05 Apr 13
Can you guys point me at this 'GAFE' thread? I assume that is not its title.
Just to stick my oar in and add nothing that hasn't already been said...
I don't think there is a single atheist on the forum who honestly claims to be able to dis-prove God, and they would normally justify that by stating that they are equally unable to dis-prove any other supernatural being since such things are by their very nature non-disprovable. They then assert that something being non-disprovable is good reason for non-belief in its existence. Hence the suggestions that theists attempt to prove the non-existence of all the possible gods that they themselves do not believe in.
Hence they are trying to explain why the honest answer of "we cannot disprove him" does not actually give you any solid foundation for your belief at all and neither does it invalidate their position of non-belief in any way.
--- Penguin.
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by PenguinThe GAFE is an acryonym for General Argument from Evil, which in this context refers to a formulation of the evidential problem of evil that bbarr presented in the forum (in the form of a reductio) several years ago. Since that time Freaky initiated some threads to address the argument. As I have told Freaky before, I commend his willingness to engage with the argument. However, his rebuttals to the argument make virtually no sense to me. Honestly, I don't know where all these threads are now, but here would be the latest one. According to Freaky, he shows in this thread that Premise 2 of Bennett's argument is fallacious. I don't agree, and I presented counter-arguments to that effect.
Can you guys point me at this 'GAFE' thread? I assume that is not its title.
Just to stick my oar in and add nothing that hasn't already been said...
I don't think there is a single atheist on the forum who honestly claims to be able to [b]dis-prove God, and they would normally justify that by stating that they are equally unable to dis-prov ...[text shortened]... ll and neither does it invalidate their position of non-belief in any way.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Thread 150600
Originally posted by PenguinI have stated in this thread that the existence of some Gods can be disproved, and I presented the easiest proof, which covers a whole class of Gods. Generally, if the definition of a God is self contradictory, it cannot exist.
I don't think there is a single atheist on the forum who honestly claims to be able to [b]dis-prove God, [/b]
and they would normally justify that by stating that they are equally unable to [b]dis-prove any other supernatural being since such things are by their very nature non-disprovable. They then assert that something being non-disprovable is good reason for non-belief in its existence. Hence the suggestions that theists attempt to prove the non-existence of all the possible gods that they themselves do not believe in.[/b]
I would like to go much further and say that the whole concept of 'supernatural' is incoherent and of the 'existence' of something supernatural is equally incoherent. Until definitions are given that make sense, there is no need (nor even a possibility of) giving a proof that it doesn't match reality.
05 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have stated in this thread that the existence of some Gods can be disproved, and I presented the easiest proof, which covers a whole class of Gods. Generally, if the definition of a God is self contradictory, it cannot exist.
I have stated in this thread that the existence of some Gods can be disproved, and I presented the easiest proof, which covers a whole class of Gods. Generally, if the definition of a God is self contradictory, it cannot exist.
and they would normally justify that by stating that they are equally unable to [b]dis-prove any other supernatural ...[text shortened]... bei there is no need (nor even a possibility of) giving a proof that it doesn't match reality.[/b]
I was going to add a paragraph to that effect but then decided I ought to do some work instead!
I would like to go much further and say that the whole concept of 'supernatural' is incoherent and of the 'existence' of something supernatural is equally incoherent. Until definitions are given that make sense, there is no need (nor even a possibility of) giving a proof that it doesn't match reality.
I was trying to be a little more gentle but yes, essentially there is no point debating the existence of something defined as supernatural.
---Penguin
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloAh, I see. I was not aware of the acronym. I'll have a look at the thread.
The GAFE is an acryonym for General Argument from Evil, which in this context refers to a formulation of the evidential problem of evil that bbarr presented in the forum (in the form of a reductio) several years ago. Since that time Freaky initiated some threads to address the argument. As I have told Freaky before, I commend his willingness to engage w ...[text shortened]... don't agree, and I presented counter-arguments to that effect.
Thread 150600
Originally posted by PenguinIts like debating the existence of invisible pink unicorns that hide in my fridge. Until one explains how something can be both invisible and pink, and both a unicorn and capable of fitting in a fridge, there is no point debating their existence as it is unlikely the debaters have any idea what they are discussing.
I was trying to be a little more gentle but yes, essentially there is no point debating the existence of something defined as supernatural.
This is what happens in most debates regarding the existence of God. The debaters usually have very different definitions of 'God' and often keep it quite vague, and can change it at any time without warning.
05 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, it's not. God is not the same as invisible pink unicorns in your fridge. And Christians do have a definition of God. Vague, it's not. Because you do not believe in God, your misunderstanding of him and of Christians is vast. But misunderstanding is not a proof of the non-existence of God, no matter how much you (and Agerg, who also claims to have proof of the non-existence of God) wish it to be so.
Its like debating the existence of invisible pink unicorns that hide in my fridge. Until one explains how something can be both invisible and pink, and both a unicorn and capable of fitting in a fridge, there is no point debating their existence as it is unlikely the debaters have any idea what they are discussing.
This is what happens in most debates r ...[text shortened]... nitions of 'God' and often keep it quite vague, and can change it at any time without warning.
06 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI think maybe (though I'm not sure) that each Christian has their own definition
No, it's not. God is not the same as invisible pink unicorns in your fridge. And Christians do have a definition of God. Vague, it's not. Because you do not believe in God, your misunderstanding of him and of Christians is vast. But misunderstanding is not a proof of the non-existence of God, no matter how much you (and Agerg, who also claims to have proof of the non-existence of God) wish it to be so.
of god but how do they compare? As has been pointed out you cannot take a
definition from the bible because the bible god is inconsistent and therefore
cannot exist.
07 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneHow is it different? Are you actually following the discussion, or are you still on your vendetta against me and just objecting because its me?
No, it's not. God is not the same as invisible pink unicorns in your fridge.
And Christians do have a definition of God. Vague, it's not.
All well and good, but unless they can bring that definition to a discussion, it remains as I outlined in the post you responded to. Until I explain what invisible pink unicorns are, it does not matter that I have a highly descriptive definition of them that I keep to myself.
But misunderstanding is not a proof of the non-existence of God, no matter how much you (and Agerg, who also claims to have proof of the non-existence of God) wish it to be so.
I never claimed that misunderstanding was proof of non-existence. I am claiming that there is no point even discussing his existence or non-existence if a clear definition is not given. And you are a prime example of someone who goes around telling everyone they can't understand, and refuses to give a definition or even try to explain. You actually hide behind your vagueness and your claim that I cannot understand your definition.
In thread after thread you say the equivalent of: "you cannot tell me I am wrong because you haven't got a clue what I believe". And you are correct. As long as you keep your beliefs secret, nobody can dispute them.
07 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you have a question for me? Because if you do, then ask it. And if you don't, then stop distorting what I and others here say, and obscuring our beliefs by calling them 'claims'.
How is it different? Are you actually following the discussion, or are you still on your vendetta against me and just objecting because its me?
[b]And Christians do have a definition of God. Vague, it's not.
All well and good, but unless they can bring that definition to a discussion, it remains as I outlined in the post you responded to. Until I ...[text shortened]... ve". And you are correct. As long as you keep your beliefs secret, nobody can dispute them.[/b]
I would have a lot less problem with you if you would start dealing with facts instead of injecting your personal bias into every single statement you make, and stop distorting what other people are saying. And my problems with you would lessen considerably if you would try to govern your glee at presenting other people's beliefs as ridiculous. Personal respect isn't your strong point, is it?
07 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Is this a page from twhitehead's "How to Deal With Christians (hee-hee)™"?
I think maybe (though I'm not sure) that each Christian has their own definition
of god but how do they compare? As has been pointed out you cannot take a
definition from the bible because the bible god is inconsistent and therefore [b]
cannot exist.[/b]
Your given is false. God is NOT 'inconsistent'.
Of course, if your given is false, this gives you immense latitude in parading out your agenda as 'proven'.
07 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI tried asking a number in the past, but you were so intent on being upset that you didn't answer them. The most relevant one for this thread is obviously: what is your definition of God?
Do you have a question for me?
I would have a lot less problem with you if you would start dealing with facts instead of injecting your personal bias into every single statement you make, and stop distorting what other people are saying. And my problems with you would lessen considerably if you would try to govern your glee at presenting other people's beliefs as ridiculous. Personal respect isn't your strong point, is it?
Interestingly that is a perfect description of you from my perspective.
11 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneSee, the thing is...we all know I don't have such a proof of the non-existence of a general little 'g' "g"od
No, it's not. God is not the same as invisible pink unicorns in your fridge. And Christians do have a definition of God. Vague, it's not. Because you do not believe in God, your misunderstanding of him and of Christians is vast. But misunderstanding is not a proof of the non-existence of God, no matter how much you (and Agerg, who also claims to have proof of the non-existence of God) wish it to be so.
Acknowledging that in your view along with other theists, all possible gods are reducible to Christian \"G\"od
though in the case of your along with RJHind\'s, RBHILL\'s, etc... \"ultrazord\" formulation of \"G\"od; that such deities are blatantly contradictory is sufficient proof
, but in spite of "knowing" this you'd be damned hard pressed to prove it - indeed I'm sure that for any attempt on your or anyone else's part to demonstrate I lacked such a proof (prior to me admitting it here which might just be a case of forgetfulness on my part - perhaps I really do hold such a proof!
), I can cobble together some sort of argument such that the issue will never be settled.
Same applies with "G"od...just because I can't look in all places, in all dimensions, at the same time, with perfect clarity doesn't lessen my justification for saying this particular entity fails to exist. Perhaps some sort of god - or gods exists
though, given the lack of evidence I\'ll assume there doesn\'t
...but certainly not the Christian "G"od!Originally posted by Suziannecome now. let's not bs each other. you know he meant the portrayal of god in the bible, and he is in fact inconsistent.
Is this a page from twhitehead's "How to Deal With Christians (hee-hee)™"?
Your given is false. God is NOT 'inconsistent'.
Of course, if your given is false, this gives you immense latitude in parading out your agenda as 'proven'.
there is no way a god that sends his son to preach love and understanding would have genocided the world in the flood.
or picked a handful of monkeyz to be the chosen monkeyz and then make them kill all other monkeyz in israel.
do you think god thought "well i tried killing them a lot, i tried working with just a small population of them and then killing the ones around them a lot to ensure a somewhat closed experiment, i am out of ideas now. Oh i know, i should send jr to preach love and compassion, though these asholes will probably kill him "