Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[tommykins]

he 'dictated' the song, not wrote it.
on a technicaity, his friend wrote the song. handwriting analysis.

 

[gibbo153]

he 'dictated' the song, not wrote it.
on a technicaity, his friend wrote the song. handwriting analysis.

that wouldnt hold up. all that can be proved is that the friend wrote the song, from there you only have the friend's testimony that the artist actually came up with it.

this is a similar concept to the argument you have been so tenaciously rebutting.

you claim that personal experience of god (similar to the friends testimony) cannot be counted as evidence. yet in the case of the song, the personal experience argument is actually a reflection of the truth, and the lack of scientific evidence argument, is not a reflection of the truth

 

[nikolas]

haha yeah i noticed that, and was like. but he was supporting your opinion? why are you calling him a brainwashed idiot?

meh, i don't think this thread will ever work, because it is focused on scientific evidence. i konw i will get flamed for proposing this, but consider trying to prove scientifically that a song was written by a certain artist. before you start writing 'OMGZZZ YOU CAN'TT MAKE DIS ABOUT LYK A SONG DATS STUPID"

say someone claimed they didn't write the song.

the person has no way of scientifically proving that they did write the song, just as god can obviously not be scientifically proven.

scientific evidence can not be used as a be-all-and-end-all indicator of whether something can exist/have happened

I'll ignore, for now, your idiotic refusal to acknowledge fact and evidence.

This is basically, in a nutshell, a you can't disprove God argument.

Lets also extend your analogy, lets say you and me try to identify the Composer. But we fail in finding anything tangible to lead us to a conclusion. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it is your favorite Composer who wrote this song if we can't prove it, or in fact give a good case why you think it is him who wrote it.

 

[nikolas]

if it is to be literally interpreted (which it isnt) then you must also apply literally the verses in which god is said to be outside of time.

I have already stated it is not literally right.

 

[nikolas]

that wouldnt hold up. all that can be proved is that the friend wrote the song, from there you only have the friend's testimony that the artist actually came up with it.

this is a similar concept to the argument you have been so tenaciously rebutting.

you claim that personal experience of god (similar to the friends testimony) cannot be counted as evidence. yet in the case of the song, the personal experience argument is actually a reflection of the truth, and the lack of scientific evidence argument, is not a reflection of the truth

With extraordinary claims, there must be extraordinary evidence to back it up.

If i told you, i had a bowl of cereal today by myself, there would be no proof but my word that i ate it, however, you would probably believe me (i hope).

However, if i told you i ate Cereal this morning served in a cloud, by a trained Unicorn. Well, i would hope you would be skeptical.

 

[gibbo153]

I have already stated it is not literally right.

you clearly didn't comprehend god being outside of time then

 

[gibbo153]

With extraordinary claims, there must be extraordinary evidence to back it up.

If i told you, i had a bowl of cereal today by myself, there would be no proof but my word that i ate it, however, you would probably believe me (i hope).

However, if i told you i ate Cereal this morning served in a cloud, by a trained Unicorn. Well, i would hope you would be skeptical.

you have demonstrated the differences in probability, but unfortunately have still provided two things which cannot be scientifically proven.

the two are different things. the latter is the only one of importance in regard to what i said

 

[nikolas]

you clearly didn't comprehend god being outside of time then

So you are claiming the literal interpretation is correct now?

To humor you, this arguments just goes back to God's unfalsifiable nature of God, which by now you should know why this argument wont stand very well.

 

[nikolas]

you have demonstrated the differences in probability, but unfortunately have still provided two things which cannot be scientifically proven.

the two are different things. the latter is the only one of importance in regard to what i said

I once again point you towards Russel teapot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_teapot

 

[gibbo153]

Lets also extend your analogy, lets say you and me try to identify the Composer. But we fail in finding anything tangible to lead us to a conclusion. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it is your favorite Composer who wrote this song if we can't prove it, or in fact give a good case why you think it is him who wrote it.

ahh, but what is important is what the truth is.

the truth is that the composer DID write the song, and if you or i are able to believe it, there must have been some other avenue other than if it could be scientifically proven.

say, the god's love?

also, 'god's love' is not a chance speculation so don't treat it as such

 

[gibbo153]

I once again point you towards Russel teapot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_teapot

i have already understood your point. but again, god's love, and the experience of his love which we all can enjoy should we choose to, is a different way of coming to the conclusion that the unseen is real, not simply its lack of ability to be disproven

 

[nikolas]

ahh, but what is important is what the truth is.

the truth is that the composer DID write the song, and if you or i are able to believe it, there must have been some other avenue other than if it could be scientifically proven.

say, the god's love?

also, 'god's love' is not a chance speculation so don't treat it as such

No the Truth is Someone wrote this song. You jump to the conclusion that it is Your favorite composer, as opposed to all other possible Composers.

 

[tommykins]

alright, i was going to make a rebuttal but damn your analogy is horrible.

you are starting with the premise he WROTE the song in the first place. if he was debating with another guy over the ownership, EVIDENCE (heres where handwriting analysis comes in) needs to be given in order for us to accept it.

Heres what your premises are -
X wrote the song.
Despite X having no evidence.
X still wrote the song.

So it's like(not literally)
God exists.
Despite God having no scientific evidence.
God still exists.

 

[nikolas]

i have already understood your point. but again, god's love, and the experience of his love which we all can enjoy should we choose to, is a different way of coming to the conclusion that the unseen is real, not simply its lack of ability to be disproven

Its a combination of the two, you cannot provide a decent argument/evidence.

so you tell me "well nothing disproves God either" which i point you towards Russell's teapot.

Yet you still maintain your claim that there is a God.

And really do you really fucken expect "i experienced God" to be a decent argument?

 

[tommykins]

Can I please re-affirm the idea that you CAN'T use a conclusion in your fucking premises?

Assume God exists
[evidence that already assumes God exists]

Therefore, God exists.

 

[gibbo153]

alright, i was going to make a rebuttal but damn your analogy is horrible.

you are starting with the premise he WROTE the song in the first place. if he was debating with another guy over the ownership, EVIDENCE (heres where handwriting analysis comes in) needs to be given in order for us to accept it.

Heres what your premises are -
X wrote the song.
Despite X having no evidence.
X still wrote the song.

So it's like(not literally)
God exists.
Despite God having no scientific evidence.
God still exists.

no no no. i am not using this analogy to prove god's existence, but to prove the premise that a lack of scientific proof doesnt merit it being false. i only used the premise that he did write the song in order to illustrate this, not to then say 'THEREFORE GOD EXISTS SO THERE'. i would now go on to the way in which the conclusion of whether it is true or not can be reached, but refer to my replies to Nikolas

 

[tommykins]

there is lack of scientific proof of the flying spaghetti monster, but th at doesn't merit it being false.

 

[gibbo153]

read my other replies again carefully, i don't feel the need to reply to the latest rebuttals, they indicate misinterpretation of my claims

 

[nikolas]

no no no. i am not using this analogy to prove god's existence, but to prove the premise that a lack of scientific proof doesnt merit it being false. i only used the premise that he did write the song in order to illustrate this, not to then say 'THEREFORE GOD EXISTS SO THERE'. i would now go on to the way in which the conclusion of whether it is true or not can be reached, but refer to my replies to Nikolas

So basically you are arguing for the existence of something with the same credibility of a Flying Spaghetti monster, a pink unicorn, fairies, a dragon in my garage.

 

[gibbo153]

there is lack of scientific proof of the flying spaghetti monster, but th at doesn't merit it being false.

i don't know about the 'religion' centred on that, but do its followers claim to have a relationship with the spaghetti monster? (i'm not being rhetorical, brief outline of their beliefs would be appreciated)