Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?

No. The 80% assume immediately that it's an ox, the other 20% offer a selsction of different answers...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I refer you to my edit re atoms:

Have you ever seen an atom? Has anyone ever seen an atom?

from web
"The answer is Yes. And No. The reason
for No is that it is actually impossible for anybody to "see" an individual
atom, since all atoms are thousands of times smaller than the smallest light
waves we can see using our eyes. The reason for Yes is that, even though they cannot be seen directly with our eyes there is so much evidence for atoms, and we know so much about them, that it is impossible to say they do not exist"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And atoms behave in a particular manner, the same way all the time... "god" doesn't. Atoms have set properties, that are predicatble and calculable, and behave in the same mannewr for all testers, "god" doesn't...
An "atom" is (whether it actually exists or not) a workable "fiction" that can be used to explain things and build workable theories on, "god" can't...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_10.html

This a great link, the question is:

"What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?"

See what these chaps have to say in answer to that.

 

I see, so because god is like man in regard to being unpredicatable, he does not exist and neither do we I assume?

 

With no need to believe that it exists, I would but need to know the meaning.

--- Ron.

 

You have no evidence of God but you know God behaves?

No kidding?

--- Ron.

 

Tut tut. Psychology? Ever heard of it? Men are to an extent predictable, "god" isn't. I'm not saying he doesn't exist or not, just that since that particular hypothesis provides no explanations and no predictions then it's not worth holding on to.

 

I'm saying I don't know how he behaves.. re-read it. And since his behaviour cannot be accounted for then why bother with the theory?

 

Nope. Psychology is based on observing known characteristics and behaviours over time and is a statistical process... "god's" motivations are unknowable since there's (supposedly) only one of him and he doesn't do that much often enough to gather data to form any meaningful theories.
And since we can't make predictions or extraplotions then it's a null hypothesis.

 

It is this that I dispute:

"god is not predictable" would account for god's behaviour.

--- Ron.

 

Then if he's not predictable there's no point bothering to include him in any planning then, is there? Discount the entire concept, since anything that includes him cannot be reliable.

 

Ah - the old "predictable in his unpredictability" gag!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please put a theory together to test the existence of God - and we'll go from there.

Otherwise, please accept the difference between an atom and GOD with regard to evidence of existence.

 

Has anyone ever seen gravity, ToR? It must not exist, then.

 

If God simply does not want to be tested and will dodge every attempt to do so, then he would at least enjoy my sympathy.

It is the old discount the observer problem, isn't it?

For as long as you suppose an anthropomorphic god, you are going to also have to suppose that your god reacts to the observation.

And what an interesting coincidence then, the possibility that atoms also react to observation.

--- Ron.

 

Have you ever seen god. Has anyone ever seen god?

No and no.

 

Thank you for agreeing that not seeing god does not mean he does not exist


diffrent parts of the ox but NOT the ox

 

More like shit less, don't ya think?

There are no parts to investigate when it comes to gods, hence no sum total.

 

I've seen gravity.

 

You have to show that "god" did gravity - science accounts for gravity better than the idea of god. What has "god" done that can't (or won't) be accounted for by any other theory - a theory that will give usable predictions?