Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Of course, but when you make a claim the burden of proof is on you! Trying to make an atheist prove there is no god commits the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
I'm not the one that believes in an invisible sky fairy, that has his own begotten son crucified on a cross (which isn't even fucking mentioned by one of the greatest civilizations of mankind in the Romans until over 100years latar, and it's briefly mentioned once!).
Empirical evidence works! That's why it's used with brilliant accuracy and why man kind has made the advances it has! You should be thankful for empirical evidence, peer review and the so on... allowing to understand reality and the cosmos.. rather then some drivel spouted by iron age peasents.
Who the fuck asked you to prove that god does not exist? who the fuck asked you to prove the non existence of any fucking thing?
"I'm not the one that believes in an invisible sky fairy"
you are beyond irrelevant. we wasn't even talking about proving god's existence. what is wrong with your mental state?
"Empirical evidence works! That's why it's used with brilliant accuracy and why man kind has made the advances it has"
who the fuck said otherwise? Dumb Ox was saying if you think that empirical Evidence is the only way to gain knowledge then Prove it. that's a claim, can you see it? it needs to be proven, right?
btw if you do think that 'Empirical evidence is the Only way to gain knowledge' that would be self-refuting because this knowledge itself is not empirical.
Oh I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit!
Well for the record Dumb Ox asked us to prove he didn't exist, come on... it was only a little while ago.. scroll up!
Well done! Your almost there, we are all irrelevant! We're born, we die, and the cosmos doesn't doesn't give a single fuck!
As for mental state, being the age I am, I've grown out of imaginary friends, so I would say my mental state is a lot better then most.
Did I say once that empiricle evidence was the only way to gain knowledge? No not once! But it's a shit site better then a book written way after an event that has no records to support from at the time by other non bias civilisations.
I couldn't care how happy it make you feel, it isn't fact, and until proven otherwise it should be treated with contempt.
Now calm the fuck down and have a normal conversation, at the moment for a smart guy you making yourself look like a petulant child who's not getting his way, and again... I couldn't give a fuck.
"Well for the record Dumb Ox asked us to prove he didn't exist, come on... it was only a little while ago.. scroll up!"
Dumb Ox says "Prove that there must be testable evidence that God exists if that is what you demand of theists, because I don't see why that is the only reliable way of knowing there is a God."
he -and i- thought that what you mean by testable evidence is only empirical one, so he asked you to prove that there must be an empirical evidence that proves god's existence. But since you have acknowledged that Empirical evidence isn't the only way to gain knowledge, then there is no problem.
and this is where you reply with what seems to be your favorite and only objection you can come up with, which is 'shifting the burden of proof', and his comment says nothing about proving that he did not exist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But it's a shit site better then a book written way after an event that has no records to support from at the time by other non bias civilisations."
no one proved god's existence through any books, unless you're talking about Theology and philosophy books, which you aren't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I couldn't care how happy it make you feel, it isn't fact, and until proven otherwise it should be treated with contempt."
i have never said that anything is just a fact because it makes me happy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit!" , "the cosmos doesn't doesn't give a single fuck!", "and again... I couldn't give a fuck."
i would say that this is your second favorite statement, you can't help but insert them in any context, that's kinda funny.
Well it's nice you have calmed down and decided to speak rationally again, too which i thank you.
Indeed, I did not imply at all that empirical evidence is the only source of knowledge. But as we are on it, I do consider it to be the best form of testing within our reality.
I questioned Dumb Ox purely because he asserted that God is human within one branch of the trinity.
Quote "To clarify, Christians believe that God by nature has no body and he is not made up in parts. However, we also believe He is a Trinity and that the Second Devine Person took on a human nature to his own hypostasis. So He has both a human and Devine nature, so in a way we can say God has a body, but the Father and Holy Spirit are also God but do not have bodies. Also, we believe there is only on God but three Devine Persons in that God." End quote.
I merely made the point that, if he is in human form then he is no longer free from being unable to be challenged by the scientific method... the fact he was within reality means he is subject to the same scrutiny that everything else is.
This is also is a huge claim by theism, that requires some outstanding evidence and like many others on here we will regularly ask "Prove it" or "where's the evidence" because all too often all we get is "I'll have to start another thread to do that" or "Prove he's not real" etc...
And as someone versed in philosophy as you appear to be, you must acknowledge the fact that saying to someone to disprove an assertion you have made is in fact commiting the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Trust me I truly wish it was something I didn't have to say, it's not a trigger word for me... it's more like flashing a sign at someone about to walk of a cliff saying "turn around!".
And nice try with the ad hominem comments at the end you was doing well up until then, they were meant as sarcasm at your own position of going bat crap crazy with the swearing in your last post.
And relax, they are just words!
"I questioned Dumb Ox purely because he asserted that God is human within one branch of the trinity.
Quote "To clarify, Christians believe that God by nature has no body and he is not made up in parts. However, we also believe He is a Trinity and that the Second Devine Person took on a human nature to his own hypostasis. So He has both a human and Devine nature, so in a way we can say God has a body, but the Father and Holy Spirit are also God but do not have bodies. Also, we believe there is only on God but three Devine Persons in that God." End quote.
I merely made the point that, if he is in human form then he is no longer free from being unable to be challenged by the scientific method... the fact he was within reality means he is subject to the same scrutiny that everything else is."
i was talking about the specific comment on which you replied with your shifting-the-burden objection. it does not apply to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"And nice try with the ad hominem comments"
ad hominem is about refuting certain claims by attacking the character or the attributes of the person who assert those claims.
What i have said is "i would say that this is your second favorite statement, you can't help but insert them in any context, that's kinda funny."
I did not use this statement to discredit any of your claims. it's not even an attack or an offense. so i would not call it ad hominem.
Peripatetic
Calm down are you might turn into an ugly troll! Go take a cold shower and then come back and reply.
I'm calm, But thanks for the advice anyway.
Dumb Ox
Can you prove your god is real?
The burden of proof is on me to prove God is real, but if you say I have to do it in a certain way when there are other ways to do it, then you have to demonstrate why I must use that way.
Dumb Ox
So your saying that you can't prove your god with testable evidence? What way are you saying you can prove a god? If you prove a god, which god is it that humans worship?
Back to my example of burden of proof.
I make the claim, that you, Dumb Ox owe me 1 million dollars.
Who has the burden of proof on this claim? Do you have to prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? Or is it I, LogicForTW that has to prove to you, that you owe me 1 million dollars? (Or to the court if one of decided we needed a 3rd party to get involved.)
We both already know the answer to this, I LogicForTW would have the burden of proof. It would be insane if you had the burden of proof. What would there be to stop me from, after much work on your part to prove you do not owe me 1 million dollars, to simply say: no, actually you owe me 1 million and 1 dollars? Would you have to go through the whole process again because the burden of proof is on you? Of course not.
Not only would the burden of proof be on me, LogicForTW for such an outlandish, crazy, wild claim, the burden of proof would be high. I would need signed paper work, notarized paperwork would be even better, a bill of sale of goods or services to you, powerful evidence why you owe me 1 million dollars.
Now to your recent post: Would it be fair for me to, "prove it," but if I was free to do that proof anyway I saw fit? (Say I write a fictional book about you owing me a million dollars as "proof",) would that constitute as proof to you? Would you accept, oh hey he did provide his "proof," I guess I do owe LogicForTW a million dollars! Of course not, you would demand a certain standard of proof. That standard should be implied, it should be left unsaid, we all know what real proof looks like, the hard tangible stuff, the repeatable stuff, the stuff that is well supported. The stuff that I or others cannot simply just make up to fulfill my personal agenda.
Evidence cannot simply be my word that you owe me 1 million dollars. It can't be oh, I got a close friend or family members to also say you owe me 1 million dollars. It can not be a popularity contest. You would demand real proof, or I could actually just say and fabricate stuff to say you owe me 1 million, and if a 3rd party accepted that flimsy evidence as proof, you suddenly will have to pay me 1 million dollars! You would be completely outraged that I was given the option to provide proof any way I wanted to.
Sure, offer any evidence you like!
But remember, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence... so this better be fucking spectacular!
It's interesting you propose a contradiction in god's nature.
There is a contradiction at the heart of Quantum Physics that is know by the more popular scientific description of 'superposition' where quanta can exist in two states simultaneously (until observed upon which the wave field collapses).
Just ask Schroedinger's cat.
A linear combination of states, is itself a state. It's weird to say the least, but it isn't a contradiction.
I do not know much about quantum physics. but from what you're saying i see a contradiction. "Until Observed" this means that before that there was no any observing, if that so, then how did you come to realize that the cat is in two contradictory states at the same time?
How could even humans observe or comprehend such a thing if it's true? i think you're talking about Probability.
Just some fyi, not really even directed at your comment:
We don't measure states, we measure observables (the location of something is an example of an observable).
At the same time has no meaning in the context.
If an object is found to have value A for one of its observables , there is a 0% chance to find the value B for the same observable, unless you give it enough time to evolve from A to B. A simple example: if you find it located at A, there is a 0% chance to find it at B unless you wait long enough for it to move from A to B.
"At the same time has no meaning in the context."
he asserts that contradiction is found in quantum physics and he gives us Schrodinger's cat experiment as an example. so he would say that until observing, the cat is dead and not dead at the same time. so how come that 'at the same time has no meaning'? if it has no meaning, then where is the contradiction? there would be no contradiction at all. the cat would be not dead at a point and dead at another. so where is the contradiction that he is talking about?
'at the same time' is a necessary condition for contradiction.
---------------------------------------------------------
"We don't measure states, we measure observables"
i'm not sure how does that relate to what i said, But i did not say anything about measuring. For the cat to be not dead, i call that a state. and for it to be dead i call it a state too. He says that there is a contradiction up Until observing, so i asked him; before observing, how did you come to the conclusion that there is indeed a contradiction? Where is the contradiction?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"If an object is found to have value A for one of its observables , there is a 0% chance to find the value B for the same observable, unless you give it enough time to evolve from A to B. A simple example: if you find it located at A, there is a 0% chance to find it at B unless you wait long enough for it to move from A to B."
i totally agree with that.
At the same time has no meaning in quantum mechanics; so there is no contradiction here. Additionally, the linear combination of two states is itself a state! Therefore it is only by metaphor that someone might say the object is in two different states; it is in a single state.
So when someone says it is in two different states at the same time; that is metaphor piled on top of metaphor. It is not an accurate representation of the system.
---------------------------------
Because it doesn't:
Sorry to burst some of your bubbles but I never said I was going to prove that God exists. I just said that I didn't have to use scientific proofs. I might make another thread where I try to do that, but first I would need to read up on how to prove that from absolutely nothing, nothing comes and other such things. To me those premises of my argument for a first cause are so obvious, that it is hard for me to argue against those who deny it.
Dumb Ox
Study hard on this proving god thing, I look forward to your proof your god exist.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is impossible to PROVE that "from absolutely nothing, nothing comes." We humans never even been able to observe, let alone test or interact with "nothing."
The best you can do is: within this universe so far, our observation points to things like the first law of thermodynamics, or the law of conservation of mass. But as soon as you are talking before the creation of this universe, laws like that do not apply.
This is why the correct answer is:
"We do not know."
I think it is highly likely we as a human race will never get to an answer on that.
It is even worse. There are ways to create mass/energy, where none is present, which don't violate the conservation of mass/energy!
Fear not, no bubbles have been burst. I think the contention was from a few pages back where you clarified what god is regarding the trinity etc... when you make an assertion though, surly you understand some proof will be asked for this.
And good luck with trying to prove that from "absolutely nothing absolutely nothing, nothing comes and other such things". I'd genuinely be keen to read your findings. Personally I feel as a species we cannot even conceive of absolute nothingness so it would certainly intrigue me, keep us posted.
I would say however, perhaps looking into why there has to be a first cause that is not natural could be more beneficial!
Food for thought perhaps, and genuinely again.. best of luck.
I was just saying what Christians believe. Btw you cannot come to know that God is a Trinity through reason but only through faith and Revalation.
Dumb Ox
So your saying faith is the only way to prove a god exist?
Are you trolling or can you just not read?
I'm not trolling you. I ask a simple question, Is your god only provable by faith. Has a simple answer, yes or no.
Yes and no. I have already said this multiple times. There are certain things about God that can be proved by reason like that He is one, simple, all powerful etc, but there are other things that can only be proved by faith like He is a Trinity and He has inspired the Bible and so forth.
So the steps of faith you use to prove your god could be used to prove all the gods humans worship. What do you mean by all powerful, that your god can do everything?
Pages