[Rust]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

1. But what if you are wearing a top hat, and I'm only unable to perceive it? You can "show" it to me all you want, but I will probably be unable to perceive it unless I can physically handle it. If God existed, could one physically handle him? Doubtfully. If a man is blind and denies that light exists, that colors exist, do the light & colors cease to exist? I would say no, because I perceive them, but can it ever be proven to this man otherwise? For him they do not exist because he is unable to perceive them, from my point of view. Or is it that I am unable to see what he isn't seeing?
Like the old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.

2. I'd say I agree but I think that statement is a little condescending. If they were so easy to convince, we might all be atheists by now, right? Now, I understand that they don't just *poof*, believe, but many educated people choose to believe in a God without the help of it being driven into them like a nail.

It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....

3. The definition of "atheist" that dictionary.com offers is this: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but it seems fairly accurate to me. I shouldn't have added "deny the possible existence of"...as this may be my "personal" interpretation. And some atheists are as I described, but you're right, a large number of them have weaker beliefs. Perhaps they need to invent a new word for those whose beliefs are more solid, or I need to discover it.

Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.

Has man 2 not provided solid enough evidence to prove to man 1 that some form of God exists? I'm not saying the evidence would be solid enough for "anyone" but it was solid enough for that one man, therefore your use of the word "anyone" in the context in which you are using it is unjustified.

He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?

If tonight you looked out and saw that in letters constructed of stars it was spelled out, very clearly to you, "There is no God", what would you think?
(I know some of these questions don't necessarily pertain to what we're currently discussing, but I'm curious to know your answers.)

I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.

6. An exact quote from you: I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist.
"In that I point out natural explanations for the phenomenom we observe"...can you give me a solid, unequivocal definition of "natural"? And can you prove that God is not responsible for these natural explanations?

Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.

That's been my point throughout this thread.

Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.