Existence of a god or gos

New, fresh thread on the topic. Let's keep it as closely related to the OP as possible, please!

If one examines the natural world there is no indication of the existence of anything that could be considered god.

If you disagree, what evidence do you have?


Please remain civil.

 

There are mountains of indications that point to or suggest that there is a God.

Ask yourself "what is an indicant"? Then, when you realize that there are virtually mountains of indicants suggesting that there is a God, then you will realize the error of your statement.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indicant

Perhaps if you read those definitions, you might start that realization.

BTW: Those mountains of indicants will also serve as objective empirical evidence of indicants of the existence of God.

 

I recall, in the OP, stating that if you have this evidence to bring it forth for everyone to see.

 

Yes! You did, and I did. By giving you those definitions to show you what indicants are, you should be able to realize that all of the publications of Bibles and other religious printed documents are all indicants that suggest the existence of God. Not to mention the numerous postings on this forum alone, which are published using a typographical device and point to or suggest the existence of God are also evidence of that existence because they are indicants.

 

I understand what an indicant is.

Let me get your argument straight: if something is written then it must be true.

God does not exist.

There. Proof that there is no God. ^

Your argument is a false one. There are writings of mythological creatures throughout history. The Koran teaches of Allah, that is an indicant, hrm? What about the Tao? Or Hinduism's many gods?

Typographical evidence is not evidence. Anyone can write anything. Ink on paper means nothing. I can write 2 + 2 = 5 and the universe does not make it so.

 

In a forum the only evidence you are going to get about anything anywhere is that someone wrote something somewhere about something. So you just disqualified every possible piece of evidence anyone could possibly come up with therefore why should anyone bother participating in your thread.

 

Hardly. If I write that Hydrogen is an element, then I'm communicating an idea, an observable fact. Me writing has nothing to do with the existence of Hydrogen. It stands alone. The writing is a means of communication.

My friend is claiming that if there is a written claim, then that claim is true, regardless of the claim.

Disagreeing with that does not seem unreasonable to me, unless you can explain how writing 2 + 2 = 5 means anything other than pixels on a screen. Because it sure as hell means nothing in the universe.

 

Let me set you straight. I have not presented an argument... only an indicator that you are perhaps confused on your choice of words. Also, I have not suggested that because something is written, it is to be considered as true. I have only through the proper use of the definition of indicates and its synonym indicant, that those writings perfectly fit the definition of indicate. You said that there is nothing that indicates the existence of God. You were in error, and if you continue on with that same argument, you will remain in error.

That statement is a positive assertion, which of itself requires proof.

Wrong again. You merely submitted an indicator that suggests that there is no God. But that statement still indicates (suggests) what you have asserted.

Prove your assertion.

Very good observation. Yes, those are all indicants (indications/suggestions) of those creatures and other gods. So what point are you trying to make.

How absurd can you be? Do you realize that printed material is used everyday in courtrooms across the nation as evidence against people and in the defense of other people?

If ink on paper means nothing, then all of the scientific journals, reports, analyses, theories which have fallen prey to ink and paper, "means nothing". Get serious dude.

 

Ink on paper is not an observation, or indicant, of the existence of God no more than a writing on unicorns is evidence for unicorns.

Sorry, let me make it negative. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, assertions that there are Gods require evidence of their own. I have seen none. That's what I've asked for. If you have none, stop wasting my time.

You're asserting that written accounts of things are evidence of their existence. I have shown repeatedly why written accounts mean nothing.

My point is that they do not constitute an indicant, nor suggestion, nor evidence.

Ink on paper has no objective meaning other than some chemical formulas. It is used to communicate ideas. It is not the source of the ideas.

If I don't read English, then an English copy of the Bible is nothing more than a book of excellent tobacco rolling paper. Language, ink on paper if you will, only has meaning in relation to language. It is a medium, not that which is being transmitted through it. Do not confuse the two.

Now. If you have evidence I would like to see it. If you do not, then this conversation is a waste of time.

 

In on paper is not an observation, or indicant, of the existence of an atom no more than writing on unicorns is evidence for unicorns.

Sorry about what? What are you going to make a negative?

Now you are changing the operands of the OP. In the OP, you indicated that there are no indications of the existence of god and required the responders who disagreed with your claim to provide evidence of to support their opposition. Now you are declaring that there is no evidence of god. It seems that you are requiring the responders that disagree with you to accomplish that which you assert does not exist. Are you now attempting to force someone to prove a negative? Sounds like your OP then, with your current modification, is nothing more than a trap to lure someone into an dispute for the sole purpose of disputing. Was there a real dynamic point to your OP? Or is there a real dynamic point to your now modified OP?


Therefore, assertions that there are Gods require evidence of their own. I have seen none. That's what I've asked for. If you have none, stop wasting my time.



You're asserting that written accounts of things are evidence of their existence. I have shown repeatedly why written accounts mean nothing.




My point is that they do not constitute an indicant, nor suggestion, nor evidence.



Ink on paper has no objective meaning other than some chemical formulas. It is used to communicate ideas. It is not the source of the ideas.

If I don't read English, then an English copy of the Bible is nothing more than a book of excellent tobacco rolling paper. Language, ink on paper if you will, only has meaning in relation to language. It is a medium, not that which is being transmitted through it. Do not confuse the two.

Now. If you have evidence I would like to see it. If you do not, then this conversation is a waste of time.[/QUOTE]

 

Precisely! I'm glad we agree.

I'm using indication as a synonym of observation. Now, will you discuss the issue at hand?

Please provide evidence for the existence of a god or gods, or stop cluttering my thread with disingenuous semantic debate.

 

So am I. Being that we agree, then you have just denounced a major portion of science. Most sciences revolve around the atom and its supposed structure and suggested properties. By denouncing the observation of the atom, you have just taken a very bold step.

Strangely, "indication" is not a listed synonym of "observation": See below.

"observation
noun
1. watching, study, survey, review, notice, investigation, monitoring, attention, consideration, examination, inspection, scrutiny, surveillance, contemplation, cognition, perusal careful observation of the movement of the planets
2. comment, finding, thought, note, statement, opinion, remark, explanation, reflection, exposition, utterance, pronouncement, annotation, elucidation, obiter dictum This book contains observations about the nature of addiction.
3. remark, thought, comment, statement, opinion, reflection, assertion, utterance, animadversion Is that a criticism or just an observation?"

More ironically is the fact that 'observation' is not a listed synonym of 'indication': see below.

"indication
noun sign, mark, evidence, warning, note, signal, suggestion, symptom, hint, clue, manifestation, omen, inkling, portent, intimation, forewarning "

Please use the English language as it was designed to be used. Not allowing for the privately issued supplements to the standardized listings of definitions and proper synonyms.

When you learn the English language and proper use of words, then maybe you can hold an intelligent conversation.

 

Not at all. The fact that atoms are written about are not the reason that they are believed to exist.

Then I apologize for my misuse of the word.

 

No apology is necessary. Too often, people make statements which they are not ultimately aware of the contents of what they have stated.

Please explain what you believe to be the reason that atoms are believed to exist.

 

Agreed. And then cognitive bias prevents you from seeing your error when pointed out.

The number of experiments executed always confirm atomic theory.

 

Your comment above is indicative of a cognitive bias of your own. As the following article points out, no-one is without a cognitive bias. So what really is your point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

The number of experiments that are usually delivered to the public are delivered in what form????? of course... through either printed material (paper and ink) or through electronic media (typographical devices). My goodness, right back where we started from.

 

I was referring in general, but also to myself; namely, that after making previous mistake I was unable to understand the mistake due to cognitive bias.

Yes, but ink and paper is not what proves the atom. It's a means of communicating the ideas and results, but has no inherent value of its own.

 

The atom has not been proven. Science is incapable of proving anything. That inability of science to prove anything, is a scientific fact.

 

This is a contradiction. It may be more accurate to say that the inability of science to prove anything is a philosophical fact, or a logical truth. But claiming that the scientific method debunks the scientific method is wrong.

Science builds models that can be tested and improved upon. If modern atomic theory is incorrect, then the truth is not far off from it because every test we put it through confirms it.

 

Some religionists seem to be unable to conceive the difference between the absolute truth they seek in a 'revealed' book, and the knowledge the method of science continues to unravel for mankind.

 

See... we all make those little grammar errors... thanks for the correction.

The model is merely a theory. Therefore, when an experiment provides results that are in accordance to the theory, then the only thing that has been proven are the mathematical manipulations (numerological practices). Numbers are subjective... symbolic ... they are not the real item that is the subject of the experiment. Atoms, because they have not been proven, are also subjective... they are merely creatures of the mind... The models are a concept ... is a mannequin a real person?

 

Not "little grammar errors" - those would hardly be worthy of further discussion - but a false, illogical assertion, as in: Science is incapable of proving anything. That inability of science to prove anything, is a scientific fact.

 

"Merely"? lols
I suggest you read up on what a scientific theory is and entails.

Do you understand the difference between measurements, mathematics and numerology?

 

Your suggestion is duly noted that you have a need to "read up on what a scientific theory is and entails."

Do you? Explain those differences for all of the readers.

 

your thinking that the philosophy I use is required to adhere to the restraints of the philosophy you choose. LOL.