The New Atheists

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:33 am

Matt:
That would be comparable to "we know a God created the universe now it's just a matter of figuring out which one".

dead body = reality
murder = existence of God

If he removed all evidence of the murder, then it would look like a natural death, no suspicions would be raised and no investigation would take place, which would be the most rational thing for the detectives (us) to do. There's no reason to treat a death like a murder unless there is evidence for murder.

Elizabeth:
Yes, I think that analogy is better than the one with a gun, but I think that rather makes mil's point. If a woman was murdered by the perfect crime, is it still murder? The man committed the murder, but he just did not get caught. Mil's suggesting that God exists, but He never got caught.

Would you let your daughter date OJ Simpson?

Well, his whole analogy is loaded because he presents it from an omniscient perspective, which is not something that we have in the case of God. All we have is the evidence, and the evidence suggests that God was created by humans. That's what evidence we really have.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:28 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, his whole analogy is loaded because he presents it from an omniscient perspective, which is not something that we have in the case of God. All we have is the evidence, and the evidence suggests that God was created by humans. That's what evidence we really have.

(humor noted - his whole analogy [about the gun] is loaded)

Because we can not have an omniscent perspective, then we have to use inductive reasoning to determine what is most probable. It seems reasonable to infer the two possibilities to set up the premisses, but argument by analogy (mil's method used above, as opposed to Mill's methods...) is an acceptable form of logical analysis.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:16 pm

Spending time reasoning about something pulled out of thin air isn't very reasonable. I could also speculate that someone is standing outside my door with a shotgun who will shoot me if I don't shout "don't shoot" before I walk out. The situation is the same as the God speculation, except for this scenario is far more probable.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:47 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:Spending time reasoning about something pulled out of thin air isn't very reasonable.

Subducting about God seems like a war of attrition.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:40 pm

Just a little housekeeping. I like to live in a clean place.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:30 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:
millipodium wrote:A man kills a woman with a gun. He covers his tracks perfectly, leaves no residue, collects the bullet, has no motive, has an alibi. There is an absence of evidence.
A bullet hole in someone is evidence of murder.

But it is not evidence that A PARTICULAR person did it. Nor is it evidence a particular person didn't do it.

I should have known you geniuses are too smart to accept a simple premise. Keep dodging the issue and wallowing in ignorance and "term busting".

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:50 pm

millipodium wrote:But it is not evidence that A PARTICULAR person did it. Nor is it evidence a particular person didn't do it.

In that case, your analogy is shite and doesn't fit the situation.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:11 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:
millipodium wrote:But it is not evidence that A PARTICULAR person did it. Nor is it evidence a particular person didn't do it.
In that case, your analogy is shite and doesn't fit the situation.

No. It perfectly illustrates the conundrum of proving a negative, though atheists walk around threatening and condescending and judging as if they have done such a thing.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:17 am

Proving a negative might be impossible, but that isn't a problem because when you have a negative that means you have nothing to prove.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:08 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:Proving a negative might be impossible, but that isn't a problem because when you have a negative that means you have nothing to prove.

That's funny. But my point remains valid. Atheist go around feeling "right" when their position is no more rational than a theists. You get the point.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:49 pm

Yeah, I have nothing and you have something, therefore you're the one stuck with the burden of proof. A position consisting of nothing cannot be overturned.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:58 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:Yeah, I have nothing and you have something, therefore you're the one stuck with the burden of proof. A position consisting of nothing cannot be overturned.

No. We've been over this once already. You're trying to use the legal standard of HAVING TO PROVE GUILT before talking a way a man's freedom. This particular placement of the burden of proof is something we do to tilt things in the favor of freedom. In a purely logical sense, the burden of proof lies equally upon both parties.

Why are you making me repeat myself?

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:29 pm

BTW, Your position does not "consist of nothing", your position is that there is no god.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:57 pm

But my position only exists as a response to your assertion that God exists. If you were to stop asserting that, I wouldn't need my position anymore. It's not something I would have to think about, that's why I'm saying it consists of nothing.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:02 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:But my position only exists as a response to your assertion that God exists. If you were to stop asserting that, I wouldn't need my position anymore. It's not something I would have to think about, that's why I'm saying it consists of nothing.

But "god does not exist" is also an assertion, susceptible to defense by one wishing to prove it's truth. A response consisting of nothing would be you s.'ing t.f.u.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:04 pm

Yes, it's an assertion but it doesn't try to create anything like yours does.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:06 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:Yes, it's an assertion but it doesn't try to create anything like your does.

It posits a truth, namely that god has been disproven. Saying there is a duck, doesn't create a duck. Quit struggling against the power of my truth, you're only destroying your own mind.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:10 pm

I never said God was disproven, I'm saying it's unproven and not worth thinking about.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:12 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:I never said God was disproven, I'm saying it's unproven and not worth thinking about.

SO then you're an agnostic.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:17 pm

own3d

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:23 pm

I'm open to the idea that there could be a super-powerful alien that created the known universe, and if you yourself wanted to call that "God" that's fine with me. But what makes me atheistic is that I would never call that "God" because it wouldn't be infinite.

For me to call something "God" it would have to be infinite, and if God is separate from something that He created, that automatically creates a boundary somewhere where God ends and that thing begins, which would limit God thereby making Him finite.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:26 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:I'm open to the idea that there could be a super-powerful alien that created the known universe, and if you yourself wanted to call that "God" that's fine with me. But what makes me atheistic is that I would never call that "God" because it wouldn't be infinite.

For me to call something "God" it would have to be infinite, and if God is separate from something that He created, that automatically creates a boundary somewhere where God ends and that thing begins, which would limit God thereby making Him finite.

Well maybe you're more amenable to an older more fear based notion of god, where he's a finite very powerful entity with a grey beard who will spank you, you bad boy.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:32 pm

It's possible that such an entity exists, I just wouldn't call it "God". And since there's no evidence for it, I don't consider it worth thinking about.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:38 pm

Matt Gregory wrote:It's possible that such an entity exists, I just wouldn't call it "God". And since there's no evidence for it, I don't consider it worth thinking about.

So you're an atheist because god is insufficiently defined by anyone?

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:44 pm

Well, anyone who wants to put a limit on God. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. They typically conceive God to be a finite thing.