If you are capable of "observing, experiencing, sensing, seeing, hearing, touching or measuring" something, it means that it does not exist, however when you don't have the ability to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" something, then you cannot say with full conviction that it does not exist, this is the whole point. Example: TheWebby: There's an apple on your table. Me: No, there is no apple on my table because I cannot "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" it, therefore it is not there. ^ Here I have the capability of "observing, experiencing, sensing, seeing, hearing, touching or measuring" because you said the apple is on my table, I know what an apple looks , when I checked it wasn't there, therefore it does not exist on this table. Another example: Me: God exists outside this universe TheWebby: I cannot "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" Him therefore He does not exist. You're argument here is doesn't work, you don't have the capability of "observing, experiencing, sensing, seeing, hearing, touching or measuring" God because I told you he is outside the universe, and you know yourself that you cannot reach the outside of this universe. So if you cannot [while having the capacity to] "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" something it simply does not exist, as I said before..however if you have no capability of observing, experiencing, sensing, seeing, hearing, touching or measuring something, then you have no right to say that it does not exist.
TheWebby: No, this is an invisible Apple, a special kind that has not been discovered yet, so you can not observe it now. But in next 10,000 years they will discover it and they will make the goggles that will allow you to see it. You: ............................ Another example: You: God exists outside this universe, you cannot "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" him, because you don't have the ability yet. Me: Can you "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" God? You: No, I can not either. Me: There is no God, There is a Three Headed Clown Monster, he hates to be called God, you cannot "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" him, because you don't have the ability yet.. You: How do you even know that? Me: I just know... You: ..................................
I will not affirm its existence nor will I deny it. Can you do that with God? I have edited your text into this: Me: Pluto exists outside this planet, you cannot "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" it, because you don't have the ability yet. You: Can you "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" God? Me: No, I can not either. You: There is no Pluto, Pluto does not exist. Me: How do you even know that? You: I just know... -- Do you see how stupid your argument is?
Yes I can, but can you? I can accept that there is a chance, however tiny and remote, that God may exist. Can you do that with God? Can you accept that there is a chance, even 1 in million, that God may not exist at all and everything that you believe is a fairytale?
No, I cannot accept that because I have proof that God exists, therefore I can safely say "God exists." You have no proof that God does not exist, therefore you cannot say "God does not exist". Do you finally understand?
First you must acknowledge that absence of proof is not always proof of absence. You may have already acknowledged this, but I need another confirmation just to be sure. Once you have done that, then we can change the subject, something you have been trying for some time now.
If that is true of god, that humans lack the capacity to observe and measure god, then it's true for you too, and means you can't, as you have claimed to, "know" god exists. If god is inherently impossible for us to experience, measure and observe then that is just as true for the people who claim to know it exists. Do you get a kick out of continuously making the same mistake i said you'd make? is it some kind of humiliation fetish? The lack of evidence for god is just as much evidence for it's nonexistence as it is for the assertion that there isn't a big cat on your lap. neither are proof, because proof exists only in mathematics, but a lack of evidence is evidence for it's nonexistence. But is is evidence of it's nonexistence. Just like the lack of evidence for a big cat on your lap lead you to believe that one does no exist. You seem to want to be exempt from the rules you insist everyone else abide by. Typical of the religious.
hm, that's what I thought... Cut the crap mate and show me the proof. Prove that God exists and shut me up once and for all. Either that or accept that you have mo proof and there is a chance that God may not exist at all. Unless you do that, don't bother replying with crap.
Read my last post. I know it's hard to drop something you believed in for so long. You seem to think that the only way of proving the existence of something is by "observing, experiencing, sensing, seeing, hearing, touching or measuring" it. A painting is proof of the painter, you don't need to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" the painter. Proof is "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." this the definition I go by, I don't care how you define it. If you do not have proof for Pluto 1000 years ago, does it mean that it does not exist? In those times you would say "I don't know whether there's another planet"..you don't come to the conclusion [using the limited knowledge that you have] that another planet does not exist. Absence of proof, is not ALWAYS proof of absence, this is a fact.
No it's not. For it to be proof of a painter you would have to assert that it is impossible for paint to have taken that formation by randomly falling on to a canvas by means that required no conscious actions which, while improbable, is not impossible. It is, however, evidence for the existence of a painter. "Proof" would require a painter to be the only means by which that paint could have arrived on the canvas. Sorry, are you actually this stupid or is it just a facade that enables you to justify this monumental intellectual cowardice? I'm not saying that the lack of evidence is proof that something doesn't exist. What part of this simple concept are you having difficulty grasping? I'm saying when there is a lack of evidence supporting an assertion it is evidence that the assertion is false. Whether than be your god or the big cat on your lap, where there is no evidence supporting the assertion that it does exist it is evidence that it doesn't. Not proof that it doesn't exist and it doesn't make it inherently impossible to exist, but a lack of evidence is evidence is evidence supporting the rejection of the assertion. You took the lack of evidence supporting the claim that a cat is on your lap and concluded that one isn't. What's the difference? Why do you accept this principle so willingly when i assert there is a cat on your lap but claim it's not valid when your god is concerned? You seem to rely entirely on this logical double standard. You're basically rewording what i already said and are claiming it's a refutation of my points. I think the trouble here is you don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is a fact that supports, with other facts, a conclusion. Proof is an irrefutable fact that inherently means an assertion is irrifutibly true.
If Proof is "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Then this painting is proof of a painter: Are you denying there's no painter for this painting? 1. lack of evidence supporting an assertion is evidence that the assertion is false. 1000 years ago there was a lack of evidence that another planet existed, therefore whoever made the assertion that another planet exists, his assertion was a false one.
Out of interest, where did you get the definition of proof to mean "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."? Was it here? Because that is a blog post reviewing a book and that definition is manufactured by someone who has commented on the review. Interestingly the only places that sentence can be found is on forum/blog posts where the subject is god, it's almost as if the filthy liars have made it up to support their conclusion, but that can't be true of the religious, they are usually so honest and not at all intellectually bankrupt. You're still having a hard time grasping this aren't you. I realise your capacity is a limited one, but try reading this very carefully, it's not that difficult, there's a good lad. There being no evidence to support an assertion does not inherently make the assertion false, but it does support the rejection of the assertion. Again, you rejected the assertion that there is a cat on your lap. Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest that there is a cat on your lap. What is the difference? If you use the lack of evidence supporting the assertion to conclude it is a false one, what part of that reasoning can't be used regarding an argument for the existence of god? You don't get to have it both ways i'm afraid. You don't get to apply one set of logical principles to make your own conclusions and then claim when others use exactly the same reasoning that it is incorrect. We are fast approaching the bit where you give up, and if you don't, you fucking should do. Because what invariably happens when the religious get to this point is they are forced to sacrifice every ounce of self respect and dignity and have to resort to acting like some kind of mentally deficient ape in order to manufacture and excuse for not understanding the simplest of concepts.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof?region=us http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Must be a coincidence that the only people who show up for a search for that sentence are the religious. A more cynical person would say they deliberately look for definitions that suite their agenda. The sad thing is, it doesn't even suite their agenda.
Astox I thought I am a mean sadistically sarcastic person but I stand in awe in front of you! Way to go Idaho!
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=ps...gc.r_pw.&fp=8e0c53e5d571130d&biw=1066&bih=570 If I want I could use "proof" to mean a cheese cake, it's upon you to ask what I mean by proof before you start accusing me of things. So when you say "God does not exist" you are only rejection the assertion, not accepting God's existence nor denying His existence. You should say "I reject the assertion that God exists" not "God does not exist". Because saying "God does not exist" rules God out 100%, unless you want to play with words again. You also just want to pick on words and enforce your definitions on me as if there's one definition for words, you pick on minor issues to run away from the hard questions, I see how that works. I rejected the assertion that there's a cat on my lap because the cat was absent from my lap. God exists outside this universe, go there, check for yourself, He is there, of-course you don't have the ability to do so, until then you cannot reject the existence of God. You may "reject the assertion", not affirming nor rejecting the existence of God.
You seem to think that the only way of proving the existence of something is by "observing, experiencing, sensing, seeing, hearing, touching or measuring" it. A well written book is the proof of a writer you don't need to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" the writer in order to know that a writer of this book exists, a book does not write itself, there must be a writer. If you want to know the proof of God, you should know that there are multiple ways of proving God, one of them is creation, creation is proof of a creator, and that creator is no other than God. Creation does not create itself, there must be a creator.