AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
23 Jan 2023, 8:05 pm
Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!
23 Jan 2023, 8:18 pm
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
23 Jan 2023, 11:41 pm
Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!
24 Jan 2023, 12:08 am
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jan 2023, 7:22 am
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm
First off, apologies if I appear confrontational. I think this is a topic that is inherently one of those "I'm right/everyone else is wrong" kinds of things. My intention is not to be unfriendly, but I worry I often come across that way.
Wouldn't it? Kinda like the initial spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world?
I can see the headlines now: "Florida man blind from birth cured, claims itinerant healer is the Son of God." Would you actually believe that, or would you just assume it's clickbait and move on?
Why wait?
I understand what you're saying, though, but don't make the mistake that negatives or non-existence can't be proven. They most certainly CAN be proven.
Suppose I show you a bowl turned down on a table and I make the claim that there is no apple under the bowl. You can confirm "no apples" by picking up the bowl. To say that God's nature is such that you can't metaphorically turn the bowl and reveal "no God" is logically dangerous ground. I've met more atheists who sought to avoid the argument entirely by pointing out that "I believe there is no God" isn't the same as saying "No God." Two can play that game. I have atheistic leanings myself--the difference between you and me is I just happen to disbelieve one less God than you.
As to the likelihood of God's existence, it's a matter of logic. It's not unlikely. It's an absolute certainty. The idea of God being possible but unlikely falls way short of the mark. If God is logically possible, that is, you can imagine that somewhere "out there" there "might be" a God, then there is at least one logically possible world in which God exists. God's attributes are eternal--He exists everywhere at all times transcending space and time. Since God is infinite and exists in at least one possible universe, it means that he exists in ALL possible universes, including this one.
The evidence thing has nothing to do with reason, hence the problem of demanding evidence. Someone who is physically blind could demand evidence of something, for which you could produce a photograph. Well, photographic evidence might be useful for people with sight, but a blind person has no use for it. The blind person can easily dismiss a photograph as being evidence and there's little anyone can do about it. The problem is not evidence. The problem is blindness.
Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!
24 Jan 2023, 1:22 pm
Wouldn't it? Kinda like the initial spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world?
I can see the headlines now: "Florida man blind from birth cured, claims itinerant healer is the Son of God." Would you actually believe that, or would you just assume it's clickbait and move on?
Why wait?
I understand what you're saying, though, but don't make the mistake that negatives or non-existence can't be proven. They most certainly CAN be proven.
Suppose I show you a bowl turned down on a table and I make the claim that there is no apple under the bowl. You can confirm "no apples" by picking up the bowl. To say that God's nature is such that you can't metaphorically turn the bowl and reveal "no God" is logically dangerous ground. I've met more atheists who sought to avoid the argument entirely by pointing out that "I believe there is no God" isn't the same as saying "No God." Two can play that game. I have atheistic leanings myself--the difference between you and me is I just happen to disbelieve one less God than you.
As to the likelihood of God's existence, it's a matter of logic. It's not unlikely. It's an absolute certainty. The idea of God being possible but unlikely falls way short of the mark. If God is logically possible, that is, you can imagine that somewhere "out there" there "might be" a God, then there is at least one logically possible world in which God exists. God's attributes are eternal--He exists everywhere at all times transcending space and time. Since God is infinite and exists in at least one possible universe, it means that he exists in ALL possible universes, including this one.
The evidence thing has nothing to do with reason, hence the problem of demanding evidence. Someone who is physically blind could demand evidence of something, for which you could produce a photograph. Well, photographic evidence might be useful for people with sight, but a blind person has no use for it. The blind person can easily dismiss a photograph as being evidence and there's little anyone can do about it. The problem is not evidence. The problem is blindness.
If you think that is evidence of god, then your standard of evidence is severely lacking. I would definitely accept that the guy believes that and claims that, but that is still not evidence to support his claim.
As far as your "logical possibility" argument, I'm sorry, and not to be mean, that is just plane idiotic. Just because you can imagine something to exist, doesn't mean it exists, that's wish fulfillment. Let me show you logically how your argument falls apart, on the subject of extraterrestrials, it is indeed very logical to believe that there is, and even that the likelihood is very high, but that is due to the sheer size of the universe, and the fact that we already have an example of life here on earth, however that does not mean that there is yet evidence to support their existence - it just means their existence is plausible. In terms of god though, we must remember god is a supernatural being, or supernatural intelligence, we so far have absolutely no evidence of anything supernatural existing at all, not ghosts, vampires, zombies, demons, etc, therefore, the existence of god is not even plausible.
I can always give other examples, like the invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, etc, these things can be imagined to exist, but it doesn't mean they do in reality.
Another example of something that can be imagined to exist:
On your blindness example, things like that are why in the scientific world, there are standards of evidence, and a process of peer review.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jan 2023, 4:45 pm
Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!
24 Jan 2023, 8:35 pm
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jan 2023, 9:32 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,739
Location: the island of defective toy santas
25 Jan 2023, 5:31 am
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
25 Jan 2023, 7:45 am
25 Jan 2023, 7:50 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,739
Location: the island of defective toy santas
25 Jan 2023, 7:54 am
25 Jan 2023, 7:55 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,739
Location: the island of defective toy santas
25 Jan 2023, 7:56 am
