Evidence for the existence of God

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:38:05 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Are you going to argue with that, peterson???" '

I should forward this to your court appointed shrink. It's likely to
keep you in the system longer.

Libel, once again. Who is this "court-appointed shrink?" Give us a name, peterson.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:59:14 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 10:29:51 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

In spite of yur denials, you still want to put God in a test tube or you
won't believe, doubting Thomas.

If peterson can't come up with a science experiment to prove/disprove the
existence of something then he automatically assumes that it doesn't exist.

If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, there's not much one can _do_ with it, and
so it is unworthy of consideration *by science*.

This is not grounds, in itself, for invalidating religious faith.

None the less, the waters here are quite deep, and the issues very complex.

Some forms of religion, though, are transparently attempts to control and
manipulate people, and they've given religion in general a bad name in some
respects.

http://www.venganza.org/

(Except that it isn't really a religion.)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:37:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:29:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

In spite of yur denials, you still want to put God in a test tube or you
won't believe, doubting Thomas.

If peterson can't come up with a science experiment to prove/disprove the existence of something then he automatically assumes that it doesn't exist.

If I have no evidence that something exists, I take the reasonable
default position that it doesn't.

You should take NO position, default or otherwise.

That's what I said. I assume it does not exist. The NO position.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:56:51 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:37:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:29:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

In spite of yur denials, you still want to put God in a test tube or you
won't believe, doubting Thomas.

If peterson can't come up with a science experiment to prove/disprove the existence of something then he automatically assumes that it doesn't exist.

If I have no evidence that something exists, I take the reasonable
default position that it doesn't.

You should take NO position, default or otherwise.

That's what I said. I assume it does not exist. The NO position.

Your reading comprehension stinks, peterson. Not "the NO position," instead, _NO_ position.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:45:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:34:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:24:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

However, unicorns and leprechauns (as usually depicted) are figments of human imagination, whereas there is no evidence against the existence of gods.

How do you know that unicorns and leprechauns are figments of human
imagination?

Imaginary creatures, based on artists' imaginations:

https://www.google.com/search?q=unic... h=628#imgrc=_

Imaginary beings, based on artists' imaginations:

https://www.google.com/search?q=unic...h&q=leprechaun

Wide variety of interpretations of what God is:

https://www.google.com/search?q=god&...DqQQ_AUIBig B

Artists renditions do not tell me one way or another whether the
things they represent are imaginary.

How do you know that gods are not?

There are gods that are imaginary, the FSM being one.

How do you know any particular gods are imaginary?

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:56:51 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:37:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:29:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

In spite of yur denials, you still want to put God in a test tube or you
won't believe, doubting Thomas.

If peterson can't come up with a science experiment to prove/disprove the existence of something then he automatically assumes that it doesn't exist.

If I have no evidence that something exists, I take the reasonable
default position that it doesn't.

You should take NO position, default or otherwise.

That's what I said. I assume it does not exist. The NO position.

Your reading comprehension stinks, peterson. Not "the NO position," instead, _NO_ position.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Probably because you don't
know yourself.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:07:56 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:56:51 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:37:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

If I have no evidence that something exists, I take the reasonable
default position that it doesn't.

You should take NO position, default or otherwise.

That's what I said. I assume it does not exist. The NO position.

Your reading comprehension stinks, peterson. Not "the NO position," instead, _NO_ position.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Probably because you don't
know yourself.

That's odd, since his meaning is obvious to me: you said that you "take the
reasonable default position that it does not exist", and he replied that you
should _not_ take a position, not even a default position.

John Savard

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:56:51 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:37:10 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:29:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

In spite of yur denials, you still want to put God in a test tube or you
won't believe, doubting Thomas.

If peterson can't come up with a science experiment to prove/disprove the existence of something then he automatically assumes that it doesn't exist.

If I have no evidence that something exists, I take the reasonable
default position that it doesn't.

You should take NO position, default or otherwise.

That's what I said. I assume it does not exist. The NO position.

Your reading comprehension stinks, peterson. Not "the NO position," instead, _NO_ position.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Probably because you don't
know yourself.

No, it's because you are an idiot, peterson.

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:06:56 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:45:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 12:34:59 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:24:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

However, unicorns and leprechauns (as usually depicted) are figments of human imagination, whereas there is no evidence against the existence of gods.

How do you know that unicorns and leprechauns are figments of human
imagination?

Imaginary creatures, based on artists' imaginations:

https://www.google.com/search?q=unic... h=628#imgrc=_

Imaginary beings, based on artists' imaginations:

https://www.google.com/search?q=unic...h&q=leprechaun

Wide variety of interpretations of what God is:

https://www.google.com/search?q=god&...DqQQ_AUIBig B

Artists renditions do not tell me one way or another whether the
things they represent are imaginary.

That may be in YOUR case, peterson, but most other people are smart enough to grasp the truth.


How do you know that gods are not?

There are gods that are imaginary, the FSM being one.

How do you know any particular gods are imaginary?

Do you actually believe in the FSM, peterson???? Do you actually think that those FSM followers actually wear those colanders on their heads, in public, as a matter of daily routine?

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 6:10:14 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:

You have admitted to being a socialist, IIRC. The thing about socialism
is that it tends not to be voluntary. Socialists are not able to see the
points of view of others. Socialism always blames its problems on others.

Evidence. And make sure there are no exceptions.
You wrote "Always".

Ah, you're referring to the last sentence.

"The thing about socialism is that it tends not to be voluntary.", on the other
hand, wouldn't need evidence; it verges on the tautological.

"Socialists are not able to see the points of view of others.", on the other
hand, is not quite fair. Ideological fanatics of any stripe have a reduced
ability to fully consider the points of view of others; not all those included
in his definition of "socialists" are ideological fanatics.

John Savard