Evidence for God from Science

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:I just wish Kenny would think as deeply about this as we are.

I wouldn't be so sure he's not

Maybe my wish will come true then!

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:I just wish Kenny would think as deeply about this as we are.

I wouldn't be so sure he's not

Maybe my wish will come true then!

Haha perhaps

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

You don't get Kenny and THAT is the problem.
Know I just have to figure out if you don't get because you don't understand or because you can't OR you WON'T.
Once we figure that out I guess then we will know how to deal with you.
As of right now, to be honest, I simply don't know.

RickD wrote:

Nicki wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nicki wrote:

The question though seemed to be a more personal one - if you knew somehow without a doubt that God didn't exist (not necessarily sharing the knowledge with anyone else), would you cross to the other side? It seems logical to say sure, I agree with the truth that I know even if it's disappointing and makes the universe seem empty and meaningless...

Now you seem to be equating theism with God.

You mean you would stay a theist without God?

You thought the question asked about knowing God didn't exist. But Kenny's question asked about theism being false, not about God not existing.

In other words...nevermind.

Wow! Step away for a few hours and the thread takes off! Anyway.....
What is the difference between "God doesn't exist" and "Theism being false"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism?s=t

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

Kenny,

I was giving an answer to your question. I was explaining it as an individual asked by you:

If you knew theism was false, wouldn't you become atheist?

RickD wrote:Your question does not ask, "If you knew God didn't exist, would you become atheist?"

What’s the difference?

RickD wrote:And even if you asked the question about God, instead of theism, the key word is "knew". If you replaced "knew" with "believed", the question as you probably meant it would make sense, and we wouldn't be arguing about this.

You can know something and still be wrong. There isn’t much difference between knowing and believing; it’s just a matter of degree.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know?s=t
I used the word know because that’s the way the opposite question was proposed to me.

RickD wrote:Atheists don't "know" that God doesn't exist. Atheists "believe" God doesn't exist. Big difference. It changes the meaning of the question.

[/quote]
Actually depending on how the God in question is defined, someone can know a God doesn’t exist just as one can know there are no such thing as a square triangle. But that’s another subject….


Ken

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

ed wrote:
Sure, in a world where everyone behaved rationally. Here on Earth there are still people who think Elvis is alive and the moon landing was faked. Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has would definitely diminish Christianity, but it wouldn't kill it entirely. Thus there would still be theists, thus there would still be atheists...

do you agree with this post from ed, ken ?

I agree with what he said, but it didn't answer the question I asked.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

You don't get Kenny and THAT is the problem.
Know I just have to figure out if you don't get because you don't understand or because you can't OR you WON'T.
Once we figure that out I guess then we will know how to deal with you.
As of right now, to be honest, I simply don't know.

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this. I think Melanie did an excellent job of explaining it. she said:

We asked ken by way of the OP to take into consideration the question at hand.
He flipped the question as understood under the same conditions.
When he answered honestly, yes sure if atheism was proved to be false then yes I would be a Christian. Then he flipped the question he did so under the understanding that he had just answered.
No one brought into the equation a possibility of theism incontrovertibly being proved false, to have never existed In the first place to the extent of the entire argument being deemed incomprehensible to the point of the linguistic and accurate definition of athiest being redefined or completely diminished.
That is not the premise this question was asked or redirected

I cannot explain it any better than that. If you still aren't getting it, I don't think there is anything I can do to help you.

Ken

I understand what Kenny is saying however I don't understand how he can think he has made the most wisest decision.I mean ifKenny is wrong?He is going to be in trouble and yet he could fix it now while he can.He must not be a gambler and does not consider odds of winning.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I understand what Kenny is saying however I don't understand how he can think he has made the most wisest decision.I mean ifKenny is wrong?He is going to be in trouble and yet he could fix it now while he can.He must not be a gambler and does not consider odds of winning.

I appreciate you understanding what I am saying. As far as me taking a chance, look at it from my perspective; I understand the possibility that I could be wrong, but suppose were both wrong? Suppose God does exist, but you're praying to the wrong one? And this real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your false?
I'd rather not pray at all!

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I understand what Kenny is saying however I don't understand how he can think he has made the most wisest decision.I mean ifKenny is wrong?He is going to be in trouble and yet he could fix it now while he can.He must not be a gambler and does not consider odds of winning.

I appreciate you understanding what I am saying. As far as me taking a chance, look at it from my perspective; I understand the possibility that I could be wrong, but suppose were both wrong? Suppose God does exist, but you're praying to the wrong one? And this real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your false?
I'd rather not pray at all!

Ken

I understand and have increased my chances of winning by examing other god's out there and evidence so that my odds are sound.Besides who would want to be a muslim right now? They are proving they believe in the wrong god so that rules that god out,which I knew was the false god already.As far as religions that matter I guess that leaves Hindu god's? I've looked into it too though and know it is false.Even though the hindu's were nice i've been to one of there church services and they set a decorated box in the center of the room that has pictures of 4 different god's on it.They dance using sticks hitting each others sticks as they dance around to religious hindu sounding music,then they gather around the box,pray, and lay money and offerings around it.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

Kenny,

I was giving an answer to your question. I was explaining it as an individual asked by you:

If you knew theism was false, wouldn't you become atheist?

RickD wrote:Your question does not ask, "If you knew God didn't exist, would you become atheist?"

What’s the difference?

RickD wrote:And even if you asked the question about God, instead of theism, the key word is "knew". If you replaced "knew" with "believed", the question as you probably meant it would make sense, and we wouldn't be arguing about this.

You can know something and still be wrong. There isn’t much difference between knowing and believing; it’s just a matter of degree.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know?s=t
I used the word know because that’s the way the opposite question was proposed to me.

RickD wrote:Atheists don't "know" that God doesn't exist. Atheists "believe" God doesn't exist. Big difference. It changes the meaning of the question.

Actually depending on how the God in question is defined, someone can know a God doesn’t exist just as one can know there are no such thing as a square triangle. But that’s another subject….


Ken

FL,

If you are reading this, I beg of you...please come back and tell me the story about chess, and the monkey, and feces. This would be the perfect time for you to say, "I told you so."

Niki:
You seem to be equating theism with God. The existence of theism is not the same as the existence of God, is it?

Niki, theism requires God/s, the God/s don't require theism. So, when ken asks Christians to pretend theism doesn't exist it means 1 of 2 things... #1 theism is false = no God/s or #2 Theism is false = God/s are real but do not want worshiped (the act of theism). Our bible is rife with examples of God wanting our praise and worship, of this there is no doubt, so #2 definition of theism is false in contradiction. That leaves #1, theism is false because God is false.

Niki
I agree though that if everyone knew whether or not God exists there would be no need for the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' - The question though seemed to be a more personal one - if you knew somehow without a doubt that God didn't exist (not necessarily sharing the knowledge with anyone else), would you cross to the other side?

IMO, the exact same thing is true for the individual. If, as an individual know that God is untrue... has Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has then you are neither a theist (believer in the untrue) or atheist (believer there is no God) because you don't believe anything... you know it factually, so there is no reason to align yourself with either "belief system".

Niki
It seems logical to say sure, I agree with the truth that I know

and therein lies the difference, the atheist believes there is no God, but because of your acknowledged Incontrovertible evidence , you know he is not. IMO, there is no reason to call yourself atheist because you are no longer in the belief mode, now you are set apart with absolute knowledge there is/are no God/s.

The more people get involved in understanding it, Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has been found, the easier it will be to see the uselessness of categorizing yourself as anything, since nothing exists that isn't now taken for granted.

let me finally say this KEN...

There is, IMO, a 100% better chance of you being contacted somehow someway in this life by God, expressing His presence personally, to you, than the chance anyone, ever created live a life span long enough to ever find Incontrovertible evidence that my God doesn't exist and never did, isn't and never will be .

So knowing this:

ken:
My scenario was not about "no theism" (sorry, fixed it) it was about if you knew theism was false


ES:
Unnecessary, if, acknowledging theism is false, why would there even be atheism ? There is no light if everywhere, there is darkness


My answer stands.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:let me finally say this KEN...

There is, IMO, a 100% better chance of you being contacted somehow someway in this life by God, expressing His presence personally, to you, than the chance anyone, ever created live a life span long enough to ever find Incontrovertible evidence that my God doesn't exist and never did, isn't and never will be .

So knowing this:

ken:
My scenario was not about "no theism" (sorry, fixed it) it was about if you knew theism was false


ES:
Unnecessary, if, acknowledging theism is false, why would there even be atheism ? There is no light if everywhere, there is darkness


My answer stands.

That's because you answered a question nobody asked, and ignored the one question I did ask. Care to answer my question? Or are you content with making up your own questions and answering them.

Ken

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Niki, theism requires God/s, the God/s don't require theism. So, when ken asks Christians to pretend theism doesn't exist it means 1 of 2 things....

But Ken never asked that question.

Ken