You said verifiable by ANYONE - my point was that that is a poor measurement of anything. Now you've changed it to verifiable by OTHERS. Thank you for recognizing your mistake.The senses of color and sound are consistent, reliable, and verifiable by others. Even the colorblind or deaf because we can devise a simple test to PROVE that a color or sound exists.
Get a whole bunch of cards that look identical to whatever the colorblind see green as and 1 card that is actually green. On the green card we will right "green" and put it face down. Now mix all the cards up and I'll pick out the one card that has "green" written on the back without actually looking at it. I've just proven that green exists or that I'm magical.
Similar experiments can be done for other senses.
What does this have to do with you telling me "you can now understand why people don't believe in your god"? I already understand why people don't believe in God; you should stop making assumptions.There is no evidence against unicorns because a unicorn-believer's beliefs can be unfalsifiable. Similar unfalsifiable beliefs (such as certain Christian beliefs) show this same pattern.
Strawman. I don't know - never said or implied I did. I said I believe.And how do you know that god is creator of the universe and exists?
Strawman: I don't believe in God because of a "holy book" - the same applies to many many others.Could not unicorns or leprechauns and all manner of others things be claimed to exist using the exact same standard of evidence you used to determine that god exist and created the universe? E.G., god exists and created the universe because my holy book says so; unicorns exist and are invisible because a holybook says so.
Also, sure, unicorns and the like could be posited to exist from "personal experience" and "religious texts". However, most people don't believe in things like that anymore because they are contradicted by science and our near complete discovery of all physical things on the planet. When things are disproved, educated people stop believing in them and things like unicorns fall into that category. The only thing that could have the power to "trick" us and break the laws of nature is the one who created them - this ability goes to one idea - God.
You seem to to think you're teaching me a lot of things in this post, but you're not. I actually made this exact same argument in the previous post:And if unicorns are born with magic hair that makes them undetectable then it makes sense that so few people find them. Are you starting to see that when there is no basis for falsifying a claim then ANYTHING can be presented to prop up that claim?
The point is that a unicorn has no practical ability to break the laws of nature - God does. You should be able to understand that.Originally Posted by theplaydrive
God is just the name given to something that may have created the universe. Can you understand that a thing that would have created the laws of nature could break them just like human beings can break the laws of society?
Reason: there is a cause for everything else in the universe, maybe the universe itself has a cause to.There are no REASONS. They are only unsubstantiated ASSERTIONS and CLAIMS that are fundamentally indistinguishable from any other supernatural claim whether it be unicorns, leprechauns, gods, spirits, ghosts, auras, chakras, etc. Unicorns are presented as an example of a belief that is not contingent on the "evidence" because all data can be interpreted by the unicorn narrative. Likewise, Christians interpret all evidence in relation to their narrative. Muslims in relation to theirs, Hindu's in relation to theirs , Native Americans in relation to theirs, and so on and so forth.
Three strawmans. Logic is absent from this quote considering: 1)I don't believe in a holy book. 2)I could CARE LESS if you believe in God. 3)Who do you think you're talking to?And neither are unicorns or leprechauns..... and hence you are left with the following "arguments:
1) My holy-book says so.
2) I really honestly believe unicorns exist so you should too!
3) My grandmother saw one when she was about to die from cancer and it saved her. Her cancer is gone! Are you calling my grandmother a liar?
4) ..... etc.
Strawman. I don't believe in a holy book and the idea of God exists independently from any holy book or religion.You can believe whatever you like. All i can do is point out that you believe unfalsifiable ideas based predominately on unverifiable holy book tales and personal testimony. I would stress the importance of establishing beliefs on better standards and criteria.
1. I don't care if you "respect" my God, so another strawman for you.It can also be pointed out that thousands of gods, spirits, demons, auras, and other supernatural claims are EQUALLY supported in the same respect as your god. It just so happens that you were born/raised into a family/country/society with a particular bias to one supernatural narrative over others.
2. I don't believe "my God" is anymore worthy of respect than others, so another strawman for you.
Unicorns don't have any rational basis for breaking the laws of nature. The only one who can break those laws is the one who created them. That said, you can believe what you want. No harm, no foul.[playing unicorn advocate] Because they are undetectable unless they want you to see them. Its all right here in the unicorn-holy-book! Don't you want to know the truth? Don't you want to obtain everlasting life?
Right.Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
The reasonable thing is do believe what you believe and not tell others what to do.correct. It doesn't have any effect on the possibility that God, unicorns, leprechauns, spirits, ghosts, chakras, auras, etc exist. The reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief until reason and/or evidence presents itself. And we've already covered the unreliability or holy book tales and unverifiable testimony.
Until unicorns become the name of an idea for the potential creator of the universe, then theists will not accept the analogy because it does not acknowledge at all the reasons people believe in God.Never said otherwise. The unicorn analogy is only to demonstrate that by putting the god concept beyond evidence and falsification provides the ultimate paradigm of how not to think about stuff. When God is so abstracted, what is left is zero evidence, no falsification criteria, and just the narrative in which the God concept is wielded; a point which means belief in the God concept acts out just like belief in unicorns. Yet not many theists accept unicorns as anything other than fantasy.
right. it describes how our universe came to be how it is and it is one step in answering the question everybody wants to know - how did everything come to be?The big bang is a description of what happened after some point in time. it does not describe how everything came into existence or whether it was always there or not. That is a common misunderstanding.
Uh. Not so much. What does this have to do with the fact that everything in the universe has a cause?You claim that everything has a cause. Causality requires time (A causes B which causes C ...which causes Z) If there was no time before or right at the moment of the big bang then causality breaks down making your question nonsense.
Question #1: Why do you think that 4-5 billion people believe in God but not unicorns?
Question #2: Why do you think that people still believe in God but let go of literal interpretations of the Bible (the latter is more applicable to the unicorn theory)?