clocker bob wrote:
The logical position for all humans is to say that "I don't know if there is a God", because such a position acknowledges our inability to understand God or the origins of life. After a short time, any energy spent debating the existence of God is useless, because the evidence pro or con runs out very quickly.

logical and scientific view: the lack of evidence "pro" makes it "con". end of story, it is really that simple. the only ground on which one can hold a statement like "we can't say whether god or not exists" is an extreme version of scepticism which says nothing is certain to the point you can't even say what you're thinking so it's better to say nothing at all.

Rotten Tanx wrote:
There isn't a tiger in my kitchen.

Your analogy is useless. The kitchen is a known quantity, and you can explore every inch of it. The universe is an unknown quantity. Gods can come and go all day long without you knowing it.

I do not get the determination not to be a fence-sitter on this subject. We're stupid humans, stupid Earth-bound humans who have not comprehended a sliver of our surroundings. Just say "I don't know". Because you don't.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:logical and scientific view: the lack of evidence "pro" makes it "con".

Wrong. Replace the words 'makes it' with 'suggests that it is', and your sentence is accurate. Science cannot confirm the absence of God. Get over yourself if you think otherwise.

As of January 22, 2007, God has not appeared. That's the only accurate statement you can make.

clocker bob wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:
do you apply this reasoning to every product of human imagination?

It's all contingent upon the available evidence. That determines how much imagination will need to be employed. To imagine God extends our imaginations beyond their limits, as does imagining any other explanation for the origins of the world.

Atheists are right to say that imagining God is pointless, but they are wrong to say that imagining God is an error.

how can we imagine something which is beyond our imagination?

clocker bob wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:logical and scientific view: the lack of evidence "pro" makes it "con".

Wrong. Replace the words 'makes it' with 'suggests that it is', and your sentence is accurate. Science cannot confirm the absence of God. Get over yourself if you think otherwise.

As of January 22, 2007, God has not appeared. That's the only accurate statement you can make.

and untill the day he makes his first (available for everyone - matthew is waiting) it is ok to say (s)he does not exist.
same applies to dragons.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:how can we imagine something which is beyond our imagination?

Yes. To imagine God is pointless. It's a fool's errand. We humans have better uses for our energies ( or ought to ). But, to say to a religious person, "Do not imagine God because there is no God" is a lie. Say, "Do not imagine God because it will lead you nowhere"; then it becomes a statement of opinion, not a reprimand that you scientists can't back up.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:and untill the day he makes his first (available for everyone - matthew is waiting) it is ok to say (s)he does not exist.

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that it is your opinion, and not something you can prove scientifically.

clocker bob wrote:

Rotten Tanx wrote:
There isn't a tiger in my kitchen.

Your analogy is useless. The kitchen is a known quantity, and you can explore every inch of it. The universe is an unknown quantity. Gods can come and go all day long without you knowing it.

I do not get the determination not to be a fence-sitter on this subject. We're stupid humans, stupid Earth-bound humans who have not comprehended a sliver of our surroundings. Just say "I don't know". Because you don't.

yes, the universe is much more bigger and complicated and contains much more mysteries than rotten tanx' kitchen. but that does not make his analogy useless. how about "there is a great penis shaped asteroids formation in andromeda. with pubic hair, balls and everything". do we know that this thing exists or not? no, but the fact that it would be hard/impossible to explain doesn't mean we are ought to suspense our judgement.
if you agree that god is something too big for our little minds you shouldn't even use the word "god" in a sentence, even a sentence like "we don't know whether god exists". agnosticims only makes sense if you actually see positive evidence that god exists (like big bang theory kinda fits to the first chapter of the bible) but you also see evidence against it (six days? WTF?).

clocker bob wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:and untill the day he makes his first (available for everyone - matthew is waiting) it is ok to say (s)he does not exist.

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that it is your opinion, and not something you can prove scientifically.

"to prove scientifically" = "to make something certain* as for the recent state of knowledge"

"As of January 22, 2007, God has not appeared (and there are no reasons to believe he ever will)" = "it is scientifically proven that god does not exist"

*corroborated, for all the popper fascist out there.

clocker bob wrote:
Your analogy is useless. The kitchen is a known quantity, and you can explore every inch of it.

You're looking at the wrong part of the analogy. The point was the improbability factor.

I do not get the determination not to be a fence-sitter on this subject.

Yet you seem determined to be one.

edit: I actually read that wrong. I skipped over the word "not".