God as superhero, or God as answer to the question why

[DVH]

"The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of
superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �
whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in
the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite
clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes
to the universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this
God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack
of scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
need to postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.

Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of
'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,
too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon
Linker sums up this second version better than I can:

'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned
cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
� from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"
in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence
of every contingent thing, making it possible,
sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it
actuality. God is the condition of the possibility
of anything existing at all.'

... the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case
that's usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this
God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say
why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence won't
clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things
exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it
depends."

http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

[raven1]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:05:48 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence
>argument is rubbish, you need to say why.

Because it's meaningless twaddle.

[DVH]

Why?

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...

> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>
> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
> this second version better than I can:
>
> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

> in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
> electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence
> of every contingent thing, making it possible,
> sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it
> actuality. God is the condition of the possibility
> of anything existing at all.'
>
> ... the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case that's
> usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this
> God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say
> why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence won't
> clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things
> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it
> depends."
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide evidence
for his assertion. Address that.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[DVH]

On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>
>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>> this second version better than I can:
>>
>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

>> in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
>> electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence
>> of every contingent thing, making it possible,
>> sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it
>> actuality. God is the condition of the possibility
>> of anything existing at all.'
>>
>> ... the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case that's
>> usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this
>> God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say
>> why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence won't
>> clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things
>> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it
>> depends."
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read
>
>
> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide evidence
> for his assertion. Address that.
>

I deduce from your comment that you disagree that "The question isn't a
scientific one".

i.e. the question of the existence of God is in fact a scientific, not a
philosophical, question?

Are all questions about existence scientific? Happiness does or doesn't
exist for example... would you say happiness doesn't exist because
there's no scientific proof for it?

[Chairman Moo]

It is just another way of saying god is everything and the universe is
god. Like Heinlein's characters 'groking' god. Unless you can prove
the universe is sentient you just have another irrelevant argument.

[Chairman Moo]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>
>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>
>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

>>> in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
>>> electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence
>>> of every contingent thing, making it possible,
>>> sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it
>>> actuality. God is the condition of the possibility
>>> of anything existing at all.'
>>>
>>> ... the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case that's
>>> usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this
>>> God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say
>>> why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence won't
>>> clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things
>>> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it
>>> depends."
>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read
>>
>>
>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide evidence
>> for his assertion. Address that.
>>
>
>I deduce from your comment that you disagree that "The question isn't a
>scientific one".
>
>i.e. the question of the existence of God is in fact a scientific, not a
>philosophical, question?
>
>Are all questions about existence scientific? Happiness does or doesn't
>exist for example... would you say happiness doesn't exist because
>there's no scientific proof for it?

There is lots of scientific research into happiness. It is classified
as an emotion.

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

[DVH]

On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>
>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>
>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Are you happy?

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness
>

[Andy Wainwright]

Where things get very interesting is most people will claim this is
reality and those who claim otherwise are insane.

Yet, for all I can see, Earth is just another multi-user dungeon where
we can interact with other sentinant beings and the environment. If we
can have virtual realty in our world in the form of Second Life,
Minecraft and so forth, what's to say there isn't a reality above this
one? After all just because you can't see the top of a cloudy mountain,
it doesn't mean the mountain stops at cloud level.

There's also different heirarchies of gods, with the "Godhead" being the
most senior spirtual entity. Because this Godhead resides on higher
plane to human consciousness, almost all religions use a middle layer of
lesser gods, such as Jesus, Mary, Mohammed, Thor, Horus, Krishna and so
forth as figures through which mere humans can access the devinity on
this higher consciousness that is not only invisible to the human sense,
but beyond human perspective. Even with the visible universe, we can
only se a tiny fraction of it at once, so actually seeing what the
universe really looks like is rather like trying to imagine what a major
post office looks like from a single stamp.

There's also the question of lower than human levels of consciousness,
not in terms of other species, but in the same way as angels are
angelic, these are demonic, essentially an inverse reflection of a
heavenly order. Many experts in the supernatural and well versed
occultists are weary of using a Ouija board, because these sort of
entities can be contacted. In a way, the angels and demons are probably
best described as emotions that are so strong that they devlop a
personality of their own.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Its believers can't grasp that it's a presumption that only
Christians, Jews and Muslims grant because it's their religious
belief.

In the real world outside it, it _is_ meaningless twaddle.

Because much of it is contrary to reality, from God-did-it creation to
the resurrection. Eg there was no Garden of Eden, no Noah's flood, no
virgin birth (the whole Nativity story is a fabrication made up to
match prophecy taken not from the Hebrew Tanach but a Greek
translation, errors and all).

None of it stands up to the historical method which requires
corroboration from multiple independent sources, and the more of these
the greater the confidence.

But there isn't any for any of the supposedly Earth-shattering events
that are the foundation of Christian belief.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:27:06 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists,

>Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide evidence
>for his assertion. Address that.

It should have stopped at the first lie.

We don't attack it.

We simply respond when stupid theists keep bringing it up outside the
context of their religion as if it were universally granted.

It's not - only by Christians (also Muslims and Jews if you consider
the three different versions to be the same one but only Christians
worship Jesus as a god).

If they didn't do that then their beliefs wouldn't get dissected
because they're their own business - but they make it ours as well
when they expect everybody else to take it seriously.

If they

[Chairman Moo]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:06:52 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:59:12 +0000, Chairman Moo
><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:05:44 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15/01/2014 15:03, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:05:48 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence
>>>>> argument is rubbish, you need to say why.
>>>>
>>>> Because it's meaningless twaddle.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>It is just another way of saying god is everything and the universe is
>>god. Like Heinlein's characters 'groking' god. Unless you can prove
>>the universe is sentient you just have another irrelevant argument.
>
>Its believers can't grasp that it's a presumption that only
>Christians, Jews and Muslims grant because it's their religious
>belief.

Hozabout the Morrigan or the Atun or Odin or Jupiter or PAn

>
>In the real world outside it, it _is_ meaningless twaddle.
>
>Because much of it is contrary to reality, from God-did-it creation to
>the resurrection. Eg there was no Garden of Eden, no Noah's flood, no
>virgin birth (the whole Nativity story is a fabrication made up to
>match prophecy taken not from the Hebrew Tanach but a Greek
>translation, errors and all).
>
>None of it stands up to the historical method which requires
>corroboration from multiple independent sources, and the more of these
>the greater the confidence.
>
>But there isn't any for any of the supposedly Earth-shattering events
>that are the foundation of Christian belief.
>
>

The creation myth of the Australian aborigine people is very close to
what science proposes happened

[Chairman Moo]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Often
Especially when poking abelard with a metaphorical pointed stick to
make him move
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness
>>

[DVH]

On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

And can you scientifically demonstrate the existence of your happiness?

[DVH]

On 15/01/2014 17:12, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:27:06 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists,
>
>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide evidence
>> for his assertion. Address that.
>
> It should have stopped at the first lie.
>
> We don't attack it.
>
> We simply respond when stupid theists keep bringing it up outside the
> context of their religion as if it were universally granted.
>
> It's not - only by Christians (also Muslims and Jews if you consider
> the three different versions to be the same one but only Christians
> worship Jesus as a god).
>
> If they didn't do that then their beliefs wouldn't get dissected

I've never seen you dissecting their beliefs.

It would be interesting to watch you do so.

[DVH]

You're attacking belief in the "superhero" or "cosmic craftsman" the
writer refers to.

Anyone can do that. It's pretty much de rigueur for educated atheists to
heap scorn on the metaphors the less educated believe in as literal
truths. That's because it takes no effort.

[abelard]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:06:52 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Its believers can't grasp that it's a presumption that only
>Christians, Jews and Muslims grant because it's their religious
>belief.
>
>In the real world outside it, it _is_ meaningless twaddle.
>
>Because much of it is contrary to reality, from God-did-it creation to
>the resurrection. Eg there was no Garden of Eden, no Noah's flood, no
>virgin birth (the whole Nativity story is a fabrication made up to
>match prophecy taken not from the Hebrew Tanach but a Greek
>translation, errors and all).
>
>None of it stands up to the historical method which requires
>corroboration from multiple independent sources, and the more of these
>the greater the confidence.
>
>But there isn't any for any of the supposedly Earth-shattering events
>that are the foundation of Christian belief.

you are an ignoramus christ-opher...i doubt you will ever muster
the wherewithal to rise above that status


--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[abelard]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:27:06 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

don't be ridiculous...
your belief in your own existence cannot be proven by 'evidence'

i doubt you even have a useful definition of 'evidence' beyond
what *you* wish to believe

[raven1]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:05:44 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

Because like Anselm's ontological argument, it's a rather transparent
attempt to define "God" into existence.

[abelard]

and the alleged big bang is very close to the old testament...

why should such thing not have echoes...people of all ages
worry about these conundrums

[Christopher A. Lee]

They don't seem to realise that every mention of it outside their
religion, is always an unjustified presumption.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:56:54 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:45:53 +0000, Chairman Moo
><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The creation myth of the Australian aborigine people is very close to
>>what science proposes happened
>
>and the alleged big bang is very close to the old testament...

Not remotely close, but that doesn't stop science-hating religious nuts
from claiming that the Bible got it right.

[abelard]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:14:01 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:56:54 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote
>in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:45:53 +0000, Chairman Moo
>><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The creation myth of the Australian aborigine people is very close to
>>>what science proposes happened
>>
>>and the alleged big bang is very close to the old testament...
>
>Not remotely close, but that doesn't stop science-hating religious nuts
>from claiming that the Bible got it right.

don't be pathetic

>>why should such thing not have echoes...people of all ages
>> worry about these conundrums

[Wizard-Of-Oz]

DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4:

> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �

> whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in
> the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite
> clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he
> likes to the universe, including creating it to begin with.
> Demolishing this God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is
> point to the lack of scientific evidence for his existence, and the
> fact that we don't need to postulate him in order to explain how the
> universe works.
>
> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,

> too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
> different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon
> Linker sums up this second version better than I can:
>
> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

> in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
> electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence
> of every contingent thing, making it possible,
> sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it
> actuality. God is the condition of the possibility
> of anything existing at all.'
>
> ... the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case
> that's usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this
> God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say
> why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence won't
> clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which
> things exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on
> what it depends."
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-
blog/2014/jan/14/the-
> theology-book-atheists-should-read
>

So if you redefine god to mean something else, some abstract
philosophical proposition, then you can say god exist .. if an abstract
philosophical proposition can be said to exist.

That's called cheating.

[Olrik]

Le 2014-01-15 10:05, DVH a �crit :

Because it's easy to write pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-religious
nonsense. Language is rich, and people have lots of imagination.

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Olrik]

Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a �crit :

Why would you want that? Happiness is a state of mind. Like faith, for
example. Or laughing at a joke.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 00:06, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote:

> So if you redefine god to mean something else, some abstract
> philosophical proposition, then you can say god exist .. if an abstract
> philosophical proposition can be said to exist.
>
> That's called cheating.

Certainly, if you start out by claiming that God is a bearded fellow who
makes floods, then change your story. But there are numerous people
(outside America, at least) who've never really bought that childish
proposition.

[DVH]

I don't particularly. I just wanted to know if Moo thought all questions
of existence were scientific (i.e. required scientific proof as an answer).

The other poster puzzled me a bit: "the person who makes the positive
assertion needs to provide evidence for his assertion". It sounded like
he thought nobody had ever provided evidence for the existence of God -
they were just making claims based entirely on faith.

In contrast, I think thousands of people have provided evidence in
varying degrees of persuasiveness, except they've included faith as a
link in the chain - often the final leap.

As an analogy I think this is similar to Higgs and his boson. He
calculated that it must be, but we spent thirty years in a state of
faith as to its actual existence.

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:D3ABu.18068$0v2....@fx15.am4...

That is the reason it is easy. It is not the reason for doing it. Now, why
do the educated theist leaders push such nonsense as truth?

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:k0yBu.5370$RE4....@fx31.am4...

> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �

>>> whose
>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need
>>> to
>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>
>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,

>>> too.
>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums
>>> up
>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>
>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence of
a god. All the rest is diversion.

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:QYzBu.6053$MR2....@fx21.am4...

> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �

>>>>>>> whose
>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite
>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,

>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Why would you think that impossible to accomplish, or are you going to try
to confuse evidence and proof?

>
>> Especially when poking abelard with a metaphorical pointed stick to
>> make him move
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness
>>>>
>>
>

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:wMLBu.1503$Cq7....@fx22.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 05:13, Olrik wrote:

>> Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a �crit :

>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a
>>>>>>>>> sort of

>>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is
>>>>>>>>> "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never
>>>>>>>>> quite clear
>>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this
>>>>>>>>> God is
>>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters
>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves
>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim

>>>>>>>>> fundamentalists, too.
>>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Feel free to be the first to provide examples.

>
> As an analogy I think this is similar to Higgs and his boson. He
> calculated that it must be, but we spent thirty years in a state of faith
> as to its actual existence.

Yet another transparently invalid analogy. Proposing the possibility of
something is not having faith in anything.

>
>> Happiness is a state of mind. Like faith, for
>> example. Or laughing at a joke.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 09:18, thomas p. wrote:
> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:k0yBu.5370$RE4....@fx31.am4...
>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �

>>>> whose
>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need
>>>> to
>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>
>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,

>>>> too.
>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums
>>>> up
>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>
>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

I'm not asking you to accept the existence of a god.

I'm asking whether you think that the question of the existence of God
is a scientific rather than a philosophical one.

And then I was asking whether you thought all questions about existence
are scientific.

By "scientific question" I mean one with an answer that can be
scientifically proved.

[White Spirit]

On 16/01/2014 09:18, thomas p. wrote:

> I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence of
> a god. All the rest is diversion.

There's also the assumption that there is just one god. What about
Woden, Thunor, Ing and Frea?

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:j_zBu.6054$MR2....@fx21.am4...

> On 15/01/2014 17:12, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:27:06 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists,
>>
>>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide
>>> evidence
>>> for his assertion. Address that.
>>
>> It should have stopped at the first lie.
>>
>> We don't attack it.
>>
>> We simply respond when stupid theists keep bringing it up outside the
>> context of their religion as if it were universally granted.
>>
>> It's not - only by Christians (also Muslims and Jews if you consider
>> the three different versions to be the same one but only Christians
>> worship Jesus as a god).
>>
>> If they didn't do that then their beliefs wouldn't get dissected
>
> I've never seen you dissecting their beliefs.
>
> It would be interesting to watch you do so.

And you could still avoid providing any objective reason for believing in a
god. Good plan.

>
>> because they're their own business - but they make it ours as well
>> when they expect everybody else to take it seriously.
>>
>> If they
>>
>

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:xPLBu.18348$T%2.1...@fx23.am4...

You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good reason
for believing in a god. Let's talk about the non-childish god you imply
exists, unless you would prefer running away from that.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 09:20, thomas p. wrote:
> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:QYzBu.6053$MR2....@fx21.am4...
>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �

>>>>>>>> whose
>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite
>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,

>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

I don't.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 09:24, thomas p. wrote:
> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

> news:wMLBu.1503$Cq7....@fx22.am4...
>> On 16/01/2014 05:13, Olrik wrote:

>>> Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a �crit :

>>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a
>>>>>>>>>> sort of

>>>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is
>>>>>>>>>> "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never
>>>>>>>>>> quite clear
>>>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes
>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this
>>>>>>>>>> God is
>>>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters
>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves
>>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim

>>>>>>>>>> fundamentalists, too.
>>>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Consult the theology section of your local library or bookshop.

>
>
>>
>> As an analogy I think this is similar to Higgs and his boson. He
>> calculated that it must be, but we spent thirty years in a state of faith
>> as to its actual existence.
>
> Yet another transparently invalid analogy. Proposing the possibility of
> something is not having faith in anything.

OK. You might be right that the analogy doesn't work.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 09:26, thomas p. wrote:
> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:j_zBu.6054$MR2....@fx21.am4...
>> On 15/01/2014 17:12, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:27:06 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists,
>>>
>>>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide
>>>> evidence
>>>> for his assertion. Address that.
>>>
>>> It should have stopped at the first lie.
>>>
>>> We don't attack it.
>>>
>>> We simply respond when stupid theists keep bringing it up outside the
>>> context of their religion as if it were universally granted.
>>>
>>> It's not - only by Christians (also Muslims and Jews if you consider
>>> the three different versions to be the same one but only Christians
>>> worship Jesus as a god).
>>>
>>> If they didn't do that then their beliefs wouldn't get dissected
>>
>> I've never seen you dissecting their beliefs.
>>
>> It would be interesting to watch you do so.
>
> And you could still avoid providing any objective reason for believing in a
> god.

I wasn't aware that was my task!

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:15:40 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>That is the reason it is easy. It is not the reason for doing it. Now, why
>do the educated theist leaders push such nonsense as truth?

a major reason is to give the weak reasons for behaving
in a civilised manner...

your approach is also unsophisticated...you don't start by
teaching algebra...you start by teaching a child to count

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 09:29, thomas p. wrote:
> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:xPLBu.18348$T%2.1...@fx23.am4...
>> On 16/01/2014 00:06, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote:
>>
>>> So if you redefine god to mean something else, some abstract
>>> philosophical proposition, then you can say god exist .. if an abstract
>>> philosophical proposition can be said to exist.
>>>
>>> That's called cheating.
>>
>> Certainly, if you start out by claiming that God is a bearded fellow who
>> makes floods, then change your story. But there are numerous people
>> (outside America, at least) who've never really bought that childish
>> proposition.
>>
>
>
> You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good reason
> for believing in a god.

You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
existence of God. I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:20:21 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Why would you think that impossible to accomplish, or are you going to try
>to confuse evidence and proof?

when is it 'proof'? when you believe it?

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:18:10 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence of
>a god. All the rest is diversion.

you are not a 'we'

nobody is stopping you believing in the tooth fairy...

from whence come your 'shoulds'? and how does
that get extended to 'we'?

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:26:47 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>And you could still avoid providing any objective reason for believing in a
>god. Good plan.

what do you mean by 'objective'?

you don't seem to think much

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:29:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good reason
>for believing in a god. Let's talk about the non-childish god you imply
>exists, unless you would prefer running away from that.

what would you accept as 'a good reason'?

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:30 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
>existence of God.

what is his understanding (if any) of the meaning of the term 'god'?

>I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...

perhaps he is looking for someone to hold his hand and lead him
to some father figure in the sky

perhaps he is just desperate to believe!

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 09:45, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:30 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
>> existence of God.
>
> what is his understanding (if any) of the meaning of the term 'god'?
>
>> I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...
>
> perhaps he is looking for someone to hold his hand and lead him
> to some father figure in the sky
>
> perhaps he is just desperate to believe!

I imagine it's a reflex.

Most disputants who arrive in alt.atheism are pushing a God. Therefore
this disputant is pushing a God. Demand proof of a God's existence and
the job's done.

[abelard]

they're sure a weird lot...

and the clonism is quite remarkable

[Chairman Moo]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:56:54 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:45:53 +0000, Chairman Moo
><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The creation myth of the Australian aborigine people is very close to
>>what science proposes happened
>
>and the alleged big bang is very close to the old testament...

No its not
>
>why should such thing not have echoes...people of all ages
> worry about these conundrums

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:32:38 +0000, Chairman Moo

<thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:56:54 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:45:53 +0000, Chairman Moo
>><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The creation myth of the Australian aborigine people is very close to
>>>what science proposes happened
>>
>>and the alleged big bang is very close to the old testament...
>
>No its not

oh yes it is

>>why should such thing not have echoes...people of all ages
>> worry about these conundrums

[Chairman Moo]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:56:02 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...

>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

>>>>>>> in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
>>>>>>> electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence
>>>>>>> of every contingent thing, making it possible,
>>>>>>> sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it
>>>>>>> actuality. God is the condition of the possibility
>>>>>>> of anything existing at all.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case that's
>>>>>>> usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this
>>>>>>> God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say
>>>>>>> why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence won't
>>>>>>> clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things
>>>>>>> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it
>>>>>>> depends."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide evidence
>>>>>> for his assertion. Address that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> I deduce from your comment that you disagree that "The question isn't a
>>>>> scientific one".
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. the question of the existence of God is in fact a scientific, not a
>>>>> philosophical, question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are all questions about existence scientific? Happiness does or doesn't
>>>>> exist for example... would you say happiness doesn't exist because
>>>>> there's no scientific proof for it?
>>>>
>>>> There is lots of scientific research into happiness. It is classified
>>>> as an emotion.
>>>
>>> Are you happy?
>>>
>>
>> Often
>
>And can you scientifically demonstrate the existence of your happiness?

Yes

[Chairman Moo]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:22:04 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 16/01/2014 05:13, Olrik wrote:

>> Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a �crit :

>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a
>>>>>>>>> sort of

>>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is
>>>>>>>>> "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never
>>>>>>>>> quite clear
>>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this
>>>>>>>>> God is
>>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves
>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim

>>>>>>>>> fundamentalists, too.
>>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

If you thought that then you don't understand science

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 10:35, Chairman Moo wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:56:02 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Go on then...

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 10:37, Chairman Moo wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:22:04 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2014 05:13, Olrik wrote:

>>> Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a �crit :

>>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a
>>>>>>>>>> sort of

>>>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is
>>>>>>>>>> "demiurge" � whose

>>>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never
>>>>>>>>>> quite clear
>>>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes
>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this
>>>>>>>>>> God is
>>>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves
>>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim

>>>>>>>>>> fundamentalists, too.
>>>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Should I take that as a no?

[abelard]

yet your posts suggest that you are so unhappy

when will you demonstrate you happenis?

or are you going to run away as usual?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:15:40 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>news:D3ABu.18068$0v2....@fx15.am4...
>> On 15/01/2014 17:06, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:59:12 +0000, Chairman Moo
>>> <thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:05:44 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:03, raven1 wrote:

>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:05:48 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence
>>>>>>> argument is rubbish, you need to say why.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Because it's meaningless twaddle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> It is just another way of saying god is everything and the universe is
>>>> god. Like Heinlein's characters 'groking' god. Unless you can prove
>>>> the universe is sentient you just have another irrelevant argument.
>>>
>>> Its believers can't grasp that it's a presumption that only
>>> Christians, Jews and Muslims grant because it's their religious
>>> belief.
>>>
>>> In the real world outside it, it _is_ meaningless twaddle.
>>>
>>> Because much of it is contrary to reality, from God-did-it creation to
>>> the resurrection. Eg there was no Garden of Eden, no Noah's flood, no
>>> virgin birth (the whole Nativity story is a fabrication made up to
>>> match prophecy taken not from the Hebrew Tanach but a Greek
>>> translation, errors and all).
>>>
>>> None of it stands up to the historical method which requires
>>> corroboration from multiple independent sources, and the more of these
>>> the greater the confidence.
>>>
>>> But there isn't any for any of the supposedly Earth-shattering events
>>> that are the foundation of Christian belief.
>>
>> You're attacking belief in the "superhero" or "cosmic craftsman" the
>> writer refers to.
>>
>> Anyone can do that. It's pretty much de rigueur for educated atheists to
>> heap scorn on the metaphors the less educated believe in as literal
>> truths. That's because it takes no effort.

>
>That is the reason it is easy. It is not the reason for doing it. Now, why
>do the educated theist leaders push such nonsense as truth?

Once again, a pathetic, stupid, lying, nasty theist pretends we go
after theists and their beliefs when it's actually the reaction when
they can't keep them among themselves.

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:55:45 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:


>Once again, a pathetic, stupid, lying, nasty theist pretends we go
>after theists and their beliefs when it's actually the reaction when
>they can't keep them among themselves.

poor old christ-opher...

they made you do it

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:37:14 +0000, Chairman Moo
<thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:22:04 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>On 16/01/2014 05:13, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a �crit :
>>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Are all questions about existence scientific? Happiness does or
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> exist for example... would you say happiness doesn't exist because
>>>>>>>> there's no scientific proof for it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is lots of scientific research into happiness. It is classified
>>>>>>> as an emotion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you happy?

Which has nothing to do with some theist writing nonsense about
atheists in a newspaper article, or every theist's inability to
provide evidence for what remains their pretend friend until they do,
after they raised the subject in the first place.

>>>>> Often
>>>>
>>>> And can you scientifically demonstrate the existence of your happiness?
>>>
>>> Why would you want that?

Because the dishonest toe rag is using the standard red herring of
demanding proof of the mundane and undisputed when asked to prove the
unevidenced and disputed.

>>I don't particularly. I just wanted to know if Moo thought all questions
>>of existence were scientific (i.e. required scientific proof as an answer).
>
>If you thought that then you don't understand science

He doesn't, anyway - witness his lie about people had faith that the
Higgs Boson was real before it was found.

>>The other poster puzzled me a bit: "the person who makes the positive
>>assertion needs to provide evidence for his assertion". It sounded like
>>he thought nobody had ever provided evidence for the existence of God -
>>they were just making claims based entirely on faith.

Nobody has ever provided any evidence for it.

If there were, dishonest theists wouldn't need dishonest analogies
like "prove you're happy".

It is merely part of one of the world's hundreds of different
incompatible religious beliefs.

And only taken seriously by its own followers.

It takes remarkable stupidity to presume it beyond its religion(s),
which Christians routinely do in discussion with everybody else.

Outside Christianity (also Judaism and Islam) it is no different than
Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Osiris and all the rest.

>>In contrast, I think thousands of people have provided evidence in

If only he did think.

And nobody has provided any.

>>varying degrees of persuasiveness, except they've included faith as a
>>link in the chain - often the final leap.

Nobody has ever provided anything remotely resembling evidence for it.

And just saying something is, doesn't make it so.

>>As an analogy I think this is similar to Higgs and his boson. He
>>calculated that it must be, but we spent thirty years in a state of
>>faith as to its actual existence.

An outright lie.

Nobody had "faith in its existence". It was a hypothesis, that's all.

[Chairman Moo]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:34:12 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>

wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:32:38 +0000, Chairman Moo
><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:56:54 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:45:53 +0000, Chairman Moo
>>><thi...@byre.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The creation myth of the Australian aborigine people is very close to
>>>>what science proposes happened
>>>
>>>and the alleged big bang is very close to the old testament...
>>
>>No its not
>
>oh yes it is

tisn't

[Chairman Moo]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:39:25 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 16/01/2014 10:37, Chairman Moo wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:22:04 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2014 05:13, Olrik wrote:

>>>> Le 2014-01-15 12:56, DVH a écrit :
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a
>>>>>>>>>>> sort of

>>>>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is
>>>>>>>>>>> "demiurge" – whose

>>>>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never
>>>>>>>>>>> quite clear
>>>>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this
>>>>>>>>>>> God is
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't
>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example – for whom Hart reserves
>>>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>> scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim

>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentalists, too.
>>>>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker
>>>>>>>>>>> sums up
>>>>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>>>>> cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>>>>> – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>>>>> in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists"

Take as a cat

[Oleg Smirnov]

DVH, <news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4>

> version, scientific evidence won't clinch the deal. The
> question isn't a scientific one, about which things
> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is
> and on what it depends."
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

Once again it vaguely resembles something I had read somewhere recently.

[Chairman Moo]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:38:41 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 16/01/2014 10:35, Chairman Moo wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:56:02 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:43:10 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is "demiurge" – whose

>>>>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to
>>>>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example – for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>>>>> scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too.

>>>>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up
>>>>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>>>>> cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>>>>> – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>>>>> in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists"

There.
Satisfied

[Chairman Moo]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:39:45 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

I just did it.

>
>or are you going to run away as usual?

Who was it ran away to France?

[Chairman Moo]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:25:55 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:

>On 16/01/2014 09:18, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>> news:k0yBu.5370$RE4....@fx31.am4...

>> I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence of
>> a god. All the rest is diversion.
>

>I'm not asking you to accept the existence of a god.
>
>I'm asking whether you think that the question of the existence of God
>is a scientific rather than a philosophical one.

Would you care to define what you mean by 'god' ?
After all there is a major difference between the definitions of what
a god could be in almost every culture
>
>And then I was asking whether you thought all questions about existence
>are scientific.
>
>By "scientific question" I mean one with an answer that can be
>scientifically proved.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:24:39 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>
wrote:

And it still rests on an unjustified presumption that atheists don't
have in any form.

Neither he nor any other theist has any say in what atheists should or
should not believe, read, etc until they justify this presumption in
the real world beyond their religion.

[thomas p.]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hr9fd9tms4lge01rh...@4ax.com...

> a major reason is to give the weak reasons for behaving
> in a civilised manner...
>
> your approach is also unsophisticated...you don't start by
> teaching algebra...you start by teaching a child to count

Oh look, yet another absurd analogy. There is nothing illogical or silly
about counting. I see you are still playing silly games. Well, what else
do you have?

>
>
> --
> www.abelard.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:aGNBu.24$%94...@fx09.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 09:20, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>> news:QYzBu.6053$MR2....@fx21.am4...

>>> On 15/01/2014 17:47, Chairman Moo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:09:26 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2014 16:05, Chairman Moo wrote:

>>>>>>>>> why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific evidence

>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>> clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> depends."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> for his assertion. Address that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I deduce from your comment that you disagree that "The question
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>> scientific one".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. the question of the existence of God is in fact a scientific,
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> philosophical, question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are all questions about existence scientific? Happiness does or
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> exist for example... would you say happiness doesn't exist because
>>>>>>> there's no scientific proof for it?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> There is lots of scientific research into happiness. It is classified
>>>>>> as an emotion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you happy?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Often
>>>
>>> And can you scientifically demonstrate the existence of your happiness?
>>

>> Why would you think that impossible to accomplish,
>

> I don't.

In other words you just had to have something to say, meaningless or
otherwise.

[thomas p.]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:21afd955urusm6of2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:20:21 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Why would you think that impossible to accomplish, or are you going to try
>>to confuse evidence and proof?
>
> when is it 'proof'? when you believe it?

Outside of math there is no proof. Please do not pretend to be more dense
than you actually are.

>
> --
> www.abelard.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:EANBu.30222$Xr3....@fx19.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 09:18, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>> news:k0yBu.5370$RE4....@fx31.am4...

>> I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence
>> of
>> a god. All the rest is diversion.
>
> I'm not asking you to accept the existence of a god.
>
> I'm asking whether you think that the question of the existence of God is
> a scientific rather than a philosophical one.
>

> And then I was asking whether you thought all questions about existence
> are scientific.
>
> By "scientific question" I mean one with an answer that can be
> scientifically proved.

I am glad that you admit that there is no reason to believe in a god.

[thomas p.]

"White Spirit" <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:SANBu.22178$J12....@fx10.iad...

> On 16/01/2014 09:18, thomas p. wrote:
>
>> I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence
>> of
>> a god. All the rest is diversion.
>

> There's also the assumption that there is just one god. What about Woden,
> Thunor, Ing and Frea?
>
>
>
>


One wonders what reason they have for not believing in them?

[thomas p.]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:13afd9pijeakakppo...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:18:10 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>>I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence
>>of
>>a god. All the rest is diversion.
>

> you are not a 'we'
>
> nobody is stopping you believing in the tooth fairy...
>
> from whence come your 'shoulds'? and how does
> that get extended to 'we'?


And the diversion continues.

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:pJNBu.26$%94...@fx09.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 09:26, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>> news:j_zBu.6054$MR2....@fx21.am4...
>>> On 15/01/2014 17:12, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:27:06 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists,
>>>>

>>>>> Sorry, the person who makes the positive assertion needs to provide
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> for his assertion. Address that.
>>>>

>>>> It should have stopped at the first lie.
>>>>
>>>> We don't attack it.
>>>>
>>>> We simply respond when stupid theists keep bringing it up outside the
>>>> context of their religion as if it were universally granted.
>>>>
>>>> It's not - only by Christians (also Muslims and Jews if you consider
>>>> the three different versions to be the same one but only Christians
>>>> worship Jesus as a god).
>>>>
>>>> If they didn't do that then their beliefs wouldn't get dissected
>>>
>>> I've never seen you dissecting their beliefs.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to watch you do so.
>>
>> And you could still avoid providing any objective reason for believing in
>> a
>> god.
>
> I wasn't aware that was my task!

Of course it isn't. Your task is to divert attention from the total lack of
any objective reason to believe in a god. It is a shame that you are not
doing very well, but you don't really have much to work with.

[thomas p.]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:f8afd9hg2ct4fsqu5...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:26:47 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And you could still avoid providing any objective reason for believing in
>>a

>>god. Good plan.
>
> what do you mean by 'objective'?
>
> you don't seem to think much


And the diversion continues.

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen news:yKNBu.27$%94...@fx09.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 09:29, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>> news:xPLBu.18348$T%2.1...@fx23.am4...
>>> On 16/01/2014 00:06, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote:
>>>
>>>> So if you redefine god to mean something else, some abstract
>>>> philosophical proposition, then you can say god exist .. if an abstract
>>>> philosophical proposition can be said to exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's called cheating.
>>>
>>> Certainly, if you start out by claiming that God is a bearded fellow who
>>> makes floods, then change your story. But there are numerous people
>>> (outside America, at least) who've never really bought that childish
>>> proposition.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good

>> reason
>> for believing in a god.
>

> You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
> existence of God. I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...

I have no idea why you think you are fooling anybody, but you keep trying.


>
>> Let's talk about the non-childish god you imply
>> exists, unless you would prefer running away from that.

[thomas p.]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:veafd9drjnq235ffe...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:30 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
>>existence of God.
>

> what is his understanding (if any) of the meaning of the term 'god'?

You tell me what the term means, since it is your belief not mine. You
really are too transparent.

>
>>I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...
>

> perhaps he is looking for someone to hold his hand and lead him
> to some father figure in the sky
>
> perhaps he is just desperate to believe!

Perhaps you have nothing to offer and can't bring yourself to admit it. Why
should I define what you believe in?

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:0%NBu.43315$6v7....@fx13.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 09:45, abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:30 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
>>> existence of God.
>>
>> what is his understanding (if any) of the meaning of the term 'god'?
>>

>>> I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...
>>
>> perhaps he is looking for someone to hold his hand and lead him
>> to some father figure in the sky
>>
>> perhaps he is just desperate to believe!
>

> I imagine it's a reflex.

Well, you do have a wonderful imagination.

>
> Most disputants who arrive in alt.atheism are pushing a God. Therefore
> this disputant is pushing a God. Demand proof of a God's existence and the
> job's done.

Why don't you just tell us what your god is and why we should believe in it?

[thomas p.]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:jaafd99vebrdj6d9u...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:29:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good reason

>>for believing in a god. Let's talk about the non-childish god you imply

>>exists, unless you would prefer running away from that.
>

> what would you accept as 'a good reason'?


How would I know? It is your god; you tell me; we can go from there.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 18:13, thomas p. wrote:
> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:21afd955urusm6of2...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:20:21 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why would you think that impossible to accomplish, or are you going to try
>>> to confuse evidence and proof?
>>
>> when is it 'proof'? when you believe it?
>
> Outside of math there is no proof.

So if you claim the sun is up and point to the sun to demonstrate its
upness, I shouldn't believe you until you demonstrate it mathematically.

[DVH]

You do tell so many lies. I count four in the past flurry of posts.

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 18:18, thomas p. wrote:
> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:13afd9pijeakakppo...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:18:10 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am still waiting for you to explain why we should accept the existence
>>> of
>>> a god. All the rest is diversion.
>>
>> you are not a 'we'
>>
>> nobody is stopping you believing in the tooth fairy...
>>
>> from whence come your 'shoulds'? and how does
>> that get extended to 'we'?
>
>
> And the diversion continues.
>

Yes, you're dodging questions like a pro!

[DVH]

There... something we agree on.

> Your task is to divert attention from the total lack of
> any objective reason to believe in a god.

Let's see if we can find some more common ground...

Are there subjective reasons to believe in a god?

[DVH]

Nope.

So we're making progress. We've established that there are things that
exist that can't be proved to exist scientifically.

Are you still unhappy when I say their existence or inexistence is a
philosophical question?

If so, how would you categorise the discussion we've just had about your
happiness. Not scientific, obviously. Not philosophical?

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 16:39, Chairman Moo wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:25:55 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2014 09:18, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:k0yBu.5370$RE4....@fx31.am4...
>>>> On 15/01/2014 15:27, thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4...
>>>>>> "The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of

>>>>>> superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" � the technical term is "demiurge" �

>>>>>> whose
>>>>>> defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the
>>>>>> universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear
>>>>>> what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the
>>>>>> universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is
>>>>>> pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of
>>>>>> scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of

>>>>>> 'intelligent design', for example � for whom Hart reserves plenty of
>>>>>> scorn � and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists,

>>>>>> too.
>>>>>> But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different
>>>>>> version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> this second version better than I can:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'according to the classical metaphysical traditions
>>>>>> of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned

>>>>>> cause of reality � of absolutely everything that is
>>>>>> � from the beginning to the end of time. Understood
>>>>>> in this way, one can�t even say that God "exists"

Reasonable question. Can we herd it into the philosophical question of
the existence of God for the time being, assuming you agree it can be a
philosophical question?

[DVH]

Does the cat exist?

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:24:36 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:veafd9drjnq235ffe...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:30 +0000, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the
>>>existence of God.
>>
>> what is his understanding (if any) of the meaning of the term 'god'?
>
>You tell me what the term means, since it is your belief not mine. You
>really are too transparent.

you appear to suffer from a naive belief that each person means
what you believe you mean by any word...
in fact it is quite impossible that any person will have 'the same'
meaning for any word at all

>>>I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...
>>
>> perhaps he is looking for someone to hold his hand and lead him
>> to some father figure in the sky
>>
>> perhaps he is just desperate to believe!
>
>Perhaps you have nothing to offer and can't bring yourself to admit it.

why are you hoping i'll offer you anything...
stick to the dole office

> Why
>should I define what you believe in?

because you're an idiot?
but it seems to be your clone practice...

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:29:03 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:jaafd99vebrdj6d9u...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:29:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good reason
>>>for believing in a god. Let's talk about the non-childish god you imply
>>>exists, unless you would prefer running away from that.
>>
>> what would you accept as 'a good reason'?
>
>
>How would I know? It is your god; you tell me; we can go from there.

you are not very intelligent are you

[DVH]

On 16/01/2014 18:24, thomas p. wrote:

> Perhaps you have nothing to offer and can't bring yourself to admit it. Why
> should I define what you believe in?

I don't know. Why do you?

[raven1]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:17:31 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:29:03 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>>news:jaafd99vebrdj6d9u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:29:53 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good reason
>>>>for believing in a god. Let's talk about the non-childish god you imply
>>>>exists, unless you would prefer running away from that.
>>>
>>> what would you accept as 'a good reason'?
>>
>>
>>How would I know? It is your god; you tell me; we can go from there.
>
>you are not very intelligent are you

That's interesting coming from someone whose contributions to the
conversation so far have been content-free.

[abelard]

and you are even less intelligent than tommy

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:32:50 -0500, raven1

These morons imagine their god is obvious, and you have to be
particularly stupid not to see it.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Christopher A. Lee,
<news:p03gd91rmminl3nqp...@4ax.com>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:24:39 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov"
> <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>
>> DVH, <news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4>

>>
>>> version, scientific evidence won't clinch the deal. The
>>> question isn't a scientific one, about which things
>>> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is
>>> and on what it depends."
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read
>>

>> Once again it vaguely resembles something I had read
>> somewhere recently.
>
> And it still rests on an unjustified presumption that
> atheists don't have in any form.
>
> Neither he nor any other theist has any say in what
> atheists should or should not believe, read, etc until
> they justify this presumption in the real world beyond
> their religion.

It's nice to meet you again, Christopher.

The atheists are free to believe what they want, but no
one can prohibit someone to point out some fallacies in the
typical atheist sophistry about existense / objectivity.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:50:15 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru>

wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee,
><news:p03gd91rmminl3nqp...@4ax.com>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:24:39 +0400, "Oleg Smirnov"
>> <ve...@gde.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> DVH, <news:1BwBu.36524$q32....@fx07.am4>
>>>
>>>> version, scientific evidence won't clinch the deal. The
>>>> question isn't a scientific one, about which things
>>>> exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is
>>>> and on what it depends."
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read
>>>
>>> Once again it vaguely resembles something I had read
>>> somewhere recently.
>>
>> And it still rests on an unjustified presumption that
>> atheists don't have in any form.
>>
>> Neither he nor any other theist has any say in what
>> atheists should or should not believe, read, etc until
>> they justify this presumption in the real world beyond
>> their religion.

Where is the fallacy or sophistry in any of that, in-your-face, nasty,
sociopathic liar?

>It's nice to meet you again, Christopher.
>
>The atheists are free to believe what they want, but no

Have you ever learned to read for comprehension, imbecile?

>one can prohibit someone to point out some fallacies in the
>typical atheist sophistry about existense / objectivity.

Why can't you stop lying about atheists, to atheists?

You have never once pointed out any fallacies in what we take the time
and trouble to explain, but instead attacked straw men of your own
devising.

But then you're an in-your-face Christian who can't keep his nonsense
to himself and needs to lie about the reaction he engenders.

[DVH]

I think part of the problem here is that when you say "Neither he nor

any other theist has any say in what atheists should or should not

believe, read, etc", you sort of come across as a little nazi, if you
don't mind me saying.

[saracene]

Paradoxes of the death of God.

To the mystic the absence of God signifies a genuine psychological state. He calls it something, invokes the term God in describing it. To him that is atheism.
But anyone might know these confused states and that they may dissipate
What we now call nihilism always was an evil but used to be explained in religious terms. God is dead now but the symbolism was once available to express profound and true thoughts.
Now God is dead the symbol is still used but has taken on a debased meaning.
All gods symbolise something. The gods of Greece and Rome symbolised various forces of nature. What God symbolised originally was something like sovereignty in the days of Empire. What it means now, is something you can’t look beyond to a wider meaning outside, an oppressive demand for belief.
Today's atheists are right in what they deny, but what they are denying is a small thing. And they bring nihilism because there is the loss of a language to criticise authority and power. Nihilism is shallowness and confusion, lack of self belief. It is the pressure to believe something you find contemptible but from which you see no rational escape. It is being subjected the received opinion of the day. And this itself is something that is very like God in the worst sense of the word.

[abelard]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:44:49 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>These morons imagine their god is obvious, and you have to be
>particularly stupid not to see it.

at least you qualify on that score christ-opher

[Smiler]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:37:12 +0000, DVH wrote:

> On 16/01/2014 18:13, thomas p. wrote:
>> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:21afd955urusm6of2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:20:21 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why would you think that impossible to accomplish, or are you going to
>>>> try to confuse evidence and proof?
>>>
>>> when is it 'proof'? when you believe it?
>>
>> Outside of math there is no proof.
>
> So if you claim the sun is up and point to the sun to demonstrate its
> upness, I shouldn't believe you until you demonstrate it mathematically.
>

No. The logical, observable, verifiable evidence for the sun's position
should be sufficient. Now provide similar evidence for the existence of
your supposed god character.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Smiler]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:30 +0000, DVH wrote:

> On 16/01/2014 09:29, thomas p. wrote:
>> "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

>> news:xPLBu.18348$T%2.1...@fx23.am4...
>>> On 16/01/2014 00:06, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote:
>>>
>>>> So if you redefine god to mean something else, some abstract
>>>> philosophical proposition, then you can say god exist .. if an
>>>> abstract philosophical proposition can be said to exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's called cheating.
>>>
>>> Certainly, if you start out by claiming that God is a bearded fellow
>>> who makes floods, then change your story. But there are numerous people
>>> (outside America, at least) who've never really bought that childish
>>> proposition.
>>>
>>>
>>

>> You are the one insisting on a strawman instead of providing a good
>> reason for believing in a god.
>

> You've made three posts now demanding that I provide a case for the

> existence of God. I've no idea why you're in pursuit of this...
>

Because, until you provide objective evidence of your supposed god
character, there's no reason to believe a word you say.

[Smiler]

And you come across as a Nazi for trying to get us to believe, without a
scrap of evidence. No evidence...no belief.

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:rFVBu.386$4J3...@fx11.am4...

> On 16/01/2014 18:13, thomas p. wrote:
>> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:21afd955urusm6of2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:20:21 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why would you think that impossible to accomplish, or are you going to
>>>> try
>>>> to confuse evidence and proof?
>>>
>>> when is it 'proof'? when you believe it?
>>
>> Outside of math there is no proof.
>
> So if you claim the sun is up and point to the sun to demonstrate its
> upness, I shouldn't believe you until you demonstrate it mathematically.

Really? How odd!

>
>> Please do not pretend to be more dense
>> than you actually are.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.abelard.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>>> protection is active.
>>> http://www.avast.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[thomas p.]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:3NVBu.4053$_Q7...@fx14.am4...

Changed your mind already? You told me that you believed it could be.

>
> Are you still unhappy when I say their existence or inexistence is a
> philosophical question?
>
> If so, how would you categorise the discussion we've just had about your
> happiness. Not scientific, obviously. Not philosophical?
>

Not honest?