Atheism/Theism Offshoot Thread

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:11 pm

And now, this isn't exactly directed at Wil, but was inspired by his post.
Before atheists start thinking that atheism is the rational, evolved form of human thought, I'd like to introduce you to the brand of atheism that exists after the Soviet regime was brought down. These guys haven't really thought it out. They aren't too arrogant about that position, because they don't really bother thinking about it. Those that are still atheist after religious repression was lifted are often amoral. Russian mafia, anyone?

Should we judge atheists by these people? No. We shouldn't judge Islam by terrorists, either. We shouldn't judge any world view by it's worst practicioners.

Still, I cannot help but think this: The difference between thoughtless atheism and thoughtless theism is that there is at least a moral code imbedded into every major religion. If a religious person is not acting by that code, they are going against their religion. While atheists rightly claim that such a state does not guarantee immorality, it certainly does nothing to support it. Any ethics and moral behavior the atheist practices is derived from religion.
Amka, you know full well that is the cheapest of cheap shots. Associating atheism with immorality and degradation. And then saying, "But never mind." That's the worst form of argument.

And it's also RULE #5 of Boothby's five rules of theological debate. I've already predicted your churlish behavior.

Besides, I've met plenty of thoughtless theists with no moral values whatsoever. Plus let's not forget--priests sexually molesting young boys, evangelists having extramarital sex while smoking crack-cocaine. You've got immoral behavior from "thoughtful" as well as thoughtless theists. And you're complaining about atheists???

Atheists do have moral codes. They may be subtly different from yours, but they exist. Mostly, they are pragmatic, and law-abiding. I can't really help if many of those laws are derived from religion. You know, like being prejudiced against homosexuals. Like killing witches. Like banning premarital sex. Like not eating cheeseburgers. Like not drinking Coca-Cola or coffee. You'll forgive me, I trust, if I violate those moral/religious precepts.

Besides, that has nothing to do with our discussion. We are talking about proving or disproving the existence of God. You are taking pot-shots at atheists, and (therefore) me.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Amka
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Title: Site Admin

Postby Amka » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:24 pm

Rules, eh? I notice that until I treaded onto your familiar territory (and I thought about the reaction I would get) you haven't replied to anything of mind besides the "hi Amka, are you sure they're are other rational religious people out there? Because while my religious friends are rational, I know that most religious people are irrational"

I haven't set up a bunch of 'rules' about how atheists act, but your argument that you could convince any rational person that God doesn't exist was also churlish behavior and not surprising. I guess if I were to bother to come up with predictions as to how Atheists act in an argument, it would be "at some point, we will see the spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn." The spaghetti monster isn't an argument, it's a mockery.

If you can give us "All religious people are irrational" I can give you the "atheists derive their morality from theists" and "Atheists can't claim the moral high ground because look at X,Y,Z" argument. Which, BTW, is different from "All atheists are amoral"

To be honest, the moral ground of Atheists was not even something I considered until they complained about people accusing them, and Dawkins and Hitchens started saying things like "We would solve a lot of problems if we removed religion".

On to the nature of God

One of these is true:

1. God exists, is neutral or capricious, all knowing, and all powerful
2. God exists, is good, all knowng, and all powerful
3. God exists, is neutral or capricious, all knowing, but not all powerful
4. God exists, is good, all knowing, but not all powerful
5. God exists, is neutral or capricious, is not all knowing, and not all powerful
6. God exists, is good, is not all knowing, and not all powerful
7. God doesn't exist.

Now, not all knowing or not all powerful are not necessarily weak. What if God knew everything about every particle and thought process in our universe, but not the other universes that exist outside of it? What if God has the power to move anything in the universe anywhere, but is bound by rules? His own ethics and natural law? The distinction is important and removes the odd paradoxical questions like "Can God create a rock he can't move?"

If 1,3,5, and 7 then it doesn't really matter what we do, and the nature of those gods (or the absence of one) isn't really worth considering since they aren't anything to bother worshipping. (waves to the spaghetti monster)

2 begs the questions: why suffering? why do we even exist? What need does God have of us, in this state?

It is 4 and 6 that give us a God that has any plausibility in the universe.

What about the Old Testament? Doesn't that give us a capricious God? There are two things to consider regarding the old testament. First, it is a collection of records that were, at one point, oral tradition. It is likely that many stories and legends not directly related to man's interaction with God got into the mix. Second, God was dealing with a much more primative people. In fact, it is one of my opinions that the Bible itself, once we remove a literal interpretation of the creation story, supports evolution. A lot of behavior that was acceptable then is inexcusable now. God allows men their free will, and could only work within the confines of their society. There is even mention of this within the old testament. When they failed to obey the higher law given to them, God imposed upon the Israelites the Law of Moses that was very detailed in ritual and requirements, in order to remind them of how they should act.

I mention this scripture not to reference any proof of God, but the nature of God within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, since it is who I believe in and the one attacked by western atheists.

So back to 4 and 6. Why can't God be all powerful? Easy: free will. A rock that God cannot push. What is so important about free will? I fear that I can only give a Mormon answer to this, since I have seen nothing satisfactory come out of any other Christian religion. We are literal children of God, and our purpose here is to learn things while we are under a blanket of ignorance regarding God. How do the mice act when the cat has been gone so long that no one living has seen it?

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:31 am

God is a Schrödinger's cat. He both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. The only way to open the box is to die.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:09 pm

Amka,

Well, your response to Seamusz, regarding existence <> proof, I agrreed with, and I should have said so.

And...
I think you have overstepped reason to say that God cannot be proved by the Scientific Method. I say that God could be proved if we had enough ability to gather accurate data.
When I said, "God cannot be proved by the scientific method," I meant "because "He" does not exist. Not because of any shortcoming in the method, or in data collection.

But I guess that there will always be something you can't disprove with the scientific method? How about the statement "Sheep can fly"? I can show you a million sheep, all grounded (or, perhaps, lightly breaded), but there's always that possibility, isn't there, that we've missed that one, singular flying sheep.
What if we studied every person seeking answers to the question, Is there a God? What if we could determine their state of mind? Exactly what questions did they ask, and what was their method? In fact, we have requirements outlined in scripture that could be tested: humility and hope are very important. The leap of faith is an important factor. If we could determine if those were actually a part of the process, I think we could start to gain some valid answers.

Anecdotal evidence becomes statistical once enough data with enough detail is accumulated.
I seem to recall a study done years ago. People were shown a drawing of a guy swinging a weight by a string around his head. The question was: when the guy releases the string, what is the resultant trajectory of the weight? Does it fly off in an arc, does it fly off straight? Does it stop and drop to the ground?

Now you'd think that people would have had enough real-world practical experience with such things that they'd all get it right. WRONG! A large majority said the weight would fly off in an arc (it flies off straight).

So what does "state of mind" have to do with it (besides RULE #4: "God exists because people believe that He exists."), and what is the point of relying on anecdotal evidence?

IF GOD EXISTS, HE WILL LEAVE OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE EVIDENCE. Otherwise, as you said to Seamusz, what's the point of a God, if the world is no different "with Him" than without him?
Are you going to scientifically prove that your wife/mother/friend/partner/whatever loves you?
I don't know how to say this gently, so I'll just out and say it: Of course! We all do it, every day! "Does he love me? He's not really acting as if he loves me" "Of course I love you! Aren't I always there for you? Didn't I kneel next to you and wipe the vomit from your face the last time you had the flu?"

You create a hypothesis, you determine a method for testing that hypothesis, you collect data and compare it against the criteria, and you come to a conclusion. I should really add the whole "Are you going to scientifically prove that your whatever loves you?" as yet another typical theist attempt to discredit rational thinking (but that's Rule #3, anyhow)

I'll come back later to discuss the possible natures of God. What I'm not getting from your list, however, is what's the point of God in ANY of the choices. What did He do that's so important? I know that in the Mormon faith, He didn't even create the universe--the universe was always there. And for some of them, I see no difference in your statements between God and a regular person, or an "alien" for that matter:
5. God exists, is neutral or capricious, is not all knowing, and not all powerful
Substitute "Steve" for God, and it's still a correct statement. And therefore meaningless/useless.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:03 pm

My silence on the question equals acquiescence?

Puh-lease.
lol! Then answer the blasted question!!!
You've still yet to tell me what this "god" thing is that I'm trying to disprove.
That is because in order to disprove God you have to disprove any and all Gods that May exist. Any evidence or proof of no God would have to cover the concept of a supreme being.
All you've said is that "God created the universe"

What evidence do you have that God (or, specifically, your particular God) created the universe? Or that the universe was created at all (in other words, perhaps it was always here)?
This is the whole point. Two scenarios God and No God

God scenario: He created the everything. Thus everything is evidence of his existence. No God - No everything.

No God scenario: Everything always existed. Thus.... nothing - no beginning, no end, and no way of knowing the difference.

So everything is possibly evidence of God, but it is not evidence of No God, because we still have no clue how everything began.

And isn't this what this whole thread started about? This shows that, based on evidence and reason, there is a greater likelihood of there being a God as to No God. In fact, since there is no evidence of the non-existence of God, and a lot of evidence of the possible existence of God, then the existence of a God is Infinitely more probable than the non-existence of God.
And you're still missing something important, here:
Your opinion may be that their witness is unreliable or unsubstantial, but that does not eliminate their witness as evidence
In fact, it does. Scientific method, remember? Repeatability. Think "cold fusion." Plus for every one witness who claims to have spoken to God, and might actually say something sensible ("God told me that it is going to rain on Tuesday"), I've got fifteen crazy people living in the New York subway system who claim that God told them to stick a rat's rear end to their lips and play it like a clarinet.
I also doubt those crazy folk are truly following through with Gods instructions, but really, there is no way of knowing. Maybe God has a great sense of humor and is just messin with you. And as for the sensible examples sensible revelations.... I would say that your Eternal Salvation might be a little more sensible than the weather on Tuesday... But thats because I know that you are a child of God!

EDIT: Fixed the quotes
Last edited by seamusz on Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Amka
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Title: Site Admin

Postby Amka » Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Dr. Mobius,

I like that. I think that is a very apt analogy. The only problem is, if God doesn't exist then when we die we also cease to exist and will not know that we were right. The only way we could possibly know if we were right were if A) There is an afterlife, B) God existed, and C) we believed he existed before we died.

Seasmuz:
So everything is possibly evidence of God, but it is not evidence of No God, because we still have no clue how everything began.
Okay, that is a more true statement than "everything is evidence of God."

Boothby:
When I said, "God cannot be proved by the scientific method," I meant "because "He" does not exist. Not because of any shortcoming in the method, or in data collection.
You know that is a scientifically untenable position, don't you? You believe there is no God. It is your hypothesis. But you do not know.

Your story about the study is interesting, but it demonstrates ignorance, not how stupid people are. It also demonstrates a lack of intuitive sense about the forces of physics. But this doesn't really comment on any kind of knowledge or understanding outside of that field.
"Does he love me? He's not really acting as if he loves me" "Of course I love you! Aren't I always there for you? Didn't I kneel next to you and wipe the vomit from your face the last time you had the flu?"
That is anectodal, not scientific.

But if THAT kind of evidence is acceptable to you, then I have a few personal stories.

In 1833 God told Joseph Smith that his people were commanded not to drink alcohol or smoke (among other things). The health hazards of smoking were not known at the time. Indeed, it was often thought of as being beneficial for health.

All scientific evidence is pointing towards me being genetically alcoholic. Ancestors were alcoholic. I have a really bad sweet tooth. During that time when I would have experimented with alcohol, I had low self esteem.

I didn't know connect any of this when I was a teenager. I simply followed the rules of my religion. And now, all I can do is literally thank God that I never followed that path. When I was pregnant, and read all the 'do nots' I didn't have to change my lifestyle one bit. This is a personal evidence. Anecdotal. Repeatable, in fact. Because every woman who follows what God told Joseph Smith, the Word of Wisdom, finds out the same thing: that she has already protected her baby from harmful substances.

So, is that meaningless? But that is the more overt of my personal evidence. I go to church every week. I am continually reminded about what sort of person God expects me to be. The dominant theme is "Love your neighbor. Love is an action word and everyone is your neighbor." My understanding of this is continually reviend and improved. My ability to act in such a manner increases. My happiness increases. That is meaningless?

I challenge you to go to a serious church service and Sunday School (any one hour learning class related to scripture and not "we are right, they are wrong") adding up to two hours a week, and then come back and say "meaningless" to me.

So you want to say that it is all men and women doing this, and God is not involved? Where is your church?

You find no meaning in God because you choose to spend your time fighting God rather than listening to what God might say and do in your life, or at least understanding what, beyond an afterlife, motivates the religious person.

All of your arguments are about how a theist will act, not about the existance of God or the nature of God (as you claim this thread is about). Stop studying Theists and start studying God.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:45 pm

Amka,

I can take the premise/hypothesis "God Exists" and seek to disprove it by finding contradictory evidence.

But for that, I do need to know the nature of God, besides "God exists. He is either good, neutral, capricious, or evil. He is either all-powerful or not. He is either all-knowing or not."

So, I'll make some educated assumptions. And while I have not studied the bible as much as you, I have studied it. While I have not been to church or temple as often or as seriously as you, I have been to church and to temple.


From Seamusz (though it is usually the first statement defining God) "God scenario: He created the everything. Thus everything is evidence of his existence. No God - No everything. "

Premise: God created the universe (sorry, Mormons).
Corollary: Nothing exists without a creator. All things (such as the universe) must have a beginning.

Premise: God created Man (and woman).
Corollary: Complicated structures cannot develop from simpler structures. (the old 747/junkyard/whirlwind anecdote)


Premise: God loves us as a father loves his son.


Premise: God responds to prayer.


Premise: God tells us (or his prophets) things that later turn out to be pretty good ideas.


Premise: The bible is the word of God, and therefore infallible.




Do you accept these premises as valid? Do you have additional premises to add? Once we are in agreement on them, I will proceed.



And since when did I say "all religious people are irrational"? I said no such thing.


I stated the "How do you know love" scenario as anecdotal, with the hope that you'd see that it actually DOES lead to a more scientific evaluation, and it's an evaluation that people are always making. "Love" means these things to me (A, B, C, D, E). My "whatever" believes that "Love" means F, G, H, I, J. If there is a sufficient overlap between those two sets, and a sufficient number of those criteria are met, then the other person "Loves" you. Because if they're not met...somebody leaves, and moves on. Because you can never know what another person thinks. You can only know how they act.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:55 pm

Oh, and...
So you want to say that it is all men and women doing this, and God is not involved? Where is your church?

You find no meaning in God because you choose to spend your time fighting God rather than listening to what God might say and do in your life, or at least understanding what, beyond an afterlife, motivates the religious person.

All of your arguments are about how a theist will act, not about the existance of God or the nature of God (as you claim this thread is about). Stop studying Theists and start studying God.
Where is my church? I have no church. What does that have to do with anything? Are you chastizing me because I lack a church? What's your point?

I understand what positive things about a belief in God motivates people. Most of the time, it's all pretty beautiful; it really is!

"How a theist will act" ??? ALL of my arguments? First off: No. Secondly: I've asked you and Seamusz about the nature of your God (since I have none), and you've both been fairly reticent about answering (Seamusz less so). Why not ask me what color my non-existent church is painted?
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:54 pm

No way. There is no way you can get down to the nature of God without acknowledging His existence. As soon as you can acknowledge His existence or even possible existence, we can talk specifics.

I am going to make the assumption that you are not used to be on the defensive. As soon as I or anyone defines what their specific beliefs are, you will tear into those beliefs and go off on what you perceive to be inconsistencies. No my friend, you must concede that you cannot disprove the concept of a creator. That is the only way we can move on imo. If you disagree with this reason with me how I am wrong. I think I have been able to show how I am right.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:22 pm

Seamusz,
There is no way you can get down to the nature of God without acknowledging His existence
I'm really sorry, dude, but that is the purest of BS.

Here's a quick reason why: I design things for a living. Ever see Cirque du Soleil's "KA"? How about Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" on Broadway (or in Canada, California, Mexico, or Japan)? How about the rotating whale above Ahab's Restaurant in Spike Lee's "Clockers"?

I designed those. I will admit, I had help on many of them, but I was the lead mechanical engineer on "KA" (for instance).

I spent over a YEAR discussing the "nature" of those designs before they ever existed.

In fact, any one who ever created ANYTHING had to consider its nature before the thing ever existed.

So I really have no idea where you get your concept that "There is no way you can get down to the nature of God without acknowledging His existence", except that you feel you must make that statement in order for you to win the point.
As soon as I or anyone defines what their specific beliefs are, you will tear into those beliefs and go off on what you perceive to be inconsistencies
Exactly right. Why would you expect anything less? You're positing the existence of a SUPREME BEING (invisible and undetectable, and strangely ineffectual, but still, somehow, SUPREME).

When I posited the possible future existence of an 80,000 pound 50' x 25' rotating stage that is raised up on 200,000 pounds of moving structure, spinning at 2 rpm, and tilting forwards 100° from a horizontal position, lifted up on four of the largest hydraulic cylinders ever made by man, controlled by a servo-system that sensed not only position and velocity, but force as well (not your typical servo system), the design team and I sat in front of a room full of engineering specialists from all over the world, and they tried to tear our design concepts to shreds. They didn't, and "KA" is now the most technically complicated show ever produced or currently in production.

And you're afraid that your "God" is so weak and flimsy that one lone person can ruin it for you? Is your God that weak? Is your belief that weak?

All I had to do was defend the engineering behind largest piece of theatrical automation in the world. And I wasn't quite sure, then, that it would really work. You're defending something far more important, aren't you? Something that you are positive beyond a shadow of a doubt that it exists, and (unless you're just one of those thoughtless theists we were discussinbg before) you know what it is, what it does and why it does what it does.

Unless, of course, you later decide to defer to RULE 2, and start to claim "God is a mystery. He works in mysterious ways. We can never know the heart of God, or why He does what He does," in which case, any further discussion with you is a waste of time, since you will use that approach to wriggle out from any challenge I might present. BTW, if I had tried to use that approach at my design review, I would have lost my Professional Engineering license, all respect from my peers, and my company would have immediately lost the contract. I'm used to REAL discussions, with people who really know what they're talking about, and aren't afraid to take a stance (as opposed to Amka's five possible styles of God).

If it makes you feel any better, I'll consider God's "possible existence" the same way I would consider a straw-man argument, or propose the existence of a logical falsehood, just to show that the actual existence of such a construct is not possible.

So, are you up for it?
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:43 am

Dr. Mobius,

I like that. I think that is a very apt analogy. The only problem is, if God doesn't exist then when we die we also cease to exist and will not know that we were right. The only way we could possibly know if we were right were if A) There is an afterlife, B) God existed, and C) we believed he existed before we died.
If god doesn't exist, being right or wrong is irrelevant.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Violet
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:59 am

Postby Violet » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:11 am

All I had to do was defend the engineering behind largest piece of theatrical automation in the world.
Now you're just showing off.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:44 am

Steve, I challenge you to prove that there is no possibility of an undetectable bunny on your head.

Hah! You can't prove something doesn't exist, therefore it must exist! I win! Yay me! Go team!

Come on, seamusz. Are you seriously suggesting that it's our responsibility to prove a negative? The onus on proof lies on the positive, chap. It's not our responsibility to prove something doesn't exist (especially if you can't even define the object we're supposed to disprove); it's your responsibility to prove it does exist.



Amka and Josh, you're neglecting several million possibilities regarding the existence of God. Example: God exists, but the only way to gain his grace is to slaughter twelve newborns every hour. Maybe the Greeks had it right. Maybe the Buddhists do. The truth is that there are so many options that to try and make it a black-and-white issue with two possible outcomes is more than a little specious.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:15 am

Did you really design all those sets???? Wow, that is really neat. Well if you need to talk about the nature of a design for set building, I can totally see that it has to be true for a discussion about God too. :roll:

From the original thread:
Yeah, but I'm saying that the atheists DO have better evidence.
This implies positive evidence of No God. So far, I've not seen any evidence. Do you have any? Not evidence against any particular God. Just evidence that there is no God. Or did you not really mean this? To prove the non-existence of God in the way you are suggesting, you would have to disprove all permutations of the perceived nature of God that exists in humanity. Why don't you just give us all proof that no God can exist. It would much faster.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

User avatar
caretgraff
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:29 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby caretgraff » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am

Dr. Mobius,

You're my favorite.

-caret

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:10 am

OK, since you won't pick a God, I'll pick one for you:

The all-loving, all-caring Judeo-Christian God.

At this point, I would normally just point to an old thread of mine on P-Web: "The God of the 250,000", which discusses the quarter of a million men, women and children who died in the south-east Asian tsunami a few years back. Where was the compassionate god for them? Unfortunately, that thread went away when the old P-Web went down.

Or, I could talk about childhood cancer, rapes and abuse of 4 year olds. People's lives ruined by Catholic priests, or young girls raped by older leaders in some of the odder Mormon offshoot religions. The rape and brutalization of young girls by soldiers in the Congo.

Shall I go on? Sure, there's some beauty to be found in the world. But there are an awful lot of innocents being brutally destroyed on a daily basis. Any good theist apologist, at this point, will come back by saying, "But they will receive their reward in heaven," or "God works in ways we cannot comprehend", or "Mankind always has the choice to stop the slaughter, or to move away from the shoreline, etc., etc." Yada, yada, yada. Meaningless, useless, drivel. Some of it blatantly false.

That's my evidence. That's how it's so much better than the theists' "evidence."


But maybe I over-reached. Maybe Syphon is correct. You cannotr prove a negative. I WAS hoping that you and Amka would actually have the nerve/balls/chutzpah to go out and SAY what it is you believe your God to be, and I could disprove thbe positive. But, apparently, you want to keep harping on the "Steve, go ahead and prove the negative" tack.

I don't have the time or patience for that Sisyphean task.

At this point, you can either prove the existence of your God, or we can all call it quits.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:40 am

Ok, I will then take you post as an admission of defeat.

I have shown that the existence in any God is more provable/probable than the non-existence of no God. If you can't concede the point or reason against the existence of any God. I am done.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:58 am

Does anyone else miss the old pweb "beating one's head against a brick wall" smiley?

Frankly, I've seen places in this discussion where it would apply to both sides, but I have to say seaumusz, I mostly wish for it after I read your posts which do not even pretend to address the legitimate points Steve raises.

I don't have a particular investment in one side or the other of this debate, but I prefer it when all discussants actually, you know, engage each other. Just from the perspective of a spectator.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:13 pm

I freely admit that I haven't moved on since the beginning of this thread. I'm sorry it is redundant. I just think that it is pointless to move on when the original point of the thread won't be addressed. I was thinking that Boothby was the one copping out... I hoped that everyone saw the same thing.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:36 pm

Come on, seamusz. Are you seriously suggesting that it's our responsibility to prove a negative? The onus on proof lies on the positive, chap. It's not our responsibility to prove something doesn't exist (especially if you can't even define the object we're supposed to disprove); it's your responsibility to prove it does exist.
The onus of proof is on both sides. Atheism is not the default starting point.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W

Postby Wil » Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:44 pm

Funny you should mention the all-loving and caring judeo Christian God... how can that kind of God exist when in their bible he specifically kills off every person on earth but Noah and the animals? How can that kind of God exist when he sent his angles down to kill the first born of every person who did not mark their homes?

Not to mention that crazy chapter about being willing to kill your son for God?

That's one pretty f****** up God there.

I say God is a chaotic neutral, if God exists.

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:25 pm

Sea: I can prove God exists!
Steve: Well, let's have it...
Sea: Prove he doesn't!
Steve: Okay, well... define your terms, first.
Sea: I don't have to! That's your job, too!
Steve: Okay, well, since you won't define what you claim to exist, I define the terms as A, B, and C, as that is how it is mostly defined by the world. Here is evidence against A, B, and C.
Sea: Um... GOD EXISTS!!! I win!

Sorry, but that makes me giggle.


Since you're not listening to Steve (and mostly ignoring me), I'll play along. Your "reasoning" for God existing is that you can't fathom a universe without His existence. This isn't proof. This isn't evidence. This is what I call being a toolbox. The fact that you can't imagine it doesn't mean others can't, nor does it mean that it is an impossible scenario. How many people couldn't fathom a universe where the Earth wasn't a center? After all, we all observe things moving in the sky. But we don't feel like we're moving, do we? And the Bible says it's true. Guess what? It wasn't true then; it isn't true now. You're playing a "god of the gaps" game with us and it's more than a little annoying.


Ali,
We've been over this a hundred thousand times. And we're just going to have to disagree. I say there it is impossible to prove that something apparently undetectable doesn't exist. Re: Undetectable bunny. You can't prove it's not there, but that doesn't mean it is. And since I have no positive, empirical evidence that it is, I'd say we'd all be justified disregarding the claim as false. I'd posit that your religious beliefs play more into that disagreement than anything logically unsound about the argument, but that's rather irrelevant, as you'll always disagree.

Something is true until proven false.
Something is false until proven true.

One of these certainly has real-world application. One of these is clearly more illogical than the other. I'll let you figure out how that applies to the subject.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:04 pm

Congratulations to you, then, Seamusz!

Between you and Amka, you hav e used up all six of my "Rules for theological debate."

Including, of course, the well-known RULE #3, which ends with "If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win." "


EL, not to start anothere argument, but I still disagree with this statement:
Atheism is not the default starting point.
If someone claims cold fusion exists, yet can present no proof for it, do you start building a cold fusion power plant? No, you don't. You assume that a thing does not exist until it is shown to exist. No one started building KA until they saw the proofs.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
BonitoDeMadrid
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am
Title: Bonzo was Framed
Location: The exact center of the earth

Postby BonitoDeMadrid » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:00 pm

Funny you should mention the all-loving and caring judeo Christian God... how can that kind of God exist when in their bible he specifically kills off every person on earth but Noah and the animals? How can that kind of God exist when he sent his angles down to kill the first born of every person who did not mark their homes?

Not to mention that crazy chapter about being willing to kill your son for God?

That's one pretty f****** up God there.

I say God is a chaotic neutral, if God exists.
Let's, for simplicity, mark the God cases you've shown above as 1-Noah, 2-Slaughter of the Firstborn, 3-Abraham.

Now, believers, regardless of faith (Islam too and not just Judaism or Christianity, in that matter) would say the following things:
1 and 3- "He just wanted to see if His people were loyal to him"
2- "He wanted to get revenge on the Egyptian pharoah, for the people of Israel- AND, to make sure his promise to Abraham, about the people of Israel getting outta Egypt sometime, he had to do something extreme."

Summarize them up- yes, we have a pretty idiotic God here, which gets revenge despite it being morally wrong to all humans, and has tests for His people which are worse than Fear Factor.
But, you don't look at the good sides of God:
Think of the kingdom of David and Solomon. According to the bible, it was a really good, big kingdom, from which the Israelites ruled a lot of the areas near them, and they lived in peace, according to God's law. The same lord which can be cruel and unusual, is also good to His people.
Look at many stories today, of the rich and famous: many of them came from poor families, and/or have really harsh stories, but here the word of Jesus comes true, and they are the ones who become rich and powerful.
(Note, I am not Christian)

So yes, He has His idiotic, confusing, somewhat even sadistic ideas, but he is still good. Actually, he can be compared to mankind, by his attributes.

All of the above relates to if there is a God; if not, then I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W

Postby Wil » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:38 pm

Oh yes, you make a good point as well. But I personally believe, as said, that if he does exist he must be neutral. He is not good, and Satan/Lucifer is not his polar opposite. Many, many Christians seem to forget these things. He is neutral.. he does both good and bad things evident by the bad things that happen in the world.

Then again, I happen to think that we're nearing the end of our time within the next decade simply because humanity as a whole is getting much, much worse. :P

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:15 pm

BDM,
Actually, he can be compared to mankind, by his attributes
So, how do you know that what was written up in the bible wasn't just describing what mankind did, with a little bit of God-enorsed righteousness layered on to justify the punishments the Jews went through, as well as their ruthless victories? The bible as strongly biased, semi-historical, justifying, self-righteous text makes a heck of a lot more sense.

And, for simplicity's sake, I guess you can say that the Isrealites ruled "According to God's Law," but you could also say that they ruled according to the laws that their priests created, claiming that they were from God.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:49 pm

Sea: I can prove God exists!
Steve: Well, let's have it...
Sea: Prove he doesn't!
Steve: Okay, well... define your terms, first.
Sea: I don't have to! That's your job, too!
Steve: Okay, well, since you won't define what you claim to exist, I define the terms as A, B, and C, as that is how it is mostly defined by the world. Here is evidence against A, B, and C.
Sea: Um... GOD EXISTS!!! I win!

Sorry, but that makes me giggle.

If you look at the thread a bit more closely then you'll find that original statement was this:
Yeah, but I'm saying that the atheists DO have better evidence.
He has yet to offer ANY evidence.
Since you're not listening to Steve (and mostly ignoring me), I'll play along. Your "reasoning" for God existing is that you can't fathom a universe without His existence. This isn't proof. This isn't evidence. This is what I call being a toolbox. The fact that you can't imagine it doesn't mean others can't, nor does it mean that it is an impossible scenario. How many people couldn't fathom a universe where the Earth wasn't a center? After all, we all observe things moving in the sky. But we don't feel like we're moving, do we? And the Bible says it's true. Guess what? It wasn't true then; it isn't true now. You're playing a "god of the gaps" game with us and it's more than a little annoying.
I haven't said or even implied any of the things in this paragraph. I haven't said anything about my "imaginations" or that I can't fathom a universe without God. I have said many times that a No God scenario is a viable scenario, just that there is no evidence to support it. Nor have I brought up the Bible.... EVER!


Well, since you will never answer my question, I will move onto your post on disproving the Judeo-Christian God. but it will have to wait till tomorrow. My wife is giving me the evil eye about being too long on the internet. I know you can't wait..

EDIT: fixed quotes
Last edited by seamusz on Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:26 pm

Okay, Seaumusz, other than by throwing that statement of Steve's around, how do you respond to the oft-repeated assertion that it is not possible to prove a negative? Many people have stated that, and you have made no serious response to it. Given that you are asking people to prove a negative (look at the first post of this thread -- yes, in fact, you did ask for this), it seems important that you would provide a cogent rationale for why you believe this is possible.

Because to me that seems that this is a very important piece to the structure of this argument. Basic experimental hypothesis testing rests on this particular assertion. In scientific experiments, you are dealing with the alternate hypothesis and the null hypothesis. If you do not prove the alternate, than you fail to reject the null, rather than proving the null. There is, in fact, a difference. Anybody who has taken basic introductory statistics has been beaten over the head with this statement multiple times.

This is because of the impossibility of proving a negative, such as that God does not exist. Or, for a less charged example that doesn't bring up pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters, the statement, "People with headaches who receive aspirin will be no different than people with headaches who do not." is a null hypothesis testable by research. So, say you go and you do an experiment, and because of some fluke (insufficient power, happening to get people immune to aspirin in your sample, whatever) you find no difference between the two groups. Have you proven that aspirin has no effect? No, you haven't. You can't prove a negative. However, you have provided no evidence for the positive, and therefore, based on this experiment, you fail to reject the hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups. Or you might say that you retain it. You don't say you've proven it, because you have not proven it. You've only shown that based on this particular experiment, you have not disproven it.

So, say you do the same experiment and do find a difference between the two groups. Then you can reject the null and accept the alternative (positive) hypothesis that there is a difference between the two groups. By showing a difference, you have disproven the null. Disproving it is possible, even though proving it is not.

The burden of proof, from the point of view of the scientific method, is always on the positive hypothesis so that we can reject the null. It is not just inconvenient to prove a negative, or troublesome, or whatever. It is not logically possible. It is only possible to disprove the negative by proving that the positive is, in fact, true.

Ignoring, for the moment, the applications to the God issue, simply thinking in terms of provability/non-provability of hypotheses, do you accept this basic tenet?

If you do, in fact, believe that it is possible to prove a negative, I would appreciate an example of when that has been done or what sort of evidence you believe suffices to prove a negative (any negative. Doesn't have to be theological.)
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:05 am

Seamusz,

I've been reading the thread, cupcake. I know what Steve said. Steve and I have talked about these very issues for years. (Steve: I still can't believe they didn't let you into Project Steve. After all, you're a Steve!) We've had the discussions. This isn't a new topic for either of us. So own up to your shoddy logic and stop pretending that people just aren't reading the discussion when they find fault in it.

You say he hasn't offered any evidence. For him to offer evidence (which I think is silly to begin with, as the onus of proof doesn't lie on him), he needs you to define the terms you want him to disprove. That's it. End story. But, instead of doing that, you consistently dance around anything even remotely resembling a rational thought and declare yourself victorious when everyone gets tired of your bullshit. I point you again to my silly little replay of how your discussion went down.

As far as denying my accusations goes: say what you like. It doesn't make it any less obvious. You're committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy in your "evidence" and everyone knows it. Your proof for a universe with God? We exist. That's some pretty striking evidence, kid. Except, you know, the universe can (and does) run on natural mechanisms wherein God is irrelevant. Your premises were faulty, and as such, no conclusions you've drawn are valid. The very fact that God is not needed to explain the world around us in scientific terms is enough to throw your entire premise out the window.

Nevermind that you're completely ignoring my entire discussion of burden of proof. So, since you're just picking and choosing what to respond to, I'll make you a deal.

I'll concede whatever lame-ass point you want. I'll give you a big sticker that says you 'won' the debate. I'll let you brag to your internet buddies that you "pwn'd" us all.

BUT... first, you must prove that an undetectable bunny does not exist upon your head. Or, if you'd prefer and believe one does, prove that instead. Once you complete that task, re-evaluate your stance and try to figure out how that little game applies to this discussion.

Oh, and your insistence that one must believe (the possibility that) God exists to discuss said existence is more than a little specious.

Sea: Admit he exists, then we'll talk about him!
Steve: Um, I'm arguing that he doesn't, though.
Sea: I won't discuss it until you admit it!
Steve: I guess we won't discuss it, then...
Sea: I win!

See the problem? You're trying to trick your opponents into giving you "points" so you can claim victory. All for what? So you can brag about "winning" an argument on teh intarwebz?

User avatar
BonitoDeMadrid
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am
Title: Bonzo was Framed
Location: The exact center of the earth

Postby BonitoDeMadrid » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:43 am

BDM,
Actually, he can be compared to mankind, by his attributes
So, how do you know that what was written up in the bible wasn't just describing what mankind did, with a little bit of God-enorsed righteousness layered on to justify the punishments the Jews went through, as well as their ruthless victories? The bible as strongly biased, semi-historical, justifying, self-righteous text makes a heck of a lot more sense.
The bible could be what you wrote, a God-enorsed history book (that focuses on one people, not on the whole world), and it could be God's word. Depends who you're asking.
As I said,
All of the above relates to if there is a God; if not, then I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:27 am

Isn't the point of an All-X God that He is better than mankind? Of course, it really depends on how we're defining God, again. We simply can't say the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, in this case, because the God of the Tanakh and the God of the New Covenant act in two very distinct ways.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:28 am

I must say, though, that I really did have a lot of fun in my "Philosophy of Religion" course in college. Besides having fun, if I remember correctly, I aced the hell out of it.

But let's be honest, sticking an engineer in with a bunch of liberal arts students for a philosophy/logic/rationality course is a lot like shooting fish in a barrel (analogy fully intended).

I have a fond remembrance of tearing St. Anselm's "most perfect island" theory completely to shreds. You'd think that after 2,000 years, people could do better. But I guess not.

One of the other realizations I came to in that class was that the premise that "humans are rational beings" is false. We are irrational beings. Many (but certainly not all) of us can recognize rationality, and can even be rational for varying stretches of time. But as a default state, we are irrational.

And, Seamusz, as you have shown us most excellently, some are certainly less rational than others. If we are to have a battle of wits, next time you should really come prepared.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
BonitoDeMadrid
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am
Title: Bonzo was Framed
Location: The exact center of the earth

Postby BonitoDeMadrid » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:57 am

Isn't the point of an All-X God that He is better than mankind? Of course, it really depends on how we're defining God, again. We simply can't say the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, in this case, because the God of the Tanakh and the God of the New Covenant act in two very distinct ways.
As said in one of the first chapters of the first book of the Old Covenant, "God created man in his image." Or something like that. That could mean not only designing him physically in the image of God, but also designing him mentally in God's image...thus making God the most powerful human-like creature to have ever (possibly) existed. AND it's a real good backup to Boothby's claim of no God.

Also, for those of us who didn't grow up in Christian countries- *Raises my hand*- how does the God of the New Covenant differ from the God of the Tanakh? I always thought that the New Covenant didn't describe much of God, but more of Jesus and what he was up to until he was crucified..
Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:33 am

(I must say, though, that I am really enjoying Syphon's "Reader's Digest" version of this debate!)
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:19 pm

Okay, Seaumusz, other than by throwing that statement of Steve's around, how do you respond to the oft-repeated assertion that it is not possible to prove a negative? Many people have stated that, and you have made no serious response to it. Given that you are asking people to prove a negative (look at the first post of this thread -- yes, in fact, you did ask for this), it seems important that you would provide a cogent rationale for why you believe this is possible.

Because to me that seems that this is a very important piece to the structure of this argument. Basic experimental hypothesis testing rests on this particular assertion. In scientific experiments, you are dealing with the alternate hypothesis and the null hypothesis. If you do not prove the alternate, than you fail to reject the null, rather than proving the null. There is, in fact, a difference. Anybody who has taken basic introductory statistics has been beaten over the head with this statement multiple times.
I started the thread to address that the non-existence of God was in fact, unprovable. I read Boothby's statement, quoted earlier, to mean that he had this evidence... did I read it wrong?

For the record: I agree that it is impossible to prove a negative. I don't really expect Boothby to do it, and maybe he never meant what I took his statement to mean in the first place.

As to the rest of your point, of course I can't prove there is a God. I can offer what I consider evidences and possible proofs, but if someone is determined not to accept anything but a visual of God, then I can't make them understand why I believe. So I can't reject the null by proving the alternate. So maybe I loose.

But let me ask this, doesn't the mere possibility of the existence of a SB make it just as probable as not? And the existence of possible proofs make it more probable? If it doesn't, I can eat my humble pie and get on with the discussion, but please explain why I am not seeing the scenario correctly.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 34 guests