Putting God to the Objective Test!

so... you can "imply" that a BOOK was created by man and therefore flawed (weak agrument). -----OK...... what about gravity? whare did it come from? how did gravity create itself?

I don't know what gravity has to do with the fact that Jesus can't tell you what the 2nd cubic root of 50 is to the 6th decimal place without you using a calculator, even though Jesus expressly says "ask and ye shall recieve". But if you must know what gravitation is, it is the force that is exherted between all of the masses in the Universe. Where does it come from!? Why, it emminates from masses of course.

OK... so you continue to cite religious books thinking it makes you more credible (wow that's impressive). it is no doubt in my mind that a book is manmade. So if that is your leverage then ..... never mind. ---------my point was that there is a lot of complex "masses (as you put it)" with very predictable characteristics and that they might not have created themselves. Why does gravity "emanate from masses" and where did these masses come from? (Unlike devout atheist's) I do not think it is unscientific to keep all possibilities open.

Well, nobody really knows why gravitational fields eminate from masses, it just does....unless you think you have the answer to that silly (yet irrelevant to my post) question.

So since, you do not know where gravity came from and why it has predictable characteristics then ALL possibilities should be open. I guess (according to flux) Galileo, Newton and Einstein were silly to ask that question?!

This reminds me of the game children play in the car. You drive partway to your destination and they ask, "Are we nearly there yet?" You tell them, and five minutes later they ask, "Are we nearly there yet?" and so on.

You have challenged quantum_flux to tell you where gravity came from, but, you do not really have any interest in the answer. He might have said it comes from gravitons, for example, which is one theory. If he had said that you would ask where gravitons come from. If he said it comes from the cosmic ultra field you would promptly ask where that comes from. You would continue like this until you reached the limits of human knowledge, which you pretty much have already to start with, since you are asking about gravity. You would then point out that quantum_flux can't answer, and triumphantly assert the existence of your God.

i.e. Everyone is expected to answer an infinitely long series of "where did that come from?" or admit the existence of God.

One fallacy in this is that human knowledge is limited. We probably don't know our own position in the grand scheme of things, or what it depends on. We do not have ultimate knowledge. You are simply using this lack of knowledge that we have to push your god theory. If we can't demonstrate that we know everything, then your guess is supposed to be correct. This is as pointless as two men standing on one side of a 10ft wall, and one says to the other "What is over that wall?" and the other man says, "I don't know," and the first man says, "There is an elephant water skiing over there. Unless you can tell me what is over the wall you have to believe me." - yet neither of them have seen over the wall. We have not seen over the wall and neither have you, yet you are claiming to know what is over the wall.

Another fallacy is that you clearly think everything should have a cause or explanation, yet you do not think God needs an explanation. Which way is it to be? Does everything need an explanation or not? If you can accept the idea of a God existing without an explanation then it is inconsistent if you say other things (like reality) could not exist without one.

You have made some reference to complexity. As your god is supposed to arrange and organize all these things, he is presumably very complex. I am sure god is supposed to be more complicated than me. So you are assuming that a complex thing is just there, without any explanation of its origins.

What you said was also not very relevant. The original post was about a passage in the Bible. Somehow, you turned it into a discussion about gravity. I am half expecting your next posting to be your tax return or an order for pizza.

Like I said before... "it is no doubt in my mind that a book is manmade. So if that is your leverage then ..... Never mind." I was trying to raise the argument to be more scientific. I guess your right about one thing Paul that is that I should not have elevated the argument of the blog. Next time I see a childish/pointless point like this one I will just ignore it.
It is not my fallacy that human knowledge is limited; it was my very point! I am not trying to push any god theory as you imply. Is it not scientific to leave ALL options open.
I am not claiming to know anything Paul! My point is that people who claim to know are not scientific. Flux seems to claim that he "knows" that the earth was NOT created (and he "proves" it by citing a book!). Challenging his devout belief is scientific.
Why would any scientist not look for a cause or explanation for things around us? I never said that a god does not need an explanation!
Your insult about me changing the post to talk about pizza or taxes just displays your maturity level and lack of understanding; no explanation needed.

Because a superintelligent AI robot (what you would consider God, but actually it's not because the instructions for designing that robot is something that highly evolved droids will someday re-discover in the future) from the previous universe before the last big collapse designed it that way to ensure the lowest order amount of entropy production possible for stars and galaxies and life to reform .... that's my hypothesis, I doubt you can disprove it either with your limited mere human sub-droid brain. BTW, droids can be made perfect whereby humans can't, because perfection requires one to think like an all-logical computer and act like an all-powerful robot.

But let's examine your conception of God here. Clearly the religious books were written by mere humans with their limited brain capacity. The idea for God revolves around perfection, a more perfect being, but the miraculous actions of that God seem to violate what is commonly thought as Newtonian Laws of Mechanics. But why!? Why can't a robot someday create wine molecules from water molecules via taking CO2 from the air and fusing them with H20 molecules? You see, it makes for a nice fantasy, but those ancient stories hold no plausibility until we make them true with future innovation.

I think that if the mind can dream it up, then the mind should also be able to design it, or else it remains in the realm of fantasy. This is why we've invented many things, so that we can stop fantasizing about innovation and get out there and make it happen.

>It is not my fallacy that human knowledge is limited; it was my very point!

You sought to use that to support a god. I correctly represented what you were doing.

>I am not trying to push any god theory as you imply. Is it not scientific to leave ALL options open.

Yes you are. You are talking to people who reject god theories. You are trying to persuade those people that a God theory has some merit, even if you are not trying to push it as certainly correct. You are pushing it.

>I am not claiming to know anything Paul! My point is that people who claim to know are not scientific. Flux seems to claim that he "knows" that the earth was NOT created (and he "proves" it by citing a book!).

Yes, you are. You are claiming to know that a reasonably likely explanation for the universe is God.

>My point is that people who claim to know are not scientific.

This is a fallacy. You are trying to raise the credibility of a SPECIFIC idea. The chances of that specific idea being right, with all the other possibilities are remote. Someone who says "one of the non God possibilities is right" is MUCH more likely to be right than you, because you are making the specific claim.

Example:

We stand next to a wall. We can't see over. You tell me there is a good chance that there is a red cow with blue spots on over the wall. I say there isn't. You say I am being unscientific. The fact is - your chance of being right would be very remote. It is a fallacy to propose a SPECIFIC possibility, out of a vast set of possibilities and then say that anyone who does not accept that there is a reasonable chance that you are right is being unscientific.

and I was right to point out that you are making the fallacy of saying that we automatically assume complexity means a creator. I showed why it was a fallacy. You have not made any satisfactory answer to that. We know that human devices are artificial because they have particular characteristics beyond just complexity. My example showed that. Yet you are trying to claim that we automatically think that complexity = made by a designer. This is the big fallacy in your case. You are claiming that it is an uncontroversial idea that when we see complexity we automatically assume a designer. The fact is, we see many things like giraffes and trees and many of us have NO tendency to say their complexity means they are designed. Only some people like you think that. You are trying to make it look as though all complexity is thought by all of us to imply a designer and that is questionable, to put it mildly.

We know that human devices look like a designer because they look like human devices in ways that go beyond complexity alone.

Paul, you once again completely misunderstand my overall point, and yet you prove my point with your replies. Your devout, dogmatic and rigid belief in atheism has twisted your perception (Just as a devout religious follower). Obviously the original post by flux was not "objective" as it claimed to be (but you being a dogmatic and obviously not a scientific man may not see this) and I was merely trying to elevate the argument to be more objective. You insist that I am pushing a god theory…wrong…wrong…wrong- I don’t know how many times I have to say it to get it thru to you. My intention is to show how atheism is just as dogmatic, devout and close-minded as the common religious follower, and your words confirm this. It is not possible to know whether a god exists or not, it is definitely not provable either way; so to make a concrete conclusion like claiming to be an atheist and holding that BELIEF as being more "right" than other peoples belief is childish and just as dogmatic as any other religion. I have the exact same type of argument with Mormons/Catholics/Muslims/Baha'is… as I do with you, and you seem to be less objective!
You can keep on twisting my words, I don’t care, the objective reader will see thru all that.

BTW -your example of not knowing what is on the other side of a wall demonstrates my point more than it does yours. Paul Almond claims to know for certain (by claiming to be an atheist and pushing his beliefs on others) what is or isn’t on the other side of the wall. My point is that we can't possibly know, so I group atheists (like you) in with the other religions that claim to "know" as un-scientific.

Hi Mike,
It seems you missed the point that Paul was trying to make.

Atheists aren't claiming anything about what's behind the wall. They are saying that any specific claim you make is very unlikly to be right. That's the difference between atheist claims and religious claims. Atheism is not another faith, it's a lack of faith.

I don't think anybody is saying that it is possible to prove there is no god. Just because you can't disprove a proposition, it doesn't mean that we should take it as credible. If I told you I have a pet dragon living in my garage, I doubt you would believe me. I think the proposition that the universe was created by a "human like" creature is a very similar claim and is extremely likely to be true.

As Christopher Hitchens said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

mikedurland said: "Paul Almond claims to know for certain (by claiming to be an atheist and pushing his beliefs on others) what is or isn’t on the other side of the wall. My point is that we can't possibly know, so I group atheists (like you) in with the other religions that claim to "know" as un-scientific."

A complete misrepresentation of my position. I never claimed that there is absolute certainty in the non-existence of god. You do not even know if I claim certainty, as I have never even discussed the issue with you.

Accusing me of "pushing my beliefs onto others" is a ridiculous attack. You have stated a position. I have disagreed with you. That is all. I have not attempted to force you to adopt my position against your will. I have not attempted to have you imprisoned or killed for not adopting my position. Nor have I forced you to read my comments here. Nobody is forcing you to stay here. You are here voluntarily and you are reading my posts (or whatever else it is you are doing with them - I am starting to wonder) voluntarily. "Stop forcing your position onto me" , from you, just means "PLEASE stop disagreeing with me. It violates my civil right to have all of my views taken seriously."

Other than disagreeing with you, what have I done to "force my beliefs onto others"? You should tell us, or you should accept that that was slander and withdraw it.

The fact you have resorted to that is evidence of a deeply unpleasant agenda in my view.

mikedurland said: My point is that we can't possibly know, so I group atheists (like you) in with the other religions that claim to "know" as un-scientific.

...and anyone who has the temerity to state disagreement with that view when you express it is "forcing their beliefs onto others". Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

This followed on from your comment about me claiming certainty and shows a complete fallacy. You are assuming that any lack of certainty must mean that "we don't know", as if any knowledge that can be meaningfully stated about the world must be CERTAIN knowledge. According to this stupid argument, if I cannot prove that the Queen of England is not a shapeshifting alien from the planet Noogywoogy, I must admit that "I don't know anything", because your absurd fallacy is to assume we must either have proof, or not know anything, and I should therefore not say "The Queen is human" as it would be presumptuous and unscientific.

Showing the huge inconsistency in your position is easy:

You have just made a post telling everyone what I have said in previous posts (or rather, your straw man version of it). I now deny making ANY of these previous posts and suggest that your memory of reading the posts when you think I made them is just a false memory put into your brain by a superpowerful alien entity called Zog. I also suggest that if you scroll up and try to read my posts, Zog is deluding you into thinking my posts are there to read, when in fact there is nothing, or Zog is interfering with the internet to put the posts there, or some such thing.

That is my position, mikedurland. I now outright DENY making ANY of the statements which you claim I have made. I want you to PROVE I made those statements, or else I want you to stop lying by saying "Paul Almond said this... Paul Almond said that..." when you have no way of knowing that your entire experience of what I have "said" in the post is not a fake experience caused by Zog.

I think your response to this is may well be, "Paul Almond is being stupid by making up stupid ideas and asking me to disprove them when we all know very well he made those statements". Do that and you will be making things even easier for everyone else here by showing a ridiculous level of inconsistency.

So, what is it to be, mikedurland? Will you withdraw your claim that I have said these other things in this discussion and apologize to me for saying "Paul Almond said this..." "Paul Almond said that..." when in fact, for all you know, I never said any such thing and Zog just made you THINK I said it or....

will you prove that Zog does not exist?

Now, everyone watch this - if he dares to deal with that, it will undermine his position in a really funny way...

you can use my "God Test" to determine whether your God or gods are real, all-knowing, and personal or whether they are a figment of your imagination.

Paul you can keep on twisting my words, I don’t care, the objective reader will see thru all that. Praise Zog! LMAO

Mike,

I asked you to prove that Zog does not exist, and that Zog is therefore not giving you the false perception that I made the previous posts, or to admit that you just don't know if I made the previous posts and that therefore you are wrong to tell everyone what I said. I take it you decline to answer this and wish to give a flippant reply, in the hope that nobody will notice the lack of an answer because you are so amusing?

In a way, Mike, your silly reply when asked about Zog says it all. You lecture atheists on dismissing things that they find implausible, saying that it is unscientific, yet as soon as anyone suggests to you a hypothesis (Zog altering your perceptions) that you find stupid, you feel quite entitled to do the same. Nor can you validly seek refuge in saying that there is evidence for God, but not for Zog. You know that the value of that "evidence" is in dispute and you were implying a much stronger position - that atheists are close minded and unscientific for writing God off, irrespective of discussion about evidence, simply because "we don't know". Your case was not "Atheists are wrong about the evidence for god because there is good evidence." Your case was that atheists should just admit they don't know, based merely on the assertion that God is a logical possibility.

You have no answer to the Zog issue which won't appear to be an absurd double standard, or which won't appear to be absurd, mike. Maybe that is why you refused to answer?

By all means, make flippant, dismissive responses when asked about Zog, but then don't complain about people being "unscientific" for dismissing something, merely on the basis that that something is a "possibility", when it is something that you feel quite entitled to you when you think the claim is implausible.

Maybe you would like another chance, Mike. What is your position on Zog? Why can't you tell us? Why would it hurt you simply to tell us?

Self-explanitory.

I have a strong assumption that leads me to believe that you are three men quickly approaching your fifties, endlessly plucking questions out of your minds through pointless, excretory and often (in this case) humorous debates. One of you is a grey-haired man, sitting on a couch that is no longer firm due to the weight you have gained while sitting and typing on a Windows. Perhaps another of you has a very successful job, full of money, perks and the wonder of science- but is unhappy with life, as our beloved science does not seem to provide a meaning. And quite possibly the last of you is just tired with life, but you enjoy science because it is fact. It does not force you to question without answers, it is solid and makes our world go round. I am an immense believer in science myself, but find this conversation, as Athens65 puts it "pitiful." Why don't you stop with the Chinese take out, and go outside-try a something different, perhaps a new country! Try life out for something other than a lab, and a test, and a debate. I stumbled upon this site by accident, and it is... interesting, to say the least. But I am not going to sit here endlessly plunking my mind out onto a computer for the next few days! Go outside! This nincompoop-like debate will likely be meaningless in your years of life to come.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Interesting... aren't those assumptions slightly prejudice? Especially considering that you have never even met these users? That aside; are you not on this site the same as us all, "plunking your mind out onto a computer"? How's your Chinese food Smith?;)

Perhaps they are. Most human thoughts and minds alike are prejudice though wouldn't you concur? And consider the probability of my assumptions. There are very few reasons why a person would even register to this website. 1- insecurity and curiousity about life 2-for the sake of bashing others' opinions 3-extreme boredom 4-an allergy to the outdoors 5- a lost job in the recession 6-a passionate love for science. I think I fall under #3 & #6. But atleast I can admit that. How about you? Why are you putting forth the effort to indulge yourself in this idiotic argument?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"Maybe you would like another chance, Mike. What is your position on Zog? Why can't you tell us? Why would it hurt you simply to tell us?"
This I am curious to hear- elaborate Mike.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My intention is to show how atheism is just as dogmatic, devout and close-minded as the common religious follower"

I must agree. Allow me to propose: Just as religious people follow rules that often have no purpose, go to church because they fear any other answer, and are sold on the fact of a God- Atheists often follow the rules of science because they are proven, trust in science because they fear any other answer, and are sold on that fact of no God. Devout Atheists and devoted Religious are in equilibrium.

Peculiar proposal. Both atheism and the religion seem quite unintelligent to me. I myself am agnostic. A man of science. How can one be so devoted to either a God or no God? It is an immense waste of time to even put effort forth in that direction.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Yet it is not "an immense waste of time to even put effort forth in that direction" of science?
I think that you stick to science because you can trust in through fact. It has been proven in many ways. And this allows you to ignore the fact that perhaps some religious ideals or atheism may be onto something. Although neither can prove their position as well as a scientist, they believe in it. And believing in something often challenges one's lifestyle and mind, because this belief cannot be seen under a microscope. Yet I think that this belief can provide a sort of happiness that all humans seem to desire. So you can prove what you believe, good for you-do you want a gold star?

I am going to sum up.
Regarding the existence of a creator:
>I claim that it is not possible to know
>atheists claim to know (especially the more OUTSPOKEN (belligerent?) ones).

Why do you feel that if we are both standing on one side of a wall with absolutely NO knowledge of what's on the other side that the atheist has the more valid point of view? If WE have NO knowledge of what is on the other side, then wouldn’t it be more reasonable to just say, "I don’t know" vs. "I certainly know that NOTHING is on the other side".
My argument is that we don’t know and we (humanity) cannot know.
People who claim to know (and try to convince other people of their beliefs) are DOGMATIC.
Especially if the person is publically described as an "OUTSPOKEN ATHEIST"

?

It is not possible to know.

I guess I am the only one who thinks that the original post "Putting God to the Objective Test!" (Posted by flux) is not objective as it claimed. That is ok; my words stand on their own.
It is funny how I was the one accused of getting off the topic…

If it is not possible to know whether or not Zog exists why did you claim I said certain things when, in fact, for all you know, Zog may just be making you think I said those things? Why do you claim to be certain that I made those previous comments, when you can't be certain about Zog?

Paul, I have looked thru all of your previous retaliatory statements and I found one that I agree with.

" …human knowledge is limited. We probably don't know our own position in the grand scheme of things, or what it depends on. We do not have ultimate knowledge."

How do you know I even made those "retaliatory" statements? If you can't be sure that Zog does not exist, Zog could just be making you think I made those statements.

We can't prove that Zog does not exist, so we just don't know.

Please prove I made those statements.

Paul it seems you have derailed. I am kind of feeling sorry for you at this point.

You say I made various statements. I want you to prove that. I deny making ALL the statements in this discussion that you think I have made prior to this one. I want you to prove that some being called Zog is not making you THINK I made those statements.

Can you or not? If you can't just say, "No, I can't prove it," and admit you were wrong to say I made the earlier statements. If you think Zog is a stupid claim and that Zog ovbiously does not exist, on account of being a stupid claim, just say so.

My "opinion" of your "issues" is irrelevant.

My original intent was to elevate the blog to be more objective/scientific not subjective/dogmatic.

I am not going to jump thru your hoops

I don't care who you are or who you think you are.

What you mean is, you won't answer a simple question when the answer would expose an inconsistency in how you deal with things.

You are just not satisfied with my answer because it doesn't play into your childish games.

Interesting that you think discussion of Zog is childish, yet you think atheists should take God seriously.

You did not anwer in any way which made it clear whether or not you are sure I made those previous posts (which I claim Zog is just making you think I made). If you have already answered, you should have no problem in clarifying:

1. Are you sure that a being called Zog, who makes you think I have made posts that I have not made, does not exist?

2. Are you sure that I have made posts before this one? (and remember, unless you can be sure Zog exists and isn't messing with your mind, you should have problems with that)

That is two simple yes/no questions. I have reduced it to that so you can hardly say you lack the time to answer, and so there can be no doubt whether we have an answer or not. You have evaded the issue entirely. You have evaded it and prefer to call it a "childish game" because it shows how inconsistent you. You are happy to dismiss things that seem stupid to you, like Zog, when you feel like it.

If there was no harm to your position in answering the simple Yes/No questions I just gave, and if it did not show you to be inconsistent, and if you could look quite consistent while doing it, you would answer them instead of complaining about childishness. A clear answer that showed you to be consistent would destroy my entire argument that you are being inconsistent.

You talk of me trying to get you to "jump through hoops". Yes, I am. I am trying to get you to answer a question that will show your position to be inconsistent. It is absurd to accuse anyone of trying to get someone to jump through hoops when they ask a question - clearly they are trying to get someone to "jump through the hoop" of answering. That is just another pointless attempt to try to make this personal, when it is about no more than me asking a question you don't want to answer.

If your position is consistent, what harm can jumping through the hoop and answering do you? is the hoop on fire? Have I put rabid sharks on the other side? If jumping through the hoop is that problematic for you, when it would take about 1 minute for you to answer the above two questions, clearly, we should wonder why - what is wrong with your position that certain questions have to be avoided with excuses like "This is childish" and "You are trying to make me jump through hoops"?

I would also point out that it is taking considerably longer to tell me that the issue is childish rather than just to answer it.

How about putting God to the test of a known absolute....here's some logic for you based on the following axiomatic premises:

(1) If: The Bible says it, Then: According to the believers, it must be true

(2) The Bible says in Matthew 7 in the King James Version:

"7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"

(3) Therefore the religious believers hold that: a) God is like santa clause, b) God operates like a search engine, c) God operates like a dictionary, and d) God operates like a calculator too.

(4) Hence, in order to test the religious believer's hypothesis: If God operates like a calculator (that is an object which is widely known to give perfect answers), then God can give people an answer to a math problem without the necessity of the religous using a calculator (well, unless you count Jesus as a calculator)

(5) Therefore: The religious believer should be able to answer math questions, such as "? What is the 3rd cubed root of 17 to the 8th decimal place ? What is the logarythm of 37 to the 5th decimal place ? what is the value of Pi cubed to the 13th decimal point ? etc ?" without the help of any other aid besides the 'voice of God' inside their own heads.

I don't have any problem with your logic. It seems a good argument against the Bible to me. The Bible makes various claims, and if we test the claims they will clearly fail, so I won't be trying to refute it. The person who ideally, would be refuting it, Mike Durland, wants to talk about gravity, how unscientific atheists are, how complexity in the world suggests a designer, why he won't answer questions about Zog, how immature I am, how I am trying to force my beliefs on him on a website that he is being forced to read, etc.

Maybe Mike would like to comment on the specific argument in your posting for us, and then we can argue with him?

Zog sounds like a neat character Paul, did you (1) make him/her/it up, (2) read about Zog in a book, (3) learn about Zog from a friend or family member, or (4) were you familiarized with Zog by a religious or other institution?

Also, what exactly is Zog, can you fill me in on the details about the who, what, where, when, why, and how of Zog?

I quickly adapted the idea from an article I am writing now. (It is at the proofreading stage.) The purpose of the article is to show that it can be valid for someone to say that there is no god. Many theists, and some atheists I know, think this is too presumptuous. The article shows that our normal, everyday semantics involves making statements all the time that would be untrue if objects that I call "invalidators" exist, and that therefore asserting the non-existence of an invalidator would be no more semantically invalid than asserting the statement it would invalidate by existing.

The name "Zog" was just made up for this discussion. Zog was an invalidator for the claim that I have made posts prior to this one. The problem is this: if you say I made the postings, you are saying Zog exists. If you cannot prove that Zog does not exist, to the same standard that is demanded of me for God, then you should not say that I made the statements as this implicitly asserts the non-existence of God, unless you also accept my right to say there is no god based on nothing more than a decent argument that he is as implausible as Zog - which would be a long way from needing a disproof.

This does not mean that if you cannot disprove Zog you should not say I made the statements. It means that the normal semantics we use automatically implies whatever level of uncertainty Zog may introduce, if any. The point is this:

Issues that would be caused by existence of invalidator-type objects do not get in the way of asserting statements in everyday semantics.

So, if I think God is like an invalidator, the only thing that can get in the way of asserting that God does not exist is the existence of God, but if God is like an invalidator this can't get in the way because of how semantics just does not acknowledge it.

People are inconsistent about this when they demand proof. You could probably see that with Mike. He did not want to be consistent about God and an invalidator-type object. He might have done better if he had simply answered the questions on Zog and then argued that God is not like an invalidator in terms of plausibility.

I don't need to tell you how Zog works, because he uses magic powers.

I have been very consistant. I never demanded proof from anyone. I have always stated that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW (regarding the existance of a creator).

Atheism is a non-provable belief. A person who claims to be an atheist must have faith in his/her beliefs in order to come to such a definitive conclusion.

Theism is a non-provable belief. A person who claims to be a theist must have faith in his/her beliefs in order to come to such a definitive conclusion.

If a person has simply not come to ANY conclusion then they may not want to use Atheist/Theist to describe themselves.

In addition, yes, flux has a good objective argument against the bible...THE BIBLE!
NOT GOD!

Mike Durland said: "I have been very consistant. I never demanded proof from anyone."

Mike Durland said: "Atheism is a non-provable belief." (which is, subjecting this to any reasonable interpretation, pretty much a challenge to atheists to PROVE IT)

It appears that your "interpretation" of my statement is clouded by your devout beliefs. I am not demanding proof; I am merely stating a fact.

Atheism is a non-provable belief. A person who claims to be an atheist must have faith in his/her beliefs in order to come to such a definitive conclusion.

Theism is a non-provable belief. A person who claims to be a theist must have faith in his/her beliefs in order to come to such a definitive conclusion.
If a person has simply not come to ANY conclusion then they may not want to use Atheist/Theist to describe themselves.

It depends upon how you define "atheism." Wikipedia does so this way:

"Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities."

This is how I define my own atheism: not as a belief, but as the absence of belief in the existence of god.

Zog is a lot more convincing than God is. The main reason being is that Zog has a relatively clean slate whereas God has red pen all over his slate.

I didn't even mention Zog in those earlier postings. Zog is just making you think I made those postings by altering your mind and, in fact, no such postings happened. This is the first posting I have ever made on the internet.

However, if you want to discuss Zog as if I did raise the idea in those earlier postings, then for the purposes of convenience only, I am prepared to do that as a concession to people (with some qualification - see below). I hope people understand that this is a very generous concession from me.

I do have one request. When people quote me, or say that I said anything, I ask that they qualify the statement, for example:

"Paul Almond probably said..."
"Paul almost certainly said..."
"I think Paul said..."
"If Zog does not exist, Paul said..." etc.

Also, if you mention Zog like this, some people may think this implies that I CERTAINLY raised the subject. I would ask you to qualify any future references to Zog with words similar, or equivalent in meaning to:

"Zog, as possibly/probably/almost certainly suggested earlier by Paul"

or

"Zog, which may have been mentioned by Paul earlier, although it wasn't if Zog exists and is causing us to have wrong perceptions and memories of his previous postings"

All of this qualification is a bit arduous. I find it so myself, but honesty is important. As an alternative to all these words to qualify a statement, I will designate the word "Zumble" as meaning that the truth of a statement is in question. If you just want to put the word "Zumble" at the start or end of any statements referencing my earlier posts, or claiming (even if only by implication) that I made any such posts (including this one, because it will have been made in the past by the time you read it - assuming I actually made it and Zog isn't making you think that) that will also be acceptable.

What I find completely unreasonable is people saying I said things when they can't prove it and when Zog may just be making them think I said it.

I hope people understand this. I just don't want dogma, particularly when it is about what I am supposed to have said. It is wrong for people to make statements as if things are true when they can't prove that.

I want people to be more scientific.