Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Point being, if they are "informally" saying that God exists, you can only "informally" argue back that God doesn't exist. You cannot draw empirical conclusions based on premises that are themselves not mathematical in nature, not computable and definitely not verifiable. It's a syllogistic fallacy that draws an affirmative conclusion from unsupported premises and false attributions.
"God doesn't exist" is an affirmative conclusion that you drew based on unsupported premises and false attributions.
"God exists" is an affirmative conclusion that they drew based on unsupported premises and false attributions.
We don't have enough information to lend credence to any one conclusion out of these two. Hence we leave it as an indeterminate.
I will say again, atheism is rejecting the claim that God exists because of lack of proof. Rejecting a claim != making a claim. Of course we can't say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, you can't prove a negative. What we are saying that there is not enough proof currently to support the existence of God.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
The problem here is, I don't know what "all powerful" means to you and what I am supposed to infer out of that. You cannot quantify "all powerful".
Let me illustrate the problem with an analogy in the form of Sorites paradox. You are basically asking me whether what I see is a heap of sand or not and I am asking you back what makes a heap, a heap. Is one grain of sand, a heap? Is two grains of sand, a heap? Is a million grains of sand, a heap? How would I know where exactly you drew a line for your definition of a heap of sand? We either need to quantify a heap of sand or have a general consensus on what a heap stands for.
It's not my definition, I am analyzing the definition given by theists. They attach the attribute omniscience to God. I understand "all powerful" to mean one who can do anything.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Yes, the standard is that the one making a positive claim holds the burden of proof. But to atheists, God is an a priori justification. If every event has a cause, then so does inflationary epoch and so does symmetry breaking. They believe that God caused the very first event. You are claiming that we should go with the first known event as though it is the very first event. There's a BIG difference between first known event and first event. Till we know the events preceding the first known event, the holder of the burden of proof is equivocal.
Again, I am not making claim that it was the very first event. Please don't put words in my mouth. I know it is the first "known" event, which is obvious since we don't know what happened before it. So, I am not making a claim so I have no burden of proof. If theists are making the claim that God caused the first event, they have to explain the cause of God and how god happened to cause the Big Bang. So, since they have actually made a claim, they have the burden of proof.
"Maybe" can be an unfalsifiable concept because it doesn't have any support to begin with. But when theists claim God "does" exist, it is falsifiable because there is no proof.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
I didn't say you did. If you did, that would have been invalidated immediately. I was merely stating that such a day might yet come thanks to science and technology but as of today it appears far off.
Which I have already stated multiple times, so I don't think you need to aware me of that fact.
It was not my logic. It was the logic of theists, that God can exist without creation. I simply applied that to the Universe. I don't think we have enough understanding to explain if something can come from nothing, otherwise we will be going backwards through creation indefinitely.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Asserting that there was no "before" while at the same time not knowing what comes before 5.39 10-44 sseconds is a little beguiling.
I said "before" as in before time was created, I am not talking about the first instant of which we don't know about.
You have, since the beginning, mentioned things we don't know as a proof that God exists. You didn't provide any proof of the God, rather how he might exist. And that's what I have negated. "We don't know" is not a proof of God's existence.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
It looks like you are saying that God is as much a fictional concept found in religious texts as, say, Superman is in DC Comics. Fair enough.
Yep, because he has got as much proof of his existence as, say, Superman. Books, believers, and a universe of infinite possibilities.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
The analogy however ends when you have to explain the origin of the universe that we inhabit. The name you give to explain the origin is inconsequential at this point.
Name may be inconsequential, but the idea behind it is not. And the definition that people have given to God is something that they don't have proof of, yet.
Instead of believing things once they get proved, believing in things just because universe has got infinite possibilities and nobody can prove against it.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
2. The attribution to me in your second sentence is completely concocted! I said and I quote myself "if existence is about infinite possibilities, the possibility that God exists is also one of the allowed possibilities." That statement is perfectly logical and perfectly conistent. BTW, discussing infinite possibilities is not the same as discussing an infinite universe.
What I meant from infinite Universe was its infinite possibilities. And yes, I still stand by my statement. A possibility amongst infinite possibilities is a proof that God "might" exist, not that he "does" exist. If we are talking about possibilities here, I agree that God "might" exist but you have to agree that we don't have enough proof currently that he "does" exist. I have no problem with possibility, I have a problem with people stating it as a fact that God "does" exist without providing proof of his existence, which is different from proof of the possibility of his existence.
Originally posted by: K.Universe.
At this point, I see that you started indulging in more contrived talk such as "You are ready to believe anything because it might be, which is true for everything out there" so I would stop here till I get the sense that you are sincere in your debate and not intellectually dishonest.
That's a perfect sincere and serious question. There is no concrete proof of God, juts like other fictional characters. You say there are so many unknowns, so someday we might find God which is true for other fictional characters too. You say universe has infinite possibilities, out of which God's existence may be one. This is equally true for other fictional characters too. All this just establishes that God "might" exists, there is a possibility. And the same can be said for other fictional characters too. There is a possibly that Superman exists, but we consider his actual existence to be childish. I take the same stand for God. But if you are ready to believe in God's existence just because he might exist, what stops you from believing in the existence of other fictional characters just because they might exist? This is a serious question, so don't doge this.
P.S. : A straight question so that I can know your actual stand. Do you believe that God "might" exist or do you believe that God "does" exist?
Hollywood
Naagin 7
Health and Fitness
Cricket
