🚀 go-pugleaf

Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> W.A. Sawford wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote:
>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven.   All you have done
>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is
>>>> suppsed to have done it.  Atheists have said they have proven all
>>>> manner of things.  Almost always it turns out to be something some
>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists.
>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it
>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh).
>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.'
>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists
>>> have claimed it?  Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything,
>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first
>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any
>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal.
>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor
>> a fact.
>>
>> So it can't be proven or disproven.
>>
>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get
>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less.
>>
>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open
>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as
>> something one can simply do without.
>>
>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual
>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place...
>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its
>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology.
>>
>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a
>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof.
>>
>>> Wendy
> 
> Your "god" is yours.  Different people have more or less
> anthropomorphic ideas of gods.  And the claim wasn't so much that your
> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're
> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical
> god is provably false.  The most obviously wrong points would be the
> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood.
> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to
> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge
> by transcribers.

Nonono.

Even the biblical god is not disproveable.

Since and omnipotent intelligence is totally capable of fixing 
everything in the world so it LOOKS a billion years old.

What you have essentially is the current'scientific' view wich projects 
time lines back to a divergence at the point of the big bang, and the 
creationist view which simply truncates them what - 60000 years ago? - 
and scribbles 'God' over the truncation.

Both explanations - neither are really theories - demand one 
supernatural event. IN one case its the presence of a supernatural 
active intelligence, in the other its the breaking of symmetries in a 
non sentient somewhat mechanistic universe.

The former appeals to some, the latter to others.




> 
> Al