A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

Now, if you would just tell us this great big secret about this thing will ya?

After all, I am dying to know how the FSM passes the test, but not God.

I am dying to know how Neverleft passes the test by saying attempt to disprove him, but how I fail by stating you can neither prove nor disprove God.

The whims of atheism and teh lack of standards are telling in this 'test'.

So, lets see some of that intellectual honesty.

 

That question was answered here.

 

which one?

i hate what many do and misleading people to be like you, is why i hate what many christians do.

the reason: truth rules

lies die

enabling the choice

support life to continue

 

likewise; truth destroys ignorance

i learned on the usage of the word hung in the most minute way.

'the case' is the argument.

i used a line item comment to the debate. I didnt state fact

thats the difference between you and i; i am honest enough to disclosure in honesty of when i do not know.

The example of antithesis; You present the argument as 'faith' when defending lies.

Having character IS heroic.

but a created character is not a true hero

Like a liar lying and then believing they are saved.

 

Information destroys ignorance. Not truth. More commonly, in fact, truth creates ignorance.

 

That cannot be done, as the claim of God's existence is unfalsifiable.

There is just no reason I have seen to think it true.

 

Why do you think so?

 

God is invisible and will be later either.
This debate would never be resolved for the obvious reason there is no a way to prove an existance of divine intervention on the earth.There will be always speculations on the way the world has been created but no concrete proofs.I'd say this is the most wanted query today and a discovery about the subject might extremely change our world.However,I don't suppose that somebody will find a way of proving.No matter what your belief is,the religion is naturually into us and might not leave soon.I've already told that but feel committed to make this point clear-as long as the religion doesn't devastate anything it is allowed.
My new interest that resulted in learning phsyics is to connect the space sciences with the jewish bible from a standpoint of someone objective.The bible wants the people to believe there is only god around and aliens are not more than a lovely legend.On the other hand,the science claims god is imaginary and invented to keep people's minds off the horrifying fate of death.Sinccerely,it's interesting to see the claims of each side and compare them by the logic.furthermore,it lets you have knowledge of two issues at the same time.

 

Don't you think this is perhaps an archaic argument which doesn't take anyone further forward? People tend to find complicated intellectual ways to defend something Daddy and Mummy told them, but the real question is how human beings ought to behave, I reckon.

 

Why do I think its unfalsifiable?

Because there can be no test which will debunk the claim, even hypothetically.

 

Really?

So, how is the FSM not a personal attack?

How is challenging you, who have asked this same question dozens of times, indeed even 'challenged' me with the very same question, and then pointing out that it is absurd to ask this as a test a 'personal attack'?

How is asking you to be intellectually honest about the question not a personal attack?

How is expressing frustration with the same constant line or expressing the ciricular arguementation so often associated with this line of direction a personal attack?

How is wondering how those who demand evidence the most, but use it least a personal attack?

Again, just as charged, this is about meeting your pre-conceptions and not much else - any semblance of debate has been lost under the guise of a 'test' whose standards are .... far from clear.

But don't worry, from this point on, every time you call someone childish, etc., I will remind you that you have failed you test.

 

Truth hurts, eh?

 

Falsifyable - not "unfalsifyable". The system is: If something is true you are not able to see it - but if something is wrong your are able to see it. So we are able to falsify something but we are not able to verify (=unfalsify) something. In natural science this means a theory is as long true as it is not wrong. With short words. "Newton" was true until "Einstein" falsified him. But we are not able to say "Newton is superflous" because Einstein never had been able to find the theory of relativity without the genious of Newton. There's also a logic of time.

There's no way to put god under a microscope - but the word of god is everywhere in this creation. If phycicists are speaking about multiverses then they don't think that this what we are calling "logos" is limited only in this universe here - even if the expressons "time" and "position" are maybe without any sense "outside". But never say never. Perhaps there is a way? We don't know all ways til now.

Besides: Science is not everything. Try to speak with god and if he answeres be satisfied and if not don't be frustrated. Latest after your death and/or my death you/I will know more.

http://youtu.be/RsYwm2WEN4Y

 

Read the context - someone was asked to prove an unfalsifaible claim was false. This is obviously not possible.

 

Can you give me a more concrete example what you hate what I am doing? Something what I said for example and why you hated that I said this.

 

Like atheism.

Prove there is no God.

"There is no God"

That claim is not falsifiable is it? You guys make it anyway. Only when it comes time to actually put evidence (or not) in support of that claim - why, you not only fail to even discuss evidence, what we get is a discussion about how evidence does not actually effect atheim ... for you see atheists are not actually claiming anything, blah, blah, blah .... agnostic atheism.

It makes even the most fundamentalist of Creationist wince at the illogic of it (that is of course a 'personal attack')

Only here you are claiming everything that is not falsibiable is not real?

Including your atheistic concepts - your love for ... anything at all, etc., etc., etc.

the entire intelectual concept of atheism is build upon circular logic that valid only if certain things are met which are contingent upon still on still other things, which goes right back to the beginning.

1. There is no God because .... evolution and the Big Bang - oh these leave open the possibility of God and are far from definitive?

2. Well, you see you have a burden of proof and we do not? What you say, you have strong preponderance of the evidence cases, and it is now OUR burden, logically, to show how those are definitively not possible as we claim?

3. Well, no worries, you see we are not actually claiming anything and therefore have no evidential requirement at all. Intellectual gainsay you say?

4. Well, we have science on our side! And as you can see the evidence leads straight to no God ... after all evolution and the Big Bang ...

That is of course a personal insult though, correct?

 

You are using the word unfalsifyable (=veryfyable) - but nothing at all is verifyable in science. Everything is as long true as it is not false. I had to replace it with falsifyable - I guess this is the word what you are thinking about.

http://youtu.be/tOv7mPV4rS4

 

Not being proven false is not the same as being proven true.

 

Link, please.

I have never in my life claimed that, precisely because it is unfalsifiable.

 

Once again, your opinion is not the turth of anything other than what your opinion is.

Try some kind of actual support.

But when we do look at the evidence, the logic, the reasoning, the inferrence, you guys always break out the super victim cloaks.

The only truth is that you are using double standards.

Just like its truth that compatring God to the FSM is nothing more than the guilt by association fallacy - but you, who are so worried about offense, use it anyway.

No worries, YOUR OPINION, is that it is not.

And here is another fact for you - directly related to the detachment of the OPINIONS of atheism from reality.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

There is a reason that atheists are the least trusted people in the US, and its not because you are actually victims. Its because its your OPINION that your are victims and insist on telling people this .... and all you other non-factual OPINIONS, that when actually challenged result in the whine of oppression.

Is that a personal attack? Or what is happening in atheism?

Whatever is your standard?

Just like I said, whatever you want it to be.

Real truth hurts don't it?

 

Look up agnostic atheism. Go ahead.

This is a debate forum, and you are in here beating up on theism but not atheism - not ever.

Your standards are biased, and quite frankly, if you want to talk about what ONLY you believe, which wil switch on a dime, then lets talk about self worship.

Because whatever your position is relating to God, guess what? Its not falsifiable is it?

But thanks for thinking you are special.

 

My only "position" is that I do not believe what other people have told me to believe, because I see no reason to do so. I make no stance on the actual existence of a deity - merely my own belief in one.

Testing this position is simple - just ask me.

 

Support? Here you go: "I guess, even after explaining it a hundred time (sic) some atheists are just to (sic) think (sic) headed to get it."

A personal insult in your very first sentence! Terrific work. You performed exactly as I predicted you would. Most other posters in this thread I disagreed with presented a factual argument with which to disagree. Hence they passed the test. But not you -- you decided to characterize people with whom you disagree as "thick-headed." I know you actually wrote "think headed" but as you are prone to numerous uncorrected typos, I have learned to interpret your writings with a little gestalt.

What have we learned here? What have your fellow travelers taught us? Just because you disagree with someone does not make them your enemy. There is no reason to attack them personally. Attack the argument? Certainly. Mercilessly illustrate their flawed reasoning? You bet. That is debate. But calling your opponent names does nothing more than undermine your entire argument, such as it is, and makes you look, well... dare I say "thick-headed?" And you took that tack from the word go!

 

You cannot prove God exists. If you could, there would be no virtue in religious belief. God is supernatural and is impossible to prove physically.

 

Perdidochas passed the test.