Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

If I have this straight...

Mestemia and Co. are saying that orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns are a ridiculous notion, but nonetheless impossible to disprove.

Richard is saying that orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns are a ridiculous notion, but the mere fact they are so farfetched means they definitely do not exist.

Personally, I don't think you can disprove the existence of invisible unicorns and orbiting teapots and magic pixies. Nonetheless, we cannot observe them readily, they do not have a noticeable effect on our existence, there is no evidence to suggest they may exist, and it's supposed existence is only supported by an unsubstantiated assertion. Therefore we can conclude that magic pixies and the like very probably do not exist and in the miniscule chance they do, they have no effect on our lives so they are irrelevant. They may as well not exist.

Very good summary.
Unfortunately richard doesn't seem to be able to agree with words like "probability" as you do. He insists on having "proved" or "disprooved" God, teapots, pixies and so on which of course he also lists as being equal (which they are not).

In my view formal logic doesnt allow you to conclusively disproove these things.
Which of course doesnt keep anybody from simply not believing in them. Who would, given that nonexistent amount of evidence. Between absense of believe and a conclusive disproove there is a gap however. One that should be understood in order to be different from a fundamentally dogmatic person.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

And that you also admit to making your points ridiculous adds to your foolishness.

Voltaire already understood that if you cant talk reasonbly with someone, ridicule is the best way to deal with him.

Or you can try and believe most people have a small amount of intelligence until the try and justify flying teapots and invisible unicorns, and then question the intelligence of those who support such notions.

Or the intelligence of those that even after such a long "dialog" still didnt get the very simple fact that nobody here supports such notions.

 

[richardlowellt]

Voltaire already understood that if you cant talk reasonbly with someone, ridicule is the best way to deal with him.


Or the intelligence of those that even after such a long "dialog" still didnt get the very simple fact that nobody here supports such notions.

There are a lot of people who don't support the "notion" of evolution, people don't support lots of notions, that's not how we support our positions.

I know beyond a doubt that the things in question do not exist, I know this because of a total lack of evidence along with the knowledge of how my world operates, this leads me to reason that no such things exist. You, on the other hand try and walk the thin line by saying these things cannot be proven to not exist, you don't say you believe in them, but that they can't be proven to not exist. I guess you think this puts you in a position of neutrality, but in reality you either believe those things are possible or not, which is it?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I understand where both sides are coming from. I agree these things cannot be disproven conclusively. But I also agree with Richard in the sense that if a concept like magic pixies and unicorns are so obviously a product of the human mind, we might as well make that small leap of faith and say they do not exist. It doesn't do any good to offer that there is always a small chance pixies may exist. When we know the probability is so small, we might as well just say "Pixies do not exist" until proven otherwise.

 

[McBell]

I understand where both sides are coming from. I agree these things cannot be disproven conclusively. But I also agree with Richard in the sense that if a concept like magic pixies and unicorns are so obviously a product of the human mind, we might as well make that small leap of faith and say they do not exist. It doesn't do any good to offer that there is always a small chance pixies may exist. When we know the probability is so small, we might as well just say "Pixies do not exist" until proven otherwise.

And I do not have a problem with that.

However, I do have a problem with richard continuously implying that those who understand the FACT that he has not PROVEN anything nonexistence has to think that they exist.

He is intentionally and falsely attributing beleifs to people who have flat out said otherwise.

In my book, that makes him a liar.

 

[richardlowellt]

And I do not have a problem with that.

However, I do have a problem with richard continuously implying that those who understand the FACT that he has not PROVEN anything nonexistence has to think that they exist.

He is intentionally and falsely attributing beleifs to people who have flat out said otherwise.

In my book, that makes him a liar.

You also seem to walk the thin line, see things maybe in grey, but either you think these things exist or you don't. I think you know that if you say they don't exist, then I will ask you why you feel that way, and you will have to step on way or the other.

When you tell people that I stated that I was "better" than Theists, when I made no such declaration, then put your own name in your book of liars.

 

[McBell]

You also seem to walk the thin line, see things maybe in grey, but either you think these things exist or you don't. I think you know that if you say they don't exist, then I will ask you why you feel that way, and you will have to step on way or the other.

When you tell people that I stated that I was "better" than Theists, when I made no such declaration, then put your own name in your book of liars.

You go right ahead and play with your words.

I feel no need to play with mine.

 

[prayersofjerusalem]

hahah true

 

[richardlowellt]

hahah true

Do you have something to add to the conversation, or are you just giggling to yourself and looking foolish?

Maybe your here to tell us about all those things that you feel exist, like pixie dust, invisible unicorns, Peter Pan, God, you know all things imagined.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I understand where both sides are coming from. I agree these things cannot be disproven conclusively. But I also agree with Richard in the sense that if a concept like magic pixies and unicorns are so obviously a product of the human mind, we might as well make that small leap of faith and say they do not exist. It doesn't do any good to offer that there is always a small chance pixies may exist. When we know the probability is so small, we might as well just say "Pixies do not exist" until proven otherwise.

I do say that i dont believe in Pixies.
And of course this also means that for me they do not exist until proven otherwise.

However i do not make the step to claim that i would have disprooven their existence.
And thats the trouble with Richard.

He doesn't simply state "I, Richard, do not believe in Pixies, Unicorns and neither do i believe in God".

He states that there is no chance at all for any of the three.
Although of course the three are not even equal when it comes to assessing their possible existence his statement is simply false.

If you take a look at the conversation in the thread you can quite often see how he simply postulates the impossibility of something. Starting even with such simple things as extra realms which in my view is a rather probable thing.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

There are a lot of people who don't support the "notion" of evolution, people don't support lots of notions, that's not how we support our positions.

I know beyond a doubt that the things in question do not exist, I know this because of a total lack of evidence along with the knowledge of how my world operates, this leads me to reason that no such things exist. You, on the other hand try and walk the thin line by saying these things cannot be proven to not exist, you don't say you believe in them, but that they can't be proven to not exist. I guess you think this puts you in a position of neutrality, but in reality you either believe those things are possible or not, which is it?

You DONT know!
You believe without a doubt that the things in question do not exist.
You believe that because of total lack of evidence.
And so far i would agree.
Note that i never claimed to believe in God or ( to use your all time favorite again) in
Pixies. I simply claimed that you didn' disproove any of them.
In reality people should not believe something to be possible or not but rather if it is PROBABLE or not.
So to answer your final question again:
I think that a God IS possible although I do not believe that he exists. I wont change my opinion (on either of the two) until other evidence comes up.

 

[richardlowellt]

You DONT know!
You believe without a doubt that the things in question do not exist.
You believe that because of total lack of evidence.
And so far i would agree.
Note that i never claimed to believe in God or ( to use your all time favorite again) in
Pixies. I simply claimed that you didn' disproove any of them.
In reality people should not believe something to be possible or not but rather if it is PROBABLE or not.
So to answer your final question again:
I think that a God IS possible although I do not believe that he exists. I wont change my opinion (on either of the two) until other evidence comes up.

You can throw around words like PROBABLE, and that all things are POSSIBLE, but yes I can know if something does not exist, and my "favorite" is pixie DUST, which I KNOW does not exist. I KNOW pixie dust does not exist because the properties of pixie dust would violate the laws of nature, that alone, without searching for evidence of pixies, is enough to show me it is non-existent. Is it PROBABLE that once dusted with pixie dust that a person could defy gravity, possible that they could fly into outer space to never never land, my answer, although different from yours apparently, is a resounding NO.

 

[McBell]

You can throw around words like PROBABLE, and that all things are POSSIBLE, but yes I can know if something does not exist, and my "favorite" is pixie DUST, which I KNOW does not exist. I KNOW pixie dust does not exist because the properties of pixie dust would violate the laws of nature, that alone, without searching for evidence of pixies, is enough to show me it is non-existent. Is it PROBABLE that once dusted with pixie dust that a person could defy gravity, possible that they could fly into outer space to never never land, my answer, although different from yours apparently, is a resounding NO.

and yet you still have not "proven" that pixie dust does not exist.
Only that the probability for it is extremely low.

 

[richardlowellt]

and yet you still have not "proven" that pixie dust does not exist.
Only that the probability for it is extremely low.

No I have proven that it doesn't exist, unless your ready to say that it is possible for the laws of nature to be suspended. I might agree that sometime in the future we may find a way to defy gravity, but at this moment in time and by the prescribed method, I KNOW that pixie dust and the resulting effects are NOT POSSIBLE.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

No I have proven that it doesn't exist, unless your ready to say that it is possible for the laws of nature to be suspended.

There are no "laws" of nature strictly speaking.
What we call "laws" is a description of empirically observable behaviour in nature. Its the try to formulate how we see it.

Laws of nature cant be suspended because they dont exist.
You might gain the knowledge that your description was not conplete and while completing it might find things you havent forseen yet.
But that is a different thing than suspending natural laws. Afterall .. we are not Gods

 

[richardlowellt]

There are no "laws" of nature strictly speaking.
What we call "laws" is a description of empirically observable behaviour in nature. Its the try to formulate how we see it.

Laws of nature cant be suspended because they dont exist.
You might gain the knowledge that your description was not conplete and while completing it might find things you havent forseen yet.
But that is a different thing than suspending natural laws. Afterall .. we are not Gods

I'm not going to debate semantics with you, but the laws of nature, or natural laws posits the existence of a law who's content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere, a physical law or law of science is based on empirical observation over time. Here we are talking about violating the laws of gravity, hence one of the natural laws.

Even God's can't suspend the laws of nature, of course unless you want to invoke "God Magic" which many do.

 

[McBell]

No I have proven that it doesn't exist, unless your ready to say that it is possible for the laws of nature to be suspended. I might agree that sometime in the future we may find a way to defy gravity, but at this moment in time and by the prescribed method, I KNOW that pixie dust and the resulting effects are NOT POSSIBLE.

wow.
And you honestly do not see anything at all wrong with the above quoted post?

 

[richardlowellt]

wow.
And you honestly do not see anything at all wrong with the above quoted post?

No i don't see a problem with denying pixie dust and it's properties, apparently you have a problem with the non-existence of pixie dust, which I can only conclude that you think it just might be possible. It becomes very difficult to converse with someone who thinks it just might be possible to have magic pixie dust sprinkled on them and defy the laws of gravity by flying around the room and then zooming off into outer space---Don't forget to hold your breath as there is no oxygen, not sure just what you'll do to combat the near zero temperatures and the vacuum, have fun in never never land!!

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not going to debate semantics with you, but the laws of nature, or natural laws posits the existence of a law who's content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere, a physical law or law of science is based on empirical observation over time. Here we are talking about violating the laws of gravity, hence one of the natural laws.

Even God's can't suspend the laws of nature, of course unless you want to invoke "God Magic" which many do.

You gave a rather good definition yourself: a law of nature is a strong scientific theory that allows us to describe how nature works, and which we have developed over time on the strength of empirical evidence.

This does not take into account, however, the empirical evidence we have not yet obtained: I am assuming scientists will be alive and kicking in the future and we will only be learning more about our universe and how it works. Knowledge is not set in stone: we never know everything that there is to know, and the things that we think we know, we may be wrong about due to an incomplete data set.

The laws of nature, therefore, only state our current best understanding of how nature works. The laws of nature are subject to change because we are the ones who created them and we are not omniscient.

 

[Falvlun]

No i don't see a problem with denying pixie dust and it's properties, apparently you have a problem with the non-existence of pixie dust, which I can only conclude that you think it just might be possible. It becomes very difficult to converse with someone who thinks it just might be possible to have magic pixie dust sprinkled on them and defy the laws of gravity by flying around the room and then zooming off into outer space---Don't forget to hold your breath as there is no oxygen, not sure just what you'll do to combat the near zero temperatures and the vacuum, have fun in never never land!!

As for your pixie dust, we currently know of no dust-like particle that could give humans flight. It is reasonable to believe that pixie dust does not exist. However, this is not the same as saying "pixie dust does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist".

You seem to forget that people, not so long ago, believed it was impossible to fly to the moon. And before that, they believed it was impossible to fly period. And yet we have airplanes.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, some dust-like particle substance could be created which would give humans relatively unaided flight. It sounds like something nano-technology could look into.