Community >> View Post
·
Post By
atrimus

Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,489
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 at 01:52:36 pm EDT (Viewed 316 times)
Reply Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 at 11:27:29 pm EDT (Viewed 458 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        1) Humanity isn't wicked.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Well...actually we kinda are. It's just a matter of whos calling who wicked. A lot of people who post on here sure call trump wicked. (and not saying he isn't ;P)



    Quote:
    In the context of this discussion, Ancient One is saying humanity is not INHERENTLY wicked, ala original sin, and his proof are infants who lack willful malevolence. He was not saying that there are no wicked humans at all.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        2) If you want to demonstrate that god has forbidden ANYTHING, first you have to demonstrate that god exists.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This one of those things that cannot be proven or disproven by science...at least at this point.



    Quote:
    God's existence doesn't need to be disproven by science. God can be disproven by logic. First and foremost, the burden of proof of existence is on those who make the claim for something's existence, not on everyone else to prove a negative. I can say Nonsense Man and Zip Woman, both of whom I just made up, exist. Is it up to you to scour the entire universe for these two entities and only if you don't find them anywhere across all time periods can you claim that I was wrong or lied? Of course not. You don't assume the existence of Nonsense Man and Zip Woman and any infinite number of other made-up possibilities until evidence disproving them presents itself. You know dogs, spaghetti, and cell phones exist because you've experienced them. You safely assume Nonsense Man and Zip Woman don't exist because you've never experienced them in any way and the nature of the existence doesn't make sense to you.


Saying that God doesn't exist because we can't prove he/she exists isn't logical though. It's an assumption based on very limited senses which are susceptible to error. Zip Woman doesn't exist from my frame of reference, true enough, but science allows for the possibility of her existence, even if it doesn't advocate that existence.

Agnosticism I get; hell, I might even say that a small part of me agrees with it. But there's a difference between doubt in what can't be proven, and hardcore rejection of what can be neither proven nor disproved.


    Quote:
    How do the faithful, who have the burden of proof, prove the existence of God? They can't. God just happens to lack any property available to the senses. God can't be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. If I tell you that Nonsense Man has these exact same properties - he can't be sensed in any way, he is omniscient and omnipotent, and Nonsense Man created the universe and humankind, he would have the exact same characteristics of God. On what logical grounds can you tell me that God exists and Nonsense Man doesn't? None.



    Quote:
    Here are all the different modes of existence: the physical (mass or energy and any associative properties like size, color, etc.), concepts/ideas (categorizations, fiction, mathematics, sentences), actions/events (things that the other two categories do). God only fits one of these modes, that of an idea (fiction). Of course that is not the mode the faithful claim for God, and yet, God fits no other category. What then does it even mean for God to exist?



    Quote:
    Ancient One also already made this very pertinent point against the existence of God here:



    Quote:
    https://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=community-2017081621523401&layout=thread



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But again, the bible was written by men. They, in their homophobia, wrote verses that were homophobic in the 7th century BCE, and haven't become any less homophobic in the two and a half millennia since.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Ehhh...Agree men have surely messed with it. Not sure just because whats in the books means the writers were homophobes...there is a lot more to whoever they were than just that. That's too easy a label. Those using anything in it to hurt gay people...those are the homophobes.



    Quote:
    Sure, the authors of those particular passages were more than homophobes, but they were also at the least homophobes.






Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software