?
a] Man has a "be inquisitive" seed planted in him by "nature", and voiced in certain "scripture". It's as if "nature" is teasing him, getting him off his backside and egging him on. There are many who respond to that call to such an extent that they even "go crawling around in tunnels". If it wasn't for such people man's discoveries and his benefits from them would have been no more extensive than those of other creatures he shares the planet with.
b] Other advantages "nature" has gifted man with include philosophy, abstract thinking, speculation and deduction. These allow him to visualise or perceive that which is beyond the reach of his instruments in order to make more sense of his existence and the existence of all that surrounds him and what their beginning, purpose and end might be. He builds models and explanations and corrects or improves on them as he proceeds. That is why a lot of what was part of his model and explanation in the past are not part of them any more. And that will continue into the future.
"I see nothing in either a or b that indicates the need to find a god" >>> then you see well, because I didn't say anything about the need to find God. I talked about the characteristics of man and the fact that if man is true to himself in other words true to those characteristics it will lead him to questions about the fundamentals of existence itself, about the ultimate origin and purpose of creation. The answers he comes to will of course be the “best conclusion for now” [all our knowledge has always been the “best conclusion for now”] This “best conclusion for now” for the source of creation and life and the laws of “nature” is God. There isn’t, for now, a better answer.
That is one hell of a leap from the 'characteristics of man' to 'This “best conclusion for now” for the source of creation and life and the laws of “nature” is God' in one short paragraph, without one piece of evidence to support such a claim.
Every area of human knowledge is backed by it's own kind of evidence. Someone wants evidence that the bag of spuds you're selling is 5 kg, you weigh it for them. Someone comes to sell you bags of potatoes and for you the size of the bags and your experience are sufficient evidence that they are 10 kg bags. The movement of a compass needle is evidence of the presence and direction of a magnetic field. Certain observed phenomena are evidence of a black hole or some particular subatomic particles. To an experienced game keeper what he sees on the ground is sufficient evidence that a herd of elephants passed that way a day and a half ago, and included a pregnant cow and a baby with an injured leg. When it comes to evidence it's horses for courses, in both direct evidence as well as indirect or inferential evidence, or logical deduction.
I gave you examples of what passes for evidence in different situations. Which of those categories would you say was appropriate for the sort of evidence you were looking for?
If that is what you accept as evidence then all I can say is I hope to fcuk you never end up on jury duty. As you clearly have no evidence yet alone proof of any god, I reference you back to my 'anyone who without just cause believes in anything is a bloody fool'.
1. You might know about closed minded or tunnel visioned persons. They tend to get very frustrated when others don't buy into what they see as the only and plainly obvious option. In the US such a person might pick up a gun, which is probably easier to get in there than a knife might be in other countries, and spray with bullets the mother effing people he strongly disagrees with. Here, on exchange of ideas forums, and it happens mainly with some fundamentalist [in the modern sense] atheists, their language goes from condescending to swearing. As if that is a higher level of evidence that they are right and ALL who differ are TOTALLY wrong, inferior and responsible for any frustration they might have.
2. It is a natural conclusion from your post that in each of the examples of evidence I quoted in my earlier post those who used and were satisfied with the sort of evidence described, including scientists, are people you would "hope to fcuk .... never end up on jury duty". Hmm..
3. Well, we now have an analogy here of me as a storekeeper who has got to a stage where he has shown you a range of items asking you if any of them was similar to what you had in mind, and you still didn't know what you were after. I think at that stage I'd ask you to go and give some further thought to what you were after and then come back when you had a better idea of what you want.
Aristotle reasoned to the existence of an "uncaused cause."
"....references to an 'unmoved-mover' were compatible with a Christian conception of a unified, omnipresent deity. In addition, there were later Greek texts and philosophies descended from those of Aristotle and Plato that were even more compatible, particularly because by the 1st and 2nd century AD Greek philosophers had indeed come into contact with Jewish scripture and responded to it."
A God who has not been caused brings about some fascinating possibilities for the "true" nature of reality.
And I find the possibilities extant in such a line of inquiry can be extremely rewarding to those of us who think that God exists and who proceed on that assumption.
And while some who do not believe in the existence of God see the contradictions that we press on in spite of as proof of the foolishness of our assumptions, we "believers" tend to think that the contradictions indicate a failure of our natural ability as sufficient to understand what is, we judge, to be in the realm of the supernatural.
(I do not mention "Faith" because for discussion purposes, it begs the question of why I enjoy being a Catholic and why Catholicism and its theology make so much sense to me as an explanation of what is actually "afoot" in the universe.)
And trying to explain why I think (and feel) the way I do and deal with those "contradictions" that are thrown at me to explain----well from my point of view, it's like trying to explain why I choose to buy prime grade beef over standard grade....to a vegetarian.
Each of us is stuck with our own truth, hopefully based upon accurate assumptions and logically inferred, but still to be determined as to its actual veracity.
Tom your last sentence would make much more sense if you replaced the word truth with the word hope, because as you yourself say 'but still to be determined as to its actual veracity' until such times as it is verified to be true it remains nothing more than wishful thinking, ie. hope. I am sure that a vegetarian would understand that you would want quality in what you eat, while not understanding why you eat meat, just as I doubt if the vegetarian would buy low grade vegetables if lucky enough to have a choice. I have noticed in past conversations that you do not even attempt to 'deal with those "contradictions" that are thrown at me', do you feel that if you bury your head in the sand that these 'contradictions' will simply go away?
myonemaster 