 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Veritas
Posts:250
 | | 09/29/2007 5:19 PM |
 Alert | Posted By HiggsBoson on 09/28/2007 8:29 PM
The real problem lies with this, "proof" is within the realm of science, there are protocols, processes, and rules that have to be followed (Scientific Method). God is outside of this process. No matter how many gaps get filled in by science, faith in God lies outside of that.
Correct. God is supernatural and therefore beyond the realm of science and most likely beyond the realm of scientific proof ... but scientific proof has severe limitations that logic and reason are not subordinate to.
Posted By HiggsBoson on 09/28/2007 8:29 PM
Some Christians will offer the false explanation that they don't believe the scientific explanation of the universe because there is not enough evidence of those theories. The truth is no matter how much our knowledge is increased and how many of the unanswered questions get answers, they will believe in God because they choose to, they want to, they need to.
I don't think that it's for a lack of evidence -- because everybody is talking about the same "facts", "evidence" etc ... it's the interpretation of it all that is where all of the argument lies.
And just what is wrong with people that "choose to", "want to" and "need to" "believe in God". Oh yeah, I remember your mantra now ... we're weak and stupid. How convenient for you to hurl that our way.
-----------------------
BTW Higgs, I enjoyed the other parts of your post ... I'll get back to you when I have a little more time. They require a little more time & attention and I gotta go do stuff right now. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:405
| | 09/29/2007 5:56 PM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 09/29/2007 5:09 PM Posted By Trogdor! on 09/27/2007 7:31 PM
Jason,
Why isn't the burden of proof on the believer?
Joe,
It's not that there's evidence against "God", but rather that there's no evidence for "God".
Like Michelle said, "The burden of proof is on the believer." Actually, the one trying to make a case for the negative position must disprove the positive ... but y'all don't seem to care much for logic. 
Veritas, from HiggsBoson's post (following yours above), he's not arguing that it's impossible for God to exist, but intead is arguing that there's nothing indicating it's particularly likely for God to exist. To state it in another way (if I'm understanding correctly) it is believers who are making the stronger, more absolute claim that God absolutely exists beyond doubt, whereas atheists (I think) are simply claiming that the evidence doesn't make it seem likely--different from categorically saying that God can't and doesn't exist beyond a doubt. Doesn't that difference in absolute vs. non-absolute argument (theist = God definitely exists beyond doubt whereas atheist = no particular reason to believe that God exists beyond other explanations for things) shift the burden of proof onto the believer, or do you see a fault in my logic here?
For example (JUST as a tangible example--not to belittle/disrespect anyone's belief in God in any way), if you were to say that bigfoot definitely exists and I was to respond by saying that I haven't seen bigfoot and don't see any particular reason to believe that bigfoot exists, so bigfoot's existence therefore seems improbable to me, isn't the burden of proof on you rather than me, since it's you and not me who is making the definite statement?
HiggsBoson, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your other post, or incorrectly defining the atheist argument (and maybe there's more than one version of it in terms of how absolutely it's stated, depending on the atheist).
| | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/29/2007 9:33 PM |
Alert | Posted By CliffinAZ on 09/29/2007 5:56 PM
Veritas, from HiggsBoson's post (following yours above), he's not arguing that it's impossible for God to exist, but intead is arguing that there's nothing indicating it's particularly likely for God to exist.
1. I didn't think he was trying to say that, which is why I mentioned liking his original post. If I made it seem that way, I apologize.
2. If it's the case that God is beyond the reach of science, which I agree with (mostly), then how can any line of evidence make it seem more or less likely?
It is my opinion that arguments from design are compelling evidence that there is something supernatural. Those design arguments, which employ scientific tools like probability, etc., expose the failure of natural science to describe the supernatural. No surprise there ... it's like telling a Flatlander to look up. 
Posted By CliffinAZ on 09/29/2007 5:56 PM
To state it in another way (if I'm understanding correctly) it is believers who are making the stronger, more absolute claim that God absolutely exists beyond doubt, whereas atheists (I think) are simply claiming that the evidence doesn't make it seem likely--different from categorically saying that God can't and doesn't exist beyond a doubt. Doesn't that difference in absolute vs. non-absolute argument (theist = God definitely exists beyond doubt whereas atheist = no particular reason to believe that God exists beyond other explanations for things) shift the burden of proof onto the believer, or do you see a fault in my logic here?
It is my experience that "believers" on both sides are absolute in their beliefs and statements. When someone says, "there is no god", that statement is an absolute one. The agnosticism (not knowing) is brought in after after the challenges to that position arise on philosophical and/or scientific grounds. An atheist cannot leave the question of god lingering in the "I doubt it" or "not sure" category because that is what the agnostic believes. A person cannot be both unless they have personalities competing for their cognitive space. 
Posted By CliffinAZ on 09/29/2007 5:56 PM
For example (JUST as a tangible example--not to belittle/disrespect anyone's belief in God in any way), if you were to say that bigfoot definitely exists and I was to respond by saying that I haven't seen bigfoot and don't see any particular reason to believe that bigfoot exists, so bigfoot's existence therefore seems improbable to me, isn't the burden of proof on you rather than me, since it's you and not me who is making the definite statement?
No offense taken ... I appreciate your diplomacy and the thoughtfulness of your general approach.
There is a category error here, in that Bigfoot is allegedly a physical being living in a geographical region and can possibly be "seen" by humans, whereas God is not physical and does not "exist" subject to time and space ... namely because He made them with a thought of His own. The evidence that the theist can use is the same evidence that the non-theist has at their disposal; i.e. nature. There are things such as the Big Bang, the fine tuning of the cosmos and design that beg for something above the natural; hence the theists partial bridge to "proving" the supernatural -- however, science can't take anyone all the way ... philosophy must step in and carry the load or we simply abandon the search for truth.
| | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/29/2007 9:49 PM |
Alert | Posted By HiggsBoson on 09/28/2007 8:29 PM
How do you prove that something doesn't exist? If there is zero evidence for something does this mean it doesn't exist? It "proves" that this whatever is unlikely to exist, but not that it doesn't. So to the Christians here please tell us how we are to prove the non existence of something? Proving that Jason's car cannot fly is not even close to the same thing as proving that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
Given the size of the universe, it would be difficult to prove exhaustively that some thing does not exist; however, we can use numerous lines of theoretical and empirical evidence to give us a "degree of certitude" about what we believe does not exist. For example, through the use of spectroscopy, we can observe that in every place that we look in the universe, the laws of Physics (as they apply mostly to Chemistry ... but Chemistry is just a branch of Physics) are the same. Life is based at least in part on Chemistry. All life is carbon based, at least that's what observations tell us. The reason we hold no hope for the existence of other life forms, is that only the carbon molecule is empirically and theoretically capable of supporting the large and complex structures that support "life". Also, less than 1% of the universe is capable of supporting carbon-based life ... you basically need to be in a spiral galaxy, half way between the center and the edge centered perfectly between two spiral arms. If your solar system is not in this position, then carbon-based life forms are doomed from the start to die horribly from gravitational and radiation phenomena. It's known in astrobiology as the galactic habitable zone and the circumstellar habitable zone. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/29/2007 9:52 PM |
Alert | Posted By HiggsBoson on 09/28/2007 8:29 PM
I guess to play along we could say all scientific knowledge about the universe and how it works is evidence against god. God of the Gaps and all that.
Could you please elaborate on those scientific lines of evidence that are evidence against god? | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/29/2007 9:59 PM |
Alert | Posted By Grilladawg on 09/28/2007 1:46 PM
Im beginning to wonder....are all atheists liberals?
While I am a profoundly conservative person, I'm not sure that comparing liberals to atheists is a fair comparison. I know too many conservatives and liberals who are one or the other. In my opinion, it is an unfortunate thing to introduce such a negative tone into a conversation that holds so much promise. Connecting this discussion to politics (at least that's the stereotype I infer with the use of the term "liberal") is worse than toilet paper poke through  ... get my drift? | | | |
|
|  | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 09/29/2007 11:07 PM |
Alert | How do you prove that something doesn't exist?
There are all of the parameters necessary for the existence of God in the Bible. If you wish to prove that He can't exist, then you need to figure that out. I'm not interested, because I am sufficiently convinced that He exists. Just like scientists are sufficiently convinced that we evolved from a single-celled organism, even though they haven't witnessed or dug of proof for every intermediate step. It's called falsifiability.
I guess to play along we could say all scientific knowledge about the universe and how it works is evidence against god. God of the Gaps and all that.
No, that would not be evidence against God, because you have a profound misunderstanding of the way God works. God of the Gaps is probably the biggest misrepresentation of God ever.
Some Christians will offer the false explanation that they don't believe the scientific explanation of the universe
There is no scientific explanation for the universe because.......wait for it.........scientists don't know! | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 09/30/2007 7:18 AM |
Alert | The ontological evidence against gods
Necessary a god is a being that is worth worshiping, so if there is no being worth worshiping there cannot be a god.
Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshiping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god. | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 09/30/2007 12:06 PM |
Alert | | Oh yeah, that's a really foolproof scientific test. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | JillyBean
Posts:375
| | 09/30/2007 12:28 PM |
Alert | | I don't need 5 things.. I have common sense.. That is enough. | |
Tens of THOUSANDS of pure-bred dogs are killed in shelters in the Us EVERY YEAR!
Do your part
~Spay or Neuter your pets
~DON'T buy animals from irresponsible breeders..
~There is an adoption group for every breed of dog.. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 3:57 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:18 AM
The ontological evidence against gods
Necessary a god is a being that is worth worshiping, so if there is no being worth worshiping there cannot be a god.
Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshiping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.
Hey everyone ... check out this link (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/no_god.htm#ontology)
...hmmm ...looks alot like Copa's
...so much for original thought | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/30/2007 4:55 PM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 09/30/2007 12:28 PM
I don't need 5 things.. I have common sense.. That is enough.
Wow! How thoughtful of you. Thank you so much for contributing to this discussion. It was at a real impasse before your post ... now we can get it moving again. | | | |
|
| | JillyBean
Posts:375
| | 09/30/2007 8:56 PM |
Alert | | Oh, how very Christian of you to be such a jerk... My husband has been very involved in this discussion and I have been involved in others of similar nature. But, alas, I grow weary of typing to a wall. | |
Tens of THOUSANDS of pure-bred dogs are killed in shelters in the Us EVERY YEAR!
Do your part
~Spay or Neuter your pets
~DON'T buy animals from irresponsible breeders..
~There is an adoption group for every breed of dog.. | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3153
| | 09/30/2007 9:47 PM |
Alert | | When I was victim, of the Dutch Oven. | |
I'd rather live one day as a lion, than my whole life as a lamb. | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 10/01/2007 6:50 AM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 09/30/2007 8:56 PM
Oh, how very Christian of you to be such a jerk... My husband has been very involved in this discussion and I have been involved in others of similar nature. But, alas, I grow weary of typing to a wall.
Exactly right!
You can't change faith with silly stuff like scientific evidence.
Just as we look back on the multi-god religions from the past as mistaken, as everyone knows theres only one god. Eventually people will evolve and have no god. They will look back on us, like we look back at the Romans/Greeks/Egyptians, as mistaken.
Religion is for weak people who need 'something' that is missing in their life. They need some higher power to blame or ask things of. And if this gets them through the day, good for them.
Religions who claim to help the poor, yet they build huge multi million dollar cathedrals and churches. Religion is a business, they sell faith.
Just keep your hocus pocus and religious mumbo jumbo out of the classrooms.
| | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 10/01/2007 10:07 AM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/01/2007 6:50 AM You can't change faith with silly stuff like scientific evidence. Yes, but you can influence faith through rational discourse. Faith, from a Christian worldview IS NOT "blind". It demands all sorts of things including hope and evidence. Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/01/2007 6:50 AM Just as we look back on the multi-god religions from the past as mistaken, as everyone knows theres only one god. Eventually people will evolve and have no god. They will look back on us, like we look back at the Romans/Greeks/Egyptians, as mistaken.
Religion is for weak people who need 'something' that is missing in their life. They need some higher power to blame or ask things of. And if this gets them through the day, good for them. Atheism is for the arrogant who foolishly believe that they are stronger than the sky. They need to belittle people and blame them for the worlds problems. And if this gets them through the day, good for them, bad for us. Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/01/2007 6:50 AM Religions who claim to help the poor, yet they build huge multi million dollar cathedrals and churches. Religion is a business, they sell faith. There are certainly religions who do this sort of thing; but MOST churches ARE NOT this way. They operate on low budgets and spend a lot of money helping the poor. Don't let your image of TV evangelists on TBN or the wealth of the Catholic church confuse you. Posted By Copa Conscious on 10/01/2007 6:50 AM Just keep your hocus pocus and religious mumbo jumbo out of the classrooms. Why not let ALL of the different ideas be showcased in the name of free speech? I mean all of them! Buddhism, Christianity, Satanism, FSM, teacup, Aquaman, Zeus, etc... We don't want all of the time, just equal time and an end to the free speech for everyone but believers. | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/01/2007 10:48 AM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 09/30/2007 12:28 PM
I don't need 5 things.. I have common sense.. That is enough.
Huh...so what does your common sense say about the beginning of the universe? | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/01/2007 10:49 AM |
Alert | | double post | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/01/2007 10:49 AM |
Alert | Posted By JillyBean on 09/30/2007 8:56 PM
Oh, how very Christian of you to be such a jerk... My husband has been very involved in this discussion and I have been involved in others of similar nature. But, alas, I grow weary of typing to a wall.
Maybe if you weren't so flippant and condescending, you'd get a better response? Besides that, the response you got was sarcastic, but the poster was not being a jerk. If you don't like banging your head against a wall, maybe you should accept that flippant answers aren't going to get you anywhere? | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 10/01/2007 12:52 PM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/30/2007 7:18 AM
The ontological evidence against gods
Necessary a god is a being that is worth worshiping, so if there is no being worth worshiping there cannot be a god.
Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshiping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.
There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.
Oh how I love this argument. The atheist always seems to leave off option #4. (4) You have no authority to demand anything from God, and so he does not answer you.
Next you can demand that the President give you the pass-codes to the nukes. Then when you don't get an answer, you will have the same concrete evidence that he does not exist either. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|