Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2013, 04:01 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2013 04:06 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Essentially the argument posits an eternal vivifying force.
A bit like Deism, and not unlike Hinduism and Buddhism, though many Buddhists have no specific God. Buddha never claimed Godhood.
As to issues relating to the intrinsic goodness and moral rights of God (general Judaeo/Christian outlook) this body takes goodness/perfection as a given, and argue from that premise. Unless we incorporate a soul, travelling via some form of reincarnation,or other strange postulate, all that video argument says is that.....
.....some form of long term preservation /causality is extent.
We can extrapolate as to the totally good, perfect, all knowing,all powerful, loving, kind, ever present God at our peril, especially from the seemingly ultra limited aspect of The Book. But to do so requires a sopping up of absolutes, or some really rigid questioning
as to the bona fides of any spiritual force for the good, along with the rationale for such, given the practical secular issues.
The video, by equivocation, seems to suggest far more than what is really being said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 05:07 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(12-11-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 05:05 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  He is saying god fits the description of nature - Untrue
Nature is observable.
God is not

God would have to be in another universe for him to be the conserving agent that he asserts that god is.
This universe already has a natural conserving force we refer to as physics.

So to prove god exists, he still needs to find a universe in which god is the conserving force that "holds everything together"
Good luck with that

Interesting. Most people would change your assertions to:

1) Nature is always observable

2) God is claimed to be observable on a limited basis, as well as verifiable/falsifiable on a limited basis

He has changed the definition of god to essentially be glue that holds things together.
He is asking us to believe that a model plane can be held together by god glue, which is different that our good ol fashion normal natural glue.

He can't assemble a model plane using his god glue. He can dip his glue brush into an empty jar as much as he would like but it's not going to stick.

If I use natural glue, it will.

He needs to show that this god glue exists.

"The description I gave for god fits the description of glue, therefore god must exist"....- Nope that's not how it works

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2013, 06:37 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(12-11-2013 05:07 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  He has changed the definition of god to essentially be glue that holds things together.
He is asking us to believe that a model plane can be held together by god glue, which is different that our good ol fashion normal natural glue.

He can't assemble a model plane using his god glue. He can dip his glue brush into an empty jar as much as he would like but it's not going to stick.

If I use natural glue, it will.

He needs to show that this god glue exists.

"The description I gave for god fits the description of glue, therefore god must exist"....- Nope that's not how it works

I define God as existing.
Therefore God exists.

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-11-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 03:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:33 PM)kim Wrote:  The error in his thinking is thinking he can prove something that doesn't exist.

Kim, your being narrow-minded. Watch the video and attack his actual argument. Besides you can't show that God doesn't exist so you have no business making the claim you did.

You are suggesting that Kim is somehow obligated to prove a negative. If something is not evidently there, how can you prove it isn't there?

Kim is under no obligation to prove the non existence of God, since proving a negative cannot be accomplished. The burden of proof is always upon the claimant.

Hence, since the guy in the video is making the positive claim of God's existence, and has miserably failed to do it, Kim's statement of "the error in his thinking is thinking he can prove something that doesn't exist" is both qualified and justified.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
13-11-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(12-11-2013 07:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Kim, your being narrow-minded. Watch the video and attack his actual argument. Besides you can't show that God doesn't exist so you have no business making the claim you did.

You are suggesting that Kim is somehow obligated to prove a negative. If something is not evidently there, how can you prove it isn't there?

Kim is under no obligation to prove the non existence of God, since proving a negative cannot be accomplished. The burden of proof is always upon the claimant.

Hence, since the guy in the video is making the positive claim of God's existence, and has miserably failed to do it, Kim's statement of "the error in his thinking is thinking he can prove something that doesn't exist" is both qualified and justified.

I'm not asking Kim to prove a negative. I am asking Kim to prove the claim she made. It seems the burden of proof is only upon theist claimants.....if your an atheist and you make an unsubstantiated claim....you get a pass....right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 04:43 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(13-11-2013 04:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not asking Kim to prove a negative. I am asking Kim to prove the claim she made. It seems the burden of proof is only upon theist claimants.....if your an atheist and you make an unsubstantiated claim....you get a pass....right?

Nice try, but no. Once again, so much for seeming to be reasonable...

The video makes a claim for the existence of god, and fails miserably. Since the video has failed to establish it's claim (the existence of god), according to the null hypothesis, then the claim is false (no reason to believe in the existence of god).

Kim points out that the video fails miserably. The proof is that the guy in the video utterly fails to substantiate his original claim for the existence of god, a claim that has been systematically dismantled in this very thread.

There go go, that is your 'proof'. The video made a claim and failed to back that up, making note of that fact doesn't require more evidence outside of observing that the original claimant failed. For fuck's sake...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-11-2013, 04:52 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(13-11-2013 04:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 04:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not asking Kim to prove a negative. I am asking Kim to prove the claim she made. It seems the burden of proof is only upon theist claimants.....if your an atheist and you make an unsubstantiated claim....you get a pass....right?

Nice try, but no. Once again, so much for seeming to be reasonable...

The video makes a claim for the existence of god, and fails miserably. Since the video has failed to establish it's claim (the existence of god), according to the null hypothesis, then the claim is false (no reason to believe in the existence of god).

Kim points out that the video fails miserably. The proof is that the guy in the video utterly fails to substantiate his original claim for the existence of god, a claim that has been systematically dismantled in this very thread.

There go go, that is your 'proof'. The video made a claim and failed to back that up, making note of that fact doesn't require more evidence outside of observing that the original claimant failed. For fuck's sake...

Your talking fantasy. Kim said the video was errant because her unsubstantiated claim was right. She made no attempt to actually critique the contents of the video.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 05:07 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(13-11-2013 04:52 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 04:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nice try, but no. Once again, so much for seeming to be reasonable...

The video makes a claim for the existence of god, and fails miserably. Since the video has failed to establish it's claim (the existence of god), according to the null hypothesis, then the claim is false (no reason to believe in the existence of god).

Kim points out that the video fails miserably. The proof is that the guy in the video utterly fails to substantiate his original claim for the existence of god, a claim that has been systematically dismantled in this very thread.

There go go, that is your 'proof'. The video made a claim and failed to back that up, making note of that fact doesn't require more evidence outside of observing that the original claimant failed. For fuck's sake...

Your talking fantasy. Kim said the video was errant because her unsubstantiated claim was right. She made no attempt to actually critique the contents of the video.

Please go complete 5th Grade.
You REPEATEDLY CONSTANTLY make this error.
It's "YOU'RE".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 05:13 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(13-11-2013 05:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 04:52 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your talking fantasy. Kim said the video was errant because her unsubstantiated claim was right. She made no attempt to actually critique the contents of the video.

Please go complete 5th Grade.
You REPEATEDLY CONSTANTLY make this error.
It's "YOU'RE".

YOU'RE a nit.

Did I get is right miss crabtree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2013, 05:16 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(13-11-2013 04:52 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your talking fantasy. Kim said the video was errant because her unsubstantiated claim was right. She made no attempt to actually critique the contents of the video.

You are a dense and obtuse as a brick. The video failed to substantiate it's claim. If the video had made a good argument or been able to substantiate it's claim, THEN and only THEN would Kim be required to provide evidence more compelling than 'because I said so'. The video failed miserably, you yourself claim to not even buy into it. So simply noting that the video failed to make it's point is not a claim that requires substantiation, it's a simple observation of another's failure.

The video is bullshit. For my evidence I cite the arguments made as such in this very thread.

Now go away and try to be pedantic someplace else.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: