Frank Apisa wrote:In my estimation, the existence of sea water cannot be disproved; that makes it about as likely as the existence of Russel's teapot between Earth and Mars.
Do you get it, Thomas?
The difference is that the existence seawater, unlike god and Russel's flying teapot, can be supported with good evidence, even proven.
You were offering that crap to show that "That's not a problem with Occam's razor. It's a problem with incomplete empirical evidence."
But if by some chance, you are actually saying that Occam's razor is worth shyt until it is no longer needed with that I will agree.
So you are offering that because humans cannot explain the stuff that is unknown to them the stuff that is unknown to them does not exist!
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE BASING A CONTENTION THAT THERE ARE NO GODS??????
Give it up, Thomas. You are making a fool of yourself.
Or alternatively, the evidence for the existence of gods is so feeble as to be negligible these days.
Since you seem to agree with the rest of my explanation, let me suggest an empirical test.
Suppose there is evidence for the existence of gods to evaluate, that atheists are rejecting it blindly, but aren't rejecting the evidence against gods. Suppose, in other words, that you're right.
There is absolutely no probative evidence that there is sentient life on any planet circling the nearest five stars to our Sol BUT THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE THERE IS NO SENTIENT LIFE ON THOSE PLANETS!
Have you been fooling me when we've met and you seemed so goddam intelligent? Have you actually been pulling the wool over my eyes?
Therefore, these issues aren't worth debating. A waste of time and effort since we cannot arrive at any conclusions either way.
No -- goddam intelligent is just what we atheists are -- hence the creation of this thread.
You could have made that much simpler timber.
Earth floats in space. There are teapost on earth. There are teapots in space. Humans too. And dogs, ants, ducks.
But no gods that we know of.
I'm encouraged by your attempt to address the issue of "existence". Unfortunately a simple reference to the English word "is" is transparently superficial as shown for example by an elementary look into the Spanish verbs "ser" and "estar" .
See e.g. http://spanish.about.com/cs/verbs/a/servsestar.htm
This peephole into the intricacies of semantics should be sufficient to ponder the relationship between "being" and "existence"....a question discussed by Heideggar (philosophically) and Bohm (scientifically). neither of these had recourse to evoke " a deity" in their conclusions.
To say that something "may be" isn't to take a guess. It is to remain aprehensive. Personally, I think that the ability to not form a conclusion when there is insuficcient data to do it properly is admirable.