I don't think so. My point is what requirements a being would have to fulfill to qualify as being omnipotent, and that the attributes usually given to god (like omnipresence and immortality) should probably be sufficient to call someone/ something omnipotent from a human perspective.
Didn't read the book, but i'm confident Hawking's assertion is not as strong as the headlines imply. And once again i am aghast at how distant scientific thinking is from the general mindset. Sokal had a point after all.
Hey man, atheism is a stupid position to hold when there is no proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyG-WiiOii4"]YouTube- The question that terrifies atheists[/ame]
I know you're being sarcastic, but that question always makes me laugh. Atheism doesn't need evidence or proof, lul, it's the lack of belief in a God, which is the direct consequence of there being no compelling evidence for the existence of a God. Do I need proof to believe that elephants can't create jetpacks and fly around the Earth?
Wrong. This is the burden-of-proof fallacy. If you're going to assert a positive (such as X exists), then you are the one in need of evidence to justify your position. Hence, the notion of asking atheists for evidence of their position is both laughable and painfully fallacious.
I positively assert that my grandma existed. Am I needed to provide proof of it? If you were talking to a missionary, what you said might be correct. Since the average believer won't try to convert people though, demanding proof is not only out of proportion here but also missing the subject (faith) I think it's more laughable to 1) constantly question someone's opinions and then 2) hide behind the assertion that you don't need to justify your point. Note that in no other discussion you would get away with that; some rebuttal, at least, would be expected.
I think Grindstone's point is that saying "There definitely isn't a God" (which nobody was saying anyway) is exactly as irrational as saying "There definitely is a God". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
pretty much that, yes. Unless, of course, you had personally had contact with god, in which case it would be perfectly rational to say he exists
chrono can correct me if I'm wrong, but this smells an awful lot like a strawman fallacy. First of all, no one is saying that you have to go around and provide evidence for every assertion you make; however, certain topics demand it. For example, if you asserted with absolute conviction that the Loch Ness monster is very real, then I would demand the proof that brought you to this conclusion. It would be preposterous to ask me to prove that the Loch Ness doesn't exist. Second of all, the above statement requires no proof because we as humans are very familiar with how offspring are produced and how life reproduces, so I already know that you had a grandma at some point (two, in fact!). This statement has so much evidence already attached to it that I already know it's true, the evidence being that you are sitting here typing these messages. This assertion that allows me to not have to justify my stance on this issue is well-known and recognized by countless persons, God-believers and not, so it's hardly a novel excuse that I am making just now. Also, it's unfair to accuse me of constantly questioning people's opinions considering we are having a conversation on an internet forum, which has the sole purpose of allowing us to have conversations in the first place.
That's a statement that I would agree with, and if that's the case, I'm not sure what Grindstone is arguing here. I certainly wouldn't claim with absolute certainty to know that God doesn't exist. You would have a hard time finding any atheist that would be certain that God doesn't exist.
I don't think it would be preposterous to either 1) not believe me or 2) simply believe what I said. What you are doing is arbitrarily picking things you want to be proven by me and things you don't. The grandmother was a bad example as anyone is required to have two grandmothers; let's go with an uncle. Am I required to have an uncle? No, but it's possible. Do undiscovered life forms exist? Possibly, since they haven't been discovered yet. My assertion that I have an uncle need not be any more or any less true than my assertion that there is a god (or Nessie). In both cases I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone (since I don't see the need to convince them). The difference here is that proving the existence of my uncle to you would be easy since you would be pressured to accept even flimsy evidence like a picture of some guy who I claim is my uncle; while, in the case of god, I personally cannot imagine what kind of proof would be enough to convince you. A picture maybe? Or a DNA sample? His birth certificate? But even these could be fake, and I am very much inclined to believe that this stoic disbelief of atheists makes all attempts to prove the existence of god futile (which is one reason why I never feel the need to prove it). I do question its validity very much though. Sad thing so many believers seemingly feel the need to justify themselves whenever someone demands it I'd like to reiterate my point that personal experience of god would make it perfectly rational to say he exists btw
Everything exists. A sound exists for as long as somebody can hear it. But does that sound cease to exist just because nobody can hear it any longer?
This statement makes no sense. This is true for you maybe, but not true for the guy in the youtube video I posted (which sparked this discussion), who has made it his life mission to try and convert atheists to Jesus Christ. So really it sounds like you're agreeing with me on this point. Well, if there is a God that in any way interacts with this universe, then surely there would be some kind of evidence of this interaction. Alternatively, if he gave you a staff that turns into a snake like God did to Moses to prove himself, that'd certainly convince me in a heartbeat Well that's fine, but if you're going to question the validity of well-established concepts commonly used in public debate, then I see no sense in continuing our own public (quasi) debate
I think it does, maybe re-read Yes that's what I said. It is understandable when people demand some substance, though not necessarily proof, from a missionary. then again why didn't he just hijack a news studio to broadcast his little snake trick in front of a wider audience Seriously though, the problem of scepticism has occupied theologists for some time; why does god not simply disclose his existence to all in a grand show of force (or whatever)? do as you like, though I really doubt that the fact that a believer should be expected to provide proof is as well established as you think edit: no I'm actually pretty sure this is a fallacy of yours.
Because I am not aware of such a consense. Then again I do know, like I said above, that many believers do feel the need to bite the bait of "burden of proof", though it's really not necessary here.
Well if you want to familiarize yourself with the consense go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof This is also commonly used in courts where, you know, it's kind of important to 'prove' things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
ok, it's consense that Christians should accept the burden of proof because it has a Wikipedia entry I still reject it on the grounds I gave above
ITT Grindstone lacks the basic understanding of how the world works. If one claims something exists, then they must provide evidence to support that assertion. If they cannot, there is absolutely no basis or merit behind their position. I mean strawmen are wonderful, but they don't get us anywhere or deal with the inherent lack of proof in the case for a creator. So, if you assert that a God exists, then in order for your point to be taken seriously or even considered you need to supply evidence to support it. My disbelief in anything you concoct in your mind doesn't necessitate proof, because there is no evidence in the first place to create an issue for my point of view; lack of belief in something that cannot be proven to exist.
ITT chrono explains to us how the world works You do not get the point. If I claimed that I love my gf, and you'd ask for proof, that would be strange enough to begin with. If I told you that I cannot give you any and therefore you wouldn't believe me, whose position would have no merit? Who asserted that a "burden of proof" goes with the statement that you love someone? You can choose to believe me or not, which is essentially what it comes down to when someone claims the existence of god. Contrary to the Middle Ages, there is no claim for political power associated with it, and since it doesn't touch on matters of public concern anymore, there is no need for anyone to supply proof. see above
Can you argue without using strawman fallacies? I'll give you another chance. Address the point without using a strawman.
I'll give you the chance to come up with a rebuttal of your own without using the word strawman (oh wait that's the P/R equivalent of 'troll' )
You know what a strawman is, right? It's when you misrepresent an argument, then attacked the distorted version of the argument, and pretend you've refuted it, when you've actually just ignored the actual argument. In other words; all of your posts heretofore... I didn't make any argument about love, so we will not discuss love as it pertains to my arguments about your lack of proof concerning your God, which you need in order to facilitate and hold a logical position about whether or not He exists.
I'll give you something else instead: the presumption that any statement must be proven before it can be believed is flawed; if this is indeed the foundation of atheism, then atheism is incompatible with reality.
I see what you're doing here, and it won't help you since drawing parallels is absolutely valid in a discussion.
Nothing is parallel, which is why it's a strawman fallacy. You can't compare completely separate and incongruous concepts that have a shred of overlap then attack one as if it were the other.
Can you prove to me the statement that the summer sun feels hot on your skin? If not, must we necessarily conclude that you are wrong? The elements I want to note here are: 1) it's not possible for you to prove that the sun feels hot on your skin, so I can choose wether or not to believe you. According to atheist logic as it has been presented here, it would only be rational to not believe you. 2) Moreover, in keeping with this logic, your own sensation must be flawed too, because if the phenomenon of a hot feeling would truly exist you should be able to prove it. Atheism is not compatible, or not in keeping, with human reality because every day we accept the existence of things we could not prove if we were forced to.
I suspect so, but I'll play along for a bit longer. Yes, I can easily prove this. Heat in the gas phase is merely a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles that constitute the gas. In the solid/liquid phase (like the skin), it's merely the intensity of oscillations of the atoms that comprise my skin (well, liquid phase is more complicated, but that's irrelevant). Luckily, we have an easy way to measure this property, it is called a thermometer. Now, heat transfer occurs via different pathways, and in the case of the sun, it's what is called radiative heat transfer. The photons emitted from the sun are absorbed by the atoms of my skin, causing them to oscillate more intensely, which raises the temperature of the skin. This can be measured with the aforementioned thermometer. Thus, I can do a control study where I measure my skin temperature outside, in a shady spot. Then I can stand in the sun for an hour or two (at risk of getting skin cancer perhaps) and measure the temperature of my skin with a thermometer, and there should be a notable difference. This empirical result of course only confirms what my brain has already told me, that the sun is hot on my skin. Of course, I don't think atheism necessarily posits that everything must be provable if it is to be believed. That sounds more like materialism to me, so you really just made another strawman by starting this new argument.
