Atheists and theists are the same.

[JamesLast99]

Might be easier for you to define your version - since it's part of your arguments...

I define supernatural as something which is not explainable by, and will ever remain beyond the reach of natural science.

So not something we don't know or understand, something we cannot know or understand.


Actually, all observations are indirect, but in the case of the Big Bang, some of the recent observations are physical - that is cosmic microwave background, etc. Earlier observations came in the form of mathematical results from calculations based on, and extrapolated from, existing (and supported)theories.

Whats the bonus ball on the weekend?

 

[Rabbie]

Whats the bonus ball on the weekend?

I could tell you but it might reduce the amount I am going to win

 

[Mike375]

Might be easier for you to define your version - since it's part of your arguments...

I define supernatural as something which is not explainable by, and will ever remain beyond the reach of natural science.

So not something we don't know or understand, something we cannot know or understand.

Pretty much the same here.

Actually, all observations are indirect, but in the case of the Big Bang, some of the recent observations are physical - that is cosmic microwave background, etc. Earlier observations came in the form of mathematical results from calculations based on, and extrapolated from, existing (and supported)theories.

There was a show on TV out here a couple of nights ago about it and the first "listening" etc.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike375, a couple of comments in passing:

First, you were taking on the 2+2=4 problem and the difference in viewpoints. From the strict mathematical viewpoint, this is provable or disprovable by experiment. Testable. And if you take two nickels, then take two more nickels, you have four nickels. Test complete, results corroborate theory. Now, I would tell you the joke about the boss who asked the engineer, computer geek, and tax accountant how much was 2+2. I'll cut to the chase to keep it short. The engineer whips out the hand-held and says 3.999999999 plus or minus 0.000000005. The computer geek says, I'll write a program to get that answer for you by next week if you have a funded work account for it. The accountant says, What do you wnat it to be? But the TRUE scientist just does the experiment.

As to "funding driving results" discussion: First, you are right that some self-serving research has occurred in this world, but when it was peer-reviewed, a lot of it became suspect and eventually discredited. Second, are you aware that the King James Version of the Bible was a "funded translation that drove its results" ? King James II was a known, extreme misogynist. He was well aware of the King's Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. He advised the monks doing that translation to consistently pick interpretations that suppressed, denigrated, and downplayed roles of women either directly or by implication in choice of translations. So even the Bible isn't immune to "directed funding" results.

The problem with God, of course, is that the entire thing isn't testable in a way that offers unequivocal proof. And that is why God is not a theory but a belief grounded only in faith*. *Using strict definitions of Belief and Faith.

In common language, a theory is any idea. In strict scientific usage, a theory is testable and doesn't gain the appelation of theory until it has been tested at least a couple of times. Before the initial tests, it is a surmise or hypothesis. It has to "graduate" by being tested in order to be called a theory. Which is why evolution is a theory but the Genesis creation story is a belief grounded in faith.

 

[Rich]

Whats the bonus ball on the weekend?

Ask a fortune teller

 

[Mike375]

The Doc Man

Mike Gurman (I think it was Mike) said if something could not be disproved it was suspect.

2 + 2 = 4. Using a calculator that gives 3.99999999999 only proves the calculator is limited.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

The Doc Man

Mike Gurman (I think it was Mike) said if something could not be disproved it was suspect.

I don't remember saying exactly that, but I think I agree (so perhaps I did say it). If there's no way to formulate a potential falsification of an idea, it could be wrong and we would never know it.

 

[speakers_86]

Mike Gurman (I think it was Mike) said if something could not be disproved it was suspect.

It was ME!

 

[Alc]

I'm intrigued why you think I should get off the fence - I don't know the answer. You want me to guess?

What I'm curious about, is whether you will admit that there are beings which do not exist. A gryphon is one such being. It does not exist. Never has.
Since you're unable and/or unwilling to admit this, it does go a long way toward explaining how you're so sure that God exists.

I'm as emphatic as I can be - Is gryphon the name of the bus company?
And I am wrong? There is that very real possibility? I got a stagecoach.The subject may or may not be an imaginary being. Maybe you have some qualification that enables you to state emphatically that God is imaginary. We'll start from there?

You can waffle and try to evade the question as much as you like. It wasn't a trick question and you know it wasn't. It was a straight forward question to see if you could grasp the fact that - to someone who doesn't believe in God - one mythical creature is the same as another. I could just as easily have said unicorn, troll or goblin, rather than gryphon.

You are refusing to state categorically that this magical, fictitious being exists. This goes a long way toward explaining your willingness to accept others e.g. God.

I just have a grade B at history GCSE - so unsurpisingly - I don't know.

What does a grade B in history have to do with anything?
Gryphons have NEVER existed. How would knowing more about history have helped you answer?
Are you suggesting an A in geography would give you a better knowledge of Narnia than someone with a C?

As for differing definitions - I did answer further to that which you seem to have missed.

Yes, I did miss the definitions. I have gone back and searched the thread and still can't find them. You can put this down to my lack of searching skills if you like. Please would you explain to me the difference between a fairy (I didn't use a gryphon, due to your possible acceptance of their existence) and God? A link to to the post where you typed your last explanations would be fine.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike375 - the joke about the engineer and his calculator was just that ... a JOKE. Of COURSE the calculator was limited. But so was the engineer, who didn't think on his own so much as rely on something or someone else for just coming up with the answer.

Which is one of my complaints regarding the more extreme theists. They let someone else tell them the answers that the "someone else" believes in rather than coming up with their own beliefs through introspection, rumination, and other euphemisms for thinking on one's own, outside the box and all that such thinking implies.

 

[JamesLast99]

What I'm curious about, is whether you will admit that there are beings which do not exist. A gryphon is one such being. It does not exist. Never has.
Since you're unable and/or unwilling to admit this, it does go a long way toward explaining how you're so sure that God exists.

You can waffle and try to evade the question as much as you like. It wasn't a trick question and you know it wasn't. It was a straight forward question to see if you could grasp the fact that - to someone who doesn't believe in God - one mythical creature is the same as another. I could just as easily have said unicorn, troll or goblin, rather than gryphon.

You are refusing to state categorically that this magical, fictitious being exists. This goes a long way toward explaining your willingness to accept others e.g. God.

What does a grade B in history have to do with anything?
Gryphons have NEVER existed. How would knowing more about history have helped you answer?
Are you suggesting an A in geography would give you a better knowledge of Narnia than someone with a C?

Yes, I did miss the definitions. I have gone back and searched the thread and still can't find them. You can put this down to my lack of searching skills if you like. Please would you explain to me the difference between a fairy (I didn't use a gryphon, due to your possible acceptance of their existence) and God? A link to to the post where you typed your last explanations would be fine.

Of course mythical creatures do not exist by definition - so its is important to make sure the definition is clear.Now clearly if you define God to be mythical - then your God does not exist. Of course those who do beleive in God, don't define him as non existent. That would be foolish.You don't believe God exists - so you define God as non existent - and then use that as "proof" or emphatic evidence that he doesn't exist.That is the problem with your definition - if you apply the same to anything you get some fantastical results - far more far fetched than a belief in God.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Of course mythical creatures do not exist by definition - so its is important to make sure the definition is clear.Now clearly if you define God to be mythical - then your God does not exist. Of course those who do beleive in God, don't define him as non existent. That would be foolish.You don't believe God exists - so you define God as non existent - and then use that as "proof" or emphatic evidence that he doesn't exist.That is the problem with your definition - if you apply the same to anything you get some fantastical results - far more far fetched than a belief in God.

What Alc is trying hard to get you to answer is essentially this: What is the difference between God and any of the mythical creatures previously discussed? - or in other words, how is God not mythical?

What is there in your defintion or description of God that sets him apart from mythical beings such as Faeries and Gryphons? (Aside from your assertions that he's real - assertions which anyone could make on any subect)

 

[JamesLast99]

What Alc is trying hard to get you to answer is essentially this: What is the difference between God and any of the mythical creatures previously discussed? - or in other words, how is God not mythical?

What is there in your defintion or description of God that sets him apart from mythical beings such as Faeries and Gryphons? (Aside from your assertions that he's real - assertions which anyone could make on any subect)

I have no idea if he is or isn't mythical - but I do know that a personla definition of God being mythical - therefore he is is rediculoous. Just as much as the vice versa.The proof that Alc is not interested in looking at the evidence - is that when I examined the evidence for a Gryphon - he said I was being rediculous - cos it didn't exist.As he said since he views God in the same way.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Obviously I can't speak on Alc's behalf about his interest level in the available evidence, but just out of my own personal interest - what sort of evidence do you have?

 

[JamesLast99]

None that makes me beleive he definately exists or doesn't exist?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

So... how is he different from a mythical creature such as... I dunno - the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster?

 

[JamesLast99]

Its largely agreed that the evidence for the existence of those 2 isn't great, I haven't the evidence or expertise to disagree with the conclusion that they almost certainly don't exist.We have been here.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Its largely agreed that the evidence for the existence of those 2 isn't great, I haven't the evidence or expertise to disagree with the conclusion that they almost certainly don't exist.

If we'd been discussing this back at the start of the 20th century, that consensus would quite likely have pointed the other way. I don't see how popularity is any kind of reliable indicator of truth - so what else is there?

What is there that sets apart current notions of God from Victorian-era notions about Nessie or the Yeti?

We have been here.

Apologies if I'm raking over ground that has already been covered - I think I probably wasn't here last time the topic was discussed.

 

[Alc]

What Alc is trying hard to get you to answer is essentially this: What is the difference between God and any of the mythical creatures previously discussed? - or in other words, how is God not mythical?

What is there in your defintion or description of God that sets him apart from mythical beings such as Faeries and Gryphons? (Aside from your assertions that he's real - assertions which anyone could make on any subect)

You're wasting your time, Mike, but thanks for the attempt.

I have no idea if he is or isn't mythical - but I do know that a personla definition of God being mythical - therefore he is is rediculoous. Just as much as the vice versa.The proof that Alc is not interested in looking at the evidence - is that when I examined the evidence for a Gryphon - he said I was being rediculous - cos it didn't exist.As he said since he views God in the same way.

You didn't examine the evidence for a gryphon. There is no evidence for a gryphon. You couldn't think of a way to differentiate a belif in Goid from a belief in a gryphon, so you waffled for a while, then claimed you'd already answered. You also said 'I have a B in history, so I don't know if it existed or not', which is pretty meaningless however you look at it.

Saying that trolls, faeries, goblins, gryphons, God, pixies, or whatever are fictional isn't a 'personal definition', as you put it. It's based on a total lack of evidence that any of these things exist.

Incidentally, if you now don't know whether or not God is mythical, why did you have such a problem with my not believing that Jesus was his son?

If we'd been discussing this back at the start of the 20th century, that consensus would quite likely have pointed the other way. I don't see how popularity is any kind of reliable indicator of truth - so what else is there?

What is there that sets apart current notions of God from Victorian-era notions about Nessie or the Yeti?

Apologies if I'm raking over ground that has already been covered - I think I probably wasn't here last time the topic was discussed.

It wasn't really discussed. James said there's 'a difference in the definition' and claims to have elaborated on this, but his points must be pretty well hidden, as I can't find them. He was asked to post a link to them, but no luck so far.

 

[JamesLast99]

Sorry yes - I am so out of line - with the idea that God may or may not exist - but that I find Nessie extermely unlikely. Silly me!