-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am not making a positive claim.
How many gods does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Posts
Total:
114
-->
@secularmerlin
If you witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, how would you know it was God?
I'm not sure....
Then you might have already witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, but did not recognize Him as God. Why in the world would you talk about God and light bulbs if you have no way of recognizing God even if you saw Him?
God made the sun.
And how have you determined that
Answer 1 - The same way you determined that every character you've seen screwing in a light bulb was not God.
Answer 2 - Inductive Logic. Creation of the sun required great power. Only God has sufficient power. Only God could have created the sun.
Answer 3 - Deductive Logic. The universe is created. The sun is part of the created universe. God is the creator. Therefore God created the sun.
Agreed, but you were objecting to a question and not a statement.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you mean it is untenable to make a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of "god like" beings of any kind although I would be more apt to believe in physical beings with advanced technology (since I have observed both physical beings and technology) than any supernatural or spiritual being (since I have never 9bserved a spirit or anything supernatural.
Bro, it's only called "supernatural" until a "natural" explanation is given.
A "physical being" with "advanced technology" are just scientific terms that we would give to a Supreme Being
-->
@ethang5
Your logical proofs assume creation and a creator. You're assuming a creator when trying to proof a creator. Its fallacious reasoning.
Why in the world would you talk about God and light bulbs if you have no way of recognizing God even if you saw Him?
Because some individuals claim to have experienced god(s) and I am curious exactly what that means
Answer 1 - The same way you determined that every character you've seen screwing in a light bulb was not God.
My only claim is that in every instance of a lightbulb being screwed in I have ever witnessed a human being was directly involved.
Answer 2 - Inductive Logic. Creation of the sun required great power. Only God has sufficient power. Only God could have created the sun.
How have you determined that this hypothetical being possesses this power and how have you determined that no other being or undetected force could?
Answer 3 - Deductive Logic. The universe is created. The sun is part of the created universe. God is the creator. Therefore God created the sun.
How have you determined that the universe was created? I only ask because the rest of your argument hinges on this presumption.
How have you determined that, assuming that the universe was created that some god(s) are responsible?
How have you determined that, assuming that some god(s) are responsible for creating the universe how have you determined that your particular god concept is specifically responsible?
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is this not an argument from ignorance?
An "Argument from Ignorance" is only a false dichotomy" because it excludes any other options.
It also assumes a definitive answer......
I'm not saying that "There is a God because the Universe is so vast".....
but what I am saying is that " I wont discount the notion of a God because the Universe is so vast"
Big difference (imo)
-->
@ravensjt
I'm not sure what you mean by supreme being. What would qualify as a supreme being?
-->
@secularmerlin
No dodging slick. You know me.
Why in the world would you talk about God and light bulbs if you have no way of recognizing God even if you saw Him?
Because some individuals claim to have experienced god(s)
This has nothing to do with the question. I'm asking what you think, not what others think. If you do not know how to recognize God if you saw him, how do you know the person screwing in a light bulb you thought was a human being was not God?
Then same way you determined that every character you've seen screwing in a light bulb was not God.My only claim is that in every instance of a lightbulb being screwed in I have ever witnessed a human being was directly involved.
How do you one of those instances wasn't God? Try to dodge and I will ask till your shame forces you to answer.
How have you determined that this hypothetical being....
I did not speak of a hypothetical being.
How have you determined that the universe was created?
I gave you 3 answers. Pick one.
how have you determined that your particular god concept is specifically responsible?
I did not mention a particular god concept.
Now, gather up your integrity and answer my question.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your logical proofs assume creation and a creator. You're assuming a creator when trying to proof a creator. Its fallacious reasoning.
Untrue. I was proofing the creation of the sun, not proofing God.
No one has to assume creation. You and I and the ground on which we stand are creations.
-->
@ravensjt
This is different than what you originally said unless you erroneously hold atheism to be a claim against the existence of god(s).
That being said, you're clarification is accurate and reasonable.
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. I was proofing the creation of the sun, not proofing God.
This is blatant dishonesty.
No one has to assume creation. You and I and the ground on which we stand are creation
It's true a painting needs a painter, a building a builder, a creation a creator, etc., but we first need to know said thing is a painting, building, or creation. Show existence in general (or the sun) is a creation, and then (and only then) can talk about the necessity of a creator be legitimate.
-->
@ethang5
I'm not sure how to prove a negative but I have no particular reason to believe that any god(s) were involved. If we use screwing in a lightbulb as a placeholder for any observable physical effect on the observable universe we can include other types of effects as well.how do you know the person screwing in a light bulb you thought was a human being was not God?
When I believe in the supernatural I could point to many unexplained happenings but if I am honest with myself I have no evidence to support the idea that each was not a coincidence or just wishful thinking. I believed in the absence of evidence and had somehow acquired completely unfounded beliefs about the universe.
How do you one of those instances wasn't God?
Objective certainty about any "fact" may be beyond humans. One cannot prove the impossibility of even farfetched ideas. Brussels teapot could be floating halfway between earth and mars and some god may have disguised itself as a human and screwed in a lightbulb in front of me without making any indication of its true nature. That is why I do not focus on what cpuld be if we assume I focus on what is and is not supported by testable peer reviewed study and our shared reality.
I did not speak of a hypothetical being
You are not referencing Yahweh which is the hypothetical figure posited in the old and new testament of the christian bible?
I gave you 3 answers
Since each of your answers leans heavily on the presupposed existence of some creator I would like to address how you have determined the involvement of the creator in question.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Untrue. I was proofing the creation of the sun, not proofing God.
This is blatant dishonesty.
I don't see how. I said,
God made the sun.
And was asked...
And how have you determined that
"That" being, God making the sun. God needs no "proof".
-->
@ethang5
God needs no "proof".
If this is true, then what purpose does your solar 'lightbulb' argument (in the context of this thread) serve?
-->
@ethang5
The god you believe in may be maximally knowledgeable and therefore need no proof but we as human beings do. Without proof we as human beings tend to come to wrong conclusions too often to discount.God needs no "proof".
-->
@secularmerlin
how do you know the person screwing in a light bulb you thought was a human being was not God?
>I'm not sure how to prove a negative....
You have not been asked to prove anything slick. I just want to know how you knew none of them were God, given that you admit that you don't know how to recognize Him.
>but I have no particular reason to believe that any god(s) were involved.
Do you have any particular reason to believe that no god(s) were involved? The fact still stands. You cannot recognize God on sight. Thus it is possible you saw Him screw in a light bulb and did not recognize it was God. Your bias has caused you to assume the conclusion you liked.
How do you one of those instances wasn't God?
>Objective certainty about any "fact" may be beyond humans.
You seemed pretty certain when you claimed that none of them were God. Are you contradicting yourself? Would you like to soften your claim?
That is why I do not focus on what cpuld be if we assume I focus on what is and is not supported by testable peer reviewed study and our shared reality.
I tingle in anticipation at the testable peer reviewed study about Gods and light bulbs you are going to send me.
I did not speak of a hypothetical being. If you think some being is hypothetical, how does that concern me?
I would like to address how you have determined the involvement of the creator in question.
Inductive and deductive logic. And the same way you determined that people you did not recognize could not have been a particular person. I answered you, 3 times over.
Your argument is logically flawed. Go work on it.
-->
@secularmerlin
what would be "proof" of God to you?
-->
@ethang5
Is rephrasing and saying I have no reason to believe I have observed any god(s) that screwed in lightbulbs sufficient?Would you like to soften your claim?
-->
@janesix
I cannot know without being presented with such evidence but it would have to be verifiable regardless of my current beliefs in much the same way that the existence of gravity or New Zealand is verifiable through evidence that is not dependent on my personal beliefs.
-->
@secularmerlin
verifiable in what way?
-->
@janesix
In our shared observable reality. Even then I must begin with the untestable presupposition that our shared reality is real.
-->
@secularmerlin
Think man. Use me.
You don't know how I look. Can you say you've never seen me? No. You cannot. Your claim that you've never seen God do anything is a red herring as you admit you would not recognize God even if you saw Him.
From that bit if illogical reasoning, you go on to conclude, from what you had never "seen", that there is no God. Logical fallacy built upon logical fallacy.
Believe whatever you want, just stop pretending you've used logic and reasoning to arrive at your irrational conclusion.
-->
@secularmerlin
so, nothing would really convince you.
-->
@ethang5
I do not claim to have evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist. Do you know what that leaves me with? No evidence of god(s).
I do not have evidence for or against a lot of things. I cannot possibly believe all of them.
-->
@janesix
I cannot say that nothing would convince me but it does seem unlikely.
-->
@secularmerlin
This is the smarmy position when you are pushed back with logic. But in your post you were able to make positive claims about there being no God, and title you thread in snarky arrogance.I do not claim to have evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist.
If you have no evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exists, then whether you've seen one screwing in a light bulb is immaterial. It is a red herring.
Your argument is fake and irrational. Go work on it.
-->
@ethang5
You've ignored the most important parts of my post. The existence of some god(s) is only one of many things I have no evidence for or against what makes this issue different than any other? Why is this the only issue which you do not expect direct evidence but rather you accept in a total lack of conclusive evievidence?
-->
@secularmerlin
Listen closely.
It is you who believes there is no evidence for God. You. And how you believe is not necessarily reality. And others do not have to believe as you do.
My rebuttals are based on what argument you present.
-->
@ethang5
You told me to work on my argument. The op isn't actually an argument it is a question. I rephrased that question in an attempt to meet your request. You tend to start with the presupposition that your specific god exists. I am asking you to step back from that and consider the plethora of other possibilities and explain why your faith based beliefs are more credible than any other faith based beliefs.
For example let us assume that the very existence of the observable universe necessitates a creator, why would that creator necessarily conform to the description of Yahweh presented in the bible any more than it might conform to the description of Jupiter or Ra? Indeed why would it necessarily conform to any known human idea?