^^^ interesting

Over and over, I get to wondering who Viaro really is - one time, I thought he was Maven. Now it seems he is Toneyb. Very civil conversation between two opposing factions. Now, if only it was DeepSight. Thats the only person its obvious he isn't on NL. All the vitriol is reserved solely for OOI's messiah

@OP:

Have you considered that the most significant evidence of God is this discussion and the fact that the question even came up? "Nothing" is rarely discussed. What ought be discussed is which of the "gods" is God and which are pretenders - differing cultures that never met in ancient times all had their deities - why do you suppose everyone could be fooled? What fooled them - God or nothingness? Or maybe, since its all about evolution, humankind didn't develop brains till atheists came onto the scene - when?

@Ilosiwaju:

Abeg O! Don't visit your dictionary because of me O. I'm dreading clicking reply because of you. Meanwhile, how now, bros?

Nuclearboy baba agba! I dey o my brother. What's with the dread of clicking reply now?
wetin i do sir?
hope ur good too. . .

davidylan:

Which is why i wonder why the atheist . . . who knows nothing . . . spends so much time berating the God of the bible.

Just as you spend too much time berating the god of the koran no?

toba:

Empirical or no empirical,d wind blows&no1 hetherto knows where it comes from,Yet when it blows everythng light dances to its admiration.Not only light thngs,av seen a storm/wind pull down a very very firm building.This shows there must be a force more powerful that d wind obeys/propels d wind to blow.Until dat force says stop,d wind wouldnt.[b]Now we read in d bible dat Jesus was journeying wit his disciples on a boat.He was fast asleep,suddenly a wind/storm came&almost overturn d boat.Jesus was woken&he immediately spoke to d wind&it ceased.Jesus demostrated force stronger dan d wind.So there exist a God d strong/light wind obey[/b]s

Why does your "evidence" for god has to be stories written about a god by men? Will you point to a god that exists on its own independent of the stories that men write about their various gods?

toneyb:

Why does your "evidence" for god has to be stories written about a god by men? Will you point to a god that exists on its own independent of the stories that men write about their various gods?

my buroda, me sef see toba post o. i no just know wia to stat from. make i just go prepare wash shelsi mash wit hinta milaun.

nuclearboy:

Over and over, I get to wondering who Viaro really is - one time, I thought he was Maven. Now it seems he is Toneyb. Very civil conversation between two opposing factions. Now, if only it was DeepSight. Thats the only person its obvious he isn't on NL. All the vitriol is reserved solely for OOI's messiah  

So now Viaro is now toneyb?

@OP:

Have you considered that the most significant evidence of God is this discussion and the fact that the question even came up? "Nothing" is rarely discussed. What ought be discussed is which of the "gods" is God and which are pretenders - differing cultures that never met in ancient times all had their deities - why do you suppose everyone could be fooled? What fooled them - God or nothingness? Or maybe, since its all about evolution, humankind didn't develop brains till atheists came onto the scene - when?

Evidence against the existence of any God(s) generally is also evidence against the existence of any specific God you wish to consider.

If there is no evidence that a red crow exists, there is clearly by implication no evidence that a red crow called Toney exists.

Every God is just another in a long line of utterly unsupported ideas of Gods and Goddesses through human history.

toneyb:


Why does your "evidence" for god has to be stories written about a god by men? Will you point to a god that exists on its own independent of the stories that men write about their various gods?

U ask 2many ques,without u proving d non existence of God.
Im sure u ve not been to israel/jerusalem,dats y u could post wot u dnt know about d bible.If u had,u would see signs of all d events dat were recorded in d bible,up to d 14Station Jesus carried d cross.Krayola ur fellow atheist request an evidence,dats y i gave dat of Jesus&d wind.If u doubt my explanations,u can tell me where u think d wind came from

nuclearboy:

Over and over, I get to wondering who Viaro really is - one time, I thought he was Maven. Now it seems he is Toneyb. Very civil conversation between two opposing factions. Now, if only it was DeepSight. Thats the only person its obvious he isn't on NL. All the vitriol is reserved solely for OOI's messiah

toneyb:

So now Viaro is now toneyb?

What would viaro not see on Nairaland again?


@Commander Nuclearboy,
Now that you have 'coughed', I will behave for a while with the messiah of OOI. I don't want to face your tribunal so soon again, so I'll just keep off my carbonated drinks for now.

toneyb:



Why does your "evidence" for god has to be stories written about a god by men? Will you point to a god that exists on its own independent of the stories that men write about their various gods?

I asked ogaga to prove the existence of satan,he simply quoted d bible where satan was mentioned to justify his claim.Why d bible? No other evidence? Now if d 'stories of men' about satan,about woman labouring hard b4 child birth,about men struggling to be sucessful could be true as stated in d bible,then logically one can conclude dat d stories of men about d existence of God is TRUE

After scrolling through most of the posts here, there was still no piece of evidence of a God.

manmustwac:

Thats a good statement when u look at it from an agnostic point of view but then the ball is in the court of the theist to prove what he believes. How do expect the athiest to disprove what cannot be proven?

As the above poster noted, you cannot disprove what does not exist. The Russel's teapot analogy fits quite well here. You can add to that any absurd object you can think of. e.g a pink unicorn, magic elves etc. Sure we cannot prove they exist but following the theists reasoning, they do exist.

Besides if any of the Gods exist, surely they should still be leaving some evidence that will be detectable by scientific means.

thehomer:

As the above poster noted, you cannot disprove what does not exist. The Russel's teapot analogy fits quite well here. You can add to that any absurd object you can think of. e.g a pink unicorn, magic elves etc. Sure we cannot prove they exist but following the theists reasoning, they do exist.

Russel's (?) teapot and a thousand other indices definitely do not apply here, and that is the most illiterate argument any atheist can banter any day for topics like this (no offence to you directly). The reason why that falls flat on its face is that the person making that statement does not believe anywhere, any day, in what he/she postulates - that is what is called a strawman: you set up a fallacy that is without substance and ask others to attack it! That's a super comedy. Ask the atheist speaking about the teapot or pink unicorn if he actually believes in such things, unlike the theist who only presents what he believes in? Theists do not go about in their worldviews postulating what they do not believe in - only the atheist does precisely that! Tell me as an atheist that you believe in and worship the pink unicorn - mean it and show me your theology for the tea-pot/pink unicorn, and viaro will straighten you out presto.

If you don't believe in the tea pot you proclaim, what has that got to do with the neighbour across the street?

Besides if any of the Gods exist, surely they should still be leaving some evidence that will be detectable by scientific means.

You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural.

viaro:

Russel's (?) teapot and a thousand other indices definitely do not apply here, and that is the most illiterate argument any atheist can banter any day for topics like this (no offence to you directly).

No offense taken directly.

viaro:

The reason why that falls flat on its face is that the person making that statement does not believe anywhere, any day, in what he/she postulates - that is what is called a strawman: you set up a fallacy that is without substance and ask others to attack it! That's a super comedy. Ask the atheist speaking about the teapot or pink unicorn if he actually believes in such things, unlike the theist who only presents what he believes in?

Russel's teapot analogy does not qualify as a strawman fallacy in this discussion because in all truth, no one can indeed prove that this teapot exists. So I have not in any way exaggerated your claim. We can be 99.99% positive that it is not present. People worshiping this cup will not make it appear or if present, disappear.

viaro:

Theists do not go about in their worldviews postulating what they do not believe in - only the atheist does precisely that! Tell me as an atheist that you believe in and worship the pink unicorn - mean it and show me your theology for the tea-pot/pink unicorn, and viaro will straighten you out presto.

On the contrary, theists do postulate what they do not accept though some may vary from individual to individual. e.g Evolution, slavery, euthanasia, contraception etc.
Well since you've classified me as an atheist, by the very definition of that term, I should not have any theology.
The existence of an object does not depend on whether or not you believe it does exist no matter how strongly one may wish it to be so.

viaro:

If you don't believe in the tea pot you proclaim, what has that got to do with the neighbour across the street?

I only mentioned it as an analogy it can be changed to whatever object that has a similar probability of existing.

viaro:

You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural.

What spiritual things do you wish to talk about?
Besides, I'm still waiting for your evidence of a God.

thehomer:

Russel's teapot analogy does not qualify as a strawman fallacy in this discussion because in all truth, no one can indeed prove that this teapot exists. So I have not in any way exaggerated your claim. We can be 99.99% positive that it is not present. People worshiping this cup will not make it appear or if present, disappear.

Lol, the atheist who asks others to prove or disprove any existence for the tea pot already knows that such a thing does not exist - whereas, that is not at par with the theist's case for his argument about the existence of God. The theist does not ask the atheist to disprove something on the basis of the theist's non-belief; whereas the atheist sets up a strawman about what he himself does not believe in actual existence in the first place.

On the contrary, theists do postulate what they do not accept though some may vary from individual to individual. e.g Evolution, slavery, euthanasia, contraception etc.

That is simply false. First, the theist does not argue for the existence of something he already believes does not exist - that is what the atheist does. Second, neither evolution, nor euthanasia, nor contraception could be regarded as worldviews or belief systems - so they are very untenable examples to present in your defence. For example, I'm not aware that anybody worships "contraception", which is a strawman example to make at par with a belief system.

Well since you've classified me as an atheist, by the very definition of that term, I should not have any theology.

No, I did not classify you - the "you" in that statement is generic and was not used in particular reference to 'thehomer'. I was well aware that you were using Russel's analogy (which if personalised by anyone else for themselves, makes absolutely no substance for their own personalised arguements for what they already have concluded does not exist).

However, if you're self-classified as an atheist, you may not need a theology - which again takes nothing away from the observations I've made: that it is rather the atheist that sets up his own strawman and collapses it all at once.

The existence of an object does not depend on whether or not you believe it does exist no matter how strongly one may wish it to be so.

In just the same way, the existence of any entity does not depend on whether or not you disbelieve its existence, no matter how strongly you may wish it does not.

I only mentioned it as an analogy it can be changed to whatever object that has a similar probability of existing.

Makes no difference all the same. Any other object you may change it into still funnels down to the basic premise: that, it is only the atheist who argues for the existence of something he already has concluded about its non-existence.

What spiritual things do you wish to talk about?

God and the subject of the supernatural.

Besides, I'm still waiting for your evidence of a God.

I'm also still waiting for your non-existence of God.

viaro:

That is simply false. First, the theist does not argue for the existence of something he already believes does not exist - that is what the atheist does. Second, neither evolution, nor euthanasia, nor contraception could be regarded as worldviews or belief systems - so they are very untenable examples to present in your defence. For example, I'm not aware that anybody worships "contraception", which is a strawman example to make at par with a belief system.

The examples I gave while not being worldviews, they do seriously affect the way some people live their lives so it affects their worldviews. Just as the concept of God affects people's worldviews while not being a worldview.

viaro:

Makes no difference all the same. Any other object you may change it into still funnels down to the basic premise: that, it is only the atheist who argues for the existence of something he already has concluded about its non-existence.

Not so. If the object were say a rocket fragment measuring about 20cm x 20cm x 10cm within the asteroid belt, no one can actually say they know it is absent. But if someone made a claim that he saw or somehow detected such a fragment, the burden of proof is on him to show his evidence not on the other people since it is highly improbable though not impossible that such an object is there. In spite of whoever or how many people believe it is present.

viaro:

God and the subject of the supernatural.

Ok. What do you consider supernatural?

viaro:

I'm also still waiting for your non-existence of God.

Your request for proof of the absence of a God is why I gave you the Russel's teapot analogy. It is to show you that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim for the existence of God.

thehomer:

The examples I gave while not being worldviews, they do seriously affect the way some people live their lives so it affects their worldviews. Just as the concept of God affects people's worldviews while not being a worldview.

I'm sorry you're getting it all mixed up once again. The question is not about what affects people's worldviews - rather, we're talking about worldviews in particular: in themselves. Anything could be either ancillary or peripheral, but they may also not be germane to the worldview(s) themselves. It is not the ancillary, peripherals or otherwise that form the discussion on any particular worldview, but the worldview itself. That is why your examples still do not rise to the point. Between theism and atheism, nobody holds a preference one way or another for the tea pot: it does not affect anybody's worldview in anyway, not even the worldview of the atheist himself who postulates what he does not believe to be in actual existence.

Not so. If the object were say a rocket fragment measuring about 20cm x 20cm x 10cm within the asteroid belt, no one can actually say they know it is absent. But if someone made a claim that he saw or somehow detected such a fragment, the burden of proof is on him to show his evidence not on the other people since it is highly improbable though not impossible that such an object is there. In spite of whoever or how many people believe it is present.

Still the same. As far as any discussion on worldviews are concerned, it is only the atheist who argues for the existence of something he already has concluded about its non-existence. Add any indices to the number of "absurdities" for the atheist's claims and you will still come back to surprise yourself that it still is the atheist making such unfounded postulations, and not the theist. (please note: by 'absurdities', I do not mean to be pejorative, but only use it in reference to the way you used it in post #73).

Ok. What do you consider supernatural?

That which is not reducible to physicalist probables - which is why it is 'super'-natural.

Your request for proof of the absence of a God is why I gave you the Russel's teapot analogy. It is to show you that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim for the existence of God.

Which again is just not a good example and melts down to the fallacy of a strawman argument. If you give me Russel's teapot as something you believe actually exists, then you have an example - for that would be at par with how the theist presents his case. But the moment you begin to apologise with what you already believe does not exist, how does it rise to the index of a 'positive claim'?

The theist does not ask you to disprove something he already knows does not exist - that is rather what the atheist does! If an atheist already believes that the teapot does not exist, why yet does he ask the theist to prove or disprove anything about that same thing that the atheist already concludes does not exist?

thehomer:


Ok. What do you consider supernatural?

Let me help out with a funny anaology

I love cars a lot and i studied how it operates. When u buy fuel in the tank, it goes straight into the injector and therefrom goes into the engine. The liquid fuel propels the car engine to life. the pistons,rings crown shaft begins to move after the fuel propels the engine to work. We can say theres no supernatural activity here. Since we know without a liquid called Pms, the engine will not work

Now lets look at human life, as it starts. I like the spermatozoa example a lot. The spermatozoa a liquid goes out of a mans manliness and enters into the womb and this same natural liquid in two weeks would form a life. The life grows gradually and lives in the womb for 8-9months. Feeding and living therein. Now if ordinary liquid could give a human life which the petro cant give cant we call it SUPERNATURAL?

Im waiting for a medical professor to explain to me in the spermatozoa where the legs, mouth, nose,eyes, intestine etc can be found. Imagine a liquid formig all these things and giving a life. This is supernatural and i dnt think science can show me the things i listed above and where it could be found in the spermatozoa.

Another thing is what forms the sperm in a man? is it the food we eat or a certain MASTER PROGRAMMER Had programmed it to come naturally in a man at certain stage in life?

The fuel will give life to the car engine and nothing more,but the spermatozoa will form full body with life and the full body will survive for 9months in a womb. Waoooo this is supernatural.


Looks funny buts its true

@Toba

You come here, display your complete lack of knowledge of the science you are trying disparage or claim is lacking and get angry when people say you completely do not know what you are talking about.

toneyb:

@Toba

You come here, display your complete lack of knowledge of the science you are trying disparage or claim is lacking and get angry when people say you completely do not know what you are talking about.

I wasnt a science student when i was in school and both my 1st and 2nd degree courses are all management oriented.

But since u re 'all knowing science student', why dnt u explain to me where in the sperm all the human body parts could be found, so i may know. But if u cant then [b]i will conclude that the formation of man in the womb is supernatural which science have no explanation on [/b]simple

@viaro
The similarities between your style of debate and that of pilgrim is still too difficult to ignore, you always try to hinge your argument or at least this one on some technicality that I always have this image of you sitting behind your screen laughing your ass out at how you are making poor toneyb in circles.
Your position as a theist is the basis of mine as an a-theist, until you make your claim, I do not have a posiition on the issue, I cannot sit and start disproving the existence of something I did not claim existed, capisce?
So your argument that because toneyb does not believe in the teacup makes the argument wrong is weak BS and I am sure you know it. Are you saying I have to believe in zeus before I can have a debate with a christian that God could not have created this earth more than zeus could have?

By all means carry on your debate.

Chrisbenogor:

@viaro
The similarities between your style of debate and that of pilgrim is still too difficult to ignore, you always try to hinge your argument or at least this one on some technicality that I always have this image of you sitting behind your screen laughing your backside out at how you are making poor toneyb in circles.

I know that many people here and outside Nairaland have similar views on certain publicly affecting issues. For this reason, some wonder: is viaro the same person as pilgrim.1? or the same Maven? or same Krayola?. . . and now recently, is viaro the same fellow as 'toneyb' but just taking us round in circles in grandiloquent pretences of arguing against himself?

I've stopped worrying about identities, really. For a few who cared to know, I was willing to communicate offline so they know me better. Should I record my voice in mp3 and post on Nairaland to clear the air? I really don't know what else I could do to help this situation, really.

Your position as a theist is the basis of mine as an a-theist, until you make your claim, I do not have a posiition on the issue, I cannot sit and start disproving the existence of something I did not claim existed, capisce?

Si.

So your argument that because toneyb does not believe in the teacup makes the argument wrong is weak BS and I am sure you know it.

Not toneyb, but rather thehomer (if I remember). In anycase, you may take it as B.S., but it takes nothing away from the plain fact that atheists are more likely to postulate things that they already kknow do not exist, and then ask the theist to attack their strawman. That is grand comedy, my friend - you cannot deny that thehomer himself already noted that "We can be 99.99% positive that it is not present." On the other hand, I don't remember where the theist would be asking you to prove or disprove what he already had concluded "is not there" - that sort of strawman rigmarole is what the atheist champions.

Are you saying I have to believe in zeus before I can have a debate with a christian that God could not have created this earth more than zeus could have?

Not necessarily - but you would have to believe in the existence of any entity before you could ask me to prove or disprove anything about its existence. You don't vroom in from nowhere, make up your own absurdity of a teacup (which you already conclude does not exist), and then proceed to set me up to tackle such a fallacy while you go off laughing your head at a bar somewhere. One way or another, neither belief or non-belief in any teacup affects such worldviews predicated on any number of gods or deities. None.

By all means carry on your debate.

No worries.

hehehehe thehomer I meant my bad.

But how you miss the gist still beats me, I understand what you mean when you say it does not make sense to ask you provide evidence that something we both know did not create the earth did so. My point is this, you cannot provide the evidence that your God did anymore than a teacup believer can do. . . . . . .and when I say capisce, you say capisco, capisce?

viaro:

I'm sorry you're getting it all mixed up once again. The question is not about what affects people's worldviews - rather, we're talking about worldviews in particular: in themselves. Anything could be either ancillary or peripheral, but they may also not be germane to the worldview(s) themselves. It is not the ancillary, peripherals or otherwise that form the discussion on any particular worldview, but the worldview itself. That is why your examples still do not rise to the point. Between theism and atheism, nobody holds a preference one way or another for the tea pot: it does not affect anybody's worldview in anyway, not even the worldview of the atheist himself who postulates what he does not believe to be in actual existence.

Are you claiming that the God concept is a worldview? You should check what is required to make a worldview because the examples I gave are actually postulates made by some people who also believe in a God. They are parts of some Christian worldviews.

viaro:

Still the same. As far as any discussion on worldviews are concerned, it is only the atheist who argues for the existence of something he already has concluded about its non-existence. Add any indices to the number of "absurdities" for the atheist's claims and you will still come back to surprise yourself that it still is the atheist making such unfounded postulations, and not the theist. (please note: by 'absurdities', I do not mean to be pejorative, but only use it in reference to the way you used it in post #73).

Russel's teapot is simply an analogy. It is meant to show you that if you are making a positive claim to the positive existence of an improbable object or occurrence, the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. It is not about believing the teapot.

viaro:

That which is not reducible to physicalist probables - which is why it is 'super'-natural.

I think we would be clearer if you could give examples that can be addressed what you said above is simply too vague.

viaro:

Which again is just not a good example and melts down to the fallacy of a strawman argument. If you give me Russel's teapot as something you believe actually exists, then you have an example - for that would be at par with how the theist presents his case. But the moment you begin to apologise with what you already believe does not exist, how does it rise to the index of a 'positive claim'

The fragment thing I mentioned is an example of something that could conceivably be present. Right now, there is a lot of space debris around the earth and some could conceivably have migrated to the asteroid belt. Though it is improbable. The example was also to show that someone making a claim of the existence of such an object needs to have some proof to be taken seriously.
You also feel it is a strawman. You should look up strawman on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
I've already said it's not about the strength of the belief but the evidence behind the claim. I hope you do know that people do believe some absurd things.

viaro:

The theist does not ask you to disprove something he already knows does not exist - that is rather what the atheist does! If an atheist already believes that the teapot does not exist, why yet does he ask the theist to prove or disprove anything about that same thing that the atheist already concludes does not exist?

You still miss the point. The theist makes a claim that is improbable. The theist making the claim should give some evidence for the claim which is what the topic requests.

toba:

Let me help out with a funny anaology

I love cars a lot and i studied how it operates. When u buy fuel in the tank, it goes straight into the injector and therefrom goes into the engine. The liquid fuel propels the car engine to life. the pistons,rings crown shaft begins to move after the fuel propels the engine to work. We can say theres no supernatural activity here. Since we know without a liquid called Pms, the engine will not work

Sure you can say that now since you studied how it operates. But to give another example, in the past when people did not know how rainbows came about, it was ascribed to a supernatural phenomenon which we now know it isn't.

toba:

Now lets look at human life, as it starts. I like the spermatozoa example a lot. The spermatozoa a liquid goes out of a mans manliness and enters into the womb and this same natural liquid in two weeks would form a life. The life grows gradually and lives in the womb for 8-9months. Feeding and living therein. Now if ordinary liquid could give a human life which the petro cant give cant we call it SUPERNATURAL?

Spermatozoa is not a liquid.

toba:

Im waiting for a medical professor to explain to me in the spermatozoa where the legs, mouth, nose,eyes, intestine etc can be found. Imagine a liquid formig all these things and giving a life. This is supernatural and i dnt think science can show me the things i listed above and where it could be found in the spermatozoa.

This shows you simply have not studied enough at least put in some effort like you did to know how a car operates then you would be able to ask better questions.

toba:

Another thing is what forms the spermatozoa in a man? is it the food we eat or a certain MASTER PROGRAMMER Had programmed it to come naturally in a man at certain stage in life?

The fuel will give life to the car engine and nothing more,but the spermatozoa will form full body with life and the full body will survive for 9months in a womb. Waoooo this is supernatural.

The bar for what you consider supernatural is just too low.

toba:

Looks funny buts its true

Try to study the phenomenon.
Here's a link to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryogenesis

Chrisbenogor:

hehehehe thehomer I meant my bad.

But how you miss the gist still beats me, I understand what you mean when you say it does not make sense to ask you provide evidence that something we both know did not create the earth did so. My point is this, you cannot provide the evidence that your God did anymore than a teacup believer can do.

I tried to follow your reason, but it just doesn't hold substance, my apologies. The one who makes a case for the teapot already knows it does not exist - he is most certain of that, and not even when he claims its existence does he really believe it exists. Whatever the case, that teapot has no bearing upon his worldview or anyone else's.

On the other hand, a theist does not present his case like that: for he does not make claims about what he already knows does not exist (as in the case of the atheist and the teapot). Now, if the atheist knows his teapot does not exist, how does that have any bearing in the short or long run on anyone (whether atheist or theist)??

. . .and when I say capisce, you say capisco, capisce?

Si, capisco! _{this guy seems ready to send me to jail again! help!!}

Viaro stop going round in circles my friend, how can I say it simpler than I already have, the atheist cannot exist without the theist, be like say you like plenty grammar, there has to be a theist before you can have an atheist, an atheist lacks belief in the God of the theist, therfore no theist, no atheist, capisce?

thehomer:

Are you claiming that the God concept is a worldview? You should check what is required to make a worldview because the examples I gave are actually postulates made by some people who also believe in a God. They are parts of some Christian worldviews.

Please, thehomer - I don't want to repost that part of my reply. There are serious issues there I crammed together:

~ The question is not about what affects people's worldviews
~ rather, we're talking about worldviews in particular: in themselves.
~ Anything could be either ancillary or peripheral, . .
~ . . but they may also not be germane to the worldview(s) themselves.

Now, . .

~ It is not the ancillary, peripherals or otherwise that form the discussion on
   any particular worldview, but the worldview itself.
~ That is why your examples still do not rise to the point.
~ WHY?
[list] ~ Between theism and atheism, nobody holds a preference one way or another for the teapot: it does not affect anybody's worldview in anyway, not even the worldview of the atheist himself who postulates what he does not believe to be in actual existence.[/list]

I hope that was easy to follow? Whatever worldview one may hold (whether theistic, atheistic or otherwise), the example of Russel's teapot has no bearing at all upon them. Now if you're telling me that the teapot has a place in your life beyond merely mentioning it for the sake of an argument, could you then show me your theology of a teapot, if any? The reason you have none is because it has no particular reference to anything you might consider seriously as central to your worldview! Why is that point so very, very difficult for you guys to grasp?

Russel's teapot is simply an analogy. It is meant to show you that if you are making a positive claim to the positive existence of an improbable object or occurrence, the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. It is not about believing the teapot.

Belief systems are worldviews do not rest on whimsical "analogies". You just sum up any number of absurdities, refer to it as an analogy - and woosh, we should now do what . .  "prove" or "disprove" the existence or non-existence of a mere analogy? Are you serious?

A theist does not come asking you to prove or disprove the existence of whatever he considers an "analogy", where at the back of his mind he knows that he already has concluded that what he presents does not exist! You don't expect him to go on and on endless bothering you to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything about the "existence" of that same thing, even if he calls it an "analogy". But, on the other hand, in discussions of this nature, that is precisely the sort of strawman you would expect from an atheist - because after the talks, the person presenting such an "analogy" (say of 'teapot') has nothing to do with it beyond that point - it bears no concrete reference to his worldview, his life, his ethics, or whatever else he considers important in his outcomes! That atheist simply does not take his own "analogy"  seriously for the simple reason that he already concluded in his mind that such a thing he presents does not exist and has nothing to answer for in concrete terms!

I think we would be clearer if you could give examples that can be addressed what you said above is simply too vague.

No, I think you know precisely what I mean; and until you indicate you're ready to discuss from that point, I'm not going to waste my time blowing words around. By "not reducible to physicalist probables", I indicate that my subject is not going to be tending to the naturalism of the atheist's philosophy of physicalism. If you would be interested in such philosophies of realities, then I would oblige.

The fragment thing I mentioned is an example of something that could conceivably be present. Right now, there is a lot of space debris around the earth and some could conceivably have migrated to the asteroid belt. Though it is improbable. The example was also to show that someone making a claim of the existence of such an object needs to have some proof to be taken seriously.

Please tell me: how does that fragment affect your own worldview to add or take away from it as a worldview?

You also feel it is a strawman. You should look up strawman on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
I've already said it's not about the strength of the belief but the evidence behind the claim. I hope you do know that people do believe some absurd things.

And your point is. . .? I'm grateful for that link (which is one I'd already checked up); but I don't see anything there as surprisingly deviating from the way I used it here. Let me quote an excerpt:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man", and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

So, please tell me: when you mention the teapot example, are you not presenting a "misrepresentation" of the theist's position? Does the theist present his theistic convictions in the same sense as Russel's teapot? Very clearly, what you have been arguing is mere strawman, nothing more. I would only consider the teapot as a serious point at par with the way the theist presents his own convictions in his worldview if and only if the teapot is central to your belief system! If it has nothing concrete in your belief system, it is a strawman fallacy, and I don't wish to waste my time any further on that.

You still miss the point. The theist makes a claim that is improbable. The theist making the claim should give some evidence for the claim which is what the topic requests.

No, you are getting it all mixed up. The theist makes a claim for his own worldview. The atheist is too busy trying to concern himself with what does not form part of his own worldview - and that is why the atheist makes strawman arguments and asks the theist to knock them down. That is easy: because you take a lot of things for granted and rather assume that you have the theistic worldview in a nutshell by reducing it to just a matter of "improbable". This is why you make allusions to teapot and show precisely why you just don't get it.

Chrisbenogor:

Viaro stop going round in circles my friend, how can I say it simpler than I already have, the atheist cannot exist without the theist, be like say you like plenty grammar, there has to be a theist before you can have an atheist, an atheist lacks belief in the God of the theist, therfore no theist, no atheist, capisce?

No "caspico" this time, your honour! This accused viaro is not going round in circles, and I'm not one who thinks that there would not be an atheist if there were not a theist. Dude, if you have everyone in the world who are no longer theists, what would you have? You are just . . ehm. .ehm. . ! (Okay, I don't want to risk jail, so let me apply to your court to grant further permission to talk).

I think this worldview issue just deviates too broadly from the topic at hand.

I thought that it was obvious that being a Christian theist, some of your claims would be that:
1. There is a God.
2. The Christian holy book is the word of this God.
3. This said God also performs and still performs miracles.

If you disagree with the claims, please feel free to make them here but please show some evidence.

The above statements are claims. The subject of the topic requests evidence of these claims and similar claims made by any other person believing in a God. At the very least, such a person making the claims of a God's existence should also provide some evidence for it. (This is where the teapot analogy comes in. It is not an example it is meant to illustrate that since you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. It is an analogy not an example.)

viaro:

A theist does not come asking you to prove or disprove the existence of whatever he considers an "analogy", where at the back of his mind he knows that he already has concluded that what he presents does not exist! You don't expect him to go on and on endless bothering you to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything about the "existence" of that same thing, even if he calls it an "analogy". But, on the other hand, in discussions of this nature, that is precisely the sort of strawman you would expect from an atheist - because after the talks, the person presenting such an "analogy" (say of 'teapot') has nothing to do with it beyond that point - it bears no concrete reference to his worldview, his life, his ethics, or whatever else he considers important in his outcomes! That atheist simply does not take his own "analogy"  seriously for the simple reason that he already concluded in his mind that such a thing he presents does not exist and has nothing to answer for in concrete terms!

The analogy is not to be proved or disproved it is to show that since you make the claims, present the evidence with it.

viaro:

No, I think you know precisely what I mean; and until you indicate you're ready to discuss from that point, I'm not going to waste my time blowing words around. By "not reducible to physicalist probables", I indicate that my subject is not going to be tending to the naturalism of the atheist's philosophy of physicalism. If you would be interested in such philosophies of realities, then I would oblige.

Your assumption of my knowledge of what you mean is wrong. I asked you to present examples so that the discussion will be on phenomena that you believe do occur.
e.g the user Toba feels that developmental embryology is a supernatural occurrence, but I do not think so.

That which is not reducible to physicalist probables

The phrase in bold has no meaning to me which is why I asked for examples to help illustrate what you mean.

viaro:

Please tell me: how does that fragment affect your own worldview to add or take away from it as a worldview?

The fragment is to show burden of proof not importance to worldview.

viaro:

And your point is. . .? I'm grateful for that link (which is one I'd already checked up); but I don't see anything there as surprisingly deviating from the way I used it here. Let me quote an excerpt:So, please tell me: when you mention the teapot example, are you not presenting a "misrepresentation" of the theist's position? Does the theist present his theistic convictions in the same sense as Russel's teapot? Very clearly, what you have been arguing is mere strawman, nothing more. I would only consider the teapot as a serious point at par with the way the theist presents his own convictions in his worldview if and only if the teapot is central to your belief system! If it has nothing concrete in your belief system, it is a strawman fallacy, and I don't wish to waste my time any further on that.

The point is that the analogy does not misrepresent your position since you claim a God and all the attached requirements without evidence and ask that I give evidence that this God is absent.

viaro:

No, you are getting it all mixed up. The theist makes a claim for his own worldview. The atheist is too busy trying to concern himself with what does not form part of his own worldview - and that is why the atheist makes strawman arguments and asks the theist to knock them down. That is easy: because you take a lot of things for granted and rather assume that you have the theistic worldview in a nutshell by reducing it to just a matter of "improbable". This is why you make allusions to teapot and show precisely why you just don't get it.

The theists claim there is a God without evidence, then goes on to act on it. The atheist simply asks for the evidence. Who knows? If the evidence is solid, it may push the boundaries of knowledge or the theist's God may gain a follower.

this particular question was what made me a seeker of truth. i wondered whether one can really have evidence that God exist. what made moses and Abraham special?they had one on one communication with God. nobody needed to prove to them that God exist. then i came across the teachings of ECKANKAR. ECKANKAR teaches that if you sing HU, a love song to God, your spiritual eyes and spiritual ears will open and you will be able to see the light of God and hear God speak directly to you. this experience becomes your evidence and your authority. God communicates directly to soul through the light and sound and when you are able to open yourself to the light and sound of God all the knowledge about creation and about life will be revealed to you. it is left for you as soul to try singing the HU and find out for yourself now or wait until you translate and drop the physical body then the veil will drop from your eyes and you will know for sure whether God exists or not. the choice is yours.

thehomer.u missed it&ur explanatn isnt sufficient about what gives life to man.
Spirit is a substance&its d spirit dat gives life to man.As atom is composed of proton,neutron&electron,Man is composed of Pneuma,Psyche&Soma or spirit,soul&body.D process u gave forms body&cant on its own give life.If u take d masculine&feminine bodies secretion dat is generated within d 2bodies,4rm dat conception&d soul&spirit makes it survive,till its born.Spirit is a substance,not a visual one but an incorporeal substance which is supernatural&its from God.See http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/thomism

toba:

thehomer.u missed it&your explanatn isnt sufficient about what gives life to man.
Spirit is a substance&its d spirit dat gives life to man.As atom is composed of proton,neutron&electron,Man is composed of Pneuma,Psyche&Soma or spirit,soul&body.

Your questions were about the means by which the body organs came about and I directed you to a place where you could start reading up on it.
You are making a claim which has no evidence. You then compared established scientific particles to religious dogma though with some latin words.
What evidence do you have for the spirit and soul? What are the characteristics of the spirit and soul? What is the difference between them?

toba:

D process u gave forms body&cant on its own give life.If u take d masculine&feminine bodies secretion dat is generated within d 2bodies,4rm dat conception&d soul&spirit makes it survive,till its born.

When do the spirit and soul get into the body?

toba:

Spirit is a substance,not a visual one but an incorporeal substance which is supernatural&its from God.See http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/thomism

Incorporeal substance? That is an oxymoron. You can't have a "non-substance" substance. We're yet to establish whether this spirit exists before you attribute it to a God which is yet another claim without evidence.

@thehomer,

thehomer:

I think this worldview issue just deviates too broadly from the topic at hand.

You guys should try to be a bit more mature in the way you approach discussions on worldviews, especially those that you do not subscribe to. It is because many atheists assume a rather presumptive position about belief systems, that is why you guys often bring up 'analogies' and 'examples' that tend rather to strawman fallacies - and that is where discussions deviate into broad spectra. As long as you adopt that approach, you will constantly meet with repeated calls to bring you back to the same point - not to the detriment of the informed theist, but rather to the loss of the atheist who wields such a fallacy for his discourses. This is again what you have presented, and that leaves me no alternative than to point out the same thing once more.

I thought that it was obvious that being a Christian theist, some of your claims would be that:
1. There is a God.
2. The Christian holy book is the word of this God.
3. This said God also performs and still performs miracles.

If you disagree with the claims, please feel free to make them here but please show some evidence.

I agree. And your point is? You see, when you talk about "evidence", what are you exactly asking for? The word 'evidence' is vague and meaningless until you articulate what you are seeking. What follows from me may not be what you might be looking for; and there's no reason to then conclude that what I proffer fails to be 'evidence' until you have a handle on exactly what that term should mean in the broad spectrum of interests.

The above statements are claims. The subject of the topic requests evidence of these claims and similar claims made by any other person believing in a God. At the very least, such a person making the claims of a God's existence should also provide some evidence for it.

I'm sorry, but please go and learn the meaning of the term 'evidence' - I think it has become a much abused word that often shows many atheists do not know what they are talking about. Until you do, please refrain from boring me with such terms. It is not as if I can't provide you with an evidence; but what exactly do you understand by that term, such that whatever you read would not be any 'evidence'?

For example, when toneyb provided me with a vid from QualiaSoup for his idea that it was "conclusive evidence" for what he claimed (that 'nothing survives bodily death'), I noted why that vid failed to be any such "conclusive evidence" - because I'd been clear specifically on what I was actually seeking as the core of such an 'evidence', by noting that I was "very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions" he made for such an assertion.

Now, when atheists go about asking for "evidence" for this and that in discourses like this one, it seems remarkable that they often do not know what they're talking about, nor do they care to appraise the subject for which they seek any such "evidence". They do not take into consideration the fact that their approach to the subject often tend to a reductio ad absurdum where issues are confused and particularities in the discourses are not well contextualized. When that happens, it does not make for any meaningful dialogue - and that is why I tend to not give any such issues a seriousness at any stretch.

(This is where the teapot analogy comes in. It is not an example it is meant to illustrate that since you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. It is an analogy not an example.)

It makes no difference. If you are making a claim, make a concrete one that does not tend to a strawman fallacy, and which would be at par with what you are discussing. It doesn't matter whether you make that claim 'positively' or 'negatively' - either way, it is still a claim/assertion; and depending on its particularities, the responsibility of burden of proof falls on both sides of claimants. Only then would I take you seriously. Even if you take it merely in terms of an analogy (and not an example), how does the teapot affect your own worldview in concrete terms? How does it bear any semblance to the claims you listed earlier for the Christian theist?

The one who makes the claim of a teapot is positing as much a positive claim as the theist would make for his convictions in matters relating to 'God'. If you have not got that point yet, then you need to carefully acquaint yourself with the types of 'burden of proof', then go on to understand what this entails in metaphysical questions. It would be very helpful to understand the nature of the subject, before pointing to burden of proof, analogies, evidences, empirical this-and-that, etc. A critical lack of such an understanding will not yield anything fruitful for the atheist (as well the theist) who ignores important factors in these subjects.

The analogy is not to be proved or disproved it is to show that since you make the claims, present the evidence with it.

Please refer above for my comments about 'evidence'.

Your assumption of my knowledge of what you mean is wrong. I asked you to present examples so that the discussion will be on phenomena that you believe do occur.
e.g the user Toba feels that developmental embryology is a supernatural occurrence, but I do not think so.

Again, please refer above. However, I think the developmental embryo is an example of what is 'reducible to physicalist probables'. I distinguish such from what I defined by the 'supernatural', and I think that point is clear. I also articulated the approach I intend to take in my discussions of such matters (philosophical underpinnings); so please demonstrate (not just indicate) that you're quite capable of discussing issues on such an approach. If otherwise, I'm sorry to say again that it would not be in our best interests to waste words in this thread.

The phrase in bold has no meaning to me which is why I asked for examples to help illustrate what you mean.

Have you ever come across the term "Physicalism"? I'm quite amused at your claim that "physicalist probables" has no meaning to you - are you kidding me? I think you're far too simplistic here, and I can't see you being able to progress this discussion if you throw such careless jokes around. Let me ask: is philosophy quite out of your range?

The fragment is to show burden of proof not importance to worldview.

That again is a strawman. I know what burden of proof is; please show me anything fresh before I take you seriously. From the very first when you made reference to Russel's teapot, I noted that is the most hilarious fallacy any atheist could present, because it shows the person appealing to such things does not understand what exactly he is talking and such things (analogy, examples, whatever) have no concrete indices:
[list]___________________________________[/list]

[list]"As the above poster noted, you cannot disprove what does not exist. The Russel's teapot analogy fits quite well here. You can add to that any absurd object you can think of. e.g a pink unicorn, magic elves etc. Sure we cannot prove they exist but following the theists reasoning, they do exist."[/list]
[list]___________________________________[/list]

You don't just come on board and put theism in such a presumptive box. The Russell teapot analogy is strawman, it has no concrete correlation in metaphysical discourses, and the atheist who presents things in such overly simplistic manner also knows ALREADY that such a teapot does not exist anywhere. That is not an analogy that squares with what the theist presents, and to harp on about such things is rather a mischievous misrepresentation of the theist's postulation. The theist does not present something he knows already does not exist - the atheist does so. That being so, the atheist is NOT "following the theist's reasoning", and I'm not going to entertain you getting away with that. Nada.

The point is that the analogy does not misrepresent your position since you claim a God and all the attached requirements without evidence and ask that I give evidence that this God is absent.

Please show me how your own analogy affects your own life. You're being more and more vague - and if you want to keep amusing yourself there, I can help you, trust me.

The theists claim there is a God without evidence, then goes on to act on it. The atheist simply asks for the evidence. Who knows? If the evidence is solid, it may push the boundaries of knowledge or the theist's God may gain a follower.

You may surprise yourself, I guarantee that. Just you carefully go through what I discussed above about 'evidence' and the articulate what approach you tend to adopt for that 'evidence' - then you will come round to see why your vague calls have not been helpful.

viaro:

@thehomer,
You guys should try to be a bit more mature in the way you approach discussions on worldviews, especially those that you do not subscribe to. It is because many atheists assume a rather presumptive position about belief systems, that is why you guys often bring up 'analogies' and 'examples' that tend rather to strawman fallacies - and that is where discussions deviate into broad spectra. As long as you adopt that approach, you will constantly meet with repeated calls to bring you back to the same point - not to the detriment of the informed theist, but rather to the loss of the atheist who wields such a fallacy for his discourses. This is again what you have presented, and that leaves me no alternative than to point out the same thing once more.
I agree. And your point is? You see, when you talk about "evidence", what are you exactly asking for? The word 'evidence' is vague and meaningless until you articulate what you are seeking. What follows from me may not be what you might be looking for; and there's no reason to then conclude that what I proffer fails to be 'evidence' until you have a handle on exactly what that term should mean in the broad spectrum of interests.

The topic is about presenting evidence for a God. You try to expand it to an issue about worldviews. The God concept is a subset of the Christian worldview. The topic is quite specific about that.
The short list I gave are some of the claims made by people with Christian worldviews. Do you agree with any or all of them?

viaro:

I'm sorry, but please go and learn the meaning of the term 'evidence' - I think it has become a much abused word that often shows many atheists do not know what they are talking about. Until you do, please refrain from boring me with such terms. It is not as if I can't provide you with an evidence; but what exactly do you understand by that term, such that whatever you read would not be any 'evidence'?

Evidence from wiktionary
# Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.

Facts from wiktionary
Information about a particular subject.

viaro:

Now, when atheists go about asking for "evidence" for this and that in discourses like this one, it seems remarkable that they often do not know what they're talking about, nor do they care to appraise the subject for which they seek any such "evidence". They do not take into consideration the fact that their approach to the subject often tend to a reductio ad absurdum where issues are confused and particularities in the discourses are not well contextualized. When that happens, it does not make for any meaningful dialogue - and that is why I tend to not give any such issues a seriousness at any stretch.

Then please give your definition of evidence so that we can be clear on what you mean.

viaro:

It makes no difference. If you are making a claim, make a concrete one that does not tend to a strawman fallacy, and which would be at par with what you are discussing. It doesn't matter whether you make that claim 'positively' or 'negatively' - either way, it is still a claim/assertion; and depending on its particularities, the responsibility of burden of proof falls on both sides of claimants. Only then would I take you seriously. Even if you take it merely in terms of an analogy (and not an example), how does the teapot affect your own worldview in concrete terms? How does it bear any semblance to the claims you listed earlier for the Christian theist?

I am not making any claim. The topic asks for theists to provide evidence for their claims like the ones I listed above. If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g

1. There is [b]no [/b]God.
If you do show evidence that there is a God, you then need to prove the second statement which the atheist would indicate as this.
2. The Christian holy book is [b]not [/b]the word of this claimed God.
Then the third statement etc.

and the analogy is to show that the burden of proof falls on the theist making claims like those I originally listed. The analogy is not being debated.

Analogy from wiktionary
A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation.

Or you can give your own definition of an analogy. The analogy is not the main discussion it is to illustrate a part of it clearly.

viaro:

The one who makes the claim of a teapot is positing as much a positive claim as the theist would make for his convictions in matters relating to 'God'. If you have not got that point yet, then you need to carefully acquaint yourself with the types of 'burden of proof', then go on to understand what this entails in metaphysical questions. It would be very helpful to understand the nature of the subject, before pointing to burden of proof, analogies, evidences, empirical this-and-that, etc. A critical lack of such an understanding will not yield anything fruitful for the atheist (as well the theist) who ignores important factors in these subjects.

After checking the links, they agree with what I'm saying (emphasis mine)
From Wikipedia on philosophic burden of proof. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof[url] You can see the example that was generously given there.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on those making any kind of claim. This is not a mathematical or logical proof, but rather a conventionally acceptable amount of evidence that will warrant the claim. This burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge.

On the legal burden of proof, it does not quite fit in this discussion.

viaro:

Please refer above for my comments about 'evidence'.

Your comments do not show what you consider to be evidence.

viaro:

Again, please refer above. However, I think the developmental embryo is an example of what is 'reducible to physicalist probables'. I distinguish such from what I defined by the 'supernatural', and I think that point is clear. I also articulated the approach I intend to take in my discussions of such matters (philosophical underpinnings); so please demonstrate (not just indicate) that you're quite capable of discussing issues on such an approach. If otherwise, I'm sorry to say again that it would not be in our best interests to waste words in this thread.

I think that anyone who can successfully complete a secondary level of education can participate in philosophical conversations as long as the terms are well defined. So the developmental embryo is not supernatural to you. Well what is? Give an example as clear as the embryo. It's a term that we understand and if not, can easily look up. Take whatever underpinnings you want just clearly define your terms and give examples where it will make things clearer.

viaro:

Have you ever come across the term "Physicalism"? I'm quite amused at your claim that "physicalist probables" has no meaning to you - are you kidding me? I think you're far too simplistic here, and I can't see you being able to progress this discussion if you throw such careless jokes around. Let me ask: is philosophy quite out of your range?

No philosophy is not out of my range. Physicalism and probable are easily defined and the flaws of physicalism are quite clear.
That phrase "physicalist probables" simply has no meaning to me. You are using a phrase that you have not defined.
Why don't you give an example or an analogy so that things can be clear? I don't want the discussion to be full of guesses at what you might mean come on out and say what you mean. Or at the very least, give me your definition of the phrase. I hope you know that it is possible for a phrase to have a different meaning from the individual words it is made up of. e.g back-seat driver, baby boomer etc. See it's not hard to give examples to show what you mean.

viaro:

Please show me how your own analogy affects your own life. You're being more and more vague - and if you want to keep amusing yourself there, I can help you, trust me.

You keep making me repeat myself. The analogy is not about what affects your life, it's about your request that I show evidence of a non-existence of a God. It's to show where the burden of proof lies. Please show me the quotes from which you draw the conclusion about the vagueness.

viaro:

You may surprise yourself, I guarantee that. Just you carefully go through what I discussed above about 'evidence' and the articulate what approach you tend to adopt for that 'evidence' - then you will come round to see why your vague calls have not been helpful.

You have not said anything about what you consider to be evidence. For me, evidence is scientifically based when testable claims are made. You only go on berating atheists. You could simply define it and use that to show that there is a God. And let the conversation proceed from there.