"Feels hot" is 100% subjective and there's no sense in trying to prove something subjective. I felt hot reading your argument, though
Why not? Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it can't be empirically proven to be grounded in reality. The 'feels hot' statement is a perfect example of something subjective that can also be 'proven'. If I took a hundred people and placed each persons hand inside a pan full of bowling water, I can safely predict that, whatever their subjective view on 'feels hot' is, they will unanimously agree that the pan of water feels REALLY hot.
no, you cannot: while you might be able to measure a certain change of temperature on your skin, this could be attributed to numerous other factors; an illness like a fever for example. Now it might seem strange at first that this fever comes in bursts relative to you standing in the sun or not, but then diseases do not always take the same form in everybody. Or it may be an as of yet unheard disease. The simple fact that you are "feeling something hot on your skin" can never be proven; I might just as well admit that the sun makes the temperature on your skin rise, and could still refute the claim that you are able to feel this change in temperature. The point here is that you cannot disprove that anything can be disbelieved, and this is exactly what atheists do in this regard. Nothing can be proven to an extent that it could not be refuted, no matter how far fetched the argument, and atheists begin their argument with the premise that they find the existence of god unlikely. It is therefore clear that they will be at the same position at the end of the argument, no matter what the other side has brought forth.
Why are you addressing Atheists as if they're an organized group of people that have an agenda and identical set of principles/beliefs? You realize the only requirement for an Atheist is that they don't adhere to any of your nonsensical, cult nonsense, right? lol
First off, the principles in my previous explanation are grounded in hundreds of years of well-established principles based on countless empirical evidence. These principles were used to design the computer you're currently typing on, so the fact that something so complex functions flawlessly is indicative of the quality of these principles. They are also sufficient to explain appearance of the subjective feeling of heat one experiences. Your english is making it hard to follow your argument, but I have the feeling that you're just regurgitating the same line of logic you were using on the previous page, which both chrono and I addressed.
the fact that I'm typing on a computer right now doesn't really add or subtract anything here I'd say. Unless you want to say that the existence of computers is sufficient proof for the validity of science, which has never established the existence of god, so therefore his existence cannot be recognized; which I'd still call fallacious and far-fetched. I was not arguing against the fact that you can measure temperatures via thermometers btw , though they would have to be very sensitive to register a difference in temperature if you exposed yourself to the sun for just some seconds, just long enough for you to experience a "hot" feeling Your english is making it hard to follow your argument, but I have the feeling that you're just regurgitating the same line of logic you were using on the previous page, which both chrono and I addressed.[/QUOTE] my English is not bad here I'd say, I think you have trouble following the argument. Which is alright somehow considering the subject.
Well, that's not what I'm arguing at all, so your entire rebuttal is worthless. God is in no way involved in our current discussion, nor is atheism; as I previously mentioned, atheism doesn't hinge believing only what can be proven, that's called 'materialism'. Try again. Also, elaborate on this please:
i think grindstone should have a single thread in which to convince others that what he believes it's true.
nop, I'm not trying anything. What you said was: "the principles in my previous explanation are grounded in hundreds of years of well-established principles" which is exactly what I said, you are trying to use the validity of science to back up your argument, which isn't necessary and doesn't refute my point. it's simply a strawman because nowhere did I speak of an organization of atheists, I used the term atheists to describe, well, atheists.
I am still addressing your silly 'feels hot' argument. We're not talking about God currently. Your rebuttal focuses on God. Therefore, your rebuttal is irrelevant and void. If I was to draw distorted parallels in the same way that you just did, I can state "you basically just said that believing in God is similar to standing in the sun and attributing the heat you feel to disease"
my "rebuttal" (assuming you are talking about my last few posts) focused on quite a few things, and god was one of them. no, you couldn't. I don't think there's much else to say to it.
Well, since you refuse to yield a proper reply, I'm off to bed. Since you don't believe in burden of proof, I advise you to steer away from criminal law as your profession, though. You'd put a lot of innocent people in jail!
I see that fault on your side, but well except that the situation is entirely the opposite of what my premise was. I don't intend to convince people to believe me (not past their own impression anyway); so why should I have to prove anything? If I wanted to influence a jury, I'd obviously want to convince them. I still hope that you may not die a heathen in your sleep
I thought atheists were those who believed in the non-existence of God. As I don't believe in beliefs, I don't consider myself an atheist.
The problem is that at some point might discover technology that allows us to create such staff. Which creates a little problem because "God" is not a well-defined word, and it might turn out that unless we shift the meaning to a more "supernatural" one every now and then, we're going prove that "God" exists one day (perhaps by becoming "gods"). Also, I don't agree that the burden of proof lies with those that claim that a god exists. First of all, the burden of proof should lie at the unlikely position. Depending on the definition of a god the burden of proof is shifted. For any religion currently existing, the burden of proof lies with the believers, however for a general concept of god this isn't necessarily true, especially with a lousy definition. I still think that god's existence is the improbable choice, because it is a concept we introduce for no good reason and with no good purpose, however, I won't assert anything unless a definition of "god" is established for the discussion.
steven hawking is too smart to claim something to be absolute. science never uses thesis, but anti-thesis.
LOL, what an abomination of a thread, thanks to Grindstone. Then why participate in the discussion? The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the debate over whether God exists stems from the notion that those who believe in God feel it is their duty to change the beliefs of those who do not believe in God, and the opinion of atheists that belief on God is illogical and they should be convinced otherwise. There is no reason to even talk about this if you discard this supposition. Do you not get it that the whole reason people are asking you for proof is that the request comes with the assumption that you, the defender of belief in God, feels that everyone else should change their opinion? Maybe you do not care to change what other people believe, but the fact remains that the majority of actively religious people feel otherwise. Those are the people atheists are in debate with. Most atheists don't really give a shit what you believe if you aren't bothering them about it.
Okay, so let's say I'm building a boat of proof. You can't god that my love is debatable boat. I know atheist believe worth is boat love but debatable trust proof isn't faith God. Burden faith lies with proof boat love. Summer sun building God proof does debatable boat faith. Proof trust isn't worth atheist sun burden.
And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Strangly, many atheists take on this very religious quality, the belief that belief is important for individuals and society.
I've been saying this from the get-go. Saying something definitely doesn't exist because we don't yet have any evidence for it is just bad science. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. All the media outlets crying "LOOK AT THIS WHEELCHAIR-BOUND FAGGOT AND HIS OFFENSIVE ATHEIST BELIEFS, TELLING US THAT OUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST" are full of bullshit. Except the a- at the beginning of atheism (or the ir- at the beginning of irreligion) means lack of belief. It doesn't mean belief in the opposite. You can't convince someone of your beliefs if you don't have any beliefs to try to convince people of.
How about if you read my posts, you will find the answer there. Usually, it will be enough for me to post in a thread containing to religion that I believe in god, and someone will ask me about proof etc. I'm answering to questions, not playing missionary. The debates that I had so far were about why I believe in god or me attacking the notion that disbelief is rational. nop, that's entirely your notion of what religious people are up to. Most of them have no desire to impose their views on anyone, apart from friendly discussions. But like I said in another thread, I'm beginning to understand where this negative image comes from (in Americans). well then people are wrong lol sorry. I think I also said somewhere that it's impossible to "convince" someone to have faith, and asking for it will lead nowhere.
Damn straight. I wrote that shit on my phone while naked and horizontal. Motherfucking integrity all over my place.
I'd never have guessed, it was such a reasonable and coherent refutation of my points. I think I might just become an atheist
By the by, I'm not an atheist. I believe in both God and Jesus Christ. I wasn't satirising your beliefs. I was satirising your complete inability to grasp or articulate a logically sound argument.
