1. Joined
    20 Nov '06
    Moves
    0
    20 Nov '06 11:51
    Join the club
  2. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    20 Nov '06 11:571 edit
    Originally posted by yop
    Join the club
    The "God doesn't exist" club?

    You must be joking. Are you seriously making the claim that God doesn't exist?
  3. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    20 Nov '06 12:13
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    The "God doesn't exist" club?

    You must be joking. Are you seriously making the claim that God doesn't exist?
    Oh please, dj2, are you seriously making the claim he does? Both are equally unsupportable.
  4. Joined
    20 Nov '06
    Moves
    0
    20 Nov '06 12:49
    He doesnt.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Nov '06 12:56
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Oh please, dj2, are you seriously making the claim he does? Both are equally unsupportable.
    What do you mean by "God", by "exist" and by "unsupportable"?
    I don't believe that God (as defined by most Christians) does not exist precisely because I think that the evidence for, and lack of evidence to the contrary, is significant enough for me to support such a claim.
  6. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    20 Nov '06 13:22
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What do you mean by "God", by "exist" and by "unsupportable"?
    I don't believe that God (as defined by most Christians) does not exist precisely because I think that the evidence for, and lack of evidence to the contrary, is significant enough for me to support such a claim.
    I'm not sure what your post means, is there an unintentional double negative in there?

    I don't believe a positive claim either for or against the existence of god is supportable.
  7. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    20 Nov '06 13:46
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Oh please, dj2, are you seriously making the claim he does? Both are equally unsupportable.
    Both are equally unsupportable.

    No they are not. If you say that no little green men exist, you need absolute knowledge to support your claim, but on the other hand you only need sufficient evidence of one single green little man to support the claim that little green men exist.
  8. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    20 Nov '06 13:51
    Originally posted by yop
    He doesnt.
    Do you know everything there is to know?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Nov '06 14:01
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    If you say that no little green men exist, you need absolute knowledge to support your claim, but on the other hand you only need sufficient evidence of one single green little man to support the claim that little green men exist.
    But when the claim is more specific such as "Little green men are in the room with me now", then I do not need absolute knowledge to disprove it. Also if you present a witness who claims that he/she has been talking to little green men then I could possibly provide sufficient evidence to support a claim that the witness is either lying, deluded or mistaken.
  10. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    20 Nov '06 14:20
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But when the claim is more specific such as "Little green men are in the room with me now", then I do not need absolute knowledge to disprove it. Also if you present a witness who claims that he/she has been talking to little green men then I could possibly provide sufficient evidence to support a claim that the witness is either lying, deluded or mistaken.
    The claim "God does not exist" is a universal one, and thus absolute knowledge of the universe is required to support this claim.
  11. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    20 Nov '06 14:26
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]Both are equally unsupportable.

    No they are not. If you say that no little green men exist, you need absolute knowledge to support your claim, but on the other hand you only need sufficient evidence of one single green little man to support the claim that little green men exist.[/b]
    Agreed, but since you lack that evidence, both remain unsupported.
  12. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    20 Nov '06 14:35
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Agreed, but since you lack that evidence, both remain unsupported.
    If by 'unsupported' you mean 'non-existent' then I disagree, but on the other hand if you have decided that you will accept no evidence for the existence of God, then I could understand what you might be trying to say.
  13. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    20 Nov '06 14:39
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    If by 'unsupported' you mean 'non-existent' then I disagree, but on the other hand if you have decided that you will accept no evidence for the existence of God, then I could understand what you might be trying to say.
    What I have and haven't decided is of no import here. I mean unsupported, not non-existent.
  14. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    20 Nov '06 14:421 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    What I have and haven't decided is of no import here. I mean unsupported, not non-existent.
    What evidence would be sufficient to support the existence of God in your opinion?
  15. Joined
    20 Nov '06
    Moves
    0
    20 Nov '06 14:43
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Do you know everything there is to know?
    Yes
Back to Top