Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, April 18, 11:15:45pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: I have an invisible dragon Author: Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 02/ 5/02 3:26pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "This post has a title." on 02/ 5/02 11:28am >To say that there is no evidence for God is a >rather extreme (and unsupported) claim, as is your >flat claim that the explanation I presented is absurd >(since you have not provided any supporting evidence >for that either). I don't find that an extreme claim at _all_. I think the culture of the world has come to be that there is very likely a God, but this does not make him any more likely. The burden of proof lies with the one who asserts that there _is_ a God. One who hears this assertion and says, "No there isn't" has no such burden of proof. >As for God, one category of evidence is theism’s >explanatory power. Nature consistently operating in >mathematical patterns might be expected if a >rationally orderly God created the universe, whereas >there is no a priori reason to expect this from >atheism. But this goes off the topic. The theory of >creation (as I defined it earlier) does not by itself >entail the existence of any deity. So what if nature operates in mathematical patterns? Maybe this is just the way nature is. How do you know enough to decide what nature ought to be if this or that is true? The idea of God's existence explains the data, sure, but as you have said so many times, that doesn't make it right or even likely. It's like... "I'm not sure how the universe got here, so I'll theorize this invisible, all-powerful being who created it." Does that make it _any_ more likely than my invisible dragon? No, of course not. Just because something fits as an explanation of something else doesn't make it right. Alternatively, you might ask me how I think the universe came about. I could honestly say, "I have no idea!" And that would be fine with me. The universe is so vast and complex that I think it would be beyond my capabilities to explain its existence. It's no shock that humans could come up with a very parent-like being in the sky who takes care of them, but that doesn't lend _any_ rationality to the idea that it might actually be true. Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Interpretation. Wade A. Tisthammer 02/ 6/02 8:17am Getting on out there again -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 9:21am And again. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 6/02 10:01am Some more -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 1:14pm And some more. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/15/02 9:24pm Not so much more -- Damoclese, 02/23/02 5:41pm As I see it ..... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 9:25am A fundamental question... -- Ben, 02/ 6/02 3:09pm A fundamental answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 7/02 6:24pm A fundamental misconception -- Ben, 02/23/02 11:29am Fundamental beliefs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/24/02 12:32pm Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more -- Ben, 02/25/02 7:15pm A fundamental order to the universe. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/02 5:37pm You put the FUN in fundamental -- Ben, 03/20/02 10:43pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:43am You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:40pm Tying up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:22pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:59am Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/28/02 10:12am Symbolilc Pitfall? -- Damoclese, 03/28/02 12:02pm Not yet. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/02 12:50pm How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am you now have a definition ........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 1:28pm not this again. .......... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 10:06am