Positive proof?

[Blind groper]

Ultimately it boils down to probabilities. I consider the existence of a deity that influences humans as seriously improbable, for the simple reason that I have been looking for evidence for 50 years, including reading a lot on the subject, and I have seen no credible evidence. I accept that this is not proof, but as I said all along, you cannot prove a negative. So you cannot prove God does not exist. But you can conclude that his/her/its existence is highly improbable.

It is Sagan's dragon all over again. If he claims that a dragon made of dark matter lives in his garage, we cannot disprove that, since dark matter does not interact with our form of matter.

[Brian Peacock]

You're right. But I think the problem in this particular domain is that god-claims are taken to be a special case because of the nature of the claim generally being subjectively defensible to the claimant. That is; these types of claim are doggedly presented and defended in spite of their inherent weaknesses. In fact, the inherent weakness have often been recast, through a long tradition in religious apologetics, as bolsters to the cause. Such it is with the notion of faith being a personal virtue, etc. In other domains these kind of anecdotal un-evidenced claims, which are simple unsupported, or blind, assertions, are routinely dismissed without all this folderol and frippery.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

They say them to me, when I challenge their routine insults and broad generalizations about people of faith, which they do whenever they think I'm not paying attention. Now, I will admit that the bar has been somewhat raised here and it's been a while (though not long) since I've seen the sort of blatant religion-bashing that was commonplace here, and at RatSkep, and RDF before it. And that's a good thing, for which I claim at least some responsibility because of my staunch defense of common courtesy and reason.

If, by "blatant religion-bashing" you mean a robust critique of religions for a variety of reasons, we still indulge...

However, I suspect you mean either giving offence to the religious, or making generalised attacks on religious people.

As to the first, religious people want their beliefs and traditions to be given automatic respect, which in practice means never saying anything except bland generalities. Sorry, no can do; when I see aspects of religion as an institution or belief system that deserve criticism, I'll always do so...

As to the second, the majority of people here are typically at pains to play the ball and not the man. With obvious exceptions such as pedophile priests (and the hierarchy that supported them) and murderous fundamentalists, the worst most of us would say about mainstream believers is that we think they are deluded. That does not make them bad people, or people who are not in most respects good citizens and worthy of praise for their actions.

[pErvinalia]

Made Up Fallacy fallacy.

BG is referring to a supernatural god. Therefore it's perfectly accurate to discuss the logical process involved in proving or disproving supernatural gods. What you are on about, only God (supernatural or not) knows.

Well, first you have to prove that there is anything that is "supernatural" in the first place because you are basing your argument on the premise that the "god" is "supernatural," and second you have to prove that this "god" either exists or does not exist in that "supernatural" realm.

If you claim that the god does not exist because he's supernatural, and by definition there is nothing supernatural, you are forming a tautological fallacy based on ignorance because you do not know that there is nothing supernatural nor do you know that the god is supernatural in character. You are merely assuming so without evidence supporting that assertion.

I don't have to prove anything, as I'm not asserting anything. Wouldn't it be great if one day you learnt how logical reasoning worked?

[Blind groper]

I do have a serious quibble with religious 'faith'.

What they call faith, I call gullibility. If you want to believe things without credible evidence, then I have a sea shore property in the middle of the Sahara Desert I would like to sell to you cheap.

[Seth]

No, you mean you're just willing to divorce the conclusion from the context of the claim, again.

Which claim? The claim that God exists or the claim that God is ineffable?

[Seth]

Ultimately it boils down to probabilities. I consider the existence of a deity that influences humans as seriously improbable, for the simple reason that I have been looking for evidence for 50 years, including reading a lot on the subject, and I have seen no credible evidence. I accept that this is not proof, but as I said all along, you cannot prove a negative. So you cannot prove God does not exist. But you can conclude that his/her/its existence is highly improbable.

Keerect!

It is Sagan's dragon all over again. If he claims that a dragon made of dark matter lives in his garage, we cannot disprove that, since dark matter does not interact with our form of matter.

Keerect again!

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

They say them to me, when I challenge their routine insults and broad generalizations about people of faith, which they do whenever they think I'm not paying attention. Now, I will admit that the bar has been somewhat raised here and it's been a while (though not long) since I've seen the sort of blatant religion-bashing that was commonplace here, and at RatSkep, and RDF before it. And that's a good thing, for which I claim at least some responsibility because of my staunch defense of common courtesy and reason.

If, by "blatant religion-bashing" you mean a robust critique of religions for a variety of reasons, we still indulge...

However, I suspect you mean either giving offence to the religious, or making generalised attacks on religious people.

As to the first, religious people want their beliefs and traditions to be given automatic respect, which in practice means never saying anything except bland generalities. Sorry, no can do; when I see aspects of religion as an institution or belief system that deserve criticism, I'll always do so...

And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As the Saucier Chef, I am applying your share, so quitcherbitchen.

As to the second, the majority of people here are typically at pains to play the ball and not the man. With obvious exceptions such as pedophile priests (and the hierarchy that supported them) and murderous fundamentalists, the worst most of us would say about mainstream believers is that we think they are deluded. That does not make them bad people, or people who are not in most respects good citizens and worthy of praise for their actions.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Brian Peacock]

Seth wrote:

They say them to me, when I challenge their routine insults and broad generalizations about people of faith, which they do whenever they think I'm not paying attention. Now, I will admit that the bar has been somewhat raised here and it's been a while (though not long) since I've seen the sort of blatant religion-bashing that was commonplace here, and at RatSkep, and RDF before it. And that's a good thing, for which I claim at least some responsibility because of my staunch defense of common courtesy and reason.

If, by "blatant religion-bashing" you mean a robust critique of religions for a variety of reasons, we still indulge...

However, I suspect you mean either giving offence to the religious, or making generalised attacks on religious people.

As to the first, religious people want their beliefs and traditions to be given automatic respect, which in practice means never saying anything except bland generalities. Sorry, no can do; when I see aspects of religion as an institution or belief system that deserve criticism, I'll always do so...

As to the second, the majority of people here are typically at pains to play the ball and not the man. With obvious exceptions such as pedophile priests (and the hierarchy that supported them) and murderous fundamentalists, the worst most of us would say about mainstream believers is that we think they are deluded. That does not make them bad people, or people who are not in most respects good citizens and worthy of praise for their actions.

Indeed. This is what l was referring to when I said Seth was tone-policing expressions of disbelief, and using his personal standards as justification for the stiff treatment he likes to dish out as self-declared head atheist basher.

And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As the Saucier Chef, I am applying your share, so quitcherbitchen.

See.

[pErvinalia]

He's a troll. Ur expecting too much.

[Brian Peacock]

I expect very little, and am generally not disappointed.

[Seth]

Indeed. This is what l was referring to when I said Seth was tone-policing expressions of disbelief, and using his personal standards as justification for the stiff treatment he likes to dish out as self-declared head atheist basher.

Just emulating Atheists.

And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As the Saucier Chef, I am applying your share, so quitcherbitchen.

See.

Indeed. Isn't it nettlesome to be lumped in with nitwits and ignorami who make you look bad merely by residing in the same camp with you even though you hold much more reasonable positions and don't do the sort of things your camp-members are routinely and falsely accused of?

You should get used to it because I deem it a high moral duty to do unto others as they do unto others and, well, who cares about a little collateral damage anyway, that's just how Atheists roll.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, we know that feel justified in dishing out your brand of stiff treatment to atheists, but nothing you've said above actually deals with Jim's point, it just trumpets (for the umpteenth time) your previous testimony about how atheists bring it on themselves by not saying, being or doing the right thing, and because of that atheists deserve the kind of correction you have such a plain and earnest desire to administer.

[Brian Peacock]

Strum my G-string!