Atheists are against the idea of any thing that is omnipotent and living in space somewhere. It must live in ordinary space. Whether that thing is a God with a beard, or a space gnome, if it is omnipotent and lives in space, they are against it.
This might offend some small scattered cults - there must be some about (if anyone knows), who do believe in omnipotent beings living in space somewhere. Atheists, rightly, demand that these believers provide proof of such space-dwelling omnipotents.
What would such proof of a spatial omnipotence look like?
Ideally, proof would be shown at a big, outdoor show, like a baseball match-final. The omnipotence would need to make spectacular airbursts of light and sound, with maybe some audience interaction. Only that would make atheists change their mind, and redeem the believers in spatial-omnipotences (I've never heard of any, though I'm sure the atheists have).
That's not what we believe. We believe that there is insufficient reliable evidence to justify a belief in God. You can win all the arguments if you distort your opponent's position.
As Brandon has pointed out, it's easy to take a rhetorically superior (and false) position by simply defining your intended interlocutor's position in untenable terms. That's what known as a straw man fallacy. Why would you assume that atheists have heard of believers in "spatial omnipotence?" I've never heard of any such thing, until i read this hilarious OP. By the way, since your options seem to be very limited, it might interest you to know that many, many cultures have imagined gods which are not omnipotent, and which did not create the cosmos. You've got me in stitches!
That's not what we believe. We believe that there is insufficient reliable evidence to justify a belief in God. You can win all the arguments if you distort your opponent's position.
Yes, some sort of aerial display would be favourite.
0 Replies
JohnJonesCardiff
0
Reply
Thu 26 Dec, 2013 03:23 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .
As Brandon has pointed out, it's easy to take a rhetorically superior (and false) position by simply defining your intended interlocutor's position in untenable terms. That's what known as a straw man fallacy. Why would you assume that atheists have heard of believers in "spatial omnipotence?" I've never heard of any such thing, until i read this hilarious OP. By the way, since your options seem to be very limited, it might interest you to know that many, many cultures have imagined gods which are not omnipotent, and which did not create the cosmos. You've got me in stitches!
Nah, mate nah. You know what I mean. I mean God, you know, living in space. Atheists don't like the idea - Gods. Living in space. In fact, I can't think of anyone who does believe in it. Gods living in space I mean. And not a weird space. Just ordinary space, like space that's about a few billion miles away, sort of outer space. Get me?
If the only way you can argue your case is to misstate your opponent's position, then you have a very weak case. My actual argument is simply that there's not enough evidence to justify the belief in a God.
Mockery isn't an argument. In any fair debate, if that's all you've got, you'd lose.
If the only way you can argue your case is to misstate your opponent's position, then you have a very weak case. My actual argument is simply that there's not enough evidence to justify the belief in a God.
Mockery isn't an argument. In any fair debate, if that's all you've got, you'd lose.
Pray be not mocked and let us both state our case together. That an aerial display, as stated, is the best form of proof that we atheists can ask for.
But amend the proof, by all means, to a more veritudinous offer.
If the only way you can argue your case is to misstate your opponent's position, then you have a very weak case. My actual argument is simply that there's not enough evidence to justify the belief in a God.
Mockery isn't an argument. In any fair debate, if that's all you've got, you'd lose.
Pray be not mocked and let us both state our case together. That an aerial display, as stated, is the best form of proof that we atheists can ask for.
But amend the proof, by all means, to a more veritudinous offer.
Anything that doesn't admit many other interpretations than the act of an intelligent super-being. An aerial display would be one way.
If the only way you can argue your case is to misstate your opponent's position, then you have a very weak case. My actual argument is simply that there's not enough evidence to justify the belief in a God.
Mockery isn't an argument. In any fair debate, if that's all you've got, you'd lose.
Pray be not mocked and let us both state our case together. That an aerial display, as stated, is the best form of proof that we atheists can ask for.
But amend the proof, by all means, to a more veritudinous offer.
Anything that doesn't admit many other interpretations than the act of an intelligent super-being. An aerial display would be one way.
Yes, an aerial display in front of a crowd would be a good proof of God, so that we can all agree on what we see. That would be much better than something we can't all see, such as everyone being conscious.
...Yes, an aerial display in front of a crowd would be a good proof of God, so that we can all agree on what we see. That would be much better than something we can't all see, such as everyone being conscious.
Much better, since everyone being conscious admits several different explanations.
Ideally, proof would be shown at a big, outdoor show, like a baseball match-final. The omnipotence would need to make spectacular airbursts of light and sound, with maybe some audience interaction. Only that would make atheists change their mind, and redeem the believers in spatial-omnipotences (I've never heard of any, though I'm sure the atheists have).
As mentioned, though, spectacular displays have become too common a feature of outdoor events. Canine and feline pets might still be impressed that this is evidence of unlimited power possessed by their spatially extended owners. But otherwise even Melanesian islanders have become skeptical of their non-transcendent John Frum(s).
A proper demonstration of omnipotent godhood should offer at least 50% of the galaxies in the universe rearranging their stars to resemble the generic face of Doctor Who. With the speed of light selectively increased for swifter verification purposes. Anything less could be technological tricks performed by stranded extraterrestrial artilects masquerading as their more elevated cousins, trying to wow the local savages into abandoning attempts to sacrifice them to a regional recycling center.
I get that you've made a pathetic attempt to set up a straw man that you believe you can easily knock down. I'm not your mate.
0 Replies
Setanta
2
Reply
Fri 27 Dec, 2013 01:10 am
The "second visitation" at Fatima, in Portugal, in 1917 was an "aerial display." There were said to be 70,000 witnesses. Most people, including believers, said they had seen nothing at all. Believers who said that the sun had "danced" did not agree on what they saw. Absolutely no evidence which might be called scientific was obtained. Eyewitness events by crowds are notorious unreliable. Every first year psychology student in university has seen or is familiar with the exercise in which someone rushes into a room with a banana in their hand, and then "eyewitness" accounts are collected, Such accounts almost always include claims of a man with a gun. "Eyewitness" accounts are not reliable.
...Yes, an aerial display in front of a crowd would be a good proof of God, so that we can all agree on what we see. That would be much better than something we can't all see, such as everyone being conscious.
Much better, since everyone being conscious admits several different explanations.
...Yes, an aerial display in front of a crowd would be a good proof of God, so that we can all agree on what we see. That would be much better than something we can't all see, such as everyone being conscious.
Much better, since everyone being conscious admits several different explanations.
I can't think of any.
Natural forces of the universe, such as evolution by natural selection.
Play this game as long as you want. I'll win every time. It's just your substitute for a defensible argument.
Ideally, proof would be shown at a big, outdoor show, like a baseball match-final. The omnipotence would need to make spectacular airbursts of light and sound, with maybe some audience interaction. Only that would make atheists change their mind, and redeem the believers in spatial-omnipotences (I've never heard of any, though I'm sure the atheists have).
As mentioned, though, spectacular displays have become too common a feature of outdoor events. Canine and feline pets might still be impressed that this is evidence of unlimited power possessed by their spatially extended owners. But otherwise even Melanesian islanders have become skeptical of their non-transcendent John Frum(s).
A proper demonstration of omnipotent godhood should offer at least 50% of the galaxies in the universe rearranging their stars to resemble the generic face of Doctor Who. With the speed of light selectively increased for swifter verification purposes. Anything less could be technological tricks performed by stranded extraterrestrial artilects masquerading as their more elevated cousins, trying to wow the local savages into abandoning attempts to sacrifice them to a regional recycling center.
But would it convince? I suspect that things like that would only convince if everyone else agreed that they were convinced.
At the end of the day, these wouldn't be proofs, more circumstantial of an idiot or shallow omnipotence, or material disruption of the natural order.
0 Replies
JohnJonesCardiff
1
Reply
Fri 27 Dec, 2013 05:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The "second visitation" at Fatima, in Portugal, in 1917 was an "aerial display." There were said to be 70,000 witnesses. Most people, including believers, said they had seen nothing at all. Believers who said that the sun had "danced" did not agree on what they saw. Absolutely no evidence which might be called scientific was obtained. Eyewitness events by crowds are notorious unreliable. Every first year psychology student in university has seen or is familiar with the exercise in which someone rushes into a room with a banana in their hand, and then "eyewitness" accounts are collected, Such accounts almost always include claims of a man with a gun. "Eyewitness" accounts are not reliable.
The assumption here is that evidence is always spatiotemporal and re-identifiable. Yet there is a whole world of non-spatio-temporal phenomena of which this may be one.
...Yes, an aerial display in front of a crowd would be a good proof of God, so that we can all agree on what we see. That would be much better than something we can't all see, such as everyone being conscious.
Much better, since everyone being conscious admits several different explanations.
I can't think of any.
Natural forces of the universe, such as evolution by natural selection.
Play this game as long as you want. I'll win every time. It's just your substitute for a defensible argument.
I can't think of any natural explanations for consciousness, according to the limited spatio-temporal limits of natural.
But that takes us back to God living in space somewhere, in a natural region.
What is your problem with dissident views ? Why do you feel the need to IMPOSE yes IMPOSE your miserable short sighted mediocre world view ?
I am what in most peoples eyes would be considered an atheist and probably could preach a more credible version of God then you would ever dream in your wildest most inspired moments...you sir are pathetic !
If you are aiming to enlarge your territory with this kind of bullshit this is what comes to mind after reading your nonsense...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace