Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by natanael on February 14, 2011 at 6:30pm

There is no evidence, that's it :)

Permalink Reply by Ed on February 15, 2011 at 8:02pm

Kevin,

 

It's OK to fear death. I personally don't but I can understand if someone finds the end of their existence frightening. There are  many people on this planet who rely on logic and reasoning to provide explanations of the world we live in. They will refuse to take that necessary step of "faith" to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being. You will not change their mind. Without EVIDENCE the proposition of an invisible being holds no water. Charm and persuasion will always fall short.

 

That being said I have no problem living next to someone who likes this romantic notion of a god. If that makes them feel good so be it. Just don't expect your atheist neighbor to change. And please don't attempt to persecute them for such radical thought.

 

Five thousand years from now, barring any large collision with a BIG rock, the last vestiges of god and religion will only be found in the history books as we continue to evolve and discard that which has no relevance.

 

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on February 15, 2011 at 11:47pm

I think Kevin has talked this whole damn thread in circles with his cleverly elaborate and intelligent-sounding, but ultimately meaningless and empty psychobabble.  He's fallen into darn near all of the logical fallacies deployed by religious thinkers, even used circular reasoning a time or two(can't know that you know that you know is a classic), and has set up a situation where God is free from being empirically tested through the scientific method but that "other kinds of evidence" exist, and ergo God exists, but the null hypothesis standpoint of atheism and the existence of other gods should still be subject to the scientific method(and indeed they should).  And he doesn't even see the hubris he's fallen into.

Permalink Reply by John Siqueiros on February 18, 2011 at 10:43am

This is getting tiresome, agreed. This topic has lived on for almost a week, and Kevin keeps contributing to it, but it's beaten to death by now. I think it's time for him to give his next article - titled something like "Here's the Evidence for God," and let's move the discussion along.

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on February 18, 2011 at 11:00am

Yeah, not much evidence was presented in this time frame. I think we should all move on because there is nothing interesting to see here, only meaningless rhetoric that can be easily summed up in "I want to believe".

Permalink Reply by Boci Boci Tarka on February 17, 2011 at 4:18pm

'God' does not have a coherent ontology. We cannot prove something whose qualities we do not know.

 

Any logical 'proof' on the other hand is just using logic outside it's realm of applicability. I've written about it, but briefly: it seems logical that velocities are additive (the train goes with v1, you walk with v2 on the train, then your velocity relative to the ground is v1 + v2 - hello Galileo) - but there is no way you could logically find out that there is a limit to speeds (that of light, hello Einstein). The use of logic must be empirically justified. And in this case we still don't have a coherent ontology.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 12
• 13
• 14
• Next ›
• Page