Science and God

Quote: FrGamble

All I'm saying is that it is not incontrovertible proof that there is no God,

There are a large number of unsolved crimes all over the world. Is there incontrovertible proof you're not guilty of any of them? Can you disprove your guilt in every unsolved crime? If not, can we safely assume you're guilty of at least one such crime? Would you be willing to be sent to prison or be executed on such flimsy non-rational argument?

And Pascal made the ultimate bad bet.

So you are saying that if I cannot prove I'm not guilty then I am guilty? That doesn't make sense. You need more than just the lack of evidence to convict you also need evidence to show I'm guilty. In the case of God you cannot prove He exists just because there is no evidence that He does not exist. You also need to have evidence such as personal testimonies, historical facts, scientific theories, logical deductive arguments, unexplainable miracles, and knowledge about ourselves and humanity that are gained from faith in God. All of this exists.

Let me ask you; if I have no incontrovertible proof that you are either innocent or guilty of a crime would you be comfortable with me declaring you innocent or guilty depending on how I feel? Would it be fair to declare either way, innocent or guilty, if I had no incontrovertible proof either way?

Quote: FrGamble

So you are saying that if I cannot prove I'm not guilty then I am guilty?

No, you're the one who's saying that.

Quote:

That doesn't make sense.

That's what I'm saying.

Quote:

You need more than just the lack of evidence to convict you also need evidence to show I'm guilty. In the case of God you cannot prove He exists just because there is no evidence that He does not exist.

So if there was no evidence that you're not guilty of any of a myriad crimes, then you're guilty?

See? that's what you're saying.

Quote:

You also need to have evidence such as personal testimonies, historical facts, scientific theories, logical deductive arguments, unexplainable miracles, and knowledge about ourselves and humanity that are gained from faith in God. All of this exists.

Let me tell you an historical fact: if there is only one source for an event, and there is no corroborating evidence of any kind, then it's suspect. If the event is a quotidian one, alike several which are properly and/or better sourced and/or confirmed, then it might be true. If it is a unique one, then it's 99.99999999...999% likely to be false.

Having sad that, the likelihood that the story of the resurrection of Joshua ben Miriam is even close to true is far, far, far less likely than my odds of winning every lottery in the world twice a month for the next sixty eight hundred years.

Quote:

Let me ask you; if I have no incontrovertible proof that you are either innocent or guilty of a crime would you be comfortable with me declaring you innocent or guilty depending on how I feel? Would it be fair to declare either way, innocent or guilty, if I had no incontrovertible proof either way?

Let me ask you: if I have no proof at all that the one true god Zeus wants you as a sacrifice right now, would you be comfortable with me deciding to slaughter you at the altar of Zeus based on how I feel about His existence?

Quote: Nareed

So if there was no evidence that you're not guilty of any of a myriad crimes, then you're guilty?

See? that's what you're saying.

Can you better phrase what you are talking about because I think we are missing each other? I am saying that you need evidence not just the lack of it to prove you are guilty. I hope that is clear. Are you saying that if there is no evidence then you are for sure innocent?

Quote:

Let me tell you an historical fact: if there is only one source for an event, and there is no corroborating evidence of any kind, then it's suspect. If the event is a quotidian one, alike several which are properly and/or better sourced and/or confirmed, then it might be true. If it is a unique one, then it's 99.99999999...999% likely to be false.

Let me tell you a fact: you have pulled this from where the sun don't shine. It shows your bias and not much else. What about an event that has other sources and evidence?

Quote:

Having sad that, the likelihood that the story of the resurrection of Joshua ben Miriam is even close to true is far, far, far less likely than my odds of winning every lottery in the world twice a month for the next sixty eight hundred years.

This is kind of sad to see how far you will go to put out of your mind the truth about Jesus.

Quote:

Let me ask you: if I have no proof at all that the one true god Zeus wants you as a sacrifice right now, would you be comfortable with me deciding to slaughter you at the altar of Zeus based on how I feel about His existence?

No, I would not be comfortable with that at all!

Let me ask you again: Can you reasonably proclaim the guilt or innocence of someone without any proof at all?

Quote: FrGamble

And you would be wrong and creating a straw man. All I'm saying is that it is not incontrovertible proof that there is no God, which seems to be what you and Evenbob are saying.

There is starting to be incontrovertible proof that
this is one of the most boring discussions I've ever
been in, though. God is boring.

I was going to say that was subjective opinion, but actually you may be objectively right. It might get more interesting if you just admit that having no evidence is proof of nothing. Of course you can't do that because that seems to be one of the nonsensical reasons you think there is no God.

Quote: FrGamble

It might get more interesting if you just admit that having no evidence is proof of nothing.

Having no evidence means there is nothing
to act on, nothing to form an opinion about.
Lack of evidence for something is always the
ending point, never the starting point. No
evidence means it's time to forget it. No
evidence in science means you're at a dead
end. No evidence when looking for god means
quit wasting your time looking.

Thank you. What it clearly does NOT mean is that there is no God. I'm glad you're at least no longer an atheist or at least recognize that there is no reason to ever think there is no God. If you ever want to really look for good maybe my signature can help you were to start.

Quote: FrGamble

Can you better phrase what you are talking about because I think we are missing each other?

You theists think you can make an extraordinary claim and it's true, unless it can be disproved.

Very well. I'm making a ludicrous claim and demand you hold yourself to the same standard.

Quote:

Let me tell you a fact: you have pulled this from where the sun don't shine.

Do you eat with that mouth?

Quote:

What about an event that has other sources and evidence?

I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself just so you can promote more nothingness as evidence. You'll have to do it all on your own.

Quote:

This is kind of sad to see how far you will go to put out of your mind the truth about Jesus.

I've embraced the truth about Jesus: he died over 2,000 years ago and has, as all dead people, remained dead ever since.

Quote:

No, I would not be comfortable with that at all!

Oh, you wouldn't embrace the truth about Zeus? What is your problem?

Quote: FrGamble

Thank you. What it clearly does NOT mean is that there is no God.

What it clearly does mean is the lack of
evidence points directly at there being
no god. For me, the complete lack of
evidence means I can take the stance
that god does not exist. Lack of evidence=
lack of god. Obviously.