The Game of Life

[Bud Struggle]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.

[ComradeMan]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.

I believe Dawkins hit a stumbling block on this one too. Biogenesis is a scientific law, Pasteur I recall. Abiogenesis has not been proven in any way shape or form other than one slight experiment that didn't really create life as such.

[Kamos]

Let me bring up just a few reasons why I'm an actual atheist, not a mere agnostic.

1. http://atheistcolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BibleContradictions-ReasonProject.png

If Christianity is real, what's up with all the contradictions in the Bible?

Also, if there is a god, why do all the different people have all those different explanations for it?

2. Now to disprove the more general existence of a supernatural being. By assuming that there is one (or more), we imply that our world was created by said being(s). But who created that being/those beings, then? As an atheist, this dilemma doesn't exist, in the sense that we don't know how the world came into existence - but neither do we have a false theory for it.

3. And a final point: if a god exists that created our world, why did he/she make such a stupid, chaotic system? What motives would he/she have had for it?

Okay, so these points may sound a bit BS - they reflect my feelings, though, it's pretty hard to completely rationally explain this.

Oh, and one more thing. When I looked at the title I was expecting something about Conway's Game of Life. Now I'm a sad panda. Please change the title to avoid disappointing more people.

[ComradeMan]

Let me bring up just a few reasons why I'm an actual atheist, not a mere agnostic.
1. http://atheistcolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BibleContradictions-ReasonProject.png
If Christianity is real, what's up with all the contradictions in the Bible?

If physics is real what's up with the paradoxes, if mathematics is real what's up with the paradoxes, if astrophysics is real what's up with the paradoxes etc etc etc?

You also seem to equate atheism with a rejection of Christianity and not all religion.


Also, if there is a god, why do all the different people have all those different explanations for it?

Because all people are different and see and experience things in different ways?


2. Now to disprove the more general existence of a supernatural being. By assuming that there is one (or more), we imply that our world was created by said being(s). But who created that being/those beings, then? As an atheist, this dilemma doesn't exist, in the sense that we don't know how the world came into existence - but neither do we have a false theory for it.

Well according to Judaeo-Christian tradition, God created spacetime itself and therefore God exists outside of the universe as we know it and therefore the physics of cause and effect do not apply.


. And a final point: if a god exists that created our world, why did he/she make such a stupid, chaotic system? What motives would he/she have had for it?

Why is it stupid? Value judgement.
Why is it chaotic? Are you telling me that an eco-system as finely tuned and intricate as the Amazon is chaotic, for example?


Now, what about abiogenesis?

[Ose]

Atheism is simply the rejection of theism. Atheists make no assertions; it is theists who do this. We have plenty of scientific evidence for all kinds of things, and none of it points to the existence of a deity, so atheists completely reject belief in one. It is not necessary to assert that there is no god (insert something about unicorns or the FSM here) as the burden of proof lies with the theist. The proposition that god exists is the one with which we are concerned. Theists believe it, atheists do not. That's all there is to it. Why should we even care about disproving a claim that has no real evidence for it?

Agnosticism, as its etymology suggests, concerns itself with knowledge rather than belief. Its presentation as an alternative to theism and atheism represents a type conflation on your part.

[Bud Struggle]

Atheism is simply the rejection of theism. Atheists make no assertions; it is theists who do this. We have plenty of scientific evidence for all kinds of things, and none of it points to the existence of a deity, so atheists completely reject belief in one. All this is subjective though. The creation of the univese by God is just as subjective as any other explaination for the existance of the universe. There is no evidence for anything--or lots of evidence for any belief system you choose.



It is not necessary to assert that there is no god (insert something about unicorns or the FSM here) as the burden of proof lies with the theist. The burden of proof exists with anyone saying anything. It's a two edged sword.


The proposition that god exists is the one with which we are concerned. Theists believe it, atheists do not. That's all there is to it. Why should we even care about disproving a claim that has no real evidence for it? That's a logical formalism that really doesn't get to the point of why things actually exist and what actually happens.


Agnosticism, as its etymology suggests, concerns itself with knowledge rather than belief. Its presentation as an alternative to theism and atheism represents a type conflation on your part. The point is we have no real knowledge--so how can we choose?

[Le Libérer]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.

Bud, we are talking about faith here. You have a need to believe in a Gd. I get that whole fear thing of "What if logically Gd doesnt make sense, but if I dont beleive in him, then what if he really does exist and he sends me to an everlasting torturous lake of fire?" Admit it, that thought has gone through your head, and you ran to you priest and said confession, did a few hail marys, lit a candle or two, then felt alot better. THAT is fear.

Its very simple. Either you have faith in something or you dont. You have faith in your Gd. We dont. You need that faith as much as we dont need that faith.

[AnonymousOne]

I'm sorry but Atheism is the only rational position.

Almost all atheists I have ever talked to have said that they don't know if God exists or not, the only thing is that there is no evidence to say that he does exist. So barring future discoveries, it makes sense to say that God does not exist, or it is very improbable that God exists.

So at least, when I say that I am an atheist, it means that I think considering the fact that we have no evidence for God's existence, it is likely that he does not exist.

[Le Libérer]

I'm sorry but Atheism is the only rational position.

Almost all atheists I have ever talked to have said that they don't know if God exists or not, the only thing is that there is no evidence to say that he does exist. So barring future discoveries, it makes sense to say that God does not exist, or it is very improbable that God exists.

So at least, when I say that I am an atheist, it means that I think considering the fact that we have no evidence for God's existence, it is likely that he does not exist.

That too, but thats going to be over alot of believers heads. When you tell them you dont need what they have because you are incapable of believing it, they have a better chance of getting it. Of course the light bulb doesnt always go off, but I have gotten a few, "Ahhh, oh I see......s"

No, I dont know if Gd exists. But I do know I dont believe he exists.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

If physics is real what's up with the paradoxes, if mathematics is real what's up with the paradoxes, if astrophysics is real what's up with the paradoxes etc etc etc?

Pertaining to this point, it's important to recognize that scientific paradoxes are recognized to be flaws, and so work is done to rectify them. However, religious paradoxes are a fundamental part of what is considered to be a complete and unchangable set of beliefs.

To be more direct, paradoxes exist in perfect religion, but science with paradoxes is recognized as imperfect science and is fixed.

[PhoenixAsh]

All this is subjective though. The creation of the univese by God is just as subjective as any other explaination for the existance of the universe. There is no evidence for anything--or lots of evidence for any belief system you choose.


The burden of proof exists with anyone saying anything. It's a two edged sword.

That's a logical formalism that really doesn't get to the point of why things actually exist and what actually happens.

The point is we have no real knowledge--so how can we choose?

Actually no. The theists are the ones who want to order society according to the word of God. They are the ones who have a generally missionary attitude and they are the ones proclaiming that sin will lead to hell and damnation.

Thats not the atheist doing that stuff.

And the Theists have been doing this for centuries...killed millions of people in the process for having the wrong faith.

So the burden of proof is very much on the theists. Writing books and proclaiming them the ultimate truth....and then claiming gthe burden of proof is on those who doubt the gtruth in the statements....yeah...thats twisting the reality of the matter.

It is not about two simply conflicting visions. The Theists are the ones claiming the existence of something....they claim there is something more. Then they need to provide proof for that claim.

[La Comédie Noire]

Just because Abiogensis hasn't been proven to exist doesn't mean we need to jump to the conclusion that "something", in the sense of a conscious being with intent, must have created life.

You only set the problem back a step and have to answer where that something came from.

SO Budstruggle is right, agnosticism is probably the most logically consistent position to take, but that's more to do with the nature of inductive reasoning than anything else.

Is there a god we couldn't know about yet? I don't know.

Are all men mortal? I don't know.

But the better answer is "As far as we know, there is no evidence of a creator."

Now onto the million of other spiritual and religious beliefs that we as human beings have thought of.

[Ose]

All this is subjective though. The creation of the univese by God is just as subjective as any other explaination for the existance of the universe. There is no evidence for anything--or lots of evidence for any belief system you choose.

I think you're missing my point. Atheism is not a system of belief. It is the rejection of a particular belief, entailing no alternative belief.


The burden of proof exists with anyone saying anything. It's a two edged sword. Ditto. In this sense, atheists are not saying anything, just refusing to say something on the basis that there is no reason to say it.


That's a logical formalism that really doesn't get to the point of why things actually exist and what actually happens.
Atheism does not concern itself with explaining why things exist and how the universe works. That is the job of science. In the absence of a verified scientific explanation, I'll refrain from adhering to any theory regarding these matters, especially one that is clearly baseless.


The point is we have no real knowledge--so how can we choose?It's easy - see above.

I think part of the problem here is the widespread characterisation of atheism as a belief system which makes some kind of positive assertion regarding god's non-existence. This characterisation is false. Of course the non-existence of god is unprovable, but any such argument is meaningless, as the list of unprovable propositions is infinitely long.

[Astarte]

3. And a final point: if a god exists that created our world, why did he/she make such a stupid, chaotic system? What motives would he/she have had for it?


Essentially, many major spiritual systems see this reality as sort of a flawed copy, even a counterfeit of the higher, and truer realities. For various reasons the material world was formed as the embryo of corruption - many Gnostic texts, the Apocryphon of John, to name one, describes the creator of the material world as the corrupt and wicked Demiurge who is a counterfeit of a higher more Perfect aeon.

So, essentially demonic forces created and maintain hegemony over the Earth and material world according to Gnostics and Hermeticism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not.

Acquiring absolute proof on the matter is impossible (as is acquiring absolute proof of anything outside mathematics), but that does not mean we cannot assess the probability of something, in this case, the existence of God.

Considering the lack of positive evidence for any deities, let alone the Christian blood god Yahweh, as well what scientific evidence tells us about the purposeless and indifferent universe we find ourselves in, I'd say that dismissing the God hypothesis for a lack of evidence - being a de facto atheist - is a sensible position to take.


For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.

If life cannot emerge from non-living matter, then one is left to explain how life could arise at all, since life by all available evidence arose after the formation of the universe as we know it.

"Goddidit" doesn't count as an answer.

[¿Que?]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.
I believe that god is real and exists, but only in the ontological sense that a social construction can have properties beyond individual control. But defining god as a social construction doesn't necessarily qualify me as religious does it?

EDIT: And maybe this doesn't really make me atheist, since I am making an assertion about god.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually no. The theists are the ones who want to order society according to the word of God. They are the ones who have a generally missionary attitude and they are the ones proclaiming that sin will lead to hell and damnation.

Thats not the atheist doing that stuff.

And the Theists have been doing this for centuries...killed millions of people in the process for having the wrong faith.

So the burden of proof is very much on the theists. Writing books and proclaiming them the ultimate truth....and then claiming gthe burden of proof is on those who doubt the gtruth in the statements....yeah...thats twisting the reality of the matter.

It is not about two simply conflicting visions. The Theists are the ones claiming the existence of something....they claim there is something more. Then they need to provide proof for that claim.

Sorry, maybe it's me but you are missing my point. I'm not talking about a particular God. That concept, that of a Christian God that wants a certain ordering of society of a Moslem God that wants people to behave in a certain way--that indeed is a matter of aith. But the question of the beginning of the universe and that of life in particular really doesn't have a scientific answer.

In the absense of any knowledge at on on the subject the answer that God created it is just as good as any other.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But the question of the beginning of the universe and that of life in particular really doesn't have a scientific answer.

Yet.

Just because science currently has no answers to such questions does not mean science will never answer such questions.


In the absense of any knowledge at on on the subject the answer that God created it is just as good as any other.

If by "just as good" you mean "just as useless".

[Bud Struggle]

"Goddidit" doesn't count as an answer.

Maybe not, but it's as good as an answer as "it always existed" or it "appeared out of nothing."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe not, but it's as good as an answer as "it always existed" or it "appeared out of nothing."

Actually, that's not true. If the universe has always existed in some form or another, then scientific investigation will discover evidence for that sooner or later; perhaps in the form of objects, structures and artefacts that could not possibly be younger than about 15 billion years. If we discover no such objects, then odds are good that the universe has a finite past extent.

The "god of the gaps", on the other hand, has no evidence for it and the places it can hide are getting smaller by the year.

[PhoenixAsh]

Sorry, maybe it's me but you are missing my point. I'm not talking about a particular God. That concept, that of a Christian God that wants a certain ordering of society of a Moslem God that wants people to behave in a certain way--that indeed is a matter of aith. But the question of the beginning of the universe and that of life in particular really doesn't have a scientific answer.

In the absense of any knowledge at on on the subject the answer that God created it is just as good as any other.


I am not talking about a particular God either....in essence all religions are behavioural tools in order to get people into line and legitimise influence and power.

The explanation of the world through a God/Gods or supranatural beings requires per definition people who supposedly can communicate with these beings or interpret them.

THAT very fact means there will be people who by the nature of assumptions of direct or indirect links sway power over others.

The religions of the world stem from people being afraid of the unknown and the invention of means to capitalise on these fears by others.

Its the essence of being blameless...you can not be held responsible as ruler or powermongrer when you are just interpreting the words of a higher being...and it will definately keep the locals in line since they are all afraid.

Such is the intricate working of religion. No higher being. Just us mortals capitalising on each other and our fears.

If anybody claims there is a higher being: proof it.

Its their burden.

I do not need to disprove the absence of something which is not there,

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sorry but Atheism is the only rational position.

Almost all atheists I have ever talked to have said that they don't know if God exists or not, the only thing is that there is no evidence to say that he does exist. So barring future discoveries, it makes sense to say that God does not exist, or it is very improbable that God exists.

So at least, when I say that I am an atheist, it means that I think considering the fact that we have no evidence for God's existence, it is likely that he does not exist.

Without any particular information at all--there is no rational position. A good majority of the world believes that that is some sort of deity--they MAY all be irrational, but if they are what does that say about the human condition and for that matter about the futue of Communism which hopes to proceed on that basis that it is the rational way for the human ract to live?

[PhoenixAsh]

Without any particular information at all--there is no rational position. A good majority of the world believes that that is some sort of deity--they MAY all be irrational, but if they are what does that say about the human condition and for that matter about the futue of Communism which hopes to proceed on that basis that it is the rational way for the human ract to live?


Well...this has already been explained in several communist writings.


Simplified:

Religion gives hope to those exploited and in deplorable state. That this is true is illustrated by the fact that church membership and attendence will go down in times of economic boom...and rise in times of economic chaos or in dire times.

[Le Libérer]

Without any particular information at all--there is no rational position. A good majority of the world believes that that is some sort of deity--they MAY all be irrational, but if they are what does that say about the human condition and for that matter about the futue of Communism which hopes to proceed on that basis that it is the rational way for the human ract to live?

You keep bringing up rational. How is it rational to believe that snakes talk, men rise from the dead after being in the tomb for 3 days at the command of someone voice? Or that wine is turned into the blood of god that cleanses your sins. A man ascended into heaven bodily? Or his mother for that matter?

The whole basis of your ideal of rationality is flawed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Without any particular information at all--there is no rational position.

But we are not completely without information. For a start, what we know about the universe in which we live is incompatible with the existence of a loving deity worth worshipping - if deities do exist, then they are either callous, powerless, or even actively malign.


A good majority of the world believes that that is some sort of deity--they MAY all be irrational, but if they are what does that say about the human condition and for that matter about the futue of Communism which hopes to proceed on that basis that it is the rational way for the human ract to live?

That humans can be irrational says nothing about the possibility of communism. This is because humans can learn to reason and think critically. The vast majority of people who are religious happen to share the religion of their parents or community - this, along with the fact that people change their religion or abandon religious belief altogether, tells us that it is more of a social construct, rather than something innate.

[Bud Struggle]

I am not talking about a particular God either....in essence all religions are behavioural tools in order to get people into line and legitimise influence and power.

The explanation of the world through a God/Gods or supranatural beings requires per definition people who supposedly can communicate
THAT very fact means there will be people who by the nature of assumptions of direct or indirect links sway power over others. I am not presupposing that a creator of the universe communicates with his creation at all. Now if something did indeed create the universe he probably could communicate with his creation--but since he created all the laws of science he is quite able to circumnavigate them with no trouble. The laws of nature would not bind the creator of those laws.


The religions of the world stem from people being afraid of the unknown and the invention of means to capitalise on these fears by others. Maybe. But people are pretty firmly attached to those beliefs--and to a good extent people are happy with them.


Its the essence of being blameless...you can not be held responsible as ruler or powermongrer when you are just interpreting the words of a higher being...and it will definately keep the locals in line since they are all afraid.

Such is the intricate working of religion. No higher being. Just us mortals capitalising on each other and our fears. I agree with you here. But in the end you don't need religion or God to do your mass distruction. Hitler and Pol Pot did quite well without God.


If anybody claims there is a higher being: proof it. Its their burden.

I do not need to disprove the absence of something which is not there, I think the better thing would be to ask for proof either way.

[Bud Struggle]

But we are not completely without information. For a start, what we know about the universe in which we live is incompatible with the existence of a loving deity worth worshipping - if deities do exist, then they are either callous, powerless, or even actively malign. I never said that God was a nice guy, but then if he exists he is outside the relm of human morality. Just I am a nice guy in real life to people but I am also Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds to the fire ants that try to build nests in my back yard.




That humans can be irrational says nothing about the possibility of communism. This is because humans can learn to reason and think critically. The vast majority of people who are religious happen to share the religion of their parents or community - this, along with the fact that people change their religion or abandon religious belief altogether, tells us that it is more of a social construct, rather than something innate. Rationality is one, and only one, way to look at the totality of human existance. Maybe it works for you. Other people have other ways to cope with existance.

There is no law about how we should best experience reality.

[Le Libérer]

Simplified:

Religion gives hope to those exploited and in deplorable state. That this is true is illustrated by the fact that church membership and attendence will go down in times of economic boom...and rise in times of economic chaos or in dire times.

Another example is the African American churches here in the deep south. For the longest, worship was their only means of socialization that was allowed by their slave owners. Out of all that oppression and pain, came some of the most beautiful gospel music in the world. If you havent been to an all black church in the deep south, no matter how big it is, you do leave feeling uplifted. The music, the preaching geared to share love and what little belongings the community has.... All because of (as H2020 said) being exploited and deplorable living conditions. I have witnessed some of the poorest living conditions and housing projects working with HIV Patients, and they are the most god fearing people. Why? Because of the act of removing themselves from their conditions, into a heightened reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never said that God was a nice guy, but then if he exists he is outside the relm of human morality. Just I am a nice guy in real life to people but I am also Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds to the fire ants that try to build nests in my back yard.

Such a view places God in the position of a cosmic tyrant at best and an Eldritch Abomination (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination) at worst. In neither case is God a being worthy of worship.


Rationality is one, and only one, way to look at the totality of human existance. Maybe it works for you. Other people have other ways to cope with existance.

There is no law about how we should best experience reality.

Rationality is a means to an end - ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. You're not going to achieve such noble and worthy goals by ignoring reason and evidence.

[Bud Struggle]

You keep bringing up rational. How is it rational to believe that snakes talk, men rise from the dead after being in the tomb for 3 days at the command of someone voice? Or that wine is turned into the blood of god that cleanses your sins. A man ascended into heaven bodily? Or his mother for that matter?

The whole basis of your ideal of rationality is flawed.

The same way you believe that all men will rise up against their masters and throw away their chains and then live in freedom and peace. You have no proof--just your faith.

I'm not saying that it is bad or wrong--but you have to understand what it is--faith.

On the other hand it would be rational to presume that the strong will conquer and rule the weak per omnia saecula saeculorum Amen.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am not presupposing that a creator of the universe communicates with his creation at all. Now if something did indeed create the universe he probably could communicate with his creation--but since he created all the laws of science he is quite able to circumnavigate them with no trouble. The laws of nature would not bind the creator of those laws.

Maybe. But people are pretty firmly attached to those beliefs--and to a good extent people are happy with them.

I agree with you here. But in the end you don't need religion or God to do your mass distruction. Hitler and Pol Pot did quite well without God.

I think the better thing would be to ask for proof either way.

Actually...Hitler wasn't an atheist....quite the opposite. He equated Atheism with communism and against the German spirit....and tried to create Aryan religions centered around himself as the new Mesiah.

But you are making a logical fallacy here. Pol Pot and other supposed atheists....did not kill because they were atheists. Nor did they claim dominance because they were atheists or by the tool of hiding behind a supranatural being.

The creation of a supranatural power is a human construct...a human idea. Its invented; its perceived and its made into a societal construct: religion. In order to legitimise that social construct you need to provide evidence.

The simple fact that some peopel claim something is there when it is quite evidently not there...requires proof...falsiviable proof far beyond the realm of what religion can provide...which always turns out to be one of two things:
1). It is because we say it is so
2). disproof our claim

Neither of which are scientific nor falsiviable....and therefore illogical.

I do not need to have proof of the non existance of God. It is a given. Its the natural state and the existance of God is the human assertion. Ergo...that is the one which requires proof.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why I'm an atheist:

1) Burden of proof is on the theists. Good luck with that...

2) History: 99% of all religions and superstitions have been proven false. Why are currently active religions any different? To claim they are is lunacy.

3) It makes sense. There aren't fairies in this table, there isn't a white guy with a beard heaving lightning bolts out of clouds, some dude didn't defy gravity and part oceans, there isn't a multi-headed elephant in charge of my life, and some dude sure as shit didn't emerge from a woman's womb without that egg being fertilized by a sperm.

I mean really... let's get over the fairy tales and be real.

When it gets down to it, there's no difference between any religion as they all posit nonsensical bullshit and swear it's true. And they all can't be right so it's even more nonsensical.

And finally, they shove it down your throat like it's fucking cough syrup and you've got the plague. Fuck em.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Actually...Hitler wasn't an atheist....quite the opposite. He equated Atheism with communism and against the German spirit....and tried to create Aryan religions centered around himself as the new Mesiah. I know--but he didn't kill "for God." He had his beliefs but they weren't his prime motivation to do his killing.


But you are making a logical fallacy here. Pol Pot and other supposed atheists....did not kill because they were atheists. Nor did they claim dominance because they were atheists or by the tool of hiding behind a supranatural being. All I was saying is that people don't need God as an excuse to klil.

[quote]The creation of a supranatural power is a human construct...a human idea. Its invented; its perceived and its made into a societal construct: religion. In order to legitimise that social construct you need to provide evidence. The creation of the universe is not a human construct. It's there without any explanation. At creator works as well if not better than a "poof" it just is.


The simple fact that some peopel claim something is there when it is quite evidently not there...requires proof...falsiviable proof far beyond the realm of what religion can provide...which always turns out to be one of two things:
1). It is because we say it is so
2). disproof our claim

Neither of which are scientific nor falsiviable....and therefore illogical. You keep putting this on a personal level. The existence of God--a creator or reality has nothing to do with human constructs. The question is "where did all of this come from?"


I do not need to have proof of the non existance of God. It is a given. Its the natural state and the existance of God is the human assertion. Ergo...that is the one which requires proof.No both sides need proof. If there was no existence then we would need no proof of God--but since this is all here. Since there is such a thing as life--there is doubt in the non existence of God.

[Le Libérer]

I'm not saying that it is bad or wrong--but you have to understand what it is--faith.



That was my point. You need faith as much as I dont need faith.

[Ose]

No both sides need proof. If there was no existence then we would need no proof of God--but since this is all here. Since there is such a thing as life--there is doubt in the non existence of God.

Strawman. This has been addressed already:


So the burden of proof is very much on the theists. Writing books and proclaiming them the ultimate truth....and then claiming gthe burden of proof is on those who doubt the gtruth in the statements....yeah...thats twisting the reality of the matter.


I think part of the problem here is the widespread characterisation of atheism as a belief system which makes some kind of positive assertion regarding god's non-existence. This characterisation is false.


Considering the lack of positive evidence for any deities, let alone the Christian blood god Yahweh, as well what scientific evidence tells us about the purposeless and indifferent universe we find ourselves in, I'd say that dismissing the God hypothesis for a lack of evidence - being a de facto atheist - is a sensible position to take.

Atheists do not claim to have absolute knowledge that god does not exist.

[PhoenixAsh]

I know--but he didn't kill "for God." He had his beliefs but they weren't his prime motivation to do his killing.

Well...actually they were. Judaism was considered by Hitler to be an un-Aryan religion. Or as he wrote:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

All I was saying is that people don't need God as an excuse to klil.True...but when you do...you need to establish that your assertion that there is a God is true. It increases the burden of proof.

Lets ask another question...

Would any religion accept my assertion that I am the son of their God?
Based on my word alone?



The creation of the universe is not a human construct. It's there without any explanation. At creator works as well if not better than a "poof" it just is. The universe isn't...but as I said: God / Religion is. And hence the burden of proof is on the ones who claim it is the cause of creation. And since no religion can come up with any better argument than:
1). we say it is so
2). proof it isn''t

...



You keep putting this on a personal level. The existence of God--a creator or reality has nothing to do with human constructs. The question is "where did all of this come from?" Yes...it has every thing to do with human constructs. As I pointed out above.

The creator is apparently only there to see for a prcious few...not even all who believe but a handfull on this earth. Noone can falsify this. Its made up by people and they have to provide evideence...they had several millenia...they have not come up with anything more sustainable than:
1). we say its so
2). proof we are wrong

There is no human who is born with a knowledge or idea or concept of God. The concept of God or Gods are socially created.

What happend here is clear...there is no God. People made it up. There is a complete absence of evidence of God. There has never been a sign of God other than some natural occurances...which...much like the earthquacke in New York has been ascribed tom God. Simply because people are afraid of what they do not understand.



No both sides need proof. If there was no existence then we would need no proof of God--but since this is all here. Since there is such a thing as life--there is doubt in the non existence of God.No actually...we do NOT need to proof that. Because the idea and concept of God ONLY exists sinced there is HUMAN life. Not before that. So there was an absence of God.

God is a concept which is used to fill a void. Its very assertion is contradictory to natural observable and scientificly falsiviable methods. And all evidence of God boils down to:

1) we say its so
2). proof he doesn't exist

Life itself is NOT proof God exists. GOD is an explanation why life exists. Ergo...you need to rpoof taht.

Religion doesn't PROOF god exists. It assumes that God exists...and henceforth makes that the only acceptable truth.

try to understand the subtile difference here.

The absence of God does NOT need to be proven. Since GOD is an EXPLANATION for life...Life is NOT proof of God. And I nor anybody else do not need to disprove an explanation which has no basis in fact nor has any sustainable arguments or empirical evidence other than the two points I mentioned.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I like dr houses explanation. : if their is really a good; he is a kid with a magnifying glass, and we are the ants.


And if their is a god, wouldn't their be only one religion. And what dimension did he come from? If he created space time, where did he come from? The only thing that back the creation of god, are the nazis. Apparently they killed the lesser race because of the belief of another god. So would you rather be an agnostic and defend the nutzies, or be aitheist?

(drops drumsticks)

[Caj]

wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.

If by agnosticism you mean that we should consider God's existence or non-existence equiprobable then no, it would not be a more logical position. There is no evidence for the existence of God just as there is no evidence for the existence of faeries, celestial teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters. This does not mean their existence or non-existence is equiprobable. By default, any entity proposed to exist that has a complete lack of evidence for its existence is so statistically unlikely to exist that it is logical to conclude it doesn't until further evidence is provided. Regarding your question on abiogenesis, you should look up the Urey-Miller experiment from 1952 which showed that organic compounds essential to the existence of life can emerge from the interactions between simple chemicals. Although the experiment didn't create life and didn't accurately replicate the composition of the earth's atmosphere 3.5-4 billion years ago (when life likely arose), the experiment made it more reasonable to believe that life could arise from inanimate matter. Finally, the God-hypothesis, even if it had some evidence, would still be a worthless hypothesis because it is contradictory. It assumes that life and the universe are too complicated to have arose from natural processes. To solve this dilemma it proposes a being even more complex than its creation. Surely if the universe is too complex to have 1) arose naturally, or 2) have always existed, these same objections should apply to God.

(I apologize in advance for any errors in my post, as I am very tired.)

[Che a chara]

*

[PhoenixAsh]

Aside from the fact that I am freaking jealous I didn't think of the how did God come into existence question

....I proclaim the above post by Anarchy! the best one in this thread so far. :thumbup:

[Caj]

The same way you believe that all men will rise up against their masters and throw away their chains and then live in freedom and peace. You have no proof--just your faith.

I'm not saying that it is bad or wrong--but you have to understand what it is--faith.

There have been plenty of historical examples of "men [rising] up against their masters and throw[ing] away their chains[.]" Although there are some leftists who adhere to their beliefs dogmatically, most leftists provide rational arguments for their beliefs and reject faith.

[Caj]

I proclaim the above post by Anarchy! the best one in this thread so far. :thumbup:

:D

[Revolution starts with U]

Agnostics are just atheists who are trying to be nice anyway :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

So the best argument is a we "haven't discovered it yet" type of argument, or "it will happen in the future" type of argument.

Strange, those sound like faith arguments to me. :lol:

[ComradeMan]

I do not need to disprove the absence of something which is not there,

If something that is not there is absent then through a double negative you are actually saying it is there. The absence of absence is.... presence.

Anyway don't forget Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

BoncJBrrdQ8


EDIT- to the person who neg-repped me and said that the video was completely taken out of context, I am not interested in the motives of whoever posted the video but in exactly what Dawkins (who I still respect in terms of his evolutionary biology science) had to say.

[Zealot]

We refuse to be agnostic in the same fashion we refuse to be agnostic with regards to unicorns or any other incredible tale. Atheism is a more logical position and believe it or not, everyone is an atheist in some way. Still believe in Zeus? Didn't think so, which would have made you an atheist in those times and it does make you an atheist in contrast to that particular god. Christians and Jews were actually persecuted in Rome for being "atheists" because they only had one god. Just throw away one more god and let scientists do their job.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So the best argument is a we "haven't discovered it yet" type of argument, or "it will happen in the future" type of argument.

Strange, those sound like faith arguments to me. :lol:

That's because you're not paying attention, you trolling fuckwit. Myself and others have repeatedly mentioned the importance of evidence in assessing the probability of a hypothesis.


If something that is not there is absent then through a double negative you are actually saying it is there. The absence of absence is.... presence.

Anyway don't forget Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The absence of evidence for a dragon in my bathroom (or anywhere else) tells me that dragons have a probability of existing so low as to be non-existent for all practical purposes. I don't give the Dragon hypothesis any consideration when entering my bathroom. As it is also with God.

[ComradeMan]

Atheism is a more logical position

Please demonstrate this. If you are going to use logic you are on dangerous ground.

God can exist.
God cannot exist.

Can you, logically, prove/dsiprove either?


and believe it or not, everyone is an atheist in some way. Still believe in Zeus?

Never heard the Greek concept of many names for the same thing? You should also read Marcus Aurelius on Christians. You also forget that the meaning of the word atheist is also a "rejector of god" and in that sense the ancient Romans saw the rejection of their gods as atheism, most importantly (in my opinion) the Divine Emperor.


Atheism Just throw away one more god and let scientists do their job.

So no scientists are religious?

[Jazzratt]

So the best argument is a we "haven't discovered it yet" type of argument, or "it will happen in the future" type of argument.

Strange, those sound like faith arguments to me. :lol: That's pretty much the opposite of a faith argument, dipshit. We might not know but we have some pretty shrewd ideas and are working on the answer: it's not at any point a question of faith. What we aren't doing, which is the faith response to these, is just continually bellowing the same assertions over and over again and filling gaps in our knowledge, not with evidence-based answers but with comforting articles of faith.

[ComradeMan]

That's because you're not paying attention, you trolling fuckwit. Myself and others have repeatedly mentioned the importance of evidence in assessing the probability of a hypothesis.

Are you incapable of ever conducting a discussion which is is intended to be philosophical and throught provoking without resorting to ad hominem attacks and insults?

No one is denying the important of evidence in assessing the probability of a hypothesis, are they?

Now, would your provide some evidence of how life just somehow spontaneously "appeared" from non-life- despite the mathematics (seeing as you mention probability) of it all leading us to have mathematical "evidence" that it is not very likely at all.


The absence of evidence for a dragon in my bathroom (or anywhere else) tells me that dragons have a probability of existing so low as to be non-existent for all practical purposes. I don't give the Dragon hypothesis any consideration when entering my bathroom. As it is also with God.

You don't understand what Sagan means do you?
:rolleyes:

Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence. Duh.


That's pretty much the opposite of a faith argument, dipshit. We might not know but we have some pretty shrewd ideas and are working on the answer: it's not at any point a question of faith. What we aren't doing, which is the faith response to these, is just continually bellowing the same assertions over and over again and filling gaps in our knowledge, not with evidence-based answers but with comforting articles of faith.

So arguing a position as fact despite the fact that there is no evidence for it is not a faith argument? No one is undermining scientific method nor is anyone arguing creationism either. In mathematics I can't just present a theorem without a proof and expect everyone to accept it. Now I know that theorem in mathematics is not exactly the same as theory in science but still. ;)

Try again and please try to present your arguments in a civil manner.

[Jazzratt]

So arguing a position as fact despite the fact that there is no evidence for it is not a faith argument? No one is undermining scientific method nor is anyone arguing creationism either. In mathematics I can't just present a theorem without a proof and expect everyone to accept it. Now I know that theorem in mathematics is not exactly the same as theory in science but still. ;) No one is calling anything absolute fact, what we're doing is looking at how similar things have worked out in the past and are playing the odds. It's, admittedly, remotely possible that the answer is "goddidit" in the same way that the answer could be that there was an eternal fucking cosmic blancmange from which we all sprang. It is much more likely however that the answer, when (and, I suppose, if) we find it will be rooted in science and the observable rules of the universe. We can say this because questions in the past (where does this planet come from, how did we come to be as we are now and so on) have always had answers that were nothing to do with god (or eternal, cosmic blancmanges).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you incapable of ever conducting a discussion which is is intended to be philosophical and throught provoking without resorting to ad hominem attacks and insults?

Are you ever capable of participating in a discussion without ignoring what other people actually say?


No one is denying the important of evidence in assessing the probability of a hypothesis, are they?

Really? So if someone advances a hypothesis, and no evidence is found for that hypothesis, should we not dismiss the hypothesis until at least some evidence is forthcoming?


Now, would your provide some evidence of how life just somehow spontaneously "appeared" from non-life- despite the mathematics (seeing as you mention probability) of it all leading us to have mathematical "evidence" that it is not very likely at all.

I never claimed that the transition from non-life to life was spontaneous. My argument was that, knowing that non-living matter arose before living, then there must be some kind of process by which non-living matter can become living. It is this question which biologists and chemists are working on.


You don't understand what Sagan means do you?
:rolleyes:

Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence. Duh.

There is no reason to believe that Dragons/Gods are anything other than the fictional creations of humans. There is considerable evidence that religious belief is primarily cultural, and no evidence that it is based on observable facts.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because we are materialists, and, as Hegel among others noted, materialism is incompatible with the existence of a God, so that the conventional cosmological argument ultimately turns around to the denial of God due to being contaminated with materialism. Concepts and thought arise from sensuous, human practice and are dependent upon this for their sense, rather than existing of themselves and realizing themselves in this materiality.

This is, of course, ultimately a matter of philosophy rather than a hypothesis.

[ComradeMan]

No one is calling anything absolute fact, what we're doing is looking at how similar things have worked out in the past and are playing the odds. It's, admittedly, remotely possible that the answer is "goddidit" in the same way that the answer could be that there was an eternal fucking cosmic blancmange from which we all sprang. It is much more likely however that the answer, when (and, I suppose, if) we find it will be rooted in science and the observable rules of the universe. We can say this because questions in the past (where does this planet come from, how did we come to be as we are now and so on) have always had answers that were nothing to do with god (or eternal, cosmic blancmanges).

So what you are doing is saying that despite not having evidence you are formulating a belief whilst at the same time using a fallacious argument to the future.

Now, could you explain to me why, hypothetically speaking to keep the peace, a universe or indeed multiverse with a superior/higher intelligence at play would be unscientific? What if science did one day demonstrate a higher intelligence acting on the universe/multiverse- as indeed Dawkins has postulated in the video?

[trivas7]

We also don't know if the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Wotan or Kali exist either. Who/what is this God? What evidence for his existence can you point to? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; the abritrary must be dismissed out of hand.

[Le Libérer]

Are you incapable of ever conducting a discussion which is is intended to be philosophical and throught provoking without resorting to ad hominem attacks and insults?



Try again and please try to present your arguments in a civil manner.
This is one thing I do agree with, everyone in this thread who has slung name calling and ad hominems is going to get an infraction the next time I see them.

You have been here long enough to know better. Conduct yourself with civility.

[ComradeMan]

...

:thumbup1:

Reason is immortal, all else mortal.

[Caj]

Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence. Duh.


So you are agnostic regarding the flying spaghetti monster then? :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

So you are agnostic regarding the flying spaghetti monster then? :rolleyes:

It depends what brand of pasta he is.
:thumbup1:

But seriously- we all know that the flying spaghetti monster was invented by people in order to parody religion and is not to be taken seriously and we have the evidence to prove it. It's not quite the same with spirituality though is it?

[PhoenixAsh]

If something that is not there is absent then through a double negative you are actually saying it is there. The absence of absence is.... presence.

Anyway don't forget Sagan, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

BoncJBrrdQ8

Linguistically speaking that is fair enough. Argumentatively speaking you were very aware of which was meant.

The natural state is that there is no God concept. The God concept was created by humans. Without humans there is no God concept.

Humans created the God concept in order to explain the existence of life.

This is not based on any logical research, it is not based on falsiviable information it is purely based on an explanation. The whole idea behind a God concept is that it defies any form of logical and reasonable argument, any form of proof, any form of falsiviable evidence....and that it is an assumption to which dogmatical fundamentalism is applied in the face of evidence of the contrary or evidence of contradiction or evidence of impossibility etc. Simply because the whole idea is based on a creation of an entity which we supposedly can not understand...and which is all powerful. So all evidence of the contrary is seen as just another proof of the omnipotence of the God concept.

The whole idea is just about as valid as the assertion that the earth turns because the sky is blue. Its as valid as the concept that cars work because somebody blew life into them.

It is therefore invalid because it is a made up concept for which there is no proof and which is completely interchangeable with equally valid likewise statements....which are based on nonsensical explanations

However. As has been pointed out...religion does not even try to provide evidence. It provides fear as a basis of its "truth"...

It has been thought up and that is all the evidence we are going to need....according to the theists. And their whole argument rests on the fact that they want to see absolute proof that the entity does not exist.

So the proof that the entity which they thought up as an explanation without any factual basis exists is the absense of evidence to the contrary....because all logical and observable evidence of the contrary is explained away as being insufficient to disproof the theory.

This means that the theists believe in something which was created as an explanation and for which there is no shred of evidence and which is in fact contradicted by reality. This turns around the burden of proof...

So yes...the absense of evidence in the case is evidence of absense.

[PhoenixAsh]

It depends what brand of pasta he is.
:thumbup1:

But seriously- we all know that the flying spaghetti monster was invented by people in order to parody religion and is not to be taken seriously and we have the evidence to prove it. It's not quite the same with spirituality though is it?

O yes...it is exactly the same and has the exact same amount of validity. In fact the arguments are interchangeable.

[ComradeMan]

O yes...it is exactly the same and has the exact same amount of validity. In fact the arguments are interchangeable.

But there not, as we know that the flying spaghetti monster was invented in 2005 by a guy who wrote a poem that was a deliberate parody. That is not the case for the other spiritual systems, regardless of whether you believe that to be the case- there's no evidence.

But this still does not answer whether life can come from non-life, i.e. abiogenesis.

[Caj]

It depends what brand of pasta he is.
:thumbup1:

But seriously- we all know that the flying spaghetti monster was invented by people in order to parody religion and is not to be taken seriously and we have the evidence to prove it. It's not quite the same with spirituality though is it?

Ok, prove it.

[ComradeMan]

Ok, prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html

Wasn't hard really, was it?

Just to make things clear, I do not support the idea of creationism and/or intelligent design being taught as science in schools- they belong to the realms of philosophy and theology until such times as the evidence suggests otherwise. I for one do not really see the incompatibility of religion and science unless things are taken to extremes.

[Caj]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html

Wasn't hard really, was it?

That didn't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Since you have yet to prove his non-existence with absolute certainty, we must be agnostic regarding his existence along with Jesus, faeries, and Santa Clause.

[ComradeMan]

That didn't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Since you have yet to prove his non-existence with absolute certainty, we must be agnostic regarding his existence along with Jesus, faeries, and Santa Clause.

Err... we've got someone, alive now, who basically says he made it up to prove a point- ironically not a point I disagree with- so there's nothing mysterious or unknown about the spagetti monster other than the controversy that he might be made of linguini. The authenticity of the spaghetti monster is dubious since big meatballs come with tagliatelle, not spaghetti. ;)

[Caj]

But this still does not answer whether life can come from non-life, i.e. abiogenesis.

As I said before, there is substantial evidence that organic compounds can emerge from the interactions between simple chemicals -- this makes the hypothesis of abiogenesis seem a lot more probable than the hypothesis that God, having no explanation for his own existence, just decided one day to create life.

[Caj]

I for one do not really see the incompatibility of religion and science unless things are taken to extremes.

One is based on empirical evidence and skepticism and the other is based on faith and authority. How could it get any more incompatible than that?

[ComradeMan]

As I said before, there is substantial evidence that organic compounds can emerge from the interactions between simple chemicals -- this makes the hypothesis of abiogenesis seem a lot more probable than the hypothesis that God, having no explanation for his own existence, just decided one day to create life.

Let's break this down.

Organic compounds are not living cells and the fact that they could emerge from a chemical process does not mean they actually did under the conditions of the earth c4 billion years ago. Where's your evidence? It's unscientific because it's unfalsifiable.

The fact that a hypothesis is "probable"- well... do the maths and just see how probable it is.

Another problem is that abiogenesis breaks Pasteur's law without having any evidence to back it up.

No one was arguing for creationism or intelligent design here by the way.;)


One is based on empirical evidence and skepticism and the other is based on faith and authority. How could it get any more incompatible than that?

One explains how things (may have) happened, the other seeks to give meaning to it.

[Caj]

Where's your evidence? It's unscientific because it's unfalsifiable.

The fact that a hypothesis is "probable"- well... do the maths and just see how probable it is.

Another problem is that abiogenesis breaks Pasteur's law without having any evidence to back it up.

. . .


One explains how things (may have) happened, the other seeks to give meaning to it.

I never made a claim that was unfalsifiable. What I said was that abiogenesis, with the current scientific evidence, seems a lot more probable than the God-hypothesis for the emergence of life on earth. If you want to falsify this claim find some evidence that God created life. Pasteur's Law applies to life after it came into being. It is also important to note that the God-hypothesis also contradicts Pasteur's Law by saying that God either 1) created life from inanimate matter, or 2) created life by himself (and thus life didn't come from matter at all). I don't think spiritual beliefs add any meaning by exploiting gaps in human understanding.

[ComradeMan]

I never made a claim that was unfalsifiable.

The claim that abiogenesis caused life 4 billion years ago is unfalsifiable. It can not be observed and we have no evidence for it.


What I said was that abiogenesis, with the current scientific evidence, seems a lot more probable than the God-hypothesis for the emergence of life on earth.

:laugh: But I am not arguing for the God hypothesis. I am pointing out that abiogenesis is so improbable as to make it virtually impossible to accept- even Dawkins, I believe, does not subscribe to it.


If you want to falsify this claim find some evidence that God created life.

But I am not arguing for either creationism or intelligent design nor do I claim that the books of Genesis are science manuals.


Pasteur's Law applies to life after it came into being.

Ah I see.... err, it doesn't- omne vivum ex vivo is quite clear. The first living cell was just that, a living cell- now what did it come from?

Pasteur basically ruled out abiogenesis- or the what was called the spontaneous generation of life.


It is also important to note that the God-hypothesis also contradicts Pasteur's Law by saying that God either 1) created life from inanimate matter, or 2) created life by himself (and thus life didn't come from matter at all). I don't think spiritual beliefs add any meaning by exploiting gaps in human understanding.

Not really. Because we are all made of matter at the end of the day- you or I can be separated into piles of iron, calcium, H20 etc etc. In the book of Genesis talks of Adam being formed from the dust/clay. Pasteur's law is not about the constituent parts.

1) Now if God created life from inaminate matter then life came from life.
2) is not what religionists claim.

[Luc]

To OP (or anyone),

I saw a pretty good show on this:

Curiosity (episode title was something like: the creation question) I blieve, Steven Hawking was on it and it looked more like Into the Universe with Steven Hawking though. You could probably find it on iTunes or somthing; it was on the Discouvery channel if that helps.

It was pretty well explained but I don't understand the physics yet (I'm only in Gr. 10):(

also Twelve Proofs of the Inexistance of God by Sebastein Faure was okay. You can get the pdf here:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/faure/faureCW.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The claim that abiogenesis caused life 4 billion years ago is unfalsifiable. It can not be observed and we have no evidence for it.

Abiogenesis can potentially be observed, if we recreate the primeval conditions in which life arose. Just like physicists can observe the conditions of the early universe by recreating it with particle accelerators.


:laugh: But I am not arguing for the God hypothesis. I am pointing out that abiogenesis is so improbable as to make it virtually impossible to accept- even Dawkins, I believe, does not subscribe to it.

Since Earth is the only place we know of that harbours life, abiogenesis only had to happen once, which considered along with the size of the known universe (and indications it could be much, much bigger) and the resulting number of potentially life-bearing planets, gives us plenty of leeway as regards to chance. There are large error bars on any probability calculations due to a lot of variables being unknown factors.


Ah I see.... err, it doesn't- omne vivum ex vivo is quite clear. The first living cell was just that, a living cell- now what did it come from?

Pasteur basically ruled out abiogenesis- or the what was called the spontaneous generation of life.

Cells are actually pretty damn complicated, so no modern biologist worth their salt reckons they just spontaneously arose without self-replicating precursors. It seems likely that the transition between non-living and living matter involved gradually more complex replicators originating from the simplest self-replicating molecule.

This can be tested by, as mentioned above, attempting to recreate primordial conditions.


Not really. Because we are all made of matter at the end of the day- you or I can be separated into piles of iron, calcium, H20 etc etc. In the book of Genesis talks of Adam being formed from the dust/clay. Pasteur's law is not about the constituent parts.

1) Now if God created life from inaminate matter then life came from life.
2) is not what religionists claim.

First, you have to provide evidence for this bizarre "God" creature, since it seems utterly unlike any entity we have observed thus far.

If life only comes from life, and God created life, does this mean God is a living being? If so, what form of life did God arise from?

[Revolution starts with U]

I just want to point out to Fallacyman and Children of the Misinterpretation that calling someone an asshole is not an ad hominem. It is name calling. It would be an ad hominem if you said "you're an asshole and therefore your arguments are wrong."
I like how Fallacyman is saying that spontaneous biogenisis is pretty much impossible, but at the same time he's "not arguing for creationism." Yes, Fallacyman, yes you are. You may not be arguing for specifically Christian Young Earth Bilbically literal creationism, but you ARE arguing for creationism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Err... we've got someone, alive now, who basically says he made it up to prove a point- ironically not a point I disagree with- so there's nothing mysterious or unknown about the spagetti monster other than the controversy that he might be made of linguini. The authenticity of the spaghetti monster is dubious since big meatballs come with tagliatelle, not spaghetti. ;)

Well...the thing is....

This guy claims he made it up. And his claim is not proof of anything since I am pretty damned sure that nobody will believe me when I claim I am the second comming of Christ merely on my word. For all we know the guy is lying to serve an agenda which discredits our one and only true God.

However when somebody is indeed able to proof that he made it up this does not proof that he wasn't actually right in his fabircation and by mere accident and happenstance simply coincidentally thought up the one and only true God.

Or...we could always claim that this was the SM's plan all along since he works in mysterious ways. You know...kind of like a test to see if we are worthy. And seperate the cynics and unbelievers from the faithfull and loyal


.... This is pretty much the line of reasoning you get when you debate the existance of God with a theist.

[Caj]

Another problem is that abiogenesis breaks Pasteur's law without having any evidence to back it up.

Really the question of the emergence of life boils down to three positions:
1) life emerged naturally from inanimate matter (i.e. abiogenesis)
2) life emerged supernaturally from inanimate matter and/or non-matter (i.e. creation)
3) life came from previous life ad infinitum (i.e. strong biogenisis)

Notice that the third position, despite its absurdity, is the only position compatible with Pasteur's Law of biogenesis taken to such an extreme degree as you do. Therefore, to use Pasteur's Law as an argument against position one (my position) when you yourself are advocating (or at least defending) position two is awful logic. If you truly accept Pasteur's Law to such an extreme degree, then you must accept position three, which --let's be honest -- is so absurd and so devoid of evidence that it doesn't even need to be challenged.

[PhoenixAsh]

I just want to point out to Fallacyman and Children of the Misinterpretation that calling someone an asshole is not an ad hominem. It is name calling. It would be an ad hominem if you said "you're an asshole and therefore your arguments are wrong."

I wanna play too..... :cool: Lets do your game.

Linguistically speaking:

Saying: You didn't pay attention. Fuckwit.

Is an insult.

Saying: That is because you didn't pay attention, you trolling fuckwit

Is an ad hominem.

The reason why it is an adhominem is because it does not adres the contents of the statement but instead speaks to the behaviour and personality of the person making the statement inherrent in the counter argument to the statement. Which is the case.

In other words the statement which was made in this thread consisted of two seperate things:

1) Discreditting statement by behaviour: not paying attention...which in itself can be considered an ad hominem because it adressed not the statement but the behaviour of the one making it. O snap.

2) Discreditting statement about the behaviour of the one making the statement. Trolling is suggesting that his statement is unbelievable because the one making it is engaged in the practice of trolling.

Now we could also assume...that he wasn't paying attention because he is a trolling fuckwit. But this does not in any way lessen the fact that it was integral part of the arument which discreditted the statement made.

BOTH can be true and factual...but that does NOT negate the fact that BOTH are ad hominems. Because the truth or untruth of an ad hominem is NOT relevant for something being an ad hominem or not.

And ad hominems do NOT need to be intentionally made as an ad hominem. Sometimes people can mean it as an insult but word it like an ad hominem.


So "That's because you're not paying attention, you trolling fuckwit."

Is an abusive/insult ad hominem...wether factual or not...wether true or not...

"Myself and others have repeatedly mentioned the importance of evidence in assessing the probability of a hypothesis."

Is a content argument which adresses the statement on content.

An ad hominem CAN by the way be an insult or in the form of an insult.
Just as long as it is part of the argument as to WHY the statement of the one being insulted is untrue.

Now...none of the above would be true...if it weren't for the word: "That's"

If what had been said was:

"You haven't been paying attention, you trolling fuckwit"

This would be an insult,.

But adding the word: That's

Well...doing that specifically adresses the statement being made and the validity of that statement.

Which would therefore specifically indicate that the statement is untrue because the one making the statement wasn't paying attention because he is a trolling fuckwit which would make the statement adhere to the definition of ad hominem...more specifically...an abusive ad hominem...also known as insulting ad hominem. Which is further highlighted by seperating both claims with a period mark instead of a colon. Which would lay ground for the claim it was merely an insult....a wrong claim...but one which could be debated.

I win.

You owe me two ducks and a chicken. Which is a great coincidence because it just so happens I owe somebody else two ducks and a chicken.... :D :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wanna play too..... :cool: Lets do your game.

[snip bollocks]

Since you apparently used one of my statements as an example, let me clarify: I was doubting the sincerity of his arguments because there have been multiple occasions where ComradeMan has ignored arguments, picked out only fragments of his opponent's argument (a form of strawman), and repeated long-refuted arguments. I called him a troll because his behaviour often seems to serve no purpose other than to be provocative. I also called him a fuckwit because whether he is sincere or trolling, either possibility reflects poorly on him.

I'm frankly astonished that you would dissect a fairly simple statement in such a ridiculously anally retentive manner. I reckoned I was being transparent enough.

[Revolution starts with U]

I read about two sentences of that, and your long diatribe aside, you are either saying the same thing as me, or you are wrong.
"You are a PoS that is wrong because of x y and z" is a logical statement, as insulting as it may be. "You are wrong becuase you are a PoS" is the fallacy.
I know, I attacked your friend, or whatever, but I really don't care :thumbup1:

[PhoenixAsh]

I read about two sentences of that, and your long diatribe aside, you are either saying the same thing as me, or you are wrong.
"You are a PoS that is wrong because of x y and z" is a logical statement, as insulting as it may be. "You are wrong becuase you are a PoS" is the fallacy.
I know, I attacked your friend, or whatever, but I really don't care :thumbup1:


Yeah...basically I was saying the original statement was an adhominem and explained why it was an ad homimen. Too bad you didnt read it...you could have learned something.

[ComradeMan]

Well...the thing is....This guy claims he made it up. And his claim is not proof of anything since I am pretty damned sure that nobody will believe me when I claim I am the second comming of Christ merely on my word. For all we know the guy is lying to serve an agenda which discredits our one and only true God. .

False equivalencies are not a good way to begin an argument. The proof that this guy made it up, you use the word "fabricated" exists in material form that would be enough to satisfy a court or the scientific method. Unless the atheist camp ironically have to fall back on a supernatural power argument.

[PhoenixAsh]

Since you apparently used one of my statements as an example, let me clarify: I was doubting the sincerity of his arguments because there have been multiple occasions where ComradeMan has ignored arguments, picked out only fragments of his opponent's argument (a form of strawman), and repeated long-refuted arguments. I called him a troll because his behaviour often seems to serve no purpose other than to be provocative. I also called him a fuckwit because whether he is sincere or trolling, either possibility reflects poorly on him.


Your motivations are not in question...nor was that post directed at you.

Motivations behind the statement nor the truth of a statement have anything to do with if the statement is in the form of an ad hominem or not.




I'm frankly astonished that you would dissect a fairly simple statement in such a ridiculously anally retentive manner. I reckoned I was being transparent enough.
Really? You have no idea? Well...it had nothing to do with you personally...and very little with your statement.

[PhoenixAsh]

False equivalencies are not a good way to begin an argument. The proof that this guy made it up, you use the word "fabricated" exists in material form that would be enough to satisfy a court or the scientific method. Unless the atheist camp ironically have to fall back on a supernatural power argument.

Philosophically speaking you have no proof that he made it up. You just have proof he claims he made it up.

And no...annecdotal evidence is not scientific proof. It is considered enough to back up an assertion or argument.

And yes...I was illustrating the line of reasoning of theists...which I mentioned in that post.

[ComradeMan]

Since you apparently used one of my statements as an example, let me clarify: I was doubting the sincerity of his arguments because there have been multiple occasions where ComradeMan has ignored arguments, picked out only fragments of his opponent's argument (a form of strawman), and repeated long-refuted arguments.

I think that would apply to just about everyone on an internet forum, what do you want- huge walls of footnoted text. It's easy to miss things in such a medium. That doesn't warrant an accusation insincerity. There have been multiple occasions of your argumentation ad lapidem. What exactly are the long refuted arguments?


I called him a troll because his behaviour often seems to serve no purpose other than to be provocative. I also called him a fuckwit because whether he is sincere or trolling, either possibility reflects poorly on him.

There is a difference between being deliberately provocative and provoking discussion or thought. It seems trolling can also mean presenting arguments others don't like.


I'm frankly astonished that you would dissect a fairly simple statement in such a ridiculously anally retentive manner. I reckoned I was being transparent enough.

I'm pleasantly surprised that someone with whom, in the context of this discussion and thread, I disagree does not revert to ad hominem attacks and is mature enough to avoid them in his own argumentation. I am less surprised that you refute this person with a veiled ad hominem insinuating that his argument in not valid as it is anally retentive.

[ComradeMan]

Philosophically speaking you have no proof that he made it up. You just have proof he claims he made it up.

Philosophically speaking..... you see this is a good argument for non-overlapping magisteria. ;) But hell, in the "material world" we also have his letter and response and he himself. I think there is enough.


And no...annecdotal evidence is not scientific proof. It is considered enough to back up an assertion or argument.

It's not anecdotal if there is physical evidence.


And yes...I was illustrating the line of reasoning of theists...which I mentioned in that post.

Well to be fair, a lot of theists are a pain in the neck too. In fact it's like a circle with theists and atheists at time- the more extreme they are the more similar their behaviour.

[PhoenixAsh]

Philosophically speaking..... you see this is a good argument for non-overlapping magisteria. ;) But hell, in the "material world" we also have his letter and response and he himself. I think there is enough.

It's not anecdotal if there is physical evidence.

Well to be fair, a lot of theists are a pain in the neck too. In fact it's like a circle with theists and atheists at time- the more extreme they are the more similar their behaviour.

Well I agree with NOMA in so far that science will eventually overtake religion as a way to explain things....and NOMA is just another means to an end in order to get people to understand the truth of overwhelming evidence against all intelligent design theories and the logical fallacy based on disinformation, dogmatism and entrenchment.

Where is disagree is that religion is a field specialised in the aspect of meaning and morality....or a valid explanation for either.


The whole concept of intelligent design as well as the concept of religion is at odds with logical and scientific fact and processes. That in itself does not make the abstract idea of a supra natural entity existing untrue.

What makes the existance of a supra natural being untrue is the fact that it is, like the flying spaghetti monster, a mere fabrication in order to explain something which has no validity, has no basis in fact, has no basis in reality.

So in order to fill in gaps in knowledge and stemming from the inability to understand (for whatever reason) people thought up an explanation. An explanation for which there is no grounds in reality and actually lies outside the realm of reality.

What theists try to do is make it a valid theory by saying that it can not be disproved.

Now I do not mind the concept of a God. What I do mind is that the concept of God soon, basically at the moment of its conception, established rules of behaviour which were to be safeguarded for fear of angering this supranatural being. And was applied to all strata of huan society in order to not only explain life, the world and evrything...but also to explain why soe humand were better than others and why some were in power or should be in power and others hould be contend with being submissive.

All of this was done based on a metaphorical "letter" which claimed something without any further shred of proof.

As you can still witness today...just about everything can be construed as proof for the existence of a supranatural being. The earth tremors in NY: proof of God and his anger at Obama (see FB for those nice statements); the holocaust is proof God wants Jews to be in Palestine (Rick Perry); the WTC is proof Allah dislikes Americans (Al Quaida) etc.

Now....with all this you should keep in mind that the concept of God relies on the existance of humans. If there are no more humans there is NO concept of God. This is opposed to science. If there are no more humans the same processes and principles will be applicable.

[ComradeMan]

Well I agree with NOMA in so far that science will eventually overtake religion as a way to explain things....and NOMA is just another means to an end in order to get people to understand the truth of overwhelming evidence against all intelligent design theories and the logical fallacy based on disinformation, dogmatism and entrenchment.

The problem I have with this is that I don't believe the majority of religious/spiritual people do use religion to explain how things work etc. If I have a toothache I go to the dentists not the priest/rabbi etc. I know there are fundamentalists out there that do but I am not sure they are the majority.

The second point is that creationism and intelligent design as science are not majority views, certainly not outside the US. There are plenty of religious people and bodies that condemn them as pseudo-science too.


Where is disagree is that religion is a field specialised in the aspect of meaning and morality....or a valid explanation for either.

The whole problem with this is that discussions of ethics and morality are difficult to reconcile with scientific materialism. There are no ethics and morals as such in the natural world. It's a different kind of debate. If a male gorilla or lion kills his "step-children" it's part of nature, if humans do it is morally wrong and illegal.


The whole concept of intelligent design as well as the concept of religion is at odds with logical and scientific fact and processes. That in itself does not make the abstract idea of a supra natural entity existing untrue.

Religion =/= intelligent design. Intelligent design proposes itself as an alternative to evolutionary theory (another thing I have no problem with fundamentally although I believe the theory is far from perfect... yet) and therefore as a scientific theory claiming materialism and the scientific method as well. Religious beliefs and philosophies on the whole do not propose themselves as science.

The way I see it the problem is not between science and religion but rather between scientism and religion and/or science and religious literalism- the two -isms being aberrations of their respective derivations. Scientific scepticism is not pseudo-scepticism and unfortunately when I read a lot of the new generation (militant) atheist polemics against all and every form of religious belief or philosophy, but especially Judaism and Christianity, it seems that they fall into the category of the latter rather than the former.


What makes the existance of a supra natural being untrue is the fact that it is, like the flying spaghetti monster, a mere fabrication in order to explain something which has no validity, has no basis in fact, has no basis in reality.

But you seem to be contradicting your previous point here.

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that proves beyond doubt that there is absolutely no possibilty of a higher intelligence or extra-dimensional force in the universe or beyond...

You also have no evidence to prove in the latter case that the belief in a higher intelligence, common to all human societies and recorded as far back as records go along with archaeological and anthropological studies suggesting basically the origins of homo sapiens together with even neanderthals, are fabrications or parodies in the sense of the flying spaghetti monster.


So in order to fill in gaps in knowledge and stemming from the inability to understand (for whatever reason) people thought up an explanation. An explanation for which there is no grounds in reality and actually lies outside the realm of reality.

Where is your evidence for that?

There's no grounds in reality for a lot of mathematics but....


What theists try to do is make it a valid theory by saying that it can not be disproved.

No, what theists who have little idea of either logic or what the word faith means try do....


Now I do not mind the concept of a God. What I do mind is that the concept of God soon, basically at the moment of its conception, established rules of behaviour which were to be safeguarded for fear of angering this supranatural being. And was applied to all strata of huan society in order to not only explain life, the world and evrything...but also to explain why soe humand were better than others and why some were in power or should be in power and others hould be contend with being submissive.

Well you have to separate sheep from goats with this stuff. But again, this relies only limited literalist interpretations.


All of this was done based on a metaphorical "letter" which claimed something without any further shred of proof.

Evidence please.


As you can still witness today...just about everything can be construed as proof for the existence of a supranatural being. The earth tremors in NY: proof of God and his anger at Obama (see FB for those nice statements); the holocaust is proof God wants Jews to be in Palestine (Rick Perry); the WTC is proof Allah dislikes Americans (Al Quaida) etc.

Well the world is full of people who will say crazy shit, so what? Are you telling me that science too has never been used to do and justify bad stuff?


If there are no more humans there is NO concept of God. This is opposed to science. If there are no more humans the same processes and principles will be applicable.

But this does not refute the existence of God, only that humans would no longer exist and there would be no human concept of God. A concept is an abstract.

[PhoenixAsh]

The problem I have with this is that I don't believe the majority of religious/spiritual people do use religion to explain how things work etc. If I have a toothache I go to the dentists not the priest/rabbi etc. I know there are fundamentalists out there that do but I am not sure they are the majority.

I use the word theists to its meaning to indicate those who actively participate in the debate of wether or not God exists. Not as indicative of religious people in general.

But your statement is not entirely in line with what I meant. Explaining on how the world works and being downright unable to solve an issue are not two things which are mutually exclusive.


The second point is that creationism and intelligent design as science are not majority views, certainly not outside the US. There are plenty of religious people and bodies that condemn them as pseudo-science too.

Indeed...as science. Its not even pseudo-science.

But the religious concept behind them and the concept of God which fuels these is however a majority opinion.


The whole problem with this is that discussions of ethics and morality are difficult to reconcile with scientific materialism. There are no ethics and morals as such in the natural world. It's a different kind of debate. If a male gorilla or lion kills his "step-children" it's part of nature, if humans do it is morally wrong and illegal.

I have no problem at all with it. Ethics and morality arise form the specific needs of society to function and change as society changes and goes beyond factors which indicate breeding and mating as seems to be the case with the indicated killing of non self created offspring.

In other words...the killing of offspring, for example, is considered amoral and unethical (in these times) because they run contrary to the needs of current society to operate smoothly.

Equating them morality on the basis of supra natural entities who dislike this behaviour is just another way of expressing these needs.
Now...morality is a shaky subject even in religion. The killing of others is condemned...UNLESS...the others do not adhere to the same concept of God or if it is extracted on the basis of authoritative judgment....or if it is extracted on the basis of behaviour the God does not like.

The whole concept of morality expressed for example in the Bible for example is add odds with itself.




Religion =/= intelligent design. Intelligent design proposes itself as an alternative to evolutionary theory (another thing I have no problem with fundamentally although I believe the theory is far from perfect... yet) and therefore as a scientific theory claiming materialism and the scientific method as well. Religious beliefs and philosophies on the whole do not propose themselves as science.

ID is the expression of religion into the field of supposed science as an answer to the assertion that religion is basically made up. It is an attempt to find another way to legitimise the idea of creationalism and the concept of God.


The way I see it the problem is not between science and religion but rather between scientism and religion and/or science and religious literalism- the two -isms being aberrations of their respective derivations. Scientific scepticism is not pseudo-scepticism and unfortunately when I read a lot of the new generation (militant) atheist polemics against all and every form of religious belief or philosophy, but especially Judaism and Christianity, it seems that they fall into the category of the latter rather than the former.

I disagree. As I explained the whole concept of religions is tryuing to dominate by use of fear and exploiting fear through an explanatory idea for how the world came to be and how it works.

Militant Atheism is a counter movement which set out to liberate people from the false notions expresed through religion on which humanity as a whole is supressed and exploited....



But you seem to be contradicting your previous point here.

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that proves beyond doubt that there is absolutely no possibilty of a higher intelligence or extra-dimensional force in the universe or beyond...

See....that is reversal of argument and an argument that provides existance because of inability to disproof but has not offered any shred of proof for its validity itself. Basically that argument comes down to: "disproof my claim or else it is true".

This entire line of reasoning is pretty much evidence that the assertion is false...and the concept of God does not exist. And the absense of evidence in this case is very much evidence of absense.

And that said...yes...I am willfully ignoring the fact that you expanded on the definition of God.

But I will reply: since you assert that something which lacks any form of evidence other than the line of argument "the universe is here so God exists and you can't disproof that he doesn't so it is true"...why should I provide evidence?

Theists assert something so the burden of proof is on their side.



You also have no evidence to prove in the latter case that the belief in a higher intelligence, common to all human societies and recorded as far back as records go along with archaeological and anthropological studies suggesting basically the origins of homo sapiens together with even neanderthals, are fabrications or parodies in the sense of the flying spaghetti monster.

I do not understand your meaning of this sentence.




Where is your evidence for that?

Because of the whole evolution of religious theory and the changing of the concept of God throughout history. Which would require several books to describe and express. But I assert that mainly based on the evidence we unearthed of prehistoric society and the absence of a concept of supranatural God...rather than natural beings which were ascribed certain powers which had practical functions rather than supranatural explanations in their own right.



There's no grounds in reality for a lot of mathematics but....

That is why mathematics claims its a refelection of reality rather than reality....let alone that it claims to be abslute truth. In fact the whole body of mathematics is concerned with constant critical reassessment.


No, what theists who have little idea of either logic or what the word faith means try do....

THats what theist in general try to do since theist describes people who deny the absense of God and adhere to the truth of theism.

The whole concept of God has no factual evidence, no basis in reality and no shred of proof. That is FAITH and on the basis of that rules for behaviour are made and enforced on society by religion.

So yes...they adhere to something based on the idea and conept of it not being disprovable.


Well you have to separate sheep from goats with this stuff. But again, this relies only limited literalist interpretations.

Well this is pretty much a common precursor shared by all religions.



Evidence please.

See above.




Well the world is full of people who will say crazy shit, so what? Are you telling me that science too has never been used to do and justify bad stuff?

Yes...it has. But since it falsiviable it can be debunked and countered. Whereas a supra natural being which supposedly exists outside the realm of human experience and abilityy can not be debunked simply because all you need to do to validate its existance is proclaim that it can not be proved or disproved.


But this does not refute the existence of God, only that humans would no longer exist and there would be no human concept of God. A concept is an abstract.

There is no other concept of God other than the human one. Humans made up the idea of there being God(s). If humans do not exist the Gods stop being part of this world. In order for that statement you made to be true you have to provide evidenece of the existance of suprantural beings.

Where as priniples of how nature works do not stop to exist. They continue regrdless of human presence.

[ComradeMan]

I use the word theists to its meaning to indicate those who actively participate in the debate of wether or not God exists. Not as indicative of religious people in general.

But you can't change definitions suddenly to suit your argument. Any religious person is arguably a theist or a -theist.


But your statement is not entirely in line with what I meant. Explaining on how the world works and being downright unable to solve an issue are not two things which are mutually exclusive.

I'm not following you here.... it seems that your argument against is ID which is then conflagrated to a general argument against religion.


Indeed...as science. Its not even pseudo-science.

No, it pretty much fits into the description of pseudo-science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience#21st_century


But the religious concept behind them and the concept of God which fuels these is however a majority opinion.

That is actually not really true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution

81% Buddhists, 80% Hindu, 77% Jewish, 72% unaffiliated and 58% Catholic support evolution in the US. Another survey showed that just over 70% of people in Italy with an approximate 90% level of catholicism supported evolution. Sweden was at 80%, often cited is being in the more atheistic regions of Europe. I don't think, from looking at the statistics that it's just about religious belief alone, other factors such as level of education come into play too. In fact the statistics seem so contradictory it is hard to come to any real conclusion, let alone asset that which you do.




I have no problem at all with it. Ethics and morality arise form the specific needs of society to function and change as society changes and goes beyond factors which indicate breeding and mating as seems to be the case with the indicated killing of non self created offspring.

Okay.... until...


In other words...the killing of offspring, for example, is considered amoral and unethical (in these times) because they run contrary to the needs of current society to operate smoothly.

So that's the only reason why they are wrong- until of course it might correspond to the smooth running of society? Think about the implications of that.


Equating them morality on the basis of supra natural entities who dislike this behaviour is just another way of expressing these needs. Now...morality is a shaky subject even in religion. The killing of others is condemned...UNLESS...the others do not adhere to the same concept of God or if it is extracted on the basis of authoritative judgment....or if it is extracted on the basis of behaviour the God does not like.

No, Judaeo-Christian teaching says that killing is wrong- period. The fact that people do not follow this is another matter of debate.


The whole concept of morality expressed for example in the Bible for example is add odds with itself.

Only if you decide to take the Bible literally and negatively and ignore two and a half thousand years of Judaeo-Christian philosophy and thought that is still evolving today.


ID is the expression of religion into the field of supposed science as an answer to the assertion that religion is basically made up. It is an attempt to find another way to legitimise the idea of creationalism and the concept of God.

That's far too much of a generalisation and is not backed up by fact.


I disagree. As I explained the whole concept of religions is tryuing to dominate by use of fear and exploiting fear through an explanatory idea for how the world came to be and how it works.

So a village medicine man in deepest Amazonia is trying to dominate by use of fear? I am not denying that religion, as a lot of other things, has been used as a tool of oppression but it's not wise to adopt a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach either.


Militant Atheism is a counter movement which set out to liberate people from the false notions expresed through religion on which humanity as a whole is supressed and exploited....

Militant atheism has even been condemned by atheists, notably Paul Kurtz.

"Militant believers and dogmatic atheists are bedfellows in their psychological attitudes". Toward a new enlightenment: the philosophy of Paul Kurtz (http://books.google.com/books?id=e9OJSW5dkM8C&pg=PA250#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Paul Kurtz,Vern L. Bullough,Tim Madig.. p250.


See....that is reversal of argument and an argument that provides existance because of inability to disproof but has not offered any shred of proof for its validity itself. Basically that argument comes down to: "disproof my claim or else it is true".This entire line of reasoning is pretty much evidence that the assertion is false...and the concept of God does not exist. And the absense of evidence in this case is very much evidence of absense.

No it's not. You asserted that the scientific evidence disproves the existence of God- I asked you which evidence- that is an assertion that you need to backup with evidence.

It is not the argumentum ad ignorantum, that would be if I said "I don't need to prove God exists because you can't prove he doesn't"- that's not what I am saying.


And that said...yes...I am willfully ignoring the fact that you expanded on the definition of God.

Where and how? It would very goyisch of me to offer any definition of that which cannot be defined. :D


But I will reply: since you assert that something which lacks any form of evidence other than the line of argument "the universe is here so God exists and you can't disproof that he doesn't so it is true"...why should I provide evidence?

Come on- that's a strawman which I have nowhere stated.


Theists assert something so the burden of proof is on their side.

No- this is where I disagree. Both theists and atheists assert things so the burden of proof is on both sides. If you are going to assert that it is "impossible" "ludicrous" "ridiculous" etc to suggest the existence of a higher power etc and then furthermore assert that scientific evidence disproves this then the onus is as much on you as it is on the theist.


I do not understand your meaning of this sentence.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I'm saying what hard evidence is there that all religion and spirituality is based on deliberate fabrication or parody as is the case of flying spaghetti monster.


Because of the whole evolution of religious theory and the changing of the concept of God throughout history. Which would require several books to describe and express. But I assert that mainly based on the evidence we unearthed of prehistoric society and the absence of a concept of supranatural God...rather than natural beings which were ascribed certain powers which had practical functions rather than supranatural explanations in their own right.

How do we know how ancient pre-historic people conceived God? I didn't think that archaeology could dig up abstracts such as "concepts".


That is why mathematics claims its a refelection of reality rather than reality....let alone that it claims to be abslute truth. In fact the whole body of mathematics is concerned with constant critical reassessment.

What is a reflection of reality? Is a reflection still not part of our quantum universe?


THats what theist in general try to do since theist describes people who deny the absense of God and adhere to the truth of theism.

The trouble is with this is that you work from the premise that the absense of God is logical and the premise against which they have to work.


The whole concept of God has no factual evidence, no basis in reality and no shred of proof. That is FAITH and on the basis of that rules for behaviour are made and enforced on society by religion.

What would be factual evidence of God, out of interest?

What is reality? Does reality actually exist? If so can you define reality empirically speaking?

I'm not arguing against your faith argument, I am just pointing out that a lot of those hard-and-fast concrete premises are err.. not so hard and fast on introspection.


So yes...they adhere to something based on the idea and conept of it not being disprovable.

Well, no they don't. Because the whole idea of faith is not about what you can prove or disprove. That's why I would denounce id/creationists as enemies of religious spirituality.

But at the same time- atheists argue that there is definite proof against the existence of any higher power or God- all I ask it exactly what and how does it disprove this position?


Well this is pretty much a common precursor shared by all religions.

Err... not necessarily so. A lot of Native American spirituality was based on the whole idea of a personal, almost existentialist, notion of revelation. Ancient Celtic/druidic religion certainly did not have anything written down- and was against it by all accounts as some others.


Yes...it has. But since it falsiviable it can be debunked and countered. Whereas a supra natural being which supposedly exists outside the realm of human experience and abilityy can not be debunked simply because all you need to do to validate its existance is proclaim that it can not be proved or disproved.

And in which case, in order to be scientific you should make assertions that cannot be proven or disproved.

"Philosopher of religion Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward) has said science is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting), as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-26)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_ref-26) See e.g. Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward), Is Religion Dangerous? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F) and the discussion by Alston, William P. (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K.; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0415263328 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415263328).


There is no other concept of God other than the human one. Humans made up the idea of there being God(s). If humans do not exist the Gods stop being part of this world. In order for that statement you made to be true you have to provide evidenece of the existance of suprantural beings.

How do you know? That statement presumes some kind of inifinte knowledge we do not have, and perhaps are not likely ever to have. This also ignores the fact that some "religious" type behaviours have indeed been observed in animals, and also suggested by palaeontological discoveries regarding homo neanderthalis


Where as priniples of how nature works do not stop to exist. They continue regrdless of human presence.

But religion does not concern itself really with the "how" more as to seek to ascribe the "why".


PS- I think we should both shorten our answers. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

We've been through this before Comrade. Science answers the why as well. Nobody asks "how is the sky blue" or "how do birds fly south for the winter." (Granted the second one may be asked, but that would be in the context of flight mechanics, not the context of bird migration.)

PS, please link this "evidence of religiosity in animals."

[ComradeMan]

We've been through this before Comrade. Science answers the why as well. Nobody asks "how is the sky blue" or "how do birds fly south for the winter."

Clever... but not clever enough. If you ask a scientist why the sky appears blue they will give you an answer which will explain what those mechanisms are that lead to its blueness, i.e. how- but there is no ascribing any meaning to this which is the deeper sense of a "why" question. You see yourself the subtle line we tread with your own astute observation about the second example.


PS, please link this "evidence of religiosity in animals."

I haven't got any links now- some stuff about chimpanzees I read and also grieving in elephants etc. It's moot because we can't actually know what they are thinking as such but interesting all the same. There was also something I read about neanderthals too that was thought provoking. I'll have a look to see if I can find some reasonable links.

[Revolution starts with U]

I kind of figured this evidence would be evidence of compassion, empathy, or grieving... and the religious will take that as evidence of religiosity. That's the other assumption theists tend to make; that all good thoughts and emotions come from God. So if a monkey practices charity, well, he must believe in God.
Neanderthals decorating their graves is evidence of grieving, sure. But why is grieving evidence of religiosity? I don't believe in an afterlife, yet I grieve for my dead friends and family...

[ComradeMan]

I kind of figured this evidence would be evidence of compassion, empathy, or grieving... and the religious will take that as evidence of religiosity. That's the other assumption theists tend to make; that all good thoughts and emotions come from God. So if a monkey practices charity, well, he must believe in God.

Actually the arguments weren't by religious people or theists. God no. Can you imagine the implications for them of animals being spiritual? Sorry- but you jumped to a bad conclusion there.

Here's a link
http://sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com/2007/02/learning-about-religion-from.html

and a review of the book mentioned
http://www.amazon.com/Evolving-God-Provocative-Origins-Religion/dp/0385511043/


Neanderthals decorating their graves is evidence of grieving, sure. But why is grieving evidence of religiosity? I don't believe in an afterlife, yet I grieve for my dead friends and family...

Things like burial of the dead, grave rites etc are usually taken by anthropologists to be signs of religious belief of some kind. Where did you learn your behaviour from though?

[Caj]

Clever... but not clever enough. If you ask a scientist why the sky appears blue they will give you an answer which will explain what those mechanisms are that lead to its blueness, i.e. how- but there is no ascribing any meaning to this which is the deeper sense of a "why" question.

The word "why" has two distinct meanings. The first is teleological and asks what the conscious motive or intention behind some phenomenon is. The second is mechanistic and concerns itself with the scientific processes that cause some phenomenon -- you refer to this "why" as "how." Concerning many phenomena, the former "why" has no meaning because there is no intention or motive behind those phenomena. If you are going to argue that religion concerns itself with the teleological explanations of phenomena that are mechanistically explained by science, you first have to prove that there is some intention or motive behind these phenomena, i.e. you must prove the existence of God.

[ComradeMan]

The word "why" has two distinct meanings. The first is teleological and asks what the conscious motive or intention behind some phenomenon is. The second is mechanistic and concerns itself with the scientific processes that cause some phenomenon -- you refer to this "why" as "how." Concerning many phenomena, the former "why" has no meaning because there is no intention or motive behind those phenomena. If you are going to argue that religion concerns itself with the teleological explanations of phenomena that are mechanistically explained by science, you first have to prove that there is some intention or motive behind these phenomena, i.e. you must prove the existence of God.

why= for what cause, purpose or reason.

Your example fails-
"How do I calculate the area of an isosceles triangle?" is not equivalent to

"Why do I calculate the area of an isosceles triangle?"- I don't ask why a train works I ask how it does and so on.

Abscribing meaning to something does not neccesitate a motive nor is enquiry as to that meaning implying a motive- it can be as to enquire for the cause.

[Caj]

why= for what cause, purpose or reason.

. . .

Abscribing meaning to something does not neccesitate a motive nor is enquiry as to that meaning implying a motive- it can be as to enquire for the cause.

Yes, and the cause, purpose, or reason for a certain phenomenon can be either teleological or mechanistic. Science concerns itself with mechanistic forms of why, e.g. why is the sky blue (i.e. what mechanistic processes can be ascribed to the sky's blueness). Religion, you say, concerns itself with teleological explanations, e.g. why is the sky blue (i.e. what intention or motive is behind the sky's blueness). It is entirely possible that the second question is worthless concerning certain phenomena. You must first prove that there is a conscious agent (e.g. God) who has the motivation or intention to cause a certain phenomena before you can say there is a teleological explanation for it, as there very well could be none.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, and the cause, purpose, or reason for a certain phenomenon can be either teleological or mechanistic. Science concerns itself with mechanistic forms of why, e.g. why is the sky blue (i.e. what mechanistic processes can be ascribed to the sky's blueness). Religion, you say, concerns itself with teleological explanations, e.g. why is the sky blue (i.e. what intention or motive is behind the sky's blueness). It is entirely possible that the second question is worthless concerning certain phenomena. You must first prove that there is a conscious agent (e.g. God) who has the motivation or intention to cause a certain phenomena before you can say there is a teleological explanation for it, as there very well could be none.

Your jumping the gun between asserting that there is definitely something and completely ruling out the possibility as a whole. If this ethos were general there would be no point in studying/researching theoretically the idea of quantum gravity.

[jake williams]

We'll almost certainly never know why something, rather than nothing, exists. (Or, to put things in more modern terms - we might discover physical laws which allow matter to come into existence, but we won't know why these laws exist). In this sense, there will always be space just outside of our cosmology which would allow something that some people would describe as a god to exist. In this sense, we do have to be "agnostics", strictly speaking.

But this is rarely what the actual conversation is about. Theists - people with an active belief in a specific god - make particular claims about some deity they claim to exist, claims for which they have basically no evidence and in some cases which are demonstrably false. Such improbable claims with no evidence, or even claims which are known to be false, don't need to be believed.

[Zealot]

Please demonstrate this. If you are going to use logic you are on dangerous ground.

God can exist.
God cannot exist.

Can you, logically, prove/dsiprove either?

My answer was that atheism was more intellectually honest than agnosticism because we could be agnostic about anything. Please logically disprove to me that there isn't an invisible crocodile in space that throws rocks towards earth because he just spoke to me in a vision.



Never heard the Greek concept of many names for the same thing? You should also read Marcus Aurelius on Christians. You also forget that the meaning of the word atheist is also a "rejector of god" and in that sense the ancient Romans saw the rejection of their gods as atheism, most importantly (in my opinion) the Divine Emperor.

Many names for the same thing, is that why there are so many religions that all claim to be the "right" one? It's a nice idea, but the majority of religious nutters are going to tell you otherwise.



So no scientists are religious?
Religion has countless times tried to intervene with science and the advancement of our civilization. Latest example = Stem Cell Research.

[ComradeMan]

My answer was that atheism was more intellectually honest than agnosticism because we could be agnostic about anything.

Can you be "more honest" or "less honest" and in which case what is "dishonesty"?

Agnostic means without knowledge- so in one sense whatever you don't know about makes you agnostic.


Please logically disprove to me that there isn't an invisible crocodile in space that throws rocks towards earth because he just spoke to me in a vision.

Well, there are a number of different answers to this.

1) You could say from an existential point of view that it is valid, because if you had a vision then that vision was real enough to you so therefore in your existential reality it's fine.

2) From a scientific point of view- let's say a hardened materialist, you could say that your vision is not a material reality and unless you can show us the rocks and prove the crocodile threw them. It's at best anecdotal. Furthermore we could question whether a crocodile could actually live in outer-space given our knowledge of reptilian biology. We could futhermore ask how a crocodile spoke to you... and so on.

3) If you want to argue from a logical point of view it's a bad argument for an atheist because at the same token it undermines a hard artheist position against others' beliefs. See (4)

4) Seeing as this is a rather supercilious rewording of Russell's teapot then we could say that it fails to disprove the possibility of God/higher intelligence/etc. Now, the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the absurd claim but this unfortunately requires that the premise be an absurd claim- this is by no means axiomatic in the sense of you would then have to demonstrate why the theist's position is logically absurd.

It also fails to tackle with the issue of two possible responses to the dilemma namely that one person could say, justifiably "I don't believe in the teapot."- whereas another could not say "The teapot does not exist.".


Many names for the same thing, is that why there are so many religions that all claim to be the "right" one? It's a nice idea, but the majority of religious nutters are going to tell you otherwise.

The one is not necessarily a resut of the other. The majority of "nutters" of any ideology are going to tell you crazy stuff, what's your point?


Religion has countless times tried to intervene with science and the advancement of our civilization. Latest example = Stem Cell Research.

You are guilty of a huge generalisation and the reification of one "monolithic religion" into some kind of behemoth that attacks science. Do you have any evidence of this? Could you actually say what the opposition towards stem cell research is from the religious camps and in what proportions. I think you'll find that even the Catholic position is not fundamentally against stem cell research but rather embryonic stem cell research whereas other groups have no opinion, or little opinion or support it within a certain ethical framework.

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Official-Positions-on-Stem-Cell-Research.aspx

But there's another problem- the fact some religious people have certain opinions and have done certain things is not evidence against the existence of God.

[Nox]

Agnosticism is NOT more logical than atheism. Logic is like a spectrum - at the very bottom you have beliefs such as religion, and at the very top you have atheism and communism :D

[ComradeMan]

Agnosticism is NOT more logical than atheism. Logic is like a spectrum - at the very bottom you have beliefs such as religion, and at the very top you have atheism and communism :D

Can you prove that logically? Empirically?

Interestingly, perhaps freudianly, you have put atheism and communism on a belief spectrum which rather undermines arguments against faith/belief.

[Nox]

Can you prove that logically? Empirically?

Someone who believes in a 2000 year old story book with zero evidence to back it up and quite alot of evidence to disprove it has alot less logic than someone who only believes things that are backed up with evidence.

[ComradeMan]

Someone who believes in a 2000 year old story book with zero evidence to back it up and quite alot of evidence to disprove it has alot less logic than someone who only believes things that are backed up with evidence.

Well let's look at a few problems with this.

Firstly the point is not about the Abrahamic religions alone- being an atheist is not a refutation of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic relifion alone... or have we missed something?

The so-called 2000 year old story book is not one book and it's not 2000 years old- it's a collection of books covering a long time scale culminating in the early Middle-Ages when the canonincal forms were more or less standardised.

The story book does indeed contain stories but it also contains a lot of other stuff as well as a lot of historical material that is backed up- far from perfect admittedly- so your zero evidence goes out the window. The next point, that may have escaped your attention, is that the "book" is not the object of worship really, is it?

What does believing in a book mean?

Of course, logically speaking, "the Bible is wrong so God does not exist" doesn't really stand up to scruting either, does it?

[Caj]

Your jumping the gun between asserting that there is definitely something and completely ruling out the possibility as a whole. If this ethos were general there would be no point in studying/researching theoretically the idea of quantum gravity.

:cursing:
Did you even fucking read my post?! Once again, you claim that religion concerns itself with teleological forms of the question "why." The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a conscious agent (in this case God) who has the motivation and intention to cause certain phenomena before asserting that there is a teleological explanation for these phenomena, as there very well could be none. I realize this is basically the same thing I said before, but you either didn't read my previous post, failed to understand it, or are intentionally being a troll.

[ComradeMan]

:cursing:
Did you even fucking read my post?! Once again, you claim that religion concerns itself with teleological forms of the question "why." The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a conscious agent (in this case God) who has the motivation and intention to cause certain phenomena before asserting that there is a teleological explanation for these phenomena, as there very well could be none. I realize this is basically the same thing I said before, but you either didn't read my previous post, failed to understand it, or are intentionally being a troll.

It seems to me that you are getting irrate because your argument doesn't work.

My position is this, there is no logical argument that can either prove or disprove God.

However don't try and say that science is purely mechanistic and without "contamination" from teleogical arguments.

"..the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his view offers."
Lennox, James G. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Lennox) (1993). "Darwin was a Teleologist" Biology and Philosophy, 8, 409–21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes#The_four_causes_in_modern_science

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You also seem to assume that I am defending a religious point-of-view whereas I am rather asking the non-religious view to defend its case in terms of the assertions it makes.

When atheists say there is evidence that there is no god, or that all the evidence points to there not being a god etc--- all I ask is what and why?

The other point is that fundamentally the same desire to know why is what drives both science, of which I am a full supporter, and religion. What I differentiate between is science and scientism.

The funny thing is when you boil down strong/militant atheists and religious fundamentalist arguments to "zero" point they are both left, in my opinion, look rather perplexed and saying "I don't know".

[Caj]

It seems to me that you are getting irrate because your argument doesn't work.

No, I am getting irate because you are misinterpreting or ignoring all of my arguments and behaving like a troll.


My position is this, there is no logical argument that can either prove or disprove God.

This depends on how you define "God." If you assign certain qualities to God that are contradictory or incompatible with modern science, then yes, you can disprove the existence of God with deductive reasoning. However, this is irrelevant, you also can't disprove the existence of faeries, this does not mean that we should consider the existence or non-existence of faeries equiprobable. Once again, by default, any entity proposed to exist with an utter lack of evidence for its existence is so statistically unlikely to exist that we can conclude it doesn't until further evidence is provided: we do this with faeries, celestial teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters -- it should also be applied to the existence of God.


However don't try and say that science is purely mechanistic and without "contamination" from teleogical arguments.

"..the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his view offers."
Lennox, James G. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Lennox) (1993). "Darwin was a Teleologist" Biology and Philosophy, 8, 409–21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes#The_four_causes_in_modern_science

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Way to totally misunderstand what that was saying. Darwin eviscerated the telological explanation for life which was popular in his time with his theory of evolution by natural selection.


The other point is that fundamentally the same desire to know why is what drives both science, of which I am a full supporter, and religion. What I differentiate between is science and scientism.

The funny thing is when you boil down strong/militant atheists and religious fundamentalist arguments to "zero" point they are both left, in my opinion, look rather perplexed and saying "I don't know".

I freely admit I don't know whether or not there is a God, I never denied this. However, I also don't know whether or not there are faeries. I consider both the existence of faeries and God as improbable because there is an utter lack of evidence for their existence, thus I conclude they don't.

"Scientism" is just a convenient term for those who deny science. Notice that a practitioner of "scientism" would be known as a "scientist."

[ComradeMan]

No, I am getting irate because you are misinterpreting or ignoring all of my arguments and behaving like a troll.

So it's not perhaps that your argument isn't clear? Why is it behaving like a troll by the way? I'm not ignoring your arguments.


This depends on how you define "God." If you assign certain qualities to God that are contradictory or incompatible with modern science, then yes, you can disprove the existence of God with deductive reasoning.

Okay, leaving a side the problem that you might be guilty of just knocking down a strawman. What qualities of God are contradictory of incompatible with modern science? (Please don't just build up the jaded bearded guy in the sky charicature. )


However, this is irrelevant, you also can't disprove the existence of faeries, this does not mean that we should consider the existence or non-existence of faeries equiprobable.

Ah, but if I said "I have evidence that without doubt refutes the existence of faeries!" would that be valid?


Once again, by default, any entity proposed to exist with an utter lack of evidence for its existence is so statistically unlikely to exist that we can conclude it doesn't until further evidence is provided: we do this with faeries, celestial teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters -- it should also be applied to the existence of God.

LOL!! The trouble here is you are in danger of anthropomorphising god-

אהיה אשר אהיה

= existence-


I suppose we could discuss whether God exists or subsists but that really is a different matter for now.

You're on dangerous grounds quoting statistics, Unwin used sound maths to come to a probability of God at 67%- even though he himself admitted this was not a proof as such and depended on the definitions etc. Seeing as you have mentioned the statistics, could you tell me what that probability is, statistically speaking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_D._Unwin


Way to totally misunderstand what that was saying. Darwin eviscerated the telological explanation for life which was popular in his time with his theory of evolution by natural selection.

You've even used the word "selection". Here's an interesting article that talks about this.

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jbeatty/LennoxDarTeleo.pdf


I freely admit I don't know whether or not there is a God, I never denied this. However, I also don't know whether or not there are faeries. I consider both the existence of faeries and God as improbable because there is an utter lack of evidence for their existence, thus I conclude they don't.

The first part started well but then the last part...hmmm but the last parts sucks from any logical reasoning.


"Scientism" is just a convenient term for those who deny science. Notice that a practitioner of "scientism" would be known as a "scientist."

Did Karl Popper or Hilary Putman deny science? Sorry, utter nonsense here...

[Zealot]

Can you be "more honest" or "less honest" and in which case what is "dishonesty"?

Agnostic means without knowledge- so in one sense whatever you don't know about makes you agnostic.

Lets not bother with semantics as we all know what the discussion is about here, plus I've already explained why atheism is a better position.



2) From a scientific point of view- let's say a hardened materialist, you could say that your vision is not a material reality and unless you can show us the rocks and prove the crocodile threw them. It's at best anecdotal. Furthermore we could question whether a crocodile could actually live in outer-space given our knowledge of reptilian biology. We could futhermore ask how a crocodile spoke to you... and so on.

It's a special crocodile in a space suit. As for the rocks, I can see them from my window.


3) If you want to argue from a logical point of view it's a bad argument for an atheist because at the same token it undermines a hard artheist position against others' beliefs. See (4)

It's simply a parody of how the belief in a sky god, rain god, sea god or any other god sounds. I quite like my crocodile god better.


4) Seeing as this is a rather supercilious rewording of Russell's teapot then we could say that it fails to disprove the possibility of God/higher intelligence/etc. Now, the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the absurd claim but this unfortunately requires that the premise be an absurd claim- this is by no means axiomatic in the sense of you would then have to demonstrate why the theist's position is logically absurd.

It also fails to tackle with the issue of two possible responses to the dilemma namely that one person could say, justifiably "I don't believe in the teapot."- whereas another could not say "The teapot does not exist.".

OK, I'll put my thinking in straightforward english. Do you believe in invisible crocodiles that throw rocks? I would hope not, but could you logically prove your position? No. And when you look at it that way, you'll see we have something in common.


But there's another problem- the fact some religious people have certain opinions and have done certain things is not evidence against the existence of God.

Great, but when their ideas get in the way of moving our world forward they should stay at church.

[ComradeMan]

Lets not bother with semantics as we all know what the discussion is about here, plus I've already explained why atheism is a better position.

No, let's indeed bother with semantics because the use of words and language in this kind of debate is important. It's a cop out to throw up "it's just semantics".

You haven't shown any position, logically, as to why atheism is a better position.


It's a special crocodile in a space suit. As for the rocks, I can see them from my window.

Ah, so could you perhaps photograph them and post them here?


It's simply a parody of how the belief in a sky god, rain god, sea god or any other god sounds. I quite like my crocodile god better.

Except it doesn't parody what a lot of people believe in anyway and works on false premises.


OK, I'll put my thinking in straightforward english. Do you believe in invisible crocodiles that throw rocks? I would hope not, but could you logically prove your position? No. And when you look at it that way, you'll see we have something in common.

You see the problem with that is you are proposing an admittedly absurd position that works on the premise that the whatever-theist's position is self-evidently absurd yet you haven't actually demonstrated how that position is absurd to start with and so it is not self-evident.


Great, but when their ideas get in the way of moving our world forward they should stay at church.

Why only a church and not a synagoge, mosque, ashram or temple? In addition you could easily level that kind of accusation at any amount of people- regardless of whether they were religious or not.

[Caj]

Okay, leaving a side the problem that you might be guilty of just knocking down a strawman. What qualities of God are contradictory of incompatible with modern science? (Please don't just build up the jaded bearded guy in the sky charicature. )

I was not setting up a strawman. I was simply stating that certain conceptions of God can be disproved through deductive reasoning. If one assigned two contradictory qualites to a certain coneption of God one could prove that this conception of God doesn't exist. For example, if one defines God as both omniscient and a being that created creatures with free will, one could logically prove that this god doesn't exist because the two qualities assigned to him are contradictory. The traditional Christian God fits this defintion; therefore, the traditional Christian God does not exist. I realize this doesn't apply to all conceptions of God.


Ah, but if I said "I have evidence that without doubt refutes the existence of faeries!" would that be valid?

No, it wouldn't. You can't have "evidence that without [a] doubt refutes the existence of faeries" anymore than you can have "evidence that without [a] doubt refutes the existence of" God.(Unless you define "faeries" or "God" with certain qualites that are contradictory, in which case their existence can be disproved with deductive reasoning.) I never claimed to have absolute knowledge that God (or faeries) do not exist. (And you accused me of setting up strawmen?)


You're on dangerous grounds quoting statistics, Unwin used sound maths to come to a probability of God at 67%- even though he himself admitted this was not a proof as such and depended on the definitions etc. Seeing as you have mentioned the statistics, could you tell me what that probability is, statistically speaking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_D._Unwin

I do not know the exact probability apart from the fact that it is infinitesimally small. I'll put my argument in logical form:

premise: There are far more things that can conceivably exist than actually do. (I don't know how you could possibly deny this premise.)
premise: God has no evidence for his existence. (If you disagree with this premise, then provide evidence for God's existence.)
conclusion: Therefore, the existence of God is statistically improbable.

This is the same argument that we apply to faeries when we conclude that their existence is unlikely. I don't know how many more things can conceivably exist than actually exist, but obviously the amount is so high that the existence of gods, faeries, and other entities with no evidence for their existence is so unlikely that it is acceptable to assume they don't exist until further evidence is provided.


You've even used the word "selection". Here's an interesting article that talks about this.

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jbeatty/LennoxDarTeleo.pdf

You are using the word "teleology" in a different sense than I am. I am talking about conscious intentions behind phenomena, not like the unconscious intentions of natural selection. You claim that religion concerns itself with the conscious intentions behind certain phenomena. You also assume as self-evident that all phenomena have conscious intentions for their existence, when in reality there may be no conscious intentions behind certain phenomena. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a conscious agent (in this case God) before you can assert that there are conscious intentions behind these phenomena. There can not be conscious intentions without a conscious agent.


The first part started well but then the last part...hmmm but the last parts sucks from any logical reasoning.

Now you know how I feel reading your arguments. :p

Read my argument in logical form above and state your objections to it.


Did Karl Popper or Hilary Putman deny science? Sorry, utter nonsense here...

What I meant is that the term has been hijacked by neo-creationists to deny science and you seem to be using the term in the same way. When did I express any degree of scientism? Just because I used scientific arguments I am guilty of scientism?

[ComradeMan]

I was not setting up a strawman. I was simply stating that certain conceptions of God can be disproved through deductive reasoning. If one assigned two contradictory qualites to a certain coneption of God one could prove that this conception of God doesn't exist.

If one said God was a giant onyx teapot in Jerusalem then no doubt one could thus prove that this conception did not exist.


For example, if one defines God as both omniscient and a being that created creatures with free will, one could logically prove that this god doesn't exist because the two qualities assigned to him are contradictory. The traditional Christian God fits this defintion; therefore, the traditional Christian God does not exist. I realize this doesn't apply to all conceptions of God.

Other than there is a scriptural problem with omniscience, there is also the problem that omniscience (similar to omnipotens) implies all that can be known and not necessarily all that there is to be known.


No, it wouldn't. You can't have "evidence that without [a] doubt refutes the existence of faeries" anymore than you can have "evidence that without [a] doubt refutes the existence of" God.(Unless you define "faeries" or "God" with certain qualites that are contradictory, in which case their existence can be disproved with deductive reasoning.) I never claimed to have absolute knowledge that God (or faeries) do not exist. (And you accused me of setting up strawmen?)

So therefore a logical position is that you are agnostic.


premise: There are far more things that can conceivably exist than actually do. (I don't know how you could possibly deny this premise.)

premise: God has no evidence for his existence. (If you disagree with this

premise, then provide evidence for God's existence.)

conclusion: Therefore, the existence of God is statistically improbable.

P1- the problem here is that you are mixing things- conceivably exist could be basically infinite whereas in an admittedly large yet finite universe (as far as we know :D) there are limits on what can exist. However if God exists outside the universe (too) we run into yet another problem. Nevertheless this Cartesian type of argument no more works to prove God than to disprove God.

P2 - the next problem is that what is evidence for God's existence? What would constitute evidence in this case? Because we need to define that before we can say that P1 is or isn't self-evident.

Therefore the conclusion is also flawed, in a sense, because "improbable" and synonyms are not absolutes, it's not a 0% so your ignoring the problems in the premise you can say that the conclusion is at best inconclusive.


This is the same argument that we apply to faeries when we conclude that their existence is unlikely. I don't know how many more things can conceivably exist than actually exist, but obviously the amount is so high that the existence of gods, faeries, and other entities with no evidence for their existence is so unlikely that it is acceptable to assume they don't exist until further evidence is provided.

Again, not quite because whereas we have a finite concept of faeries within the finite knowledge of a finite world we cannot say the same for the universe or "beyond" if such a thing "exists".


You are using the word "teleology" in a different sense than I am. I am talking about conscious intentions behind phenomena, not like the unconscious intentions of natural selection. You claim that religion concerns itself with the conscious intentions behind certain phenomena.

Can un an "unconscious intention" exist? The trouble is perhaps our language, there is no way we can express these things without imprinting our own human teleogy on them.


You also assume as self-evident that all phenomena have conscious intentions for their existence, when in reality there may be no conscious intentions behind certain phenomena. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a conscious agent (in this case God) before you can assert that there are conscious intentions behind these phenomena. There can not be conscious intentions without a conscious agent.

No I don't. I don't know- what I am saying is that others assert there is definitely none.


What I meant is that the term has been hijacked by neo-creationists to deny science and you seem to be using the term in the same way. When did I express any degree of scientism? Just because I used scientific arguments I am guilty of scientism?

"To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-ODP-5) or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-Putnam-2) with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-9)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[Nox]

My position is this, there is no logical argument that can either prove or disprove God.

This is where your logic is highly flawed.

The logical thing to do is believe something exists when there is evidence to prove it exists, not being able to disprove it is totally irrelevant.

It's like me saying that I have a spaceship in my garden but it's invisible, there is no way to prove it but no way to disprove it either, if you use your logic then you wouldn't believe me because there is zero evidence and such an idea is absurd.

[ComradeMan]

This is where your logic is highly flawed.

The logical thing to do is believe something exists when there is evidence to prove it exists, not being able to disprove it is totally irrelevant.

It's like me saying that I have a spaceship in my garden but it's invisible, there is no way to prove it but no way to disprove it either, if you use your logic then you wouldn't believe me because there is zero evidence and such an idea is absurd.

"Philosopher of religion Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward) has said science is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting), as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[27]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-26)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_ref-26)See e.g. Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward), Is Religion Dangerous? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F) and the discussion by Alston, William P. (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K.; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0415263328 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415263328).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Critiques_of_scientific_meth od

[Nox]

"Philosopher of religion Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward) has said science is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting), as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[27]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-26)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_ref-26)See e.g. Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward), Is Religion Dangerous? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F) and the discussion by Alston, William P. (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K.; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0415263328 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415263328).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Critiques_of_scientific_meth od

You think that just because one idiot says that, it makes it true?

He's a philosopher of religion go figure...

[ComradeMan]

You think that just because one idiot says that, it makes it true?

He's a philosopher of religion go figure...

It's a self-refuting idea. If you disagree disprove it- or prove your assertion logically.

Attacking someone because they are a philosopher of religion is invalid- it's a genetic fallacy.

[ZeroNowhere]

"Philosopher of religion Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward) has said science is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting), as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[27]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-26)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_ref-26)See e.g. Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward), Is Religion Dangerous? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F) and the discussion by Alston, William P. (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K.; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0415263328 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415263328).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Critiques_of_scientific_meth od
On the face of it, the problem there seems to be that generally people making these kinds of arguments don't claim that requirements of evidence applies to all statements (eg. bachelors are unmarried, etc.), but rather empirical statements, statements about the world and whatnot. Of course, the statement that God exists is not an empirical statement made about the world, so I suppose that it's a somewhat valid point if the point to be made is that the whole empirical evidence matter doesn't apply in this case, and if it is rather applied to all statements regardless of their subject it becomes inconsistent, and essentially verificationism for that matter.

It's not clear what saying that 'science' is self-refuting would even mean, though, and even less to type on a computer that science is self-refuting.

[ComradeMan]

It's not clear what saying that 'science' is self-refuting would even mean, though, and even less to type on a computer that science is self-refuting.

I don't think that it means "science" as a field but rather the ethos being described within the context of scientism.

[Caj]

If one said God was a giant onyx teapot in Jerusalem then no doubt one could thus prove that this conception did not exist.

Actually, that conception of God is unfalsifiable. Would you call yourself agnostic regarding the onxy-teapot-of-Jerusalem conception of God?


So therefore a logical position is that you are agnostic.

If by agnostic, you mean I don't know whether or not God exists, then yes, I would be an agnostic. However, I see no point in this label as I am also an agnostic regarding faeries, omnipotent onyx teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters. If by agnostic you mean that the existence or non-existence of God is equiprobable, then no, I am far from an agnostic.


Can un an "unconscious intention" exist? The trouble is perhaps our language, there is no way we can express these things without imprinting our own human teleogy on them.

The only way you could possibly call Darwin a teleologist is if you were to refer to the unconscious intentions of natural selection (adaptations).


"To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-ODP-5) or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-Putnam-2) with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-9)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

And when did I express any degree of this? You seem to be just using this term to deny scientific arguments without even having to refute them.

[Rafiq]

We can assume that there isn't such a thing, therefore I lack belief in God(s), unless some evidence points in the other direction.

I remember a debate, made by religious people called "Does god not exist?":laugh:

Assuming that the premises has already been made that there is a God and atheists are the ones who have to disprove it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

iyYwo7X4zck

I noticed bud mention Hitler doing well without God...

[Zealot]

No, let's indeed bother with semantics because the use of words and language in this kind of debate is important. It's a cop out to throw up "it's just semantics".

You haven't shown any position, logically, as to why atheism is a better position.

It's better for the same reason that disbelief in santa is better than santa-agnosticism.


Ah, so could you perhaps photograph them and post them here?

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2009/12/moelen_stones_gallerylarge.jpg


Except it doesn't parody what a lot of people believe in anyway and works on false premises.

Yes it does, I make an unfalsifiable claim and then say "disprove it".


You see the problem with that is you are proposing an admittedly absurd position that works on the premise that the whatever-theist's position is self-evidently absurd yet you haven't actually demonstrated how that position is absurd to start with and so it is not self-evident.

It's absurd for the above reason, that I make an unfalsifiable claim and at the same time want someone else to prove me false. It's absurd for many other reasons, especially when dealing with a particular religion, many of which have their own definitions of what their god is.


Why only a church and not a synagoge, mosque, ashram or temple? In addition you could easily level that kind of accusation at any amount of people- regardless of whether they were religious or not.

Sure

[ComradeMan]

I noticed bud mention Hitler doing well without God...

Hitler was anti-religion, at least in Christian terms and obviously his stance on Judaism/Jews needs no explanation.

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism (http://books.google.com/books?id=O187AAAAMAAJ&q=%22We+do+not+want+any+other+God+than+Germany+its elf%22&dq=&pgis=1), A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100.

The Nazis even tried to promote their version of a religion called "Positive Christianity" that conveniently got rid of the awkward Jewish baggage of Christianity as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#Private_statement s

There is a bg difference between what Hitler said in public (to a majority "Christian" Germany) and what he said and thought in private. Mussolini was an atheist but toned it down seeing as he was speaking to a predominantly Catholic country like Italy.

The problem for Hitler, on the other hand, was that atheism was of the communists and of course that was not an option for him.

"In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University) from the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials),[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#cite_note-50) that revealed Nazi plans to eliminate Christianity entirely. One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joseph_Donovan), as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_war_crimes), compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis persecuted Christian Churches.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#cite_note-51)
Donovan's documents include almost 150 bound volumes currently stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959; these documents state

"Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#Private_statement s

The German army had had "Gott mit uns" on its belts long before Hitler since at least the 17th century.

[ComradeMan]

It's better for the same reason that disbelief in santa is better than santa-agnosticism.

But they are not equivalencies.

<photo>

Nice stones- but you got them from here http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2009/12/moelen_stones_gallerylarge.jpg

They come from a beach at Moelen in Southern Norway and they are the result of deposits from an Ice-Age moraine. Claim falsified.


Yes it does, I make an unfalsifiable claim and then say "disprove it".

I'm afraid it's not so simple and no one here was arguing from ignorance or using that to defend religion.


It's absurd for the above reason, that I make an unfalsifiable claim and at the same time want someone else to prove me false. It's absurd for many other reasons, especially when dealing with a particular religion, many of which have their own definitions of what their god is.

But you still haven't demonstrated how the claim is indeed absurd and therefore your premises are not self-evident and your example falters. Plus the fact that I just falsified your claim.


Sure

Sure- so it's not a valid line of argumentation then.

[Zealot]

But they are not equivalencies.

Why not.


<photo>

Nice stones- but you got them from here http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2009/12/moelen_stones_gallerylarge.jpg

They come from a beach at Moelen in Southern Norway and they are the result of deposits from an Ice-Age moraine. Claim falsified.

Glad to see you're attentive, but this beach was created by the same crocogod.


I'm afraid it's not so simple and no one here was arguing from ignorance or using that to defend religion.

You asked me to prove god cannot exist, when you know well that god is an unfalsifiable claim, and in turn use this as some sort of evidence that agnosticism is a better position when I've already explained why it isn't.


But you still haven't demonstrated how the claim is indeed absurd and therefore your premises are not self-evident and your example falters. Plus the fact that I just falsified your claim.

Crocogod still not falsified.


Sure- so it's not a valid line of argumentation then.

I'm not arguing, I was in agreement that anyone regardless of religion or non-religion should not enforce their ideas and beliefs to hinder science.

[Caj]

Crocogod - 1
God - 0
:D

[Astarte]

That didn't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Since you have yet to prove his non-existence with absolute certainty, we must be agnostic regarding his existence along with Jesus, faeries, and Santa Clause.

Haha, actually, considering the size, vastness, and amount of time the universe as been around, I am perfectly fine with being agnostic towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[ComradeMan]

Why not. Glad to see you're attentive, but this beach was created by the same crocogod.

So your original claim is untrue. If your going to pick something that's "unfalsifiable" at least pick something that is indeed unfalsifiable.


You asked me to prove god cannot exist, when you know well that god is an unfalsifiable claim, and in turn use this as some sort of evidence that agnosticism is a better position when I've already explained why it isn't.

I also asked you, amongst others, what evidence is there that absolutely refutes the existence of a higher intelligence/god? And of course it's a pretty damn solid argument that agnosticism is logically sounder than atheism- unless you won't to throw logic out of the window.

The trouble with the "crocogod" analogy is by your own admission it's absurd- you have yet to demonstrate why others' arguments are absurd in the same way. I've given you "modus tollens", evidence of absence, but you haven't been able to do the same. What it seems to be is arguing from incredulity, well that doesn't work as a logical demonstration.

Now atheists are quick to point out the flaws with theist arguments but using the teapot isn't that great. It's at best a sloppy and false analogy. Now when we speak of evidence, what kind of evidence- surely it's self-evident we mean empirical evidence. This is a problem too but we can leave that aside for now. Furthermore, whereas there are people who claim to have had divine inspiration or spoken to the divine etc there are plenty of theists who don't and for them it's a philosophical decision so obviously theism does not necessarily require empirical evidence at all.

Is someone were to therefore posit the question- okay, what do you believe? How would you answer? (excluding negatives).

No one has yet told me what would be accepted as evidence for the existence of god despite many saying that no such evidence exists.

[Caj]

Haha, actually, considering the size, vastness, and amount of time the universe as been around, I am perfectly fine with being agnostic towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But do you consider the existence of the flying spaghetti monster likely?

[Caj]

And of course it's a pretty damn solid argument that agnosticism is logically sounder than atheism- unless you won't to throw logic out of the window.

Are you saying that equiprobable agnosticism is more logical than atheism, or that I-don't-know agnosticism is more logical than strong atheism? I'd agree with the latter for certain conceptions of God but not the former.


[Atheists] have yet to demonstrate why others' arguments are absurd in the same way.

Here's something I wrote earlier in this thread: "the God-hypothesis, even if it had some evidence, would still be a worthless hypothesis because it is contradictory. It assumes that life and the universe are too complicated to have arose from natural processes. To solve this dilemma it proposes a being even more complex than its creation. Surely if the universe is too complex to have 1) arose naturally, or 2) have always existed, these same objections should apply to God."

I think this adequately shows the absurdity of the God-hypothesis.

[Astarte]

But do you consider the existence of the flying spaghetti monster likely?

This is a good question. In a sense the flying spaghetti monster already does exist since we all have an image for it in our brain already. And, as I said in the previous post, the universe is vast; in the sensual material way it is incomprehensibly huge and ancient - so something much like the flying spaghetti monster could exist somewhere right now or has existed somewhere in the cosmos materially, already. In the non-orthodox materialist sense reality seems to include several dimensions - some of which could possible be linked to the collective unconsciousness as Jung alludes to in his piece "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky". And well, consciousness does escape us all upon death - and then what exactly is real anyway?

[Ose]

Now, it's easy for an atheist because they will say they don't have to prove a negative as it's a lack of belief.

Is someone were to therefore posit the question- okay, what do you believe? How would you answer? (excluding negatives).
If you mean what do I believe with regard to what (if anything) caused the universe to come into being, then your 'no negatives' clause is arbitrary and unnecessary. I simply don't know. Call me agnostic if you will; I'm fine with that, as agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

[ComradeMan]

Here's something I wrote earlier in this thread: "the God-hypothesis, even if it had some evidence, would still be a worthless hypothesis because it is contradictory. It assumes that life and the universe are too complicated to have arose from natural processes. To solve this dilemma it proposes a being even more complex than its creation. Surely if the universe is too complex to have 1) arose naturally, or 2) have always existed, these same objections should apply to God."

I think this adequately shows the absurdity of the God-hypothesis.

It fails miserably because it presumes that such a thing as "complex" is actually quantifiable in terms of the whole universe. If we take the Big Bang theory for example, all the matter and energy etc etc that exists now in the entire universe existed then. The "laws" of physics also existed then otherwise we wouldn't be here now (for all we know :lol:) discussing it. So inasmuch as I find it a bad argument from theists I don't think it's a valid argument against God. The other problem is that at least in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, God created the universe, thus spacetime and therefore although the universe might seem complex to us, just like ants staring at the moon, it might not be all that complex to God.

You need to see the difference between atheism and anti-theism too- a subtle one, but an important one.

[Caj]

So inasmuch as I find it a bad argument from theists I don't think it's a valid argument against God.

I wasn't saying that this argument disproves God. I was simply showing how God as an hypothesis is absurd because it attempts to remedy unexplained complexity with further complexity. In the absence of evidence, the absurdity of this hypothesis should be enough to discredit it until further evidence is provided.


The other problem is that at least in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, God created the universe, thus spacetime and therefore although the universe might seem complex to us, just like ants staring at the moon, it might not be all that complex to God.

That's fine, but if the universe appears simple to God, then he must be even more complex than the universe, which just leads back to my argument.

[PhoenixAsh]

But you can't change definitions suddenly to suit your argument. Any religious person is arguably a theist or a -theist.

Well the word has three meanings in Dutch. I used the scholastic one. Perhaps that is different from the English. But in anycase...

Lets say that within the debate of science vs God the people I meant when I used the word Theists were the ones arguing the postition of God.



I'm not following you here.... it seems that your argument against is ID which is then conflagrated to a general argument against religion.

What I meant is that using God as an explanation does not mean they wouldn't seek praticval solutions to solve problems....like going to the dentist.


No, it pretty much fits into the description of pseudo-science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience#21st_century


Point conceded.



That is actually not really true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution

81% Buddhists, 80% Hindu, 77% Jewish, 72% unaffiliated and 58% Catholic support evolution in the US. Another survey showed that just over 70% of people in Italy with an approximate 90% level of catholicism supported evolution. Sweden was at 80%, often cited is being in the more atheistic regions of Europe. I don't think, from looking at the statistics that it's just about religious belief alone, other factors such as level of education come into play too. In fact the statistics seem so contradictory it is hard to come to any real conclusion, let alone asset that which you do.


But at the same time that same link states the % of people who believe God created the world and man rises. Especially in the US...where 80% of people in 2005 believd in creation...which is up 15% from a decade or so earlier. The same increase is mentioned in England. And world wide creationism in one way or another is still held the dominant or majority opinion.


Okay.... until...So that's the only reason why they are wrong- until of course it might correspond to the smooth running of society? Think about the implications of that.

Yes. And smooth running is a very broad term. But indeed...think about it :)


No, Judaeo-Christian teaching says that killing is wrong- period. The fact that people do not follow this is another matter of debate.

The bible and Torah/Talmud pretty much teaches us when it is and is not ok to kill. There is no shortage of examples of that.


Only if you decide to take the Bible literally and negatively and ignore two and a half thousand years of Judaeo-Christian philosophy and thought that is still evolving today.

True...but if we have to consider that then the previous point you made would include the thoughts and interpretations of religion in which killing was justified in the first place.

Now...do keep this point...I will come back to it later,.


That's far too much of a generalisation and is not backed up by fact.

yes it is a generalisation. But it is backed up by fact. ID developed out of a need to try to reply to the increasing attacks on religion and the increasing amount of scientific evidence which challenged views and ideas of religion. ID is a counter development in order to provide legitimacy for the ideas.


So a village medicine man in deepest Amazonia is trying to dominate by use of fear? I am not denying that religion, as a lot of other things, has been used as a tool of oppression but it's not wise to adopt a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach either.

Not wise perhaps but not untrue either. And yes. There are ample studies which show "medicine man"or similar occupations is a prestigious position with a huge amount of influence in the political runnings of the tribe and often creates a dynasty and they are fully aware that what they pass of as mysticism are in fact tricks and knowledge based solutions instead of devine intervention. Ritualised in order to gain more controll or secure the standing.



Militant atheism has even been condemned by atheists, notably Paul Kurtz.

"Militant believers and dogmatic atheists are bedfellows in their psychological attitudes". Toward a new enlightenment: the philosophy of Paul Kurtz (http://books.google.com/books?id=e9OJSW5dkM8C&pg=PA250#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Paul Kurtz,Vern L. Bullough,Tim Madig.. p250.

Yes but that is because he believes there is something like the religious hypothesis. Religion and hypothesis do not match. Its a retractionary position which disproves faith and goes against the concept of God. Religion pretty much excludes the position: "o well...God MAY be possible. We see God as a hypothesis".

That entire notion is actually a position which rejects the concept of Gods and religion and especially rejects faith which is required by both.


No it's not. You asserted that the scientific evidence disproves the existence of God- I asked you which evidence- that is an assertion that you need to backup with evidence.

you need to remind me what I actually said.


It is not the argumentum ad ignorantum, that would be if I said "I don't need to prove God exists because you can't prove he doesn't"- that's not what I am saying.

No I know...but it is what religion is saying.



Where and how? It would very goyisch of me to offer any definition of that which cannot be defined. :D

Hehehe :D fine lets keep it in the abstract.




Come on- that's a strawman which I have nowhere stated.

True...but I made an indicative translation of what you were asking. It was basically a bit mockingly making a counter argument :P
In good fun though :P



No- this is where I disagree. Both theists and atheists assert things so the burden of proof is on both sides. If you are going to assert that it is "impossible" "ludicrous" "ridiculous" etc to suggest the existence of a higher power etc and then furthermore assert that scientific evidence disproves this then the onus is as much on you as it is on the theist.


The reason why I do not agree with this is because the theist assertion came first in development. And what I have been tyrying to explain is that from the explanation behavioural rules have been set which are enforced on the whole of society.

This has been done based on the acceptance of ultimate truth of the explanation for which there is no evidence.

The debate about theism and atheism is as much about being forced to accept the notion of God and the follwing of behavioural limitations on the mere fact that somebody somewhere made an assertion there is a divine being and that this can not be negated or argued against.

Now if religion would merely be an explanation without so much far fetching meanings...then YES...both are hypothesis and need to be proven. But Religion is not a hypothesis. Its considered the absolute truth which can not be denied.

And it was there first. So yes...the burden of proof to legitimise the claims religion is making and the domination it wants to assert over people and the world....pretty much requies them to provide evidence or reject any justified claims on being able to tell how the world and society should function and merely keep their faith to themselves.

It however lacks ANY evidence which is falsifiable...and therefore is not a valid notion untill they can provide these. Much less it being a valid notion which is the ultimate truth.



I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I'm saying what hard evidence is there that all religion and spirituality is based on deliberate fabrication or parody as is the case of flying spaghetti monster.

We know that from the evidence of development of religion. Basically the philosophical development you mentioned earlier.


How do we know how ancient pre-historic people conceived God? I didn't think that archaeology could dig up abstracts such as "concepts".

they were very pictographic...it isn't hard to translate them.




What is a reflection of reality? Is a reflection still not part of our quantum universe?

Let me clarify: mathematics does not claim it is reality.


The trouble is with this is that you work from the premise that the absense of God is logical and the premise against which they have to work.

It is logical. Its in fact the only logical construct. The creation of a supra natural being for which there never has been any evidence at all or indication at all is not a logical conclusion.


What would be factual evidence of God, out of interest? I'm not arguing against your fait argument, I am just pointing out that a lot of those hard-and-fast concrete premises are err.. not so hard and fast on introspection.

Well I can not tell you what would be factual evidence since I think there will not be any since its a made up concept. A location and pictures would be nice though ;)

But teh hard premisis here is that the claim taht God exists was the first claim made. So the basis for that claim needs to be based on something more than mere words. That is not the case.

As I said the entire basis of religion is: we say God exist and taht is the absolute truth. There is no other evidence....and none is required

And you know that.

Therefore God is not a hypothesis. Its considered by theists to be a fact and they require this fact to be disproved instead of proving it themselves.


Well, no they don't. Because the whole idea of faith is not about what you can prove or disprove. That's why I would denounce id/creationists as enemies of religious spirituality.

Yes and you would be right. Nevertheless they want to prove religion by finding fact.


But at the same time- atheists argue that there is definite proof against the existence of any higher power or God- all I ask it exactly what and how does it disprove this position?

Which atheists?


Err... not necessarily so. A lot of Native American spirituality was based on the whole idea of a personal, almost existentialist, notion of revelation. Ancient Celtic/druidic religion certainly did not have anything written down- and was against it by all accounts as some others.


They may have been against writing it down that does not mean it has not been written down.

Celts/Druids and tribal religious believes all had their form of religiously fuelled and enforced behaviour by the way.


And in which case, in order to be scientific you should make assertions that cannot be proven or disproved.

"Philosopher of religion Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward) has said science is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting), as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_note-26)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#cite_ref-26) See e.g. Keith Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward), Is Religion Dangerous? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous%3F) and the discussion by Alston, William P. (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K.; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 26–34. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0415263328 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0415263328).



Are you seriously going to use generalised expressions about science as a basis to debunk science?

Also by the way...a wrong interpretation about these statements. I might add.



How do you know? That statement presumes some kind of inifinte knowledge we do not have, and perhaps are not likely ever to have. This also ignores the fact that some "religious" type behaviours have indeed been observed in animals, and also suggested by palaeontological discoveries regarding homo neanderthalis


Yes...but I do not consider the neanderthals excempt from the indicative term: human

And religious type of behaviour is a description....it does not follow that they are based on religion and in fact are often considered evidence for emotional development in animals.



But religion does not concern itself really with the "how" more as to seek to ascribe the "why".
I will come back to this at a later point.


PS- I think we should both shorten our answers. :D[/QUOTE]

[ComradeMan]

I wasn't saying that this argument disproves God. I was simply showing how God as an hypothesis is absurd because it attempts to remedy unexplained complexity with further complexity. In the absence of evidence, the absurdity of this hypothesis should be enough to discredit it until further evidence is provided.

But complexity is a tricky concept to define. Can you define what complexity is in objective and empirical terms?

I'm sorry but the whole argument is based on things which are not self-evident, cannot be defined as such and therefore does not constitute a valid argument either for or against.

You also cannot demonstrate how this "hypothesis" is unreasonable or discordant in logical terms. Are you saying that it is self-evident that the existence of God is absurd?


That's fine, but if the universe appears simple to God, then he must be even more complex than the universe, which just leads back to my argument.

Well despite the fact that it's an analogy that doesn't work and I was only conceding the latter part for the sake of the argument- it still err, doesn't work. It gets more difficult from the Abrahamic perspective which proposes God as outside of spacetime, i.e. the universe and therefore not subject to its rules. It's fallacious in it's trying to use God to prove God does not exist.

[ComradeMan]

Well the word has three meanings in Dutch. I used the scholastic one. Perhaps that is different from the English. But in anycase...

Well in Italian it basically means a belief in God, gods or the transcendence of humans. I've just checked the Greek and they've come up with four primary meanings and a lot of sub-categories. :lol:


Lets say that within the debate of science vs God the people I meant when I used the word Theists were the ones arguing the postition of God.

So you mean strong theists, de facto theists or agnostic-theists? I presume you are arguing the strong theists. :confused:


Point conceded.

Hallelujah! :lol: ;)


But at the same time that same link states the % of people who believe God created the world and man rises. Especially in the US...where 80% of people in 2005 believd in creation...which is up 15% from a decade or so earlier. The same increase is mentioned in England. And world wide creationism in one way or another is still held the dominant or majority opinion.

Have you got some stats for that?


The bible and Torah/Talmud pretty much teaches us when it is and is not ok to kill. There is no shortage of examples of that.

Yes and no. But I am not trying to argue specific theological points here. I think the Golden Rule basically nullifies them anyway- and it's also a Jewish concept too.


yes it is a generalisation. But it is backed up by fact. ID developed out of a need to try to reply to the increasing attacks on religion and the increasing amount of scientific evidence which challenged views and ideas of religion. ID is a counter development in order to provide legitimacy for the ideas.

No, I'm not so sure about that. I think it has more to do with the anti-modernist stance of the southern evangelical movement in the US, and has now spread thanks to globalisation. :(


Not wise perhaps but not untrue either. And yes. There are ample studies which show "medicine man"or similar occupations is a prestigious position with a huge amount of influence in the political runnings of the tribe and often creates a dynasty and they are fully aware that what they pass of as mysticism are in fact tricks and knowledge based solutions instead of devine intervention. Ritualised in order to gain more controll or secure the standing.

Can you give some sources? The things I have seen and read about speak about tribal groups in Amazonia or New Guinea and really political runnings of the tribe just does not seem appropriate. Whatever the tribal people seem perfectly happy with this and we have also seen a great revival in a lot of the traditional spiritual pracitices of tribal peoples- like Native American spirituality. I don't see millionaire evangelical television shamans to be honest. ;)


Yes but that is because he believes there is something like the religious hypothesis. Religion and hypothesis do not match. Its a retractionary position which disproves faith and goes against the concept of God. Religion pretty much excludes the position: "o well...God MAY be possible. We see God as a hypothesis".

I think we are overlapping the magisteria here. God as a hypothesis in terms of an empirical or objective outlook from a neutral position, but of God or gods is/are not a hypothesis within their respective faiths. It would be a bit silly really, wouldn't it?


No I know...but it is what religion is saying.

Here we go again.... religion doesn't say things any more than communism does, or science does, or football does or any other arbitrary reification of abstracts.


they were very pictographic...it isn't hard to translate them.

*cough"- one of the biggest flops was the misinterpretation of Ancient European matriarchical mother god societies based on statuettes that was basically ..... wrong.


Let me clarify: mathematics does not claim it is reality.

This is another philosophical nightmare. It does "work" in reality though doesn't it?


It is logical. Its in fact the only logical construct. The creation of a supra natural being for which there never has been any evidence at all or indication at all is not a logical conclusion.

It is not logical at all. The only logical position is the impartial agnostic- in an objective and logical debate. Because your premise already presumes something that it cannot claim to be self-evident in that a supernatural being was indeed fabricated.


Well I can not tell you what would be factual evidence since I think there will not be any since its a made up concept. A location and pictures would be nice though ;)

Oh dear. So whilst denigrating the poor old theist for not having evidence to back his or her claims you cannot actually state what evidence you would need and basically say you wouldn't believe it anyway. Isn't that a guilty before tried verdict?


But teh hard premisis here is that the claim taht God exists was the first claim made. So the basis for that claim needs to be based on something more than mere words. That is not the case.

How do you know? Atheists have been around since religion has been around- this can be seen in the Vedas, the Psalms, in a sense in Ancient Egypt with Atenism (although it's not really the same I admit) and so on.


Are you seriously going to use generalised expressions about science as a basis to debunk science?

But it's not debunking science- it's attacking a mentality or ethos that exists within science.


Also by the way...a wrong interpretation about these statements. I might add.

What is the correct interpretation then?


Yes...but I do not consider the neanderthals excempt from the indicative term: human

Well, if they had speech and grave rites etc they probably had some "religion"- but we cannot know this.


And religious type of behaviour is a description....it does not follow that they are based on religion and in fact are often considered evidence for emotional development in animals.

But it does not follow that they are not based on religion either. Again- you cannot allow doubts into absolutes when it's one thing and exclude them when it's another.

I've not addressed all of the points as the post was already long but have focused on the main ones and the ones that haven't already (perhaps) been tackled.

[Nox]

Given the extremely ridiculous number of contradictions in the Bible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is far more likely to exist than God.

[ComradeMan]

Given the extremely ridiculous number of contradictions in the Bible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is far more likely to exist than God.

So because of x then y is more probable than z?
:laugh:
Care to elaborate? And even if your flawed premises were valid, it doesn't invalidate God's existence. Imagine telling a Hindu that because the Bible is wrong Brahman doesn't exist.

[Zealot]

So your original claim is untrue. If your going to pick something that's "unfalsifiable" at least pick something that is indeed unfalsifiable.

No, my story of an invisible crocodile throwing rocks still stands. It hasn't been disproved, the photo was a joke but you took it quite seriously, lol.


I also asked you, amongst others, what evidence is there that absolutely refutes the existence of a higher intelligence/god? And of course it's a pretty damn solid argument that agnosticism is logically sounder than atheism- unless you won't to throw logic out of the window.

And i'll ask the same, where's the evidence to absolutely refute the crocogod


The trouble with the "crocogod" analogy is by your own admission it's absurd- you have yet to demonstrate why others' arguments are absurd in the same way. I've given you "modus tollens", evidence of absence, but you haven't been able to do the same. What it seems to be is arguing from incredulity, well that doesn't work as a logical demonstration.

I feel as though I'm repeating myself here. Your god sounds just as absurd to an atheist as santa and the tooth fairy. It's amusing to me trying to imagine a big daddy in the sky sitting in his room somewhere thinking up his next creation and what women he's going to impregnate to raise a messiah that will tell everyone about how so awesome the sky god is. A god that is so incompetent at creating things that 99% of his living creations are now extinct, unless he's a tyrannical angry little kid in which case there would be no point believing in him anyway. On top of that, an unfalsifiable claim is absurd, regardless of all the humorous details that have been added.


so obviously theism does not necessarily require empirical evidence at all.

Now that is truly absurd.


Is someone were to therefore posit the question- okay, what do you believe? How would you answer? (excluding negatives).

Why do we have to believe anything? That's what atheism is, non-belief.


No one has yet told me what would be accepted as evidence for the existence of god despite many saying that no such evidence exists.

Give me some evidence then.

[Caj]

But complexity is a tricky concept to define.

Yes, but obviously conscious beings such as God are far more complex than unconscious, maximum-entropy clumps of matter such as the "primordial atom" that gave rise to the Big Bang. In the absence of evidence, it is acceptable to reject the God-hypothesis because it further complicates the problem it attempts to resolve. Here's an analogy: Let's take another unsolved problem in science -- what exactly is dark matter? My hypothesis is that dark matter is a conscious entity with an entropy fetish that accelerates the expansion of the universe with its supernatural powers for its own pleasure. Obviously this hypothesis is absurd, and in the absence of evidence it can be discarded unless further evidence is provided to deem it more probable. Do you truly believe we should consider the existence and non-existence of this dark matter being as equiprobable? If not, then why do you consider it differently with God?

[ComradeMan]

...

Sorry, doesn't work. The universe did not start from an "atom" to begin with it's metaphorical- the whole universe was concentrated for want of the better word into a tiny "ball" of everthing and then started to expand. Everything that exists now, existed then in terms of matter and energy.

You keep using the word "absurd" and saying why things are "obvious" etc without logically, and empirically, demonstrating how they are discordant.

[ComradeMan]

No, my story of an invisible crocodile throwing rocks still stands. It hasn't been disproved, the photo was a joke but you took it quite seriously, lol.

Well, err... no. It has. In a theoretical sense you were asked to provide evidence, you did and it was proven to be otherwise. Sorry- but that's a pretty lame argument.


And i'll ask the same, where's the evidence to absolutely refute the crocogod

But why should I have to refute something that I have neither suggested, defended or argued for?


I feel as though I'm repeating myself here. Your god sounds just as absurd to an atheist as santa and the tooth fairy.

Ah, so now you are making your argument subjective- it's just as absurd (despite not being able to demonstrate why) to an atheist- but this is not a premise you can use in a logical argument.


It's amusing to me trying to imagine a big daddy in the sky sitting in his room somewhere thinking up his next creation and what women he's going to impregnate to raise a messiah that will tell everyone about how so awesome the sky god is. A god that is so incompetent at creating things that 99% of his living creations are now extinct, unless he's a tyrannical angry little kid in which case there would be no point believing in him anyway. On top of that, an unfalsifiable claim is absurd, regardless of all the humorous details that have been added.

But you haven't really described what people believe in, have you? Your strawman charicature does not refute the existence of God but only (perhaps) a charicature of how you choose to interpret the idea.

Why would God be incompetent? Extinction is part of nature--- sorry, that's a lame argument too.

You can't argue your position logically.


Why do we have to believe anything? That's what atheism is, non-belief.

I didn't ask you that question. I asked you what do you believe. Are you telling me you believe nothing?


Give me some evidence then.

Well, that's interesting- but first we'll have to see what kind of evidence we would accept as being valid evidence.

[Caj]

Sorry, doesn't work.

Great argument. :rolleyes:


The universe did not start from an "atom" to begin with it's metaphorical- the whole universe was concentrated for want of the better word into a tiny "ball" of everthing and then started to expand. Everything that exists now, existed then in terms of matter and energy.

I realize that it wasn't literally an atom, but it is often referred to as the "primordial atom." It also wasn't a ball. a ball is a low-entropy structure. The "primordial atom" had maximum-entropy. This is all irrelevant, though. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a ball or an atom or a shoe or whatever. The point is that it was less complicated than any conscious agent.


You keep using the word "absurd" and saying why things are "obvious" etc without logically, and empirically, demonstrating how they are discordant.

Yes, because do I really need to fucking explain to you in logical terms how a conscious being is more complicated than a clump of matter?! You are guilty of the same thing, by the way. You didn't logically refute my analogy, you simply asserted that it "doesn't work." You also didn't demonstrate in logical terms how the Crockoduck-hypthoesis is absurd -- you merely asserted it.

[Nox]

Comrade answer this. All of this.

My hypothesis is that dark matter is a conscious entity with an entropy fetish that accelerates the expansion of the universe with its supernatural powers for its own pleasure. Obviously this hypothesis is absurd, and in the absence of evidence it can be discarded unless further evidence is provided to deem it more probable. Do you truly believe we should consider the existence and non-existence of this dark matter being as equiprobable? If not, then why do you consider it differently with God?

[ComradeMan]

I realize that it wasn't literally an atom, but it is often referred to as the "primordial atom." It also wasn't a ball. a ball is a low-entropy structure. The "primordial atom" had maximum-entropy. This is all irrelevant, though. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a ball or an atom or a shoe or whatever. The point is that it was less complicated than any conscious agent.

"Ball" in inverted commas. But the point is that you can't actually explain was complex/complicated means in terms of your example.

How complicated is a conscious agent?


Yes, because do I really need to fucking explain to you in logical terms how a conscious being is more complicated than a clump of matter?!

Yes, please do explain as it's vital to the discussion. Could you also define consciousness please?


You are guilty of the same thing, by the way. You didn't logically refute my analogy, you simply asserted that it "doesn't work." You also didn't demonstrate in logical terms how the Crockoduck-hypthoesis is absurd -- you merely asserted it.

It's self-evident because you presented it as an absurd argument in the first place. Therefore you need to show how its logical absurdity is as absurd as the God hypothesis- the absurdity of which you cannot or will not demonstrate logically.


Comrade answer this. All of this. My hypothesis is that dark matter is a conscious entity with an entropy fetish that accelerates the expansion of the universe with its supernatural powers for its own pleasure. Obviously this hypothesis is absurd, and in the absence of evidence it can be discarded unless further evidence is provided to deem it more probable. Do you truly believe we should consider the existence and non-existence of this dark matter being as equiprobable? If not, then why do you consider it differently with God?

Well firstly it's a hypothesis and that entails it's not a theory but let's have a look anyway. Could you explain what a "conscious entity" is and what an "entropy fetish" is? Could you also demonstrate logically why this is absurd.

No matter how right you think you are, you can't build up logical arguments on weak premises.

[Revolution starts with U]

Can you describe what a "God" is? Is it a coherent phenomenon? The point of science is to say "what is happening," is God an adequate descriptor of what is happening?

[ComradeMan]

Can you describe what a "God" is? Is it a coherent phenomenon? The point of science is to say "what is happening," is God an adequate descriptor of what is happening?

First answer my questions before asking....

but seeing as you asked, if we take the Hebrew concept of

אהיה אשר אהיה

then we basically have the idea of existence itself and in the Zohar we have the concept of the Ein Sof or "infinite" that exists at the beginning/end (?) of all. I'm sure La Sombra can explain this better however. The concept is similar to Parabrahman concepts in Vedic religion- specifically Vedanta.

[Caj]

"Ball" in inverted commas.

Notice that "primordial atom" was too.


How complicated is a conscious agent?

There are no agreed-upon units for the measurment of complexity of which I know. (This doesn't mean that we can't conclude that certain things are more complex than others.)


Yes, please do explain as it's vital to the discussion. Could you also define consciousness please?

Consciousness (noun) - subjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity); awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness); the ability to experience feelings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling); wakefulness; having a sense of selfhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self); or the executive control system of the mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Complexity (noun) - the state of containing many parts in an intricate arrangement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

With what we currently know about consciousness, we have reason to believe that the existence of consciousness presupposes the existence of a complex system (i.e. a system containing many parts in an intricate arrangement). This is true in the case of all animals that we currently know to be conscious. Even the most simple of these complex systems is far more complicated (i.e. having more parts in an intricate arrangement) than the "primordial atom" that gave rise to the Big Bang. If you want to falsify my claim that consciousness presupposes a complex system, show me an example of consciousness that isn't dependent on the existence of a complex system.


It's self-evident because you presented it as an absurd argument in the first place. Therefore you need to show how its logical absurdity is as absurd as the God hypothesis- the absurdity of which you cannot or will not demonstrate logically.

I already demonstrated the absurdity of the God-hypothesis logically: Once again, the God-hypothesis presupposes that the universe is too complicated to have either 1) emerged naturally, or 2) always existed. To remedy this problem, the God-hypothesis proposes a creator more complicated than its own creation. I've stated this several times now.


Well firstly it's a hypothesis and that entails it's not a theory but let's have a look anyway. Could you explain what a "conscious entity" is and what an "entropy fetish" is? Could you also demonstrate logically why this is absurd.

What does it not being a theory have to do with anything? God is also an hypothesis and not a theory.

conscious entity (noun) - an entity that possesses consciousness [see defintion for consciousness above]

entropic fetishism (noun) - the quality of attaining progressively greater pleasure in response to the ongoing increase of entropy in the universe

It is absurd because there is no reason to propose a supernatural and conscious explanation when a material and unconscious explanation may suffice. This hypothesis, like the God-hypothesis, just further complicates the matter and should be discarded until further evidence is presented.

[ComradeMan]

There are no agreed-upon units for the measurment of complexity of which I know. (This doesn't mean that we can't conclude that certain things are more complex than others.)

Where did you study mathematics? If we had no measures we'd have a great level of difficulty in actually measuring things wouldn't we? Now, complexity is not even like "length" or "weight" which I could justifiably estimate to be more or less without recourse to a formal system of measurements. Unless you can define complexity and what constitutes something as being more complex than another and how this can be defined logically then the whole argument from/to complexity- for or against is basically hot air.


Consciousness (noun) - subjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity); awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness); the ability to experience feelings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling); wakefulness; having a sense of selfhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self); or the executive control system of the mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness)Complexity (noun) - the state of containing many parts in an intricate arrangement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

Nice try- but if we investigate the words in the definition- I notice you missed out the bit "Despite the difficulty of definition" and the following part of the definition. ;):laugh:


With what we currently know about consciousness, we have reason to believe that the existence of consciousness presupposes the existence of a complex system (i.e. a system containing many parts in an intricate arrangement). This is true in the case of all animals that we currently know to be conscious. Even the most simple of these complex systems is far more complicated (i.e. having more parts in an intricate arrangement) than the "primordial atom" that gave rise to the Big Bang. If you want to falsify my claim that consciousness presupposes a complex system, show me an example of consciousness that isn't dependent on the existence of a complex system.

I'm not going to attempt to falsify anything until you can tell me what complexity is.

All of the universe in it's current complexity was contained in the "primordial atom" - we haven't gained or lost we have just changed.


I already demonstrated the absurdity of the God-hypothesis logically: Once again, the God-hypothesis presupposes that the universe is too complicated to have either 1) emerged naturally, or 2) always existed. To remedy this problem, the God-hypothesis proposes a creator more complicated than its own creation. I've stated this several times now.

But we cannot define complex/complicated....

The other wider problem is that because x is false doen's mean why is absurd.

If I proposed a hypothesis on gravity that was wrong or flawed would it nullify the validity of gravity?


What does it not being a theory have to do with anything? God is also an hypothesis and not a theory. conscious entity (noun) - an entity that possesses consciousness [see defintion for consciousness above]: entropic fetishism (noun) - the quality of attaining progressively greater pleasure in response to the ongoing increase of entropy in the universe

Okay- so now you have defined your terms- although I am not sure about the actual use and authenticity of entropic fetishism, I would like to ask you what evidence you have of your assertion.


It is absurd because there is no reason to propose a supernatural and conscious explanation when a material and unconscious explanation may suffice. This hypothesis, like the God-hypothesis, just further complicates the matter and should be discarded until further evidence is presented.

A couple of questions/points----

1) Why is it absurd?
2) "may suffice" leaves the door open itself to not being absolute and thus suggests that (1) might not be absurd either.

3) Why does god etc have to be supernatural? Unless of course we follow the line that "God" is outside the observable universe, but again there appears to be a lot of scientific stuff we cannot observe directly but only deduce so is that supernatural too? And supposing "God" were bigger than the universe but part of a bigger multiverse and so on- would that not be natural? (I appreciate this is not a typical argument by any means).

---

Now, I think the basic problem here is that you would argue there is no evidence to suppose God's existence, if there were- you'd believe, woudln't you? So I ask you here, what evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence?

[Nox]

there is no evidence to suppose God's existence

Then it's highly illogical to believe that he exists!!!

[Caj]

Nice try- but if we investigate the words in the definition- I notice you missed out the bit "Despite the difficulty of definition" and the following part of the definition. ;):laugh:

The definition of consciousness that I posted is the definition I am using. It is irrelevant whether or not there is "difficulty of definition" outside the confines of this discussion.


I'm not going to attempt to falsify anything until you can tell me what complexity is.

I've already defined complexity. Here is the definition of a "complex system" -- a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.
By this definition, the "primordial atom" does not fit the definition of a complex system because it exibits no properties not obvious from its individual part. (The entire "primordial atom" would be considered a "part" in this context.) Even though I have not proposed any units for the measurement of complexity, the definition of a complex system above suffices to distinguish between the complexity of extraordinarily simple things like disorganized (maximum-entropy) clumps of matter such as the "primordial atom" and extraordinarily complex things such as the systems that produce conscious experience.


All of the universe in it's current complexity was contained in the "primordial atom" - we haven't gained or lost we have just changed.

Just because all of the matter that exists in the universe (excluding the matter created by quantum fluctuations) existed in the "primordial atom," doesn't mean that that matter hasn't changed in many different respects (e.g. entropy, complexity, et cetera). Using the definition of a complex system above, many areas of the universe have changed drastically in complexity.


If I proposed a hypothesis on gravity that was wrong or flawed would it nullify the validity of gravity?

No, it wouldn't. In the same way, the flaw of the God-hypothesis does not nullify the validity of cosmogony. It doesn't even nullify the existence of God, for that matter. A flawed hypothesis doesn't nullify anything if it isn't falsified, it should just be discarded as improbable until further evidence is provided. The more the discarded hypothesis complicates the issue it attempts to resolve, the more improbable it should be considered.


Okay- so now you have defined your terms- although I am not sure about the actual use and authenticity of entropic fetishism, I would like to ask you what evidence you have of your assertion.

None, just like you have no evidence for the God-hypothesis. Are you willing to consider the existence and non-existence of this conscious dark matter entity as equiprobable?


1) Why is it absurd?

It is an absurd hypothesis because it further complicates the issue it attempts to resolve. Unless there is evidence for it, it should be discarded in favor of more simple hypotheses. If all of these simple hypotheses are falsified, the discarded hypothesis can be reconsidered -- this generally doesn't happen, especially concerning an hypothesis like the one above or like the God-hypothesis that complicates the matter to such an exterme degree. (This is called Occam's Razor, by the way.)


2) "may suffice" leaves the door open itself to not being absolute and thus suggests that (1) might not be absurd either.

Simpler hypotheses may (and most likely will) suffice. The dark matter hypothesis that I proposed is absurd because it further complicates the matter. If all of the simpler hypotheses are falsified (unlikely), then the hypothesis can be reconsidered.


3) Why does god etc have to be supernatural? Unless of course we follow the line that "God" is outside the observable universe, but again there appears to be a lot of scientific stuff we cannot observe directly but only deduce so is that supernatural too? And supposing "God" were bigger than the universe but part of a bigger multiverse and so on- would that not be natural? (I appreciate this is not a typical argument by any means).

If the being that supposedly created the universe wasn't supernatural it wouldn't be God by the definition I am using. I would still consider the existence of this "natural (though still conscious?) God" as improbable, because it further complicates the issue it attempts to resolve. If God was part of a multiverse, would there be another god that created the multiverse?


Now, I think the basic problem here is that you would argue there is no evidence to suppose God's existence, if there were- you'd believe, woudln't you? So I ask you here, what evidence would you accept as proof of God's existence?

If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of God to render his existence probable, I would believe. (By "believe" I mean "accept the existence of." I wouldn't worship him.) What definition of "God" are you using? The definition I am using is something along the lines of "a conscious, supernatural being that created the universe/multiverse/omniverse."

[ComradeMan]

The definition of consciousness that I posted is the definition I am using. It is irrelevant whether or not there is "difficulty of definition" outside the confines of this discussion.

But you have to demonstrate that your definition is reasonable in the discussion, otherwise we can't have one.




I've already defined complexity. Here is the definition of a "complex system" -- a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.

So an atom could be complex by that definition in as much as the human nervous system. The idea of complex doesn't work because it becomes subjective.


By this definition, the "primordial atom" does not fit the definition of a complex system because it exibits no properties not obvious from its individual part. (The entire "primordial atom" would be considered a "part" in this context.) Even though I have not proposed any units for the measurement of complexity, the definition of a complex system above suffices to distinguish between the complexity of extraordinarily simple things like disorganized (maximum-entropy) clumps of matter such as the "primordial atom" and extraordinarily complex things such as the systems that produce conscious experience.

Can you describe the "primordial atom"- I'd say that something the size of a tennis ball that contained the entire universe was quite amazing. But still you can't get around the fact that all that materially exists now existed then, albeit in a different form so to speak. The primordial atom was not a "clump of matter" it was rather the "universe concentrated".


Just because all of the matter that exists in the universe (excluding the matter created by quantum fluctuations) existed in the "primordial atom," doesn't mean that that matter hasn't changed in many different respects (e.g. entropy, complexity, et cetera). Using the definition of a complex system above, many areas of the universe have changed drastically in complexity.

You still haven't said why it's complex or defined complexity. All you've said is that it changed.


No, it wouldn't. In the same way, the flaw of the God-hypothesis does not nullify the validity of cosmogony. It doesn't even nullify the existence of God, for that matter. A flawed hypothesis doesn't nullify anything if it isn't falsified, it should just be discarded as improbable until further evidence is provided. The more the discarded hypothesis complicates the issue it attempts to resolve, the more improbable it should be considered.

In the same way the flawed God hypothesis then cannot be used to nullify God.


None, just like you have no evidence for the God-hypothesis. Are you willing to consider the existence and non-existence of this conscious dark matter entity as equiprobable?

But... but.... I wasn't presenting the God hypothesis and/or argument from complexity in the first place. You can't force your flawed argument on another person and then use it against them.


It is an absurd hypothesis because it further complicates the issue it attempts to resolve. Unless there is evidence for it, it should be discarded in favor of more simple hypotheses. If all of these simple hypotheses are falsified, the discarded hypothesis can be reconsidered -- this generally doesn't happen, especially concerning an hypothesis like the one above or like the God-hypothesis that complicates the matter to such an exterme degree. (This is called Occam's Razor, by the way.)

But you can't really define complexity and furthermore just because the solution to a problem may be "complex" doesn't de facto mean that that solution is de facto fallacious or invalid. It's no use citing Ockham's razor either because you could then argue that the "God did it" hypothesis was far simpler than the theories of evolutionary biology. That is, of course, if you are just looking at how complex or simple hypotheses are- notwithstanding the fact that we can't seem to define what complex is.



Simpler hypotheses may (and most likely will) suffice. The dark matter hypothesis that I proposed is absurd because it further complicates the matter. If all of the simpler hypotheses are falsified (unlikely), then the hypothesis can be reconsidered.

You're actually missing the point of Ockham's razor here. It's not just the simplest theory but also the theory that is more likely to be correct that's important too. There are also plenty of anti-razors- see Leibniz.


If the being that supposedly created the universe wasn't supernatural it wouldn't be God by the definition I am using. I would still consider the existence of this "natural (though still conscious?) God" as improbable, because it further complicates the issue it attempts to resolve. If God was part of a multiverse, would there be another god that created the multiverse?

Ah... by the definition that you are using. But is your definition "the" definition- otherwise you're just knocking down your own strawman.


If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of God to render his existence probable, I would believe. (By "believe" I mean "accept the existence of." I wouldn't worship him.) What definition of "God" are you using? The definition I am using is something along the lines of "a conscious, supernatural being that created the universe/multiverse/omniverse."

Okay.... what would be, for you, sufficient evidence for the existence of God? What would count as evidence for the existence of God? I've asked this several times in the thread but no one seems to want to respond to this question.

[Caj]

But you have to demonstrate that your definition is reasonable in the discussion, otherwise we can't have one.

If you don't accept the definition as reasonable in the discussion, then you can propose a different one.


Can you describe the "primordial atom"- I'd say that something the size of a tennis ball that contained the entire universe was quite amazing. But still you can't get around the fact that all that materially exists now existed then, albeit in a different form so to speak. The primordial atom was not a "clump of matter" it was rather the "universe concentrated".

It was the "universe concentrated" into a "clump of matter." It had no structure whatsoever (maximum-entropy) and didn't resemble the universe in any way. The structures that would eventually form galaxies formed after the Big Bang from quantum and entropic fluctuations in the early universe.


In the same way the flawed God hypothesis then cannot be used to nullify God.

. . . which is precisely what I said.


just because the solution to a problem may be "complex" doesn't de facto mean that that solution is de facto fallacious or invalid. It's no use citing Ockham's razor either because you could then argue that the "God did it" hypothesis was far simpler than the theories of evolutionary biology. That is, of course, if you are just looking at how complex or simple hypotheses are- notwithstanding the fact that we can't seem to define what complex is.

I never said that an hypothesis that leads to further complications "is de facto fallacious or invalid." What I said, is that an hypothesis that leads to further complications should be discarded in favor of other hypotheses until further evidence is provided. Occam's Razor could not be used to argue "God did it" instead of the evolutionary biological explanation for biological change for two reasons: 1) the evolutionary biological explanation (theory of evolution by natural selection) has substantial evidence (unlike the "God did it"-hypothesis), and 2) the "God did it"-hypothesis is not a simpler hypothesis. It raises more questions than it resolves.


You're actually missing the point of Ockham's razor here. It's not just the simplest theory but also the theory that is more likely to be correct that's important too.

In the absense of evidence, simpler hypotheses tend to be correct more often that hypotheses that raise more questions than they resolve.


Ah... by the definition that you are using. But is your definition "the" definition- otherwise you're just knocking down your own strawman.

I think the definition I am using is perfectly reasonable. It certainly isn't a strawman. If you don't like it, propose your own definition.


Okay.... what would be, for you, sufficient evidence for the existence of God? What would count as evidence for the existence of God? I've asked this several times in the thread but no one seems to want to respond to this question.

I haven't answered this question yet because I don't know what definition of God you are using.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

If God exists, why doesn't he save us from wars crimes and other stuff?:sleep:

[Engel]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.
Greetings Comrade!

Ok the abiogenesis part isn't really relevant to the actual question. Putting faith in a religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever is a personal choice and a person either does it or they don't. I understand many people are born in tho religion but in most modern societies we get a choice to follow religion or now. I am an atheist because based on what I see in the world I have concluded that there is no god. At the same time I can't objectively prove god isn't real just as a theist can't prove he is real. At the end of the day it is a personal matter and you get to chose what you believe.

[Revolution starts with U]

First answer my questions before asking....

but seeing as you asked, if we take the Hebrew concept of

אהיה אשר אהיה

then we basically have the idea of existence itself and in the Zohar we have the concept of the Ein Sof or "infinite" that exists at the beginning/end (?) of all. I'm sure La Sombra can explain this better however. The concept is similar to Parabrahman concepts in Vedic religion- specifically Vedanta.

Im sure it will be some mumbo jumbo about man shepard and the light some ancient hippy thought up after eating moldy bread. Oh ya, the LOGOS burst forth and created the elements, got ya.
Interestingly enough, I am working on a paper on how "Hermes Trismegistus" or the person/people he is supposed to represent fairly accurately represents standard Big Bang cosmology if you are (very?) liberal with the wording (think of elements more as energies, less as particles).
But my thesis will be how this just, assuming he had a cosmic vision (a very big assumption), illustrates the need for a more scientific rigor than "I experienced, or was told" or whatever your local prophet and/or false huckster is trying to sell you.

[citizen of industry]

What is the criticism of the origin of life in "primordial soup" and abiogenesis? I wikied it and came up with this problem: "The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known."

Seems like looking for how the first nucleic acids came about would be more productive than searching for evidence of a deity or placing faith in one simply because its non-existence can't be disproven.

[ComradeMan]

It was the "universe concentrated" into a "clump of matter." It had no structure whatsoever (maximum-entropy) and didn't resemble the universe in any way. The structures that would eventually form galaxies formed after the Big Bang from quantum and entropic fluctuations in the early universe.

You're not really describing the Big Bang here. Let's get specific. Matter formed as the universe began too "cool down" after the rapid "expansion event". At "point zero" of the Big Bang there was so much energy "concentrated" in the universe that matter could not form/have formed. The expansion from a denser to a less dense state and the cooling down also resulted in the four fources, i.e. gravity, electromagnetism and strong/weak nuclear forces. So to describe the universe as a "clump of matter" is completely wrong according to our current theory- there was no matter as such. The problem with the Big Bang is the closer we get to what I call "point zero" the harder it gets to apply our current laws of physics.


I never said that an hypothesis that leads to further complications "is de facto fallacious or invalid." What I said, is that an hypothesis that leads to further complications should be discarded in favor of other hypotheses until further evidence is provided. Occam's Razor could not be used to argue "God did it" instead of the evolutionary biological explanation for biological change for two reasons: 1) the evolutionary biological explanation (theory of evolution by natural selection) has substantial evidence (unlike the "God did it"-hypothesis), and 2) the "God did it"-hypothesis is not a simpler hypothesis. It raises more questions than it resolves.

Ockham's razor neither validates nor invalidates and argument per se.


In the absense of evidence, simpler hypotheses tend to be correct more often that hypotheses that raise more questions than they resolve.

Can you demonstrate that? Ockham's razor does not imply the simpler hypotheses tend to be (more) correct. It merely recommends the approach from a methodological point of view. There are currently accepted scientific theories there were indeed once rejected through the application of the razor.


entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (allegedly)

Beyond necessity.....

I think the definition I am using is perfectly reasonable. It certainly isn't a strawman. If you don't like it, propose your own definition.


I haven't answered this question yet because I don't know what definition of God you are using.

Okay, it's difficult I admit, but expand it to a "supernatural conscious entity" for argument's sake.


Im sure it will be some mumbo jumbo about man shepard and the light some ancient hippy thought up after eating moldy bread. Oh ya, the LOGOS burst forth and created the elements, got ya.

This is where you fail because instead of exploring the ideas you damn them outright because you think they are mumbo jumbo etc....


ut my thesis will be how this just, assuming he had a cosmic vision (a very big assumption), illustrates the need for a more scientific rigor than "I experienced, or was told" or whatever your local prophet and/or false huckster is trying to sell you.

I'd think again before you hand that thesis in because it seems you have already decided the conclusion and may be accused of confirmational bias throughout.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is where you fail because instead of exploring the ideas you damn them outright because you think they are mumbo jumbo etc....



I'd think again before you hand that thesis in because it seems you have already decided the conclusion and may be accused of confirmational bias throughout.

1) Youve got me all wrong. I am definietly open to exploring it... it just always turns out to be mumbo jumbo.

2) I definitely dont need YOU nor know just what kind of angel YOU think you are to tell me when I do or dont fail ;)

Humble yourself before God, and as I and you are made of Gods creation, humble yourself before me! :tt1:

[ComradeMan]

1) Youve got me all wrong. I am definietly open to exploring it... it just always turns out to be mumbo jumbo.

2) I definitely dont need YOU nor know just what kind of angel YOU think you are to tell me when I do or dont fail ;)
:tt1:
Humble yourself before God, and as I and you are made of Gods creation, humble yourself before me!

All your doing is supercilious trolling in this thread- throwing up charicature strawmen and acting with righteous indignation at this being pointed out to you.

The use of the word mumbo jumbo also has racist undertones too (I don't think that's your reason for using it by the way) and is best avoided. Now if you're using the word in the sense of something silly and meaningless then the onus is on you to explain why those things are silly and meaningless.

If your argument fails, it fails- deal with it- or defend it without getting all "personal".

[RGacky3]

mumbo jumbo also has racist undertones

Don't .... Seriously .....

[Zealot]

Well, err... no. It has. In a theoretical sense you were asked to provide evidence, you did and it was proven to be otherwise. Sorry- but that's a pretty lame argument.

You refuted a joke, well well well, congrats.


But why should I have to refute something that I have neither suggested, defended or argued for?

I'm arguing it, now the question is, are you an agnostic regarding the Almighty Crocogod? the flying spaghetti monster?


Ah, so now you are making your argument subjective- it's just as absurd (despite not being able to demonstrate why) to an atheist- but this is not a premise you can use in a logical argument.

We've said it over and over and over and over again. It's absurd to assert an unfalsifiable claim and as many others have pointed out you are explaining complexity by asserting something even more complex. You've said that god invented space/time and therefore is not subject to scrutiny regarding his beginnings and so the god argument is essentially explaining one mystery with another mystery, which in the end gets us nowhere.


But you haven't really described what people believe in, have you? Your strawman charicature does not refute the existence of God but only (perhaps) a charicature of how you choose to interpret the idea.

In fact, this is how the bible and quran appears to me and most atheists. A god who gets all worked up when we worship another god, eat the wrong animal, marry into the wrong tribe and then proceeds to threaten us with eternal hellfire. His prime purpose for sending prophets is so that they can tell us how kewl and awesome god is. I apologize if you don't belong to any abrahamic religion, but you have spoken favorably of them and their doctrines in the past and it's their view that is more familiar with me and most people.


Why would God be incompetent? Extinction is part of nature--- sorry, that's a lame argument too.

You can't argue your position logically.

How is it lame? He has created a world with botched designs, natural disasters, cosmic failures and then you want to tell me it's nature? It may be that nature is god's creativity at work, or should I say, a very poor attempt at it.



I didn't ask you that question. I asked you what do you believe. Are you telling me you believe nothing?

This is like asking a vegetarian what type of meat he eats. I believe a lot of things and god isn't one of them


Well, that's interesting- but first we'll have to see what kind of evidence we would accept as being valid evidence.

Well first we need to know how you define your god. Is he all-powerful, all-knowing, supreme creator? Only then can I start asking those types of questions, because if he was a supreme architect I would ask for evidence that creation is all-perfect.

[ComradeMan]

You refuted a joke, well well well, congrats.
I'm arguing it, now the question is, are you an agnostic regarding the Almighty Crocogod? the flying spaghetti monster?

You've just refuted your own argument against theists by admitting your argument is a joke, as is the fsm, whereas they do not present theirs as a joke. Congrats.


We've said it over and over and over and over again. It's absurd to assert an unfalsifiable claim and as many others have pointed out you are explaining complexity by asserting something even more complex. You've said that god invented space/time and therefore is not subject to scrutiny regarding his beginnings and so the god argument is essentially explaining one mystery with another mystery, which in the end gets us nowhere.

But demonstrate something logically as absurd and also demonstrate what complexity is, logically. Also demonstrate how the argument from complexity is the "only" argument a theist might present and also, even in the case that the argument is wrong- providing we can actually establish some workable premises- that this invalidates theism in general.

I said that some theists would argue that "God" is outside of the constraints of spacetime which makes it difficult to apply spacetime constraints to "God"- analogous to how science struggles with Big Bang physics as it nears "point zero".


In fact, this is how the bible and quran appears to me and most atheists. A god who gets all worked up when we worship another god, eat the wrong animal, marry into the wrong tribe and then proceeds to threaten us with eternal hellfire. His prime purpose for sending prophets is so that they can tell us how kewl and awesome god is. I apologize if you don't belong to any abrahamic religion, but you have spoken favorably of them and their doctrines in the past and it's their view that is more familiar with me and most people.

But an argument against Abrahamic religions, as you note, is not really an argument against theism in its entirety.


How is it lame? He has created a world with botched designs, natural disasters, cosmic failures and then you want to tell me it's nature? It may be that nature is god's creativity at work, or should I say, a very poor attempt at it.

None of that is valid from a scientific point of view. What are these botched designs? Natural disasters- such as what? They're just your value judgements from an anthropomorphic perspective.


This is like asking a vegetarian what type of meat he eats. I believe a lot of things and god isn't one of them

What though? You can only answe with a negative.


Well first we need to know how you define your god. Is he all-powerful, all-knowing, supreme creator? Only then can I start asking those types of questions, because if he was a supreme architect I would ask for evidence that creation is all-perfect.

It is that it is. :)

Define perfect- non-subjectively.

[Revolution starts with U]

All your doing is supercilious trolling in this thread- throwing up charicature strawmen and acting with righteous indignation at this being pointed out to you.
My position is that, in my experience, any religious truth as usually lost in a raging sea of charlatans and false prophets. This isn't so much a strawman, as it is anecdotal.


The use of the word mumbo jumbo also has racist undertones too (I don't think that's your reason for using it by the way) and is best avoided.
But as long as we're talking about fallacys, this one is called "poisoning the well."

Now if you're using the word in the sense of something silly and meaningless then the onus is on you to explain why those things are silly and meaningless.

It's almost impossible that the world flooded.
Xenu is strange, even for a narrative... let alone a description of history.
Krishna sounds more like a warmongering alien than any kind of heroic deity.

If your argument fails, it fails- deal with it- or defend it without getting all "personal".
:lol: Where did I get personal? Take a chill pill, brosephus. Just because I don't consider you an authority, doesn't mean anything personal. :cool:

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't expect Comrademan to give you "his" definition" of God, other than vague illusions to existence. Because he knows as soon as he moves past that he moves into an easily destroyed fallacy.
"He is to us as we are to ants, maybe we just don't understand" and "it is existence-ish" both stop scientific inquiry dead in their tracks. I am no fan of "we will never know."

[ComradeMan]

My position is that, in my experience, any religious truth as usually lost in a raging sea of charlatans and false prophets. This isn't so much a strawman, as it is anecdotal.

Aha, so you are willing to concede the possibility of a religious truth? What would be a religious truth for you?


But as long as we're talking about fallacys, this one is called "poisoning the well."

No it isn't I'm afraid, for two reasons 1) I didn't use it to invalidate your argument as such 2) I said I was sure you didn't mean it that way.

I just think it's a bit of contemptuous word with racist undertones and was warning you about it- that's all.


It's almost impossible that the world flooded. Xenu is strange, even for a narrative... let alone a description of history. Krishna sounds more like a warmongering alien than any kind of heroic deity.

Eh? The flood myth has parellel's all over the world- but to an observer of the time it would have certainly seems like the world had flooded given that the "world" is what the observer knew. Xenu... that's scientology? Don't know enough about it to comment. Krishna- is difficult because first we would have to decide which school of thought in the Dharmic/Vedic religious and philosophical traditions we were going to analyse.


:lol: Where did I get personal? Take a chill pill, brosephus. Just because I don't consider you an authority, doesn't mean anything personal. :cool:

I am Caesar. :D


Don't expect Comrademan to give you "his" definition" of God, other than vague illusions to existence. Because he knows as soon as he moves past that he moves into an easily destroyed fallacy. "He is to us as we are to ants, maybe we just don't understand" and "it is existence-ish" both stop scientific inquiry dead in their tracks. I am no fan of "we will never know."

I see the tables in this thread have been turned in that the atheists cannot present their arguments or what they would actually believe positively and it becomes more of an attack theism thread. :rolleyes:

ComradeMan has already given his definition i.e. the true spirit of Exodus 3:14 is, with parallels in Vedanta philosophy. However in order for us to define "God" truly we would first have to become omniscient otherwise our hypotheses will always be a priori and open to criticism or flaws.

But I repeat, I was not arguing for theism or against atheism I was asking for the arguments for atheism- if you see what I mean. This is why I have repeatedly asked those who demand evidence for God what evidence they would accept, but nothing much is forthcoming.

[Desperado]

For the last time, agnostics are by definition atheists. By which definition? The definition of the man who made the word. Which was can't know about the existence (or non-existence) of god. Atheism is without god - not necessarily explicitly "there is no god". If you can't know about god (agnosticism), you are necessarily without him (atheism). Indeed, though often stated as "soft atheists", agnostics are rather very direct atheists - explicitly stating god cannot be known is a tighter philosophical position than not saying anything on the subject (implicit atheism).

And even agnostics in the more widely used sense ("don't know" rather than Huxley's original "can't know") are atheists. If you don't know whether there's a god or not, you do not believe in him, ergo you are an (implicit) atheist.

[ComradeMan]

For the last time, agnostics are by definition atheists. By which definition? The definition of the man who made the word. Which was can't know about the existence (or non-existence) of god. Atheism is without god - not necessarily explicitly "there is no god". If you can't know about god (agnosticism), you are necessarily without him (atheism). Indeed, though often stated as "soft atheists", agnostics are rather very direct atheists - explicitly stating god cannot be known is a tighter philosophical position than not saying anything on the subject (implicit atheism).

And even agnostics in the more widely used sense ("don't know" rather than Huxley's original "can't know") are atheists. If you don't know whether there's a god or not, you do not believe in him, ergo you are an (implicit) atheist.

Not quite, yes agnostics are in a sense atheists but atheists are not necessarily agnostics. Atheism, especially in the sense of the "new atheism" outright rejects the notion and ridicules it as absurd- this is not the same as being with knowledge "agnosticism".

[Revolution starts with U]

Aha, so you are willing to concede the possibility of a religious truth? What would be a religious truth for you?
This would probably be a long discussion if we really broke it down. I don't really know. As I said, any of the truths I have heard (be good, we are all connected, etc) are couched in a briar patch of hucksters, charlatans, and cranks.




No it isn't I'm afraid, for two reasons 1) I didn't use it to invalidate your argument as such 2) I said I was sure you didn't mean it that way.

I just think it's a bit of contemptuous word with racist undertones and was warning you about it- that's all.
Fair enough.




Eh? The flood myth has parellel's all over the world- but to an observer of the time it would have certainly seems like the world had flooded given that the "world" is what the observer knew
My hypothesis is that these narratives reflect the attitudes of the peoples of the earth around the end of the ice age. As the glaciers melted, this would have flooded large portions of coastal land, and leading to an inevitable mass migration of peoples.
The important part is that if there were a world-wide flood, or even flooding of coastal lands, it seems to have happened for naturalistic reasons. The "god did it to punish us" interpretation seems to be nothing more than a post-hoc rationalization.

Xenu... that's scientology? Don't know enough about it to comment. Krishna- is difficult because first we would have to decide which school of thought in the Dharmic/Vedic religious and philosophical traditions we were going to analyse.
Yes, the potpourri of revealed truths poses quite the problem in the search for truth... this is true. And really is the problem.




I am Caesar. :D Yes, and I render unto Ceaser what is his (hint: nothing). :D

[Revolution starts with U]

I see the tables in this thread have been turned in that the atheists cannot present their arguments or what they would actually believe positively and it becomes more of an attack theism thread. :rolleyes:
For the last damn time, atheists have no arguments to present, nor do they need any. That's the point.


ComradeMan has already given his definition i.e. the true spirit of Exodus 3:14 is, with parallels in Vedanta philosophy.
As I said, your definition is vague allusions to existence. You have basically said "God is everything." That's fine, I sort of agree with you (I just keep away from da voodoo). But, it is nothing close to a concrete and knowable definition, and it is not a scientific position to take.
And if you are talking about "God is everything and a conscious actor" I would be happy to discuss that with you; the nature of an omniscient being who can act upon the universe? Omniscience changes its mind? Free will is a cop out. If he is omniscient and yet refuses to act, he is callous and not worthy of adoration nor worship.


However in order for us to define "God" truly we would first have to become omniscient otherwise our hypotheses will always be a priori and open to criticism or flaws.
You really don't realize how anti-science of a position this is to take, do you?


But I repeat, I was not arguing for theism or against atheism I was asking for the arguments for atheism- if you see what I mean.
"I have no reason to believe" what more argument do you need?

This is why I have repeatedly asked those who demand evidence for God what evidence they would accept, but nothing much is forthcoming.
I would accept a prayer:miracle ratio of higher than .01%
I would accept directly seeing this uncaused cause.
I would accept an ethical system that has a near 1:1 ratio of causing a person to be a better person (I would accept this as evidence of "God" even if the group doing it claimed to be atheist.)
Things of that nature. What I WILL NOT EVER accept is "God told me so you have to believe me."

[ComradeMan]

This would probably be a long discussion if we really broke it down. I don't really know. As I said, any of the truths I have heard (be good, we are all connected, etc) are couched in a briar patch of hucksters, charlatans, and cranks.

I am also sure that there have been and are still a lot of charlatans and snake oil salesmen- but religion is not the only domain of the con artist.

However:-

Matthew 7:15 : “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. "


My hypothesis is that these narratives reflect the attitudes of the peoples of the earth around the end of the ice age. As the glaciers melted, this would have flooded large portions of coastal land, and leading to an inevitable mass migration of peoples.The important part is that if there were a world-wide flood, or even flooding of coastal lands, it seems to have happened for naturalistic reasons. The "god did it to punish us" interpretation seems to be nothing more than a post-hoc rationalization.

So you are saying that there was a possible historical flood or group of floods but you don't accept the post hoc ergo propter hoc ideas that followed? I suppose it's controversial but the Gaia theory would lend some weight to a self-regulating biosphere and perhaps that's what ancient humans meant. Nevertheless we cannot know really if the ancients even saw the world in the same way- the enigmatic Etruscan philosophy according to Seneca in Quaestiones naturales:

"...this is the difference between us [philosophers] and the Etruscans, who have consummate skill in interpreting lightning: we think that because clouds collide, lightning is emitted; but they think the clouds collide in order that lightning may be emitted"


Yes, the potpourri of revealed truths poses quite the problem in the search for truth... this is true. And really is the problem.

Well a quest would not be a quest if it were easy... there's a message here somewhere.


Yes, and I render unto Ceaser what is his (hint: nothing). :D

barbarus impudens. :laugh:

[Caj]

You're not really describing the Big Bang here. Let's get specific. Matter formed as the universe began too "cool down" after the rapid "expansion event". At "point zero" of the Big Bang there was so much energy "concentrated" in the universe that matter could not form/have formed. The expansion from a denser to a less dense state and the cooling down also resulted in the four fources, i.e. gravity, electromagnetism and strong/weak nuclear forces. So to describe the universe as a "clump of matter" is completely wrong according to our current theory- there was no matter as such. The problem with the Big Bang is the closer we get to what I call "point zero" the harder it gets to apply our current laws of physics.

I don't really see how this is relevant as you are just using a more narrow definition of matter than I am. My point was that the "primordial atom" was maximum-entropy.


Ockham's razor neither validates nor invalidates and argument per se.

And I never said it did.


Ockham's razor does not imply the simpler hypotheses tend to be (more) correct. It merely recommends the approach from a methodological point of view. There are currently accepted scientific theories there were indeed once rejected through the application of the razor.

Occam's Razor recommends favoring simpler hypotheses from a methodological perspective because simpler hypotheses tend to be correct. Although there have been cases where hypotheses initially rejected due to Occam's Razor have turned out to be correct, this has never been the case with an hypothesis as absurd as the God-hypothesis, the Crocogod-hypothesis, or my dark matter hypothesis.


Okay, it's difficult I admit, but expand it to a "supernatural conscious entity" for argument's sake.

I think this definition is too broad. Traditional conceptions of ghosts, for example, would be included in this definition. I think the definition for God in this discussion should be "a supernatural, conscious entity that created the universe."

Do you consider the existence and non-existence of my proposed dark matter entity with entropic fetishism as equiprobable? If not, why do you consider the existence and non-existence of God as equiprobable? I think we can agree that both hypotheses are equally absurd in the absence of evidence.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am also sure that there have been and are still a lot of charlatans and snake oil salesmen- but religion is not the only domain of the con artist.
Correct. But it has been my experience that it is nearly if not virtually impossible to tell the prophets from the hucksters. As I said earlier (maybe in the other thread?) I see a lot of similarity between Standard Big Bang Cosmology and Hermes Trismegistus' "conversation" with Poemandres ((man-shepard, the light of creation, the all-mind). [The Corpus Hermeticum]
But whereas w Stephen Hawking, I could test the universality of his prophecy, with Hermes I have to take it on faith. I have to trust that God actually told HIM and not the 30k other people that said God told them something different.


However:-

Matthew 7:15 : “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. "
I don't trust yours nor my judgement that much to rely upon faith. Show me universal evidence.
Newton is 50x the prophet the Buddha ever could have been.




So you are saying that there was a possible historical flood or group of floods but you don't accept the post hoc ergo propter hoc ideas that followed?
It is possible... probable even. Not a world flood. But a flooding of the most heavily populated areas of =/- 10k BCE.
And yes, the post hoc analysis I find lacking.

I suppose it's controversial but the Gaia theory would lend some weight to a self-regulating biosphere and perhaps that's what ancient humans meant.
Perhaps they did. It is likely they largely meant what they said. The point is, in the lack of scientific analysis, we will never know; was it revealed truth, or pure coincidence?



Well a quest would not be a quest if it were easy... there's a message here somewhere.

I agree. And I think the last 500 years of the age of science have seen far more progress than the 300k years preceeding it :cool:



barbarus impudens. :laugh:
Well, I am an anarchist of slavic and irish descent.... it doesn't get more "impudent barbarian" than that :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

BTW Occam's razor says more "the less assumptions the better" than it does "the simpler answer is usually correct."
QM is not exactly a simple answer. But it doesn't make many assumptions (other than the basic assumption all science has to make; that reality is a concrete phenomenon, or that we can know anything).

[Caj]

BTW Occam's razor says more "the less assumptions the better" than it does "the simpler answer is usually correct."

That's what I meant by simpler in that context.


it doesn't make many assumptions (other than the basic assumption all science has to make; that reality is a concrete phenomenon, or that we can know anything).

There's also the assumption that knowledge can be acquired by inductive reasoning.

[Islamosocialist]

Most of you comrades are athiests I take it--and that's fine with me. But wouldn't a more logical position be agnosticism? We don't actually "know" if there is a God or not. For that matter closer to home we don't even know if life can emerge from non-living matter. Do we have any scientific evidence for it? All it seems is that we have "belief" and that is just as "dangerous" to logic as belief in God.

It makes sense. I describe many of my friends as "disinterested agnostics", even though they would be counted in a census as Muslims (and would describe themselves as such).

But... science can be tested and proven. It's the closest thing to a sure reality we have in this world.

While I hate the "God of the Gaps" system (where religious people simply find God in everything science can't yet explain, clinging to these gaps until they too are filled with facts)...

I believe this:

It all started with God. Now... I believe in big bang, evolution, etc. The Koran even says God created us in stages, in water. But, even if I didn't, even if the Koran said God created everything just yesterday:

The universe has science. There are physics, there are fossils, etc. Even if it was all created yesterday, science tells us how it works and enables us to make the present the best and predict, to some degree, the future.

Science should not be restricted, even when it appears to directly contradict faith (as it must, by definition).

The more we learn, the better we understand this... creation, universe, whatever you wish to call it.

[ComradeMan]

I don't trust yours nor my judgement that much to rely upon faith. Show me universal evidence.
Newton is 50x the prophet the Buddha ever could have been.

Buddha a prophet?
....Buddha replied: "I am awake."


But Newton on the other hand did make a few prophecies, if I am not wrong, one of which said the world would end in 2060 AD.

It could be argued that Newton's scientific-theism was forerunner of a intelligent design.

[Revolution starts with U]

Buddha a prophet?
....Buddha replied: "I am awake."


But Newton on the other hand did make a few prophecies, if I am not wrong, one of which said the world would end in 2060 AD.

It could be argued that Newton's scientific-theism was forerunner of a intelligent design.

Correct me if I am wrong, but prophecy involves far more than just simple fortune telling. :lol: Sure, many prophets made predictions, but the term means "to speak for (the) God/s."
Im saying the guy who invented the polio vaccine is a better prophet than Moses.

[ComradeMan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but prophecy involves far more than just simple fortune telling. :lol: Sure, many prophets made predictions, but the term means "to speak for (the) God/s.".

προφήτης = to foretell, implied through divine intervention or revelation.

Deuteuronomy 18:22

22 hoc habebis signum : quod in nomine Domini propheta ille prædixerit, et non evenerit

22 ὅσα ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ὁ προφήτης ...

The translations in English give "foretell".

In Buddhism I can only find the curious episode of the Korean King Beopheung in the 6th century CE.


Im saying the guy who invented the polio vaccine is a better prophet than Moses.

Well they were both Jews. Jonas Salk is the man you mean. He did a great thing and seems to be someone who had sense of humanity in not seeking to make millions from his discovery- but did he foretell things?

[Revolution starts with U]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prophet
Prophet; to speak for (especially for the god/s)

[ComradeMan]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prophet
Prophet; to speak for (especially for the god/s)

speak... what though? Not to say the weather is nice, but to foretell.;)

[Revolution starts with U]

In Christianity a prophet (or seer[8]) is one inspired by God through the Holy Spirit to deliver a message for a specific purpose. It is often associated with predicting future events, but in biblical terms it is wider and can include those given the power to preach repentance to those who do not want to hear the message and to warn of God's wrath for disobedience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet

[ComradeMan]

In Christianity a prophet (or seer[8]) is one inspired by God through the Holy Spirit to deliver a message for a specific purpose. It is often associated with predicting future events, but in biblical terms it is wider and can include those given the power to preach repentance to those who do not want to hear the message and to warn of God's wrath for disobedience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet

Therefore "foretelling" of God's wrath. It's always foretelling- which is logical, because what would be the point of a prophet who had told you what had already happened?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's only a foretelling in the sense that being warned that not paying for a protection racket will result in broken legs is a foretelling.