BiscuitTrouser said:
The burden of proof to prove a negative is impossible, you cannot ask in an arguement someone to put forward evidence that something doesnt exist. But obviously opinions can still be held using an absence of evidence.
So don't sit around and say you 100% know that God in a biblical form, does not exist? And don't go around shitting on peoples beliefs because you think your way of life is better.
BiscuitTrouser said:
I very much doubt you have any belief khaine is real.
I dunno, he seems pretty real to me.
BiscuitTrouser said:
But youve drawn this conclusion not from evidence he DOESNT exist but from the fact no evidence is there to his existance.
I don't acknowledge that anything exists beyond the mind. Solipsism is the only provable truth. I operate in life based on the premise that things that are tangible exist at least to the degree that they have an effect on my mind. If I can see something, smell it, hear it then I will treat it as something real. But if I can't, I don't automatically jump to the conclusions that it does not exist, I simply have no opinion on its existence.
Mycroft Holmes said:
I am not trying to disprove god, more that i am trying to say there is no reason to believe in him more than khaine. And at least khaines straight forward in his demands. No wishy washy hate this or that but love it. Blood and souls. Fairly direct.
Fully agree on point one, there is no reason to believe in God, over Khaine, or over Leprichauns or Unicorns or Kristen Stewart having an ability to act. The second point though I have to say God(at least the Christian one) is pretty direct too with his whole believe in Jesus and I, or I will torture you for all eternity deal. Which is the main reason why, even if Christianity was provable, I still wouldn't follow it. I have a rule that deities get held to the exact same moral standards I hold people to. And if a king demanded that I worship him, under threat of torture, I would judge him to be a very evil person.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Mycroft Holmes said:
A baby doesn't not believe in God. It has no opinion on the matter because it does not know as it has no knowledge of the subject. It does not believe that God exists, and does not believe that there is no God. Because the default is absence of knowledge, and absence of believe in either a negative or positive value.
Alright? Im not sure where you are going with it, i agree with it though.
Because in my opinion it means that if one wants to say that God does not exist, then they are shirking the default value of we don't know. So they have as much of a burden of proof if they want to say that, as a religious person does if they want to say the opposite. If you want to shrug and yeah, yeah that's not very likely and then walk away then you have to prove nothing. But if you say NOPE GOD DOES NOT EXIST YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, then it's your job to prove that. And its a pretty unprovable premise when the other sides deity is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything up to and including magically falsifying evidence and or deleting parts of peoples brains.
And yes, if you're an atheist then you're saying there is no God, that's what atheism is, that's what the root words break into. If you are anywhere in between then you're an agnostic, you can be a strongly leaning in one direction agnostic, but you're still an agnostic. Frankly I find myself sitting about dead center, the Deists can be quite convincing from the: 'holy shit why is there even anything, why is there existence instead of nothing?' side of the argument.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Then why did you say the burden of proof was on someones shoulders when you agree its on no ones shoulders except those making a claim that will directly affect my lifestyle. Many want me to DO something with it.
It's on the shoulders of anyone who wants to make a definite statement about the subject. Which is not the same as being on no ones shoulders. And hindering lifestyles is a government issue or a moral issue not a metaphysical one. There have been plenty of cultures who mistreated large segments of the population with no God behind them. The Russian poor needed no God to destroy the lives of the Kulaks. And though many homophobes may hide behind gospel, if deprived of that crutch, they would simply find another to hide behind.
And you can't attack an entire group of people based on the actions of a few of their members.
BiscuitTrouser said:
And if it isnt a provable prospect why waste time coming up with a billion billion theories about it when all are as likely to be incorrect as any other.
I don't know. I certainly only dwell on it because I like arguing with people. I find it a useful mental exercise. I personally find meaning in other things, like helping people and trying to make the world a better place before I leave it. And if there is a God or some such force, I hope s/he/it judges me kindly for my actions. If s/he/it does not, then I would rather suffer his torments than be on his side.
As for other people, they struggle to find meaning. They like to believe they are a bigger part of something. Some use it as a shield to defend their wicked actions, and must convince themselves of the truth. The reasons people come up with the theories are as numerous as the theories themselves. Perhaps moreso.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Also if youre going to descend into existential nihilism in an arguement then youre wasting everyones time. There is a truth. People usually resort to this in the face of just trying to trip everyone else up for the sake of it.
Nothing I have said is nihilism. Nihilism is the belief in nothing. There is a definite truth that exists in this universe. But neither you, nor I nor anyone on this Earth will ever know of it. At least not in this life.
I do enjoy tripping people up, but my argument is more live with whatever you believe to be true and don't shit on whatever other people believe. Terminate421 came into a thread called Things you can't prove, but believe. He didn't come in and say, 'fuck you all God exists you heathens you must convert now' all he said, was that he believed in God. He freely admitted there was no proof of it. And someone immediately started shitting on his beliefs for no reasons. So he tried responding nicely to the guy. And the guy decided to be an even bigger dick, to someone who did absolutely nothing wrong.
That is why I am in here in this thread.
BiscuitTrouser said:
I personally dont use the definition of "existance" that the previous poster did, dont act as if i do.
Who is WE? You and some guy with a faulty idea of how occums razor worked? Alright? Not to me you havnt. Since as far as im concerned that definition was rubbish.
It was a hilariously bad definition, but I like to turn peoples logic back on them. Frankly I didn't even realize you were a different person. I just saw someone quoted me and replied.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Not to mention if youre going to pull the whole "Life is the matrix of the mind" stuff we can just start talking about all this in the context of the rules invented by your mind to govern this invented universe. You can go levels and levels deeper and i can follow you, the arguement is pointless and infinite. SO lets just discuss real laws and real truths on the basis that they do exist, even IN the context of an invented mind universe.
Sure but you've basically just conceded if you admit that the whole everything is of the mind argument is true. If you want to discuss our shared perception of reality though there's still no proving it. God can make people with the wrong number of ribs, and then magically append the number later, because hes magic and his ways are mysterious and unknowable. He can declare Pi to be 3, and then later make it a never ending search for more digits. He can make the bible true and then with a flick of his wrist magically make it false, and then go hide dinosaur bones, invent the Devil who he has total power over, and then claim he can't stop the Devil but is still omnipotent. It doesn't matter, because omnipotence is a trump card that you can't beat.
You can say: "not very likely." But you can't say nor prove it untrue.
Edit: my original captcha thing was an empty white box from somethingorothermedia. Claiming it was a puzzle I had to solve... but there was nothing there. Not sure if it had an error... or if the escapist is finding creative ways to insult my arguments...