Book review: ‘Why Science Does Not Disprove God’ by Amir D. Aczel
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Book review: ‘Why Science Does Not Disprove God’ by Amir D. Aczel
By Alan Lightman April 10, 2014
Alan Lightman is a physicist, novelist and professor of the practice of the humanities at MIT. His latest book is “The Accidental Universe.”
In “Einstein, God, and the Big Bang,” a colorful chapter of his new book, Amir D. Aczel maintains that Albert Einstein truly believed in God. He points out that Einstein attended synagogue during his year in Prague (1913). He repeats several famous Einstein utterances mentioning the Deity: “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not” and “I want to know God’s thoughts — the rest are details.” And he quotes from a letter the great physicist wrote to a little girl in January 1936: “Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man.”
Aczel goes on to express strong displeasure with such people as physicist Lawrence Krauss and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (who, in his bestseller “The God Delusion,” says that Einstein “didn’t really mean it”) when they cast Einstein as an atheist in support of their diatribes against religious belief.
Dawkins; Krauss, with his bestseller “A Universe From Nothing” ; and Sam Harris, with his bestseller “The End of Faith,” are prominent New Atheists, who use modern science to argue that God is not only unnecessary but unlikely to exist at all, even behind the curtains. There’s a certain religious fervor in all these books. Atheists, unite.
Aczel, trained as a mathematician, currently a research fellow in the history of science at Boston University and the author of “Fermat’s Last Theorem,” takes aim at the New Atheists in his intelligent and stimulating book “Why Science Does Not Disprove God.” He attempts to show that the New Atheists’ analyses fall far short of disproving the existence of God. In fact, he accuses these folks of staining the scientific enterprise by bending it to their dark mission. (“The purpose of this book is to defend the integrity of science,” he writes in his introduction.) Yet Aczel has a sly mission of his own. Invoking various physical phenomena that do not (yet) have convincing scientific explanations, he sets out not only to debunk the arguments of the New Atheists but also to gently suggest that the findings of science actually point to the existence of God.
“Why Science Does Not Disprove God" by Amir Aczel” by Amir D. Aczel. (William Morrow)
In stockpiling his arguments, Aczel quotes from his interviews with dozens of leading scientists and theologians, and interprets statements in a range of popular writings. The resulting book is part science (interesting but superficial summaries of cosmology, quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology, chaos theory), part history of religion, part philosophy, part spirituality, and a modicum of backbiting and invective. The latter applies to the writings of the New Atheists as well.
Let’s start with the origin of the universe. There is plenty of good scientific evidence that our universe began about 14 billion years ago, in a Big Bang of enormously high density and temperature, long before planets, stars and even atoms existed. But what came before? Krauss in his book discusses the current thinking of physicists that our entire universe could have emerged from a jitter in the amorphous haze of the subatomic world called the quantum foam, in which energy and matter can materialize out of nothing. (On the level of single subatomic particles, physicists have verified in the lab that such creation from “nothing” can occur.) Krauss’s punch line is that we do not need God to create the universe. The quantum foam can do it quite nicely all on its own. Aczel asks the obvious question: But where did the quantum foam come from? Where did the quantum laws come from? Hasn’t Krauss simply passed the buck? Legitimate questions. But ones we will probably never be able to answer.
In his foray into biology, Aczel says the theory of evolution is flawed. In particular, he points out that it does not explain altruistic behavior with no apparent survival benefit to the genes of the do-gooder. He cites a recent example of a Mount Everest climbing expedition in which an Israeli climber was well on his way to the top when he discovered a fallen Turkish climber who had lost his face mask and oxygen supply. At the cost of his own fingers and toes to frostbite, and sacrificing the glory of reaching the summit, the Israeli stopped and saved the life of the Turkish fellow. Why did he do it? “Human decency and goodness,” Aczel writes, with the implication that such qualities come from religion and spirituality. (In another chapter, he explains how a code of morality developed in early religions.)
Aczel discusses the mysteries of “emergent” phenomena — when a complex system exhibits a qualitative behavior that cannot be explained in terms of the workings of its individual parts: for example, the emergence of self-replicating life from inanimate molecules or the emergence of consciousness from a collection of connected neurons. He writes, “The inexplicability of such emergent phenomena is the reason why we cannot disprove the idea of some creative power behind everything.”
I disagree. It is not the inability of science to explain some physical phenomenon that shows we cannot disprove the existence of a creative power (i.e., God). Science is a work in progress, and phenomena that science cannot explain now may be explained 100 years from now. Before the 18th century, people had no explanation for lightning. The reason that science cannot disprove the existence of God, in my opinion, is that God, as understood by all human religions, exists outside time and space. God is not part of our physical universe (although God may choose to enter the physical universe at times). God is not subject to experimental tests. Either you believe or you don’t believe.
Thus, no matter what scientific evidence is amassed to explain the architecture of atoms, or the ways that neurons exchange chemical and electrical signals to create the sensations in our minds, or the manner in which the universe may have been born out of the quantum foam, science cannot disprove the existence of God — any more than a fish can disprove the existence of trees. Likewise, no matter what gaps exist in current scientific knowledge, no matter what baffling good deeds people do, no matter what divine and spiritual feelings people have, theology cannot prove the existence of God. The most persuasive evidence of God, according to the great philosopher and psychologist William James in his landmark book “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (1902), is not physical or objective or provable. It is the highly personal transcendent experience.
There is one scientific conundrum that practically screams out the limitations of both science and religion. And that is the “fine tuning” problem. For the past 50 years or so, physicists have become more and more aware that various fundamental parameters of our universe appear to be fine-tuned to allow the emergence of life — not only life as we know it but life of any kind. For example, if the nuclear force were slightly stronger than it is, then all of the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than it is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
In another, even more striking example, if the cosmic “dark energy” discovered 15 years ago were a little denser than it actually is, our universe would have expanded so rapidly that matter could never have pulled itself together to form stars. And if the dark energy were a little smaller, the universe would have collapsed long before stars had time to form. Atoms are made in stars. Without stars there would be no atoms and no life.
So, the question is: Why? Why do these parameters lie in the narrow range that allows life? There are three possibilities: First, there might be some as-yet-unknown physics that requires these parameters to be what they are. But this explanation is highly questionable — why should the laws of physics care about the emergence of life? Second possibility: God created the universe, God wanted life (for whatever reasons), so God designed the universe so that it would allow life. Third possibility, and the one favored by many physicists today: Our universe is one of zillions of different universes with a huge range of parameters, including many different values for the strength of the nuclear force and the density of dark energy.
Some universes have stars and planets, some do not. Some harbor life, some do not. In this scenario, our universe is simply an accident. If our particular universe did not have the right parameters to allow the emergence of life, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. In a similar way, Earth happens to be at the right distance from the sun to have liquid water, a nice oxygen atmosphere and so on. We can ask why our planet has all these lovely properties, amenable to life. And the explanation is that there is nothing special or designed about Earth. Other planets exist. But if we lived on Mercury, where the temperature is 800 degrees, or on Neptune, where it is 328 degrees below zero, we could not exist. Unfortunately, it is almost certain that we cannot prove the existence of these other universes. We must accept their existence as a matter of faith.
And here we come to the fascinating irony of the fine-tuning problem. Both the theological explanation and the scientific explanation require faith. To be sure, there are huge differences between science and religion. Religion knows about the transcendent experience. Science knows about the structure of DNA and the orbits of planets. Religion gathers its knowledge largely by personal testament. Science gathers its knowledge by repeated experiments and mathematical calculations, and has been enormously successful in explaining much of the physical universe. But, in the manner I have described, faith enters into both enterprises.
Several years ago, I thought that the writings and arguments of such people as Dawkins and Aczel, attempting to disprove or prove the existence of God, were a terrible waste of calories. I have changed my mind. I now believe that the discussions of science and religion, even the attempts of one side to disprove the other, are part of the continuing and restorative conversation of humanity with itself. In the end, all of our art, our science and our theological beliefs are an attempt to make sense of this fabulous and fleeting existence we find ourselves in.
Alan Lightman is a physicist, novelist and professor of the practice of the humanities at MIT. His latest book is “The Accidental Universe.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
301 visitors
from the Introduction to the book
Science doesn’t disprove god, no one ever said it does. What it does do is negate the need for a god in most instances. Science has made god obsolete in our everyday lives.
And no, science doesn’t require faith, at all. In fact it is the exact opposite. I don’t have “faith” that my TV is going to work when I hit the power button, I expect it to work because the engineers who designed it knew what the fuck they were doing, and the scientific principles that their work rests on are so well supported by evidence and rigorous testing that their work is expected to produce the desired result.
No faith required. And that applies to virtually everything in my everyday life.
There are those who come close to it a lot of times.
That is really more an individual preference than anything else.
Science has made God obsolete in the sense of understanding and knowing more about the world around us. We no longer (and should not) need God to fill in the gaps of our knowledge.
As the reviewer says, "Religion knows about the transcendent experience. Science knows about the structure of DNA and the orbits of planets. Religion gathers its knowledge largely by personal testament. Science gathers its knowledge by repeated experiments and mathematical calculations, and has been enormously successful in explaining much of the physical universe."
I dont think the two ever quite meet. To an extent transcendent experience disregards science and science disregards transcendent experience.
I'll take science. "Personal testament" is subjective and more prone to bias or wishful thinking. Science is more concrete.
Why should belief in God have to rely on scientific discovery to justify it? It almost oxymoronic.
It has made god obsolete in the sense that we need a god to explain the world around us. If you personally want to think you woke up this morning because god willed it rather than the biological processes that your body performs just kept on trucking, then good for you. But as a practical matter a god doesn’t have anything to do with you waking up. If you don’t one day the emt’s aren’t going to ask god what happened.
Science focuses on finding or determining fact, based on evidence or proof. Belief does not equal fact. It's disingenuous or intellectually lazy to accept something as "fact" based on nothing but belief and dishonest to posit something as fact based on nothing but belief, especially when the belief runs contrary to established science.
That is more a point of view than something that can be proven.
This is from a review of Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe From Nothing"
You could sit here for all eternity waiting for something to be created from nothing and it will never ever ever happen.
Krauss's claim that the universe was created from nothing was basically dishonest, but he is an atheist who wanted to discredit belief in God.
Don't tell me that there aren't scientists who are predisposed to an atheistic agenda.
This is a faith statement, since you can't present evidence to the contrary. This is the point of the article.
And yet, even after saying all this, you feel perfectly okay with saying God is not an explanation or is not necessary. You have no evidence that God is not necessary. That is simply your belief. That God is not involved is simply a position of faith.
A god or sentient creator is speculation. It is not necessarily wrong, but it is also not even an hypothesis given the lack of supporting evidence that points directly to 'sentient creator'. The Intelligent Design advocates tried to make a sentient creator hypothesis and failed.
So while it is possible that a sentient creator exists, we have zero genuine evidence to support that speculation so there is really nothing that would intrigue science to consider the notion of a sentient creator.
Maybe the future will deliver evidence of a sentient creator; but as of now with over 10,000 years of recorded history, it has not yet arrived.
God is not an explanation. It's a failure to explain. Its an "I don't know" in a theistic package. To use God as a legitimate explain, one would first have to prove there's a God or provide evidence for one. God is no more a valid exanation for something than it is using fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. God being involved is just a belief. But nothing empirical supports that.
You are someone who does not believe that transcendent experience is relevant to discussing the existence of God. You think it must be able to be demonstrated through science or it is worthless.
You are never going to get to the point where the writer of the article, or the author of the book ‘Why Science Does Not Disprove God’ are at.
The writer of the article says he is a physicist. The writer of the book is a science writer. I think they probably understand these issues as well as you do, but reach widely divergent conclusions from yours.
No, it is not.
You can prove that God does not wake you up in the morning? Go ahead.
Since the existence of God itself cannot be proven or disproven, how do you go about proving the effect or non effect of that entity?
This ignores the scientific evidence these spiritual experiences could be mere chemical brain responses.
I know that you posted this shit knowing exactly what would happen throughout this seed.
Did your god make you do it?
Promoting comity and civility deliberately JR?
/S
What nonsense.
Why does the topic of this article bother you?
This site is overwhelmingly atheism friendly. You dont even want to allow an occasional article that offers a different perspective from an intelligent point of view?
If there is no quality evidence supporting a speculation then why would a rational mind believe the speculation to be true?
For example, it makes sense to me that exolife likely exists somewhere in our vast universe. We have no evidence of exolife but the vastness of space, the amount of time our universe has been in existence and the fact that the fundamental physics that sustain life on Earth are, as best we can tell, the very same physics underlying the entire universe.
I do not believe exolife exists because I have no hard evidence of same; just persuasive metrics. "Exolife exists" is not a statement of truth; it is at best speculation. It is interesting to ponder but one cannot use that speculation as a foundation for anything. Even though I think it is likely to be found to be true, right now the speculation is indeed worthless.
Now we are going to start this again? Were these people all irrational?
25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
By Scientist
How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity’s most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the last decade has opened new discoveries leading to new theories that give us unique hypotheses about the presence of God and the nature of the universe.
Today’s article will discuss some of the most famous scientists in history who believed in God.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)
Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Francis Collins (Born 1950)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
John Eccles (1903 – 1997)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Robert A. Millikan (1868 – 1953)
Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)
William Harvey (1578 –1657)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Means nothing.
They all lack life
Life is a cycle form the smallest virus or bacteria to the largest mammals in the sea.
They do quite well with no "knowledge" of any gods.
I have your good word as a Catholic, no?
Nah, no medical report is going to say “well we asked god and didn’t get a response.”
I am someone who goes by empirical evidence. One may believe there's a God. There could be a God. But there is no evidence for one. Only belief. So there's no reason to accept or conclude there's a God. But science doesn't say either way and no scientist should make an absolute declaration either.
Um, yeah, God is an explanation. Watch.
Person 1: "Why do you think the universe exists."
Person 2: "Because God created it."
That's what is called an explanation.
Nope. We just saw person two give his explanation.
No again, and no different than someone of your beliefs stating God is not an explanation, since you can't prove He is not.
Again, no. (you're consistently wrong, aren't you?) Most of the planet believes God is a legitimate explanation as to why we exist. What you mean is, unless God is proven your way, you don't consider it legitimate. Perfectly fine for you. Not so much for the rest of us.
Really? How did they fail, exactly? Were you able to prove it wasn't?
Correction. You have zero genuine evidence that you accept based on what criteria you allow yourself. There's no "we", unless you have a mouse in your pocket.
What you and other materialists don't seem to understand, perhaps because of some sort of mental block, is that we don't have to adhere to your standards or criteria for considering the question of God. Just because you don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean we have to go along with that. We don't have to adhere to your faith position that unless science can prove God then there's no way to know if God exists and no point in pursuing the issue. If that's what your faith tells you, then by all means, have at it. But the rest of us get to make up our own minds.
Thanks for your time : )
No, that is called an assumption. And one without any empirical support.
We saw person 2 make an assumption.
I have not stated my beliefs. God is no more an explanation than using fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. DO you consider those things acceptable "explanations?"
Key word there is "believe." But belief does not equal fact. And without evidence, there is no reason to simply accept it as is.
To be clear, that response is a reply to a statement TiG made, not me.
Also a reply to TiG's statement. But I presume the evidence TiG refers to is objective, empirical evidence. That is the evidence science prefers to go by and the best means for establishing objective truth.
I'm not sure why you replied to TiG's statements in your reply to me. But whether you go along with it or not is irrelevant. It's about establishing what can be objectively demonstrated, not what one wants to believe or other wishful thinking.
Right off the bat, Albert Einstein did not believe in a god as you would define it but rather he believed in Spinoza's god which is not an entity.
But besides that, the fact that someone believes in a god does not mean the person is irrational.
One of my all time favorite scientists is Dr. Francis Collins who is a devout Christian. He is the very opposite of irrational.
However, his belief that the Christian God exists is not based on evidence. And Dr. Collins freely admits this. When asked how he, as such an accomplished scientist, holds such an unusual belief against all of his principles for truth, he shrugs his shoulders. An honest man.
Why a rational mind like Dr. Collins' et. al. believes as true that which has no evidence remains a curiosity. But holding an irrational belief does not ipso facto make the person irrational. Try to not jump to such an extreme conclusion.
Who says something was created from nothing? Science doesn't say the universe was created from nothing.
Yes, it is dishonest and demonstrates a bias.
What exactly is the "atheistic agenda?"
LOL ... for a forum that is supposedly so atheist friendly it would seem that very little learning about atheism has taken place. It is not for lack of explanation.
More likely due to willful ignorance and/or individual bias.
Also, John, you are making an argument from authority which you know is fallacious.
Why not just state that the super majority of people on the planet and for recorded history believe in a god of some sort? That would be the truth and would be as irrelevant as you listing 25 famous scientists.
I listed the scientists because you keep claiming that belief in God is irrational.
Were those 25 scientists who believed in God irrational? Asking you that question is not a fallacious argument.
As you probably know, many famous people that believe or believed in God did so based on their experience delving into philosophy. Is philosophy irrational ? You and Gordy are doing the exact thing the seeded article is talking about, and the book the article is reviewing talks about. You discredit any belief in God that is not based on science as "irrational" . You have your right to your opinion but millions of rational people most likely disagree with you.
Most of the planet believes in a god. And I suspect most of them believe that their god is also the creator.
Why do you think that is significant? Most of the planet used to believe that the sun orbited the Earth.
Their claims of irreducible complexity were shown to be reducible. Now, Drakk, this is public knowledge so if you want more details they are at your fingertips.
Outstanding! You have genuine evidence (that means others can verify this evidence) that your god exists? Deliver it. You will be famous.
Well of course not Drakk. If you were basing your faith on quality evidence you would not believe in your god due to the lack of evidence in contrast with the grandness of the belief. Obviously your belief is not based on evidence (what you call 'my' criteria) (meaning others can verify same). No need to tell anyone that.
If you were to state that you believe in God that is simply an expression of belief. If you go to the next step and claim that there is no possibility that your belief is wrong, then you have crossed the line into gnostic theism and have the burden of proof (or at least sound evidence).
Oh, sure. It qualifies as an assumption by definition but that doesn't mean it isn't also an explanation, especially given the context. So does assuming that empirical support is necessary for belief in God to be valid.
Of course you have. It's hardly necessary to use some sort of magic phrase such as "I believe..." in order for anyone to know what your beliefs are. For instance, you believe, take it on faith or any other way that is likely going to be offensive to you that unless God can be proven empirically there's no basis for believing God is a fact. That's what's called a belief.
You guys keep saying that but not understanding the full implication of it. Belief doesn't equal fact, that is true. but it also doesn't negate belief because what is believed in may very well be a fact. Og, from the time we hunted mammoths may have believed the world was basically a sphere. He had no evidence for it other than maybe thinking that everything in the sky seemed to be like that, why not the world? Now, the world was not a sphere because he believed it was but it is in fact a sphere and his belief was actually correct. So, saying belief doesn't equal fact isn't really saying much at all.
Yes, it is. Don't know how I did that so I won't address the rest of it. Not fair to get you to answer for what TiG said. My apologies.
"A Universe From Nothing" is the title of a book written by
The title is not a question.
Krauss, if you read the book, is playing games with the title. I think it was a mistake on his part because this is a book of science, but he does not seem to see the problem.
Krauss does not hold that the universe came from a literal nothing but rather from a net-zero energy state (which is not nothing).
Lawrence M. Krauss. Krauss, who is an atheist , works to reduce the influence of what he regards as superstition and religious dogma in popular culture.
Krauss is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek (1995) and A Universe from Nothing (2012), and chaired the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors.
Interesting. I have not read that one.
John, what part of this confuses you?:
Never suggested it was, again you need to read what I wrote. I was clear. Putting forth 25 authorities to argue that rational people can believe in a god is the fallacious argument. Asking me if I think that they are irrational is a legit question (which I answered).
Philosophy, when speaking of gods, typically argues reasons to justify a belief in god. Philosophy, as a discipline and a body of knowledge, does not conclude that a particular god exists. Also, I have yet to find a single philosophical proof (i.e. a sound argument) for the existence of any god defined as a sentient entity (i.e. conventional definition). Have you? If not, your philosophy comment carries no weight.
Not 'any belief' but rather the certain belief. This is the difference between an agnostic theist and a gnostic theist. The agnostic theist does not necessarily hold an irrational belief because this theist recognizes that the belief might be wrong. In contrast, the gnostic theist holds no possibility that their belief is wrong. That, JR, is the irrational belief.
By the way, Dr. Francis Collins has noted that while he has a deep belief in the Christian God, he acknowledges that his belief may be wrong. He states that he hopes he is right though. Dr. Collins is an agnostic theist — humble (and rational) enough to admit that his belief is not necessarily true.
Because that is exactly what it is!
It seems you want to redefine a term to suit your own needs or ideas.
Specify precisely what "beliefs" I have touted!
No, that's called logical analysis. There is no evidence for a god. So reason to accept or conclude there is a god, especially as fact. Without evidence, I do not accept claims for a god, as they lack veracity. It's that simple. Anything more you try to attribute to me is your own invention and otherwise a dishonest tactic!
Glad you agree.
So you're saying, "Well, it could be fact." In other words, you're effectively making a guess and hoping it's correct. I prefer greater degrees of probability or certainty. That is why evidence becomes so important. It is intellectually lazy or dishonest to accept or proclaim something as fact when there is no evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim.
Yes, we have irrefutable proof the planet is a sphere. The "belief" is validated and is now factual (despite claims to the contrary from Flat-Earthers). But that doesn't change my previous statement. If the world was indeed flat, then what? Beliefs the world was round would have been non factual. It's akin to throwing something at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Considering there are those who seem to be unable to discern the difference between belief and fact, I'd say belief does not equal fact cannot be stated enough.
No worries.
Really? What's the definition of "explanation"?
Why are you asking this question and then immediately quote the answer to it? That doesn't make much sense.
Not if it is based on faulty assumptions. For instance, recognizing that science doesn't address the issue of God, nor can it, but then making science the basis for your "logical analysis" would be tantamount to saying that if science can't examine it, it doesn't exist. You have no evidence that such a position is factual so therefore, your position is one of faith. Even if you allow that there may be a God but essentially treat the issue as irrelevant because it can't be examined you still are operating on faith because you have no evidence that it is irrelevant. It's just a personal decision on your part to just believe that science determines reality.
Yeah, I know you guys like to think that's the truth but it isn't. Not going to bother with convincing you otherwise, though. Done it enough already.
Um, nope. If it isn't supported by empirical evidence, according to you, then what's left is faith. Sorry, but those are your rules, right?
Um, are you saying the earth wasn't a sphere before it was proven? How is it "now factual", implying it wasn't before?
You're wandering away from the point and trying to prove what we both already agree on, which is that belief doesn't equal fact. That means something isn't true simply because you believe it is. Why?
The point is, it works the other way as well. Belief doesn't equal non-fact, either.
Oh, it definitely can. Especially the way you use it. As if stating it proves whatever point you're trying to make about what the other guy believes. It doesn't, but you don't seem able to see that. I think this is so because you believe what constitutes evidence applies to everyone. It doesn't. It really only holds for people who are part of the materialist religion, or one of its many derivatives. Those of us who don't hold to religions like that have different standards of evidence. Or, rather, not different, just a greater pool of what we consider evidence than you accept.
It's kind of a circular reasoning thing with you guys. Science, it is agreed by most, does not nor can not address the subject of God but it's always "there's no scientific evidence for God". Weird, huh?
Thanks.
No, that would be: 'without credible evidence there is no reason to believe (as in hold as truth) that it exists'. That does not mean it does not exist.
We have explained this so many times. The religious side of the argument always seems to conflate X does not exist -with- I am not convinced X exists.
Did you read the seeded article? The seeded article addresses the position you and Gordy take all the time.
People don't have to prove scientifically that God exists in order to be able to justify their beliefs. That is not the way it works.
Some of the great minds in history have made philosophical arguments for the existence of God. It is entirely appropriate and acceptable.
As I have already explained, if someone makes a claim (and it does not matter if it is about God) of certainty then they bear the burden of proof.
If someone claims X is true and that there is no way they are wrong, do you not see how they bear the burden of proof?
In contrast, if someone claims X is true but they acknowledge they might be wrong, they do NOT bear the burden of proof.
This is basic philosophy.
Burden: The Earth is flat; no chance that I am wrong.
No burden: I believe the Earth is flat; but I could be wrong.
I have said about all I want to say on this seed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Um, yeah. Like there's a meaningful difference. When you pair "I am not convinced" with what it would take to convince you, there's no difference. It's just a device atheists use to get out of defending the statement "there is no God".
Is that in the constitution? Is it a law of nature? Where exactly does it say we have to do that? Why isn't it it up to the individual to find out for themselves?
Exactly!
There is a major difference. If you cannot see this that explains a lot of the misunderstanding.
Being so cynical also contributes to misunderstanding given it leads to presumption.
It is not my position that there cannot be a god. My position is that I am not persuaded that there is a god. There is no 'getting out' of anything. I stated my honest position. The fact that you cannot understand that (or that you do not believe it) also explains a lot (to me).
God is probably the grandest possible claim. The greater the claim the more substantial the evidence requirement. For example, if you claim that you are a pastor of some church, I would not need much to accept that as likely true. It is not that grand of a claim. But if you claim that you have the highest IQ in North America then I would need substantially better evidence before I could find myself buying that.
So you should not be surprised that someone would require extraordinary evidence to be convinced of probably the grandest possible claim: that there is a sentient creator. And when you go further and highly attribute the creator and include stories, etc. you make it even more challenging to accept all of that without commensurate evidence.
But, most importantly, "I am not convinced" absolutely leaves room to be convinced. It is stating that while I am not currently persuaded that a sentient creator exists, I realize that I am not omniscient and it is quite possible that I am wrong. In contrast, "there is no god" shuts the door and arrogantly (and irrationally) implies that the claimer thinks it impossible to be wrong. The claimer would have to be omniscient.
Major, major difference Drakk. Unless you understand this, you will never understand atheism.
It is logic. Look up "burden of proof". Focus on the description for philosophy (vs. law). This is so common, there is no point in me explaining it (yet again). Besides, it is better that you go to a third party since you do not seem to read half of what I write anyway.
It's amazing to me that you think there's a misunderstanding. Well, no. I forgot who I was speaking to. Not so amazing.
Wow. Went right over your head, didn't it. You really can't see it.
Forgot to comment on this. It is up to the individual to find out for themselves. Who suggested otherwise?
The burden of proof does not mean that the claimer must provide proof to his interlocutor. If that is what you are thinking then strike that thought. The burden of proof identifies a fallacy. If a claim bears the burden of proof (because the claim is one of 100% certainty) and said proof is not supplied then the claim is fallacious.
When presented in an argument, a claim of certainty sans proof is equivalent to an unproven assertion. It makes the argument unsound.
Playing games again?
You should not be amazed. Here is an immediate example of misunderstanding:
That is a misunderstanding (on your part). I explained why @3.2.53
Every time you say something on this seed, you are proving the premise of the seeded article correct.
I doubt that is your intention though.
John what is the value of you making such a vague claim with no supporting facts or reason?
If you have a point to make then stand up and clearly make it. Be specific.
Isn't a belief really a conclusion? Facts support arriving at judgements and decisions as a reasoned conclusion. Someone saying they have looked at the facts and have concluded a meaning for the assembled facts is really stating a belief. The distinction between 'I have concluded' and 'I believe' really does split frog hairs.
In your example, Og concluded the world was a sphere. Og had no way to test that conclusion so accepting the correctness of the conclusion required faith. That would suggest that stating a belief is really a shorthand means of saying that 'what has been observed results in a conclusion'. IMO a belief is much more than a fact.
A fact is stronger than a conclusion. A fact, literally, is something that is objectively true. A conclusion, in contrast, does not have that high bar of truth. And if by 'conclusion' you are restricting yourself only to the results of a sound formal argument or application of the scientific method, then you have essentially equated 'conclusion' with 'fact'. (Although even here the conclusion is not necessarily as strong as a fact. Fact = proven true.)
A belief, by normal meaning, is less than a fact. It is merely the subjective perception that something is true. One can hold all sorts of beliefs that are false. Flat Earthers believe the planet is flat. It is a fact that the Earth is NOT flat.
Interesting. So that means that there are really leprechauns because people have a belief?
That nicely cuts to the chase.
Do leprechauns exist on Mars? If God exists, God does.
You might have somewhat of a case if you wanted to compare leprechauns to some people or events in scripture. You have no case if you are comparing leprechauns to the existence of God. Leprechauns originated in human lore. The existence of God is not predicated on any human activity.
So did gods - tens of thousands of them.
However, if you haven't seen it and want to expand your knowledge of the people and history of the Bible, I highly recommend watching the following lecture series. These lectures are based on history. They are not slamming or praising religion. The people of the Bible are quoted. I watched around 20 lectures. Maybe someday I will finish them.
Huh?
You think that the thousands of historical god characters did not originate in human lore? That the Abrahamic god character (aka God) was not defined by human beings based on lore and their imaginations?
If a sentient creator exists then I certainly agree with you that it would not exist due to lore. It would, as you note, exist in and of itself. But we have no objective knowledge of such an entity; we only have the god characters that we have invented as proxies. We have, at the very best, mere belief.
What I am saying is that a sentient creator might indeed exist and could be beyond our ability to ever sense. We can believe in its existence, but we have no means to verify its existence; to ascertain the truth of the belief. To go from belief into fact.
Now, if you disagree, please provide the objective means available to humankind that allow us to verify that a sentient creator objectively exists. I ask because I am curious since nobody (to my knowledge) has ever delivered that.
NOTE: This is not an obligation, this is a request. You have not stated here that God necessarily exists so this is not even a challenge.
Human religions are cultural expressions that originated in various geographic regions. If there is a God there is only one God. By definition God is the supreme being. The, not one of many.
There is no comparison between leprechauns , which if they were to exist are confined to earth, and a God of all creation and all universes.
Did you not see this?:
Uh, Mc Cowgirl, I don't care. The existence of God is not predicated on any human beliefs. A lot of atheists are obsessed with ridiculing and disproving Bible stories. I couldnt care less.
You'd have to pay me to watch those videos.
So you are uninterested in the history of the people of the Bible from a neutral perspective?
Even Jewish people buy her books and attend her lectures to learn more about their ancestors and the lives of the people who wrote the Torah.
The course is not about bashing the Torah, but about its history.
More or less.
I disagree when speaking of God as defined by the Bible. That definition of a god character correlates well with lore and the mindset and culture of the ancient authors. The biblical God is also defined as a contradiction which proves that it does not exist as defined. The biblical God appears to be yet another proxy for 'sentient creator'.
A sentient creator might exist, but the biblical God (as defined) cannot exist since it is defined as a contradiction . A and ~A cannot both be true.
One of the contradictions: an omniscient entity that is surprised, disappointed and persuaded to take a different course of action. One cannot know everything (past, present and future) and then learn something.
Are you familiar with the game Wheel of Fortune? The game involves gathering facts to arrive at a conclusion. Often the conclusion is presented before all the facts are revealed. But that conclusion is tested by revealing all the facts.
In real life it's often not possible to test conclusions by revealing all the facts. The available facts may be correct but the truth of a conclusion will be incomplete because all the facts are not known. At best, facts represent a partial truth.
Whether the earth is flat, spherical, or something else is a conclusion based upon an assemblage of facts. The facts cited by Flat Earthers are true. Each fact may be correct but facts can only be tested for correctness. The assemblage of true facts into a conclusion are tested for truth.
Facts are measured by correctness; conclusions are measured by truth. Correctness is not the same as truth. Truth is not binary as is correct/incorrect or true/false. Truth is more than correctness. And conclusions are more than facts. A conclusion is stronger than a fact because the true facts are assembled into a larger and more expansive truth.
I agree. You put this beautifully. I've been struggling to find a way to say what you've said here but never managed it. I'm going to be quoting this at times, if you don't mind.
Wheel of fortune is basically a guessing game...
constrained to using only our 26 letter alphabet. The puzzles are usually on a level that makes them highly solvable to anyone with a decent vocabulary and spelling skills.
Then you are simply speaking of an invalid argument. An invalid argument is a formal argument that is structurally flawed. If flat Earthers provide a list of premises - all of which are true- and conclude that the Earth is flat, they have formulated an argument that is invalid. The conclusion is thus bogus.
That is only true for conclusions that are based on sound formal logic:
If one can formally prove a truth (a sound argument: a valid formal argument whose premises are all objectively true) then that conclusion = fact. Most conclusions do not pass this bar.
You can put it any way you wish but ultimately your conclusion depends upon the objective truth of your premises and the validity of your argument form.
You know this.
So simply saying that you have concluded that God exists does not make it fact. To generate a conclusion of objective truth you would need a sound argument and I have yet to find any such argument in recorded history. If you have one, let's hear it.
And if you do not have a sound argument then your conclusion really is no better than a belief. Thus if you say 'I just believe' you are on solid ground. The problem is when you take a belief, argue that it is a conclusion (implying the result of a sound argument) and present it as fact (truth).
A 'beautiful' use of language does not solve that problem.
Facts aren't necessarily objectively true. They are not unchangeable, inviolate things. History is replete with examples of what were once thought to be facts that turned out not to be facts, including in science. It was once considered an objective fact that no star could be bigger than 150 solar masses. You can find plenty of articles that still state this and they will give the facts as to why this is so. Yet if you search for the biggest star by solar mass discovered to date it has a solar mass of 265.
This is misleading as it makes it seem as facts and conclusions are separate things. They are in fact, interdependent. A fact can't be a fact without concluding it is. For belief about a particular thing to develop into an objective fact a conclusion about it must be made. The idea that facts speak for themselves is wrong, since they are meaningless without some conclusion that derives from them. And, as pointed out above, even concluding something to be a fact doesn't necessarily mean it actually is a fact in reality.
As these definitions point out, a belief is whatever one holds to be true. Therefore, all belief is subjective, including your own. Every single thing you think is true is because you believe it is true. That is the normal meaning of the word.
What you and Gordy have attempted over the years is to equate "belief" to something like an unfounded, unreasoned religious experience . That is why you repeatedly object to your position being characterized as one of belief or faith, although those terms apply to you as much as anyone else when used in their actual, normal meaning. For instance, whether you deny it or not, you have faith in science.
One can also hold things as facts which aren't.
( Oxford ) Fact ≡ A thing that is known or proved to be true.
Seems like Oxford offers truth as the first definition of fact. You seem to want to loosen the meaning of fact for your own purposes. Not helpful.
All you are saying is that we sometimes make mistakes and think things are facts when in reality they are not. The fact would not change, we would just learn that what we thought was a fact was a mistake on our part.
An example of a mistake. It was not ever truly an objective fact; we were mistaken.
See definition above. A conclusion is only a fact (as I noted earlier) if it has been proved to be ( or is known [no mistake] to be true — that means definitively ) to be true.
Correct. Now where do you find me suggesting otherwise?
This again shows a failure to understand what we are saying. Let's go with everything is ultimately human perception and thus everything we 'know' is a belief ( in the most common usage of the word ... not the religious usage ). Agree so far? So now can you imagine that there are beliefs that are well-founded (based on a preponderance of well-founded sub-beliefs)? I am sure you can whether or not you admit it. Now, can you imagine beliefs that are not so well-founded — beliefs based on feelings / desires / indoctrination / fear / ...?
There is your difference Drakk. A formal proof in the formal system of arithmetic that shows 1 + 1 = 2 produces a proven conclusion (a fact). That means 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact (best human beings can do). That is profoundly different from a conclusion that the Christian God exists (as defined) based on ' rings true to me ' or ' I cannot imagine otherwise ' feelings and intuitions.
There are conclusions grounded in solid facts and resulting from sound logic and then there are those that are not.
First, no one simply states God exists, as if there is no underlying reasoning behind it. Second, concluding God doesn't make it a non-fact, either.
As mentioned in my previous post, everything is belief, so you're not saying anything meaningful. Nor do I need a sound argument that satisfies formal philosophy for my conclusion to be valid. All that would be necessary is that God exists.
Um, no. Implying that a conclusion is the result of formal philosophically sound argument is your thing, not mine. That is, it is the criteria your church tries to impose on the argument for it to be valid. Concerning God, the rules of philosophy ultimately must fail because philosophy is a merely human system to try to understand. Philosophy is limited because we are limited.
In reality, a conclusion in its simplest terms is a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
People claim it all the time; my point is that merely making the claim does not make it so. When the underlying reasoning is not provided, all that remains is an unsubstantiated claim.
Correct. Are you implying someone here concludes a sentient creator cannot possibly exist? If so, show me.
Don't you need a sound argument to have sound underlying reasoning? You spoke of underlying reasoning that exists for your belief and now are arguing that the only thing that counts is that God exist. You know, all that is necessary for a belief that the Earth is flat to be true is for the Earth to be flat. You are not offering anything here.
Well since you are rejecting philosophy what is left? You believe because you just do?
So what is the reasoning then? You do not seem to care about a sound formal process of reasoning. What is this process that you label as reasoning? Is 'it seems to ring true' what you mean by reasoning?
In light of everything else I said after this snippet of quote you address you know that wasn't anything like the point I was making. Nice.
That is not all I'm saying. In fact this has nothing at all to do with it. Whether or not we make mistakes is irrelevant. The point, which you seem to not want to address, is that what once was considered an objective fact was not.
(sigh) Yes, it is. However, it doesn't change that it was considered an objective fact, based on other known objective facts that led to the false conclusion.
Oh, yes it was. You see, there's no such thing as an objective fact outside the mind. It takes a mind to even conceive of what a fact is, let alone an objective fact. The minds that "proved" the upper limit of a star's potential mass thought it was an objective fact, bases on a lot of other objective facts. Every single thing you, at this moment, think is an objective fact you believe is an objective fact, even though later it may turn out to be wrong.
Your qualifiers are a waste of our time because, as you yourself have said, we can never be 100% certain of anything. That alone tells you that everything you think is true is because you believe it is, even though you know it could be wrong.
Your own words prove that I do understand what you are saying.
I do not draw on this conversation alone. I draw on the whole history of our interaction and also things you've said in conversations I wasn't a part of. For you, religious beliefs are nothing more than what you list here, no matter what anyone else tells you. It is what you always reduce it to.
And you prove it again that I do in fact understand what you are saying. You say I do not and then go about proving that I do. Strange.
You just quoted where I addressed it:
Addressed ⇡ If we once considered something an objective fact and it turns out that it was not actually true then it never really was an objective fact.
Yes it was considered an objective fact but it was not actually a fact. Why are we talking about something so obvious? Take this somewhere relevant.
I see. So unless a human mind conceives of something, that something is not objectively true. That suggest that reality does not actually exist unless perceived by the mind. So all that is taking place in distant galaxies for which we have zero information is not really taking place?
It was objectively true that the Earth is not the center of the universe even when most everyone on the planet thought it was. Truth is not a function of the human mind.
So you are disagreeing with me even when I grant you your notion of belief? It really is not possible to reason with someone who cannot even detect agreement.
In short, you again offer no answer.
That is about as vague as one can get. A great way to avoid a rebuttal ... make an abstract claim and provide no supporting justification for same.
No, I'm flat out stating that saying "Concluding God exists does not make it fact" is a pointless statement since it doesn't make it a non-fact, either. It doesn't get us anywhere.
If you mean in the philosophical sense of "sound", no, not when it comes to the subject of God. First, a sound argument is really just a philosophical exercise. It seldom has any practical applications. For instance, look at the philosophical problem of evil. A lot of brilliant minds have put a lot of work into that issue, on both sides, but you don't see any universally accepted conclusions. public policy enacted because of those conclusions or even public impact beyond opinion for the few who even know of the existence of the argument.
Second, coming up with a sound argument for the color of Mrs. Largebottom's cat is simple enough but it is an entirely different thing to try to come up with one for God, either for or against. It would be more like coming up with a sound argument for whether Schrodinger's cat was alive or dead without opening the box.
Actually I am. And you just confirmed it. We wouldn't need a sound argument for a flat earth. It just has to be flat. That was the point.
No, I have reasons I've listed numerous times before but you apparently don't remember. Things like argument from morality, the cosmological argument, fine tuning, my relationship with God and others. Perhaps more importantly, I see, or am continuously learning what God wants from me and why and it convinces me that no human could have come up with it. It simply isn't in our nature.
It should be noted that what you think of those things is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they are part of what convinces me. They are why I don't "just believe."
I don't mind. Besides I cannot hold a trademark on an idea that seems rather universal. You're a thinker so I'm confident that you'll explore and expand on my crude presentation.
Ah, but the guesses are used to reveal facts. The available facts are used to arrive at a conclusion before all the facts are revealed. The presented conclusion isn't a guess; it's a deduction made from available facts.
Yes, that is obvious.
I would except you keep refusing to understand what an objective fact is. Evidence:
Factual things don't label themselves as objective facts. That is something humans do to categorize what kind of fact we're talking about. When someone talks about an objective fact, they are saying that this fact is true in a manner that subjective experience cannot change it. So saying that a fact was never really objective fact is flat wrong because it was considered objective before falsification. It was an objective fact because that was the category in which we placed it. Now, having disproved the prior fact, the new one is claimed to be objective fact. Not because it necessarily is an actual fact, but because it is believed to be.
And before you accuse me of taking us down this rabbit hole to no purpose, remember what I was responding to:
My response was:
Rather than simply concede the point, you had to take us here.
In an attempt to get back to the actual point, I made the distinction as part of my effort to show that beliefs are really just conclusions (thanks Nerm!) we've made about something given certain information. Specifically, that even though you think your view is driven by objective facts, it's really a belief, or conclusion given what you consider to be objective facts, but may not be. Therefore, the difference between a believer in God and a believer of your persuasion isn't all that great.
Apparently you don't. A thing is objectively true if we label it as such according to certain standards. It is a classification, not something that makes a fact extra facty.
Pick a term, TiG. Truth is indeed not a function of the human mind, except the capacity to understand the concept. However, objective truth is. Let's define objective truth.
The claim that the earth was not the center of the universe was not objectively true in their day because it wasn't confirmable. While it was true that it was not the center, it wasn't objectively true.
That isn't what this is about, although I'm happy to see you agree about belief. It is that if you can be made to understand what objective truth is, or more accurately, to understand the limitations of it, you will find the basis of your beliefs over mine not as strong as they seem to you now. That is, in your arguments, here and elsewhere, you wield "objective facts" as if they were some immovable rock that gives your arguments extra validity. They really don't. They are just things you believe to be true.
Well, stated more completely, Flat Earthers have assembled true facts into a conclusion presented as truth. That's sort of based on the idea that true facts can only lead to a conclusion that is truth. The truth of Flat Earther's conclusion is compared to the truth of other conclusions derived from the same true facts or additional true facts.
The Flat Earther's conclusion is valid within the confines of the chosen true facts. Flat Earthers demonstrate that true facts can lead to an illusion of truth. Testing the truth of Flat Earther's conclusion requires thinking outside the box of chosen true facts. So, (using an admitted over simplification and obvious catchphrase presentation of the idea) testing truth requires thinking outside the box.
All conclusions are valid within the confines of the chosen true facts. Objectively true facts can also mislead to conclusions (beliefs) that are not truth. So, a conclusion cannot be a fact; a conclusion must be a truth. IMO the distinction is significant. Objectively true facts are not sufficient to test truth. Testing truth requires reason, deliberation, and rational thought that extends beyond objectively true facts.
Testing truth requires an indeterminate quality and capability that cannot be quantified or predicted. Knowledge, alone, can mislead.
Not really debatable. And why bring it up since I do not see anyone claiming that concluding God does not exist means it is not a fact (unless, of course, the God is defined as a contradiction).
Absolutely yes I am speaking of sound argument per propositional logic.
Good grief. Ever consider the notion of a legal argument? How about working through a logical problem? In my field we routinely produce working models based on mathematics and logic. The concept of a sound argument is at the core of modern computing technology: communications protocols, security procedures, etc. An algorithm that is not based on the concept of a sound argument will commonly manifest in something we call a 'bug' or a 'glitch'.
The fact that abstract philosophers have pondered deeply academic questions and have failed to come to a solid conclusion is a pretty weak basis for categorically deeming sound arguments to "seldom" have "any practical applications".
I agree that it would be profoundly difficult to produce a sound argument for the existence or inexistence of God when God is defined in abstract terms such as: eternal sentient creator. Thus far, to my knowledge (and I have searched), nobody has been successful in this endeavor.
If your point is that there are some things that are true then we have never disagreed on that. Does anyone disagree on that?? But we do not know if something is true until we can observe and analyze same. You agree, right? So where, ultimately, is this taking us? Are we agreeing or disagreeing on something?
Or I am asking you to make contemporary comments in this context because this, right here, is the active discussion.
You actually are influenced by the cosmological argument as an argument for the Christian God?:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
⛬ the Universe had a cause.
The conclusion is simply that something (of unspecified nature) caused our universe to come into existence (taken to mean: 'form' as opposed to 'poof into existence out of nothing').
There is nothing in this argument that suggests sentience. Nothing that necessitates omniscience, omnipotence, etc. No requirement of eternal or perfect or really anything that points to the Christian God.
This argument identifies quantum fluctuation and (in effect) anything else we might speculate as a plausible cause for the universe.
How can you find this persuasive as an argument or even a partial hint for the existence of the Christian God?
Good!
Objective truth = truth that is independent of human subjective perception. Independent of the perceiving subject.
Considered is the operative word. People considered the Earth to be the center of the universe as an objective fact. But, in reality, it was not a fact at all. It was a falsehood; it was not an objective fact because it was not even a fact. It was simply perceived as such.
If something is false it cannot be a fact. If something is not a fact, qualifying it with adjectives will not make it a fact.
' objectively true ' = not subjectively true = true, independent of human perception = hard-core true
Do you or do you not recognize that there exist truths in reality independent of human perception? That even if there were no sentient entities in the entire universe, these truths would exist?
The Earth is not the center of the universe is true independent of any human perception. It is objectively (as in NOT subjectively) true.
Coincidentally this popped up when I decided to provide a third party opinion to try to get you to consider what I have written. It even includes the example I have been using with you so it is perfect:
The author is full of shit, right?
Facts are necessarily objectively true (see above). Truth is not changeable; but reality is. If the Earth is NOT the center of the universe at the time the claim is made, that is an objective fact that does not change. If the entire universe reoriented itself a million years in the future so that Earth became the center of the universe then the objective truth for that state of reality (for that time) is that the Earth is the center of the universe. That does not make the earlier fact wrong; it is still true that at the time of the claim the Earth absolutely was NOT the center of the universe.
Truth does not change. Reality changes over time and every fact (every truth) is true only for the state of reality in which it is claimed.
Again, your example of 150 solar masses was not even true when stated. Us learning later that what was perceived as truth was really a falsehood does not in any way suggest that a fact has changed. It is our perception that changed. The non-fact was a falsehood then and is a falsehood now (just accepting your example, by the way).
Already did: objective truth . See link above to one of many third parties that will corroborate my correct usage of this term. If you cannot deal with this term then let's just call it 'absolute truth' where absolute truth = 'truth that is independent of the perception of an observer'. After all, I am just trying to get you to accept the notion that there are truths and falsehoods that are true and false, respectively, even if no sentient minds existed. Really have to work hard to get you to agree to even the most obvious notions. And if that does not work, then you pick the term.
So now you add a new criterion: an objective truth must be 'comfirm-able'. This really is ridiculous. You ignore even in your source the notion of ' true for everyone ' that does not stipulate confirmation by any sentient mind. Further your source is a general definition for objectivity when I have been talking about objective truth. The two are not the same notions.
What term will you accept to connote that which is true independent of any observer ?
Drakk, you are the one who has the strange definition of 'objective truth'.
And now do not use the word 'beliefs' when comparing my positions and your religious beliefs. That is crossing usages. I figured you would do this as soon as decided to graciously use belief to express a human perception.
My position with respect to a sentient creator is that the evidence does not support the hypothesis. It does not contradict the hypothesis either. But given all that we have learned of reality and how it works, there does not seem to be any reason to hypothesis a sentient creator. If we see reasons in the future I would be thrilled to openly consider them. You, in contrast, have a religious belief. You believe not only in a sentient creator, but one with very specific attributes, personality, intentions, promises and stories of exploits. To believe something so specific and grand without any supporting evidence is remarkable. But it is rather clear that my position: " I am not convinced a sentient creator exists " is on substantially stronger grounds than your belief that the Christian God (as per the Bible) actually exists.
Objectively true , not objective facts. That which one believes true are subjective truths. To be objectively true, they would need to be absolutely true regardless of human perception.
Which is why I said:
That doesn't state that knowing how to make a sound argument has no use at all. Your example of computer tech is not, in my mind, a philosophical example. It is a practical example of a process and it's not an argument in the philosophical sense in that the correctness of the argument within the programming isn't a matter of debate but whether it runs correctly or not.
This is different from purely philosophical problems in the sense we are talking about. No one is ever going to come up with a philosophically sound argument either for or against God that will be considered objectively true. That isn't true of computers. Arguments used within computing are not a matter of debate but, rather, whether it works or not. There's no uncertainty in it.
It only seems that way because you included things which I did not. I specifically said, " not when it comes to God ." Everything after that was said in that context. If we restrict it to what I actually said rather than add all the stuff you did in order to make a false point, we see that what I said is true. What practical application has come from any sound argument concerning God can you name? You appear to agree with this in your next statement.
No, my point is that to put what one believes to be true into a philosophically sound argument is not a necessary condition to justify belief. That is, it may be for you but that is a personal decision on your part.
Obviously not. To be sure, I do agree if we are talking about phenomena concerning our existence within this universe, but I cannot, nor anyone else on earth, observe or analyze God in the manner I believe you intend. And if your intent is focused on the highlighted portion of the quote it should not need to be pointed out by now that even if we are speaking about natural phenomena, we're really in the same boat, since we can't know with certainty the things we believe to be facts actually are.
Seeing it this way doesn't make me a postmodernist, who don't think ultimate truth can actually be nailed down, which I feel explains a lot of what's going on in this country today. Someone is successfully indoctrinating post modernism into our culture and it is destroying us. "My opinion" has morphed into "my truth" as if it were whatever you want it to be and so on.
Rather, I feel we should do our best to determine objective truth to the best of our ability, even though we recognize it could possibly turn out to be wrong. There's no point in operating any other way. Where you and I differ is not everything (or so I believe) can be examined in the way we might examine an electron or dark matter. I do believe there is more than the material universe. Obviously, scientific methods won't be of any use in proving that, so other methods must be used to decide what one believes about it. Inference, deduction and subjective experience to name some of them.
Yes. Influenced is actually an apt term for it, too. That is, as you point out, there is nothing in the argument itself that points to God so it isn't quite the argument itself that convinces me. However, there is a bit more to it than you're suggesting.
Since it doesn't actually identify any causes at all, I am thinking you mean to say that quantum fluctuation is also a plausible cause. If so, that would be correct. However, the argument is much more complex than what you've reduced it to, as the link above will explain if you are interested in the quite long article.
Because it is not something I consider in isolation, but as part of the aggregate of the whole body of evidence I consider.
Maybe you should just stick with that specific statement and not generalize. If you change the words 'is ever going to' to 'has' and strike 'that will be considered objectively true' we would agree.
This yields: No one has come up with a philosophically sound argument either for or against God. I am not going to presume that this is impossible. If you want to go with impossible then we will not agree on that point.
Sure, if you want to use the loose usage of 'justify' where someone could 'justify' killing someone because the devil told them to do it. With that usage, one can pretty much 'justify' anything.
You do not observe and analyze God? Literally now, if you nothing to go on regarding God then what would cause you to believe? I am not speaking of you putting God in a laboratory and running tests. I am talking about you perceiving God (in various ways), analyzing and drawing a conclusion. Clearly you do that.
Stated differently, if you had no information (true or false) about 'God', why would you believe 'God' exists?
I agree with that!!
Given I have seen nothing that suggests this I am not persuaded to believe it. The only information I have on this is what ordinary religiously inclined people merely claim. That is, of course, entirely not persuasive.
Quantum fluctuation was the one example I used when I was stating "anything else we might speculate as a plausible cause". My language was clear.
Yes, I know, but it influences you in part (as I noted: partial hint). I find that strange since the argument only concludes cause and effect for that which comes into existence. The conclusion is so general as to be obvious and is not discriminating.
Yes, people kid themselves all the time. Another prime example of this is the phenomenon of confirmation bias wherein an individual accepts only that which supports their bias and rejects all information to the contrary. It is illusion shaping.
That is why formal logic is so important when trying to get to the truth. It is a guideline that helps our strange minds focus and engage in much more objective reasoning.
No that is not true. An argument with entirely true premises may be invalid (a flawed structure) such as:
1. A PotUS must be 35 years of age or older.
2. Pee Wee Herman must be 35 years of age or older.
∴ Pee Wee Herman is president of the United States.
No. The author is saying exactly what I've been saying all along. The problem is that you are conflating truth with objective truth or fact or whatever word you want to use. Let's look at your quote again, only I will highlight what you are missing.
It may be a fact that on some planet that is in a galaxy so far away and moving so fast we'll never see the light from it has a race of intelligent unicorns on it. However, it will never be an objective fact to us here on earth. Only facts we know about can have the adverb "objective" conferred on it.
Put another way, you can't have an objective fact without stating what the fact is or how could you know it is objective? You can't state that the intelligent unicorns are an objective fact because you don't know it's a fact at all. If you try, all you end up with is a subjective fact, even if those unicorns know they exist.
Further, "Its use reflects the fact that truth and falsity are conferred on statements and beliefs by their objects..." isn't literally true and doesn't mean objective truth is determined apart from human input. It is only a figure of speech meaning the sum total of what we know about the object determines whether it is objectively true. If the object did literally confer objectivity, it would never be that one day it is objectively true that a star can only be x big and the next day not.
Not so. A fact can be subjectively true at first and then become objectively true later. We see it in science all the time. Someone does an experiment and says, based on the results of her test, X is true. She is absolutely sure her findings are objectively true. No one is going to take that as an objective fact until someone, or several someone's repeat the experiment, possibly a number of times and see if they get the same results. Then, they will analyze their data on the test to see the originator's explanation of why X is true matches their data and explanation.
The problem I see with how you view all of this is that you seem to be referring to the idea that, ultimately, there is only one truth about every material thing in our universe, which I tend to agree with, mostly (Holographic universe theory makes me wonder if even that idea about truth is as solid as we think it is). However, we can't operate on a basis of 100% assurance because we aren't perfect, omniscient or intelligent enough for that sort of thing.
So, what I am trying to get you to realize about objective facts is that, because we can't be 100% sure about anything, the best we can do concerning objective facts is to say they represent the best understanding of what is true given our limitations.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post since I'll just be repeating what I've already said, ad nauseum. Looks like we're just going to disagree.
Religion believes. The reviewer's language is imprecise.
Not conflating: equating. I have been trying to get you to understand that when I speak of truth I am speaking of objective truth (in contrast to subjective truth). I am speaking of that which is true even if no sentient mind perceives it. For example, our planet is not the center of the universe. That is an objective truth — it would true even if no sentient life forms existed. Or, using my source's language, if no subject existed. Earth = object; observer = subject = the person holding the belief or making the claim.
Fascinating.
I have stated that objective truth is independent of the observer. Now read again the words of my source:
Truth is independent of ["has nothing to do with the state of"] the subject. The subject is the person holding the belief or making the statement.
You highlight that "truth is conferred on statements and beliefs by their objects" yet somehow do not understand that the author is saying that truth is a function of the state of the object, not a function of the observer. Objective truth is independent of the observer. The author did not write: "truth is conferred on statements and beliefs by the state of the subject".
Don't know what more to say here other than it illustrates how you are able to read whatever you want into clear language that states the opposite of what you wish. Interesting to see you do it with a third party; that suggests you do this without even realizing it. In other words, maybe some of the games I see you playing are not intentional. You might just not realize that sometimes you are reading what you want to read even if the words you read state the opposite.
That is an unsubstantiated claim. Well, except for the leprechauns portion. Both likely originated in human lore.
But, hobbits were real....
I saw them, too. And elves, dwarves, orcs, wizards, Ents, and a Balroc.
Meet Homo floresiensis: The Real-life Hobbits of Indonesia
Looks like they might have been migrating toward New Zealand in preparation for filming.
They are not equal things. If objective truth and truth are the same thing, you're essentially saying the same thing as true truth. That simply doesn't make sense. It's redundant.
If a planet of intelligent unicorns exists, it exists in truth, whether we know about it or not. But you can't differentiate it from a subjective truth unless you know it is a fact. It's that simple, TiG. If some alien species whipped me off in their ludicrous speed space ship and showed me the planet exists and brought me back, are you going to accept the planet is an objective fact because I told you it is? Of course not. That's because a fact cannot be objective until enough people have had the opportunity to examine the evidence that supports a fact being objective.
For goodness sake, TiG, do you think the author was speaking literally? It is a figure of speech. The sun doesn't literally confer objectivity on the statement "the sun is the center of our solar system" because it's a sun. It just does sun things. It isn't aware because it doesn't have a mind, so it doesn't do any conferring. What the author of the quote is actually saying is that a statement or a belief, which can only come from a mind, comes not literally from the object itself, as if it were sentient and telling us about itself, he's saying that what we learn about the nature of a thing determines whether the statements or beliefs are objective truths. It is our ability to recognize from available data that, regardless of how we might feel about it, the sun is indeed the center of our solar system, and because we recognize it, we classify it as an objective fact. Look at the quote again:
Objective facts aren't simply floating around through space and time, waiting to intersect with an intelligent mind to settle into. We can only know what the object is about, the earth and the sun and how they move in relationship to each other, what goes on in the gut and so on, if we study and examine them. That there is a sun is a fairly easy fact to establish. Same with the earth. The discovery about their relationship to each other comes harder but doable, as has been proven. It is actually those things that we learn about the sun and the earth that actually confers objectivity on a belief or statement, not the object itself, unless your using it figuratively, as does the author.
Put another way, the claim that the sun is the center of the universe is an objective fact is not conferred on the statement by the sun. If that were so, no one would have once thought the earth was the center of the universe, let alone the center of our solar system. It took a lot of observation, other facts and various scientific methods, all of which it took humans to do, to establish that the sun being the center of our solar system is an objective fact. And what we mean by objective is that any reasonable person who can look at the data will also come to the same conclusion and could not arrive at any other because the data doesn't allow for personal, subjective interpretation.
Further, the author doesn't state that objective truth has nothing at all to do with the subject making the statement or professing a belief.
Rather, the author states that it has nothing to do with the state of the subject. What he means is, objective truth is what it is, regardless of the subject's biases, preferences, subjective experience or whatever else. He does not state that the subject has no involvement whatsoever in determining objective truth because a determination of objective truth can only be made by the subject after examining relevant data and evidence.
Right now there's a fairly large number of scientists that think that dark matter and dark energy are facts (You don't spend the kind of money being spent on trying to find some of it if you didn't think they were). But they are not objective facts. To be sure, there is some fact out there concerning them, even if we don't know what that fact is, precisely. That fact could range from what most scientists suspect dark matter to be to it not existing at all, but whatever the fact is, it won't be objective until a fact is presented that is recognizably true for anyone who examines it. It's that last part that makes it an objective fact, not simply that it is a fact and why a fact and objective fact aren't the same thing.
That's why I introduced astrology and Feng Shui into the discussion. Are astrology and Feng Shui science or religion?
Astrology and Feng Shui have all the characteristics associated with science. Astrology and Feng Shui have none of the characteristics associated with theist religion. Based on those chosen facts, astrology and Feng Shui are science and not religion. But the purpose of astrology and Feng Shui does not correspond to the purpose for science and do correspond to the purpose for religion. Astrology and Feng Shui appear to represent science used for religious purposes.
What differentiates astrology and Feng Shui from climate science, evolutionary science, social science, and the search for the origin of life? They all observe the universe and use the scientific method to determine causal relationships. They all generate true facts. All these science based activities produce conclusions from observation of causal relationships and make predictions that can be tested and are falsifiable. Simple deductive logic, as you've illustrated, would lead to a conclusion that all these science based activities are quite similar.
People kid themselves all the time that methods of science to generate true facts can only lead to truth. But as astrology and Feng Shui demonstrate, the purpose for generating the true facts is also important in assessing truth.
How is it possible that you cannot see that this is what I have been telling you all along?? 'regardless of' = 'independent of'
I have been telling you, repeatedly, that when I speak of objective truth I am talking about truth in its most essential form: independent of any observer. I have used the term absolute truth and you ignored it. I have asked you to pick whatever term you want and you just continue to argue tangents.
Since you seem to now agree that objective truth = "That which is true independent of any observer" I am delivering my original point @3.2.80 but further simplified:
The quality of a conclusion is a function of the objective truth of the premises and the validity of the argument form in use.
Thus merely stating that you have concluded God exists does not make your conclusion objective truth. Your argument must be valid and your premises must be objective truth.
I have yet to find any such argument in recorded history. If you have one, let's hear it.
And if you do not have the aforementioned sound argument then your conclusion is no better than a belief. Thus if you say 'I just believe' you are on solid ground. The problem is when you take a belief, argue that it is a conclusion (implying the result of a sound argument) and present it as objective truth.
So offer your sound argument that concludes God exists. I predict your argument will be unsound. If sound, you will be the first in recorded history to accomplish this feat (to my knowledge).
Note: if a premise is false, it is ipso facto NOT objective truth.
Answered. see @8.3.2 and @8.3.4:
Especially look at my NOTE above. One wrong prediction and science will scrap or rework a theory. That is the bar for science. For you to even ask if Astrology is science is ridiculous on the onset.
What is actually being equated is the idea that objective facts represent objective truth. The Earth is not the center of the universe is an objectively true fact.
The argument is based upon the idea that facts are the same as truth and that the objectivity of the fact conveys objectivity onto truth. It's a false equivalency.
Objectively true facts can mislead to an untruth as easily as lead to a truth. That observation refutes the false equivalency that facts are truth.
I disagree. The existence of a planet of intelligent unicorns would be a true fact regardless of our knowledge. That fact does not represent any sort of truth; the fact is either correct or incorrect.
IMO truth cannot be defined in a binary manner as either correct or incorrect. That's why understanding truth, particularly objective truth, can be extraordinarily challenging.
Because it isn't what you've been arguing all along or even now. Truth or fact is no more independent from an observer than right and wrong, good and bad. These concepts can only exist for an observer and not on their own. Objective truth or fact does not exist independently of an observer, they exist independent of an observer's desires, biases, expectations, prejudices or anything else like that. Figure it out.
Wow. Nice, TiG. Really nice. So you're just going to pretend we are agreeing about this, aren't you? About all I can say to that is it's a great example of subjective truth. Good job.
Another subjective truth, implying that I ever said a sound argument that was objectively true could be made rather than stating earlier the opposite.
It's pretty obvious you've run out of imaginative ways to deny what is obviously true and are just declaring victory. Enjoy your subjective truth.
I do not know how often the predictions of astrology are correct. The complicating factor is that the predictions of astrology (and Feng Shui) influence the indeterminate behavior of humans. Humans can alter their behavior to according to the predictions which will affect reliability of the predictions. Astrology and Feng Shui would be comparable to other sciences involving human behavior; medical sciences or behavioral sciences.
Medical science may scrap a theory but that doesn't alter medical science being a science. What defines science doesn't depend upon correctness. And when the purpose of medical science is to influence the indeterminate behavior of humans that will affect correctness. The criteria you've presented ignores that science often measures correctness by statistical significance. Being correct 50.5 pct of the time is statistically significant. Medical science and behavioral science often test theories in terms of changes in behavior and feelings of the test subjects according to statistical significance.
Are you attempting to suggest that only physical sciences studying inanimate matter and energy are truly science? Astrology and Feng Shui are more closely related to behavioral science than physics. Are behavioral sciences not science?
Per Oxford: a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why something happened; a reason given for something
Here is the definition of assumption: a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof.
Note the difference? They are non synonymous.
Why are you playing games rather than simply answering my question?
There is no empirical evidence to support the claim or assumption. Therefore, there is no reason to accept it as factual or true.
In other words, you think a lack of belief is a belief in itself? Let's be clear, it is not a faith. It's a refusal to accept something as true without supporting empirical evidence.
I never said any such thing. Science examines reality. It doesn't determine it.
Unless one has facts, something cannot be proclaimed as "truth."
No! I said if it isn't supported by empirical evidence, there is no reason to accept something as factual or true. You might want to get the "rules" right!
I have to wonder if you're just playing trolling games now Drak? Or do you honestly think that is what I am saying? So let me make it clear for you: Whether the earth was thought to be a sphere or flat was not the issue. One cannot honestly make a proclamation of either as fact unless there was evidence to support it. People made claims either way, but simply did not know either way. They made assumptions. But explorers eventually found evidence to determine the earth was indeed spherical.
At least we agree on that. If belief doesn't equal fact, then why would anyone want to go by or rely on belief?
Evidence Drak, evidence! Or the lack of it!
I refer to objective, empirical evidence. That applies whether one accepts it or not. Anything else is less and more subjective and is a less accurate indicator of actual fact or reality.
You just cannot stop with the games. Anyone can go back and read my comments and see that you are full of it.
A distinction without a difference.
The Earth exists. That is a true statement. If there were no observers, the statement would be true. It is true independent of observers.
Figure it out yourself.
Gosh, Gordy. You'd have a meaningful point if only this was about the difference between "explanation" and "assumption". Unfortunately for you the subject is why do you claim God is not an explanation. All you do is say it isn't, yet the definition of explanation, which you helpfully supplied, says it is. So, try again.
To quote your favorite thing, great! Prove it. All you're doing is stating a restriction concerning making a judgement value simply because of personal preference. It is claiming that no matter what God does to convince a person, unless He does so empirically, it isn't valid. God says, if you want to know me you must approach me on my terms. You say, sorry God. No can do. Science says you gotta do things scientifically or no dice. And that seems sane to you.
Um, no. Like it says right there in the quote you provide but apparently do not understand.
Do you see "lack of belief" anywhere in there? How about "You have no evidence that such a position is factual"? Why, yes. It's right there, by golly! Since the words don't seem to mean anything to you as written, I'll expand on it. I'll even use your own words. There is no empirical evidence to support your position. How's that? Surely you understand your own words?
Really? Then why do you say ridiculous things like "there's no empirical evidence" when the subject is God, even though you know there cannot be because even you know science can't deal with the question of God. So, when you constantly reduce your argument to "no empirical evidence" as you do, you are indeed saying science determines it.
But, by all means, just deny it and this fact will conveniently go away.
Um, sure it can. I proclaim it is better to treat someone as I would like to be treated than it is to treat them as they might treat me. Now, the truth of that particular morality can't be empirically proven because it is based on desires of the individual. Another may proclaim it is better to do unto others before they do it unto you. It is up to each to decide which is true and which isn't. Point being, not everything can be determined from facts.
Rules? What rules? Where do they come from? Is there some agency that enforces them? Can I opt out of them? Again, you just are stating that science determines reality, in your view at least.
A little of both, actually. A person from antiquity may not have had empirical evidence of the kind we have today but he could indeed claim fact by reasoning alone and be right. Others could accept the fact or reject it based on their own analysis of the reasoning. Those who believe the earth is round believe in an actual fact, just not an objective fact.
Belief is the end point, not the starting point. That is, those who live in reality, anyway. For instance, since empirical evidence can't determine whether or not it is better to treat others as you'd like to be treated over doing unto others before they do it to you, some other means must be used to determine which is true. This is because, to a large part, the answer depends on subjective desire. Since empirical evidence can't solve this, inductive and deductive reasoning, observation, rationality and other such things must be used to arrive at the truth and that truth will be one holds because they believe it is true, i.e. has faith it is true.
In the same way, since science can't examine God and can't provide evidence one way or the other, other methods must be used to determine the truth of the matter. But not for you, of course. For you, science determines realty so you don't have to bother with those other methods. Convenient.
Obviously.
Which would be a perfectly acceptable statement as long as you don't add anything else to it. And, believe it or not, I even agree with it as written, not necessarily with what you may have intended. The reasons for believing in God (no, not the one's you are always claiming they are. The real ones) are not objective facts. They are subjective ones. But that doesn't mean they aren't true. And since they are subjective, less accurate indicators of the actual facts concerning God. We see that in the differences people have about what He is like, for instance.
It can't be any other way, since science can't address the issue and God is evidently pleased not to provide empirical evidence Himself. What we are left with are the same tools anyone uses to try to figure out an unsettled issue. Like, is there intelligent life on other planets. There is no empirical evidence to say that there is. None that says there isn't. Still, someone who believes there is doesn't "just believe". They take the entirety of their subjective experience, meaning all they've learned about the issue and think about the subject and do their best to arrive at a conclusion. For some, that conclusion leads them to believe intelligent life on other planets must be fact because they consider the odds against it so astronomical that it approaches zero.
Really? Then how would you know the earth exists as a fact, independent of an observer?
Note that you have yet to offer your sound argument that concludes God exists. Lots of smoke but ultimately you never delivered.
The Earth would exist even though nobody would exist to know. The truth of 'the Earth exists' is independent of observer.
Prior to human beings evolving there were no cognitive minds capable of comprehending that the Earth existed.
Yet, amazingly, the Earth existed back then. It was true, prior to any human beings in existence, that the Earth existed.
To wit, this is an example of truth that is independent of an observer.
I know you think that answered the question, but it doesn't. Every part of your explanation requires an observer to form the explanation.
The only way you can state this is because of observation. We know the universe existed prior to humans because once we got here, we observed that it did. Had it turned out that no life at all developed in this universe there would be no fact of the universe because there would be no mind for the fact to exist in, assuming we aren't including God in this. A universe that doesn't exist is indistinguishable from one that has no observers in it because there are no observers for either one. There is no way to say either is a fact. To do otherwise is to make a truth claim about a thought experiment. Yes, logically, because of our experience as observers we can conceptualize a universe with no observers in it and say it would be a fact, but it will never be anything other than a notional universe and forever not a fact.
You essentially asked me how an observer could know that the Earth existed if there were no observers.
Now you continue with the same nonsense even though I have never argued this.
Rather than engage in your semantic game I focused on the point that I actually made:
The Earth's existence is truth even if there is nobody alive to observe the truth.
It does not offer any details or evidence, much less facts. Replace "God" with fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. It would be the same thing. Going by your understanding, those things are just as valid and acceptable an "explanation" as God is. You want to essentially say "God did it," but offer nothing to support that assumption, much less demonstrate there's a god to begin with which is the foundation of that so-called "explanation."
No, there is no evidence whatsoever to validate the conclusion "God did it." I'm not going by personal feelings. I doubt I can say the same for you.
Do you even understand what empirical evidence is, or why it's so important in science when establishing truth with a degree of certainty?
How convenient. That's like a con man saying "trust me" and simply going along with him.
It is logical. The scientific method has proven to be very effective at establishing truth with a degree of certainty. What's insane is forgoing the scientific method in favor of something that is subjective or emotionally appealing.
Then elucidate for me. How is not believing there is a god a belief?
I'm not the one making or accepting claims of god simply because someone says so. There is no empirical evidence to support such claims. Your attempt at a "gotcha" is both weak and laughable.
That is a factual statement.
Because some people claim with certainty that there is a god or that god did something. Therefore, they invite challenge and bear the burden of proving such assertions with evidence. Now, if they said "I believe there's a god" or "God did this," then there would be no problem.
We are not talking about social or philosophical "facts." We are talking about actual reality and the facts to support truths made about reality. Either you do not understand that or are trying to play games with me! Which is it?
Science and logic Drak!
Seems like you already have Drak.
Are you suggesting science does not do that? That it doesn't look at the universe around us (that is reality) and tries to examine and understand it better and how it works?
It's kind of you to admit trolling. That shows me you have no desire to have a serious discussion and instead prefer to continue playing your games.
No, belief is the starting point. One doesn't know or understand something, so they go by belief. Or possibly indoctrinated into belief or go by it for emotional comfort. The establishment of truth based on fact is the end point.
Other "methods" lack veracity and are highly subjective. It's more honest to say "I don't know" than make something up as "truth" or emotionally appealing.
What claims about god/s have I made? And yes, I know they are subjective. I have acknowledged that before. But do you not see why subjective is a problem?
Making stuff up or accepting an appeal by authority does not figure anything out. It's just intellectual laziness and dishonesty.
That's not so much a belief as it is an opinion based on probability, taking into account all the available evidence.
Got it. Rather than deal with the points I'm making, just call it a semantic game, dust off your hands and continue on with the notion that you can't possibly be wrong. Gotta admit, that probably makes your life a lot simpler. Cudos!
The Earth's existence is truth even if there is nobody alive to observe the truth.
You either will address this seriously or you will continue to play games. I suspect it will be the latter.
Debatable, but whatever. The point is, an explanation doesn't have to give details, evidence or facts. Observe:
Person 1: Why is there a broken vase on the floor?
Person 2: The cat knocked it off.
See?
Only in the shallowest, non-critically thinking sense. One could replace the cat in the example above with a gnome just as easily. While it also qualifies as an explanation, it isn't a very likely explanation. Given what powers are ascribed to God, fairies, leprechauns or gnomes, only one of them would be infinitely more likely as an explanation. A hollow argument.
Untrue statement. There's plenty of evidence. To correct your statement, "There is no evidence whatsoever that you accept as evidence to validate the conclusion 'God did it'". Those that do accept it as evidence are therefore not going by "personal feelings" no matter how you personally feel about it.
And at this point, there's no purpose in continuing. It appears impossible for you to understand a paradigm not your own, even for the sake of discussion. Since you can't, no point.
Then feel free to provide actual facts that there's a god and/or god actually did anything.
Then the "explanation" lacks merit.
An assumption, with no facts established to support it. It could also be quite incorrect too.
No, in the exact same sense as using "god."
The same can apply to god. That's why evidence is necessary, especially when establishing fact.
One can simply ascribe the same abilities to fairies if one chooses. Same difference.
You say that, but offer up nothing!
Don't presume to speak for me or misquote me. It's a dishonest tactic. I said there is no objective, empirical evidence for god or that "god did it." That is a factual statement.
Those that accept there's a god or "god did it," sans evidence, are likely going by personal feelings.
Right, you've got nothing, offered nothing, and now are running away. Just as well I suppose.
I'd say most definitely the latter.
Indeed. Science doesn't deal with god/s or the supernatural one way or another. Such things are a non-issue in science. What science can do is discredit or rationally explain certain claims made on behalf of God or religion.
This is not an example of not requiring faith and misses the point of the article entirely. That your TV works as expected simply points to the fact that we know enough about our environment and how it works to produce something like a TV. It does nothing to address the point of the article, which is we don't know why our environment, i.e. the universe, has the properties it does or even why it should have properties at all, let alone one that allows TV's. Therefore, to believe that because we know how a thing works means a God would not be necessary is akin to saying engineers aren't necessary because you know how a car works. As the writer of the article correctly points out, it is not possible to prove or disprove God. Therefore, to say God is not necessary or an explanation for why is an act of faith. One not supported by empirical evidence of any kind.
The more we can explain phenomena, the less room there is for 'god did it'.
God still has room in the gaps — places where we do not have answers thus a sentient creator remains possible. One of the gaps is illustrated in the fine-tuning argument. Another is in how life itself emerged and went on to form our amazing cells. But the gaps nowadays compared to centuries ago are few.
Your mistake is in saying that if we can explain something, the cause of it could not have been God.
Prove it.
Where did I state "could not have been"? Deliver the quote.
"Not necessarily" is different from "could not have been".
In the past, gods were presented as the only explanation for phenomena such as lightning. Nowadays we can explain lightning without having to resort to 'god is angy' or equivalent.
That does not mean that there cannot be an entity tweaking things to generate lightning. It means that we have a more plausible explanation that is backed by some rather serious evidence. Given our modern explanation (which is quite sound) versus an explanation that has zero supporting evidence, it is rational to hold that lightning is a consequence of releasing a potential electrical charge built in clouds rather than an expression of power by Zeus.
You missed my point entirely. Of course you can always digress to the point that I, or anyone, cannot provide a logical, fact based explanation. That does not mean god. That just mean we do t know, yet.
My point was that the need for god has become so small as to be nonexistent in everyday life because we understand the natural world so well that we can figure things out without asking the big guy.
Um, yeah, the God of the gaps argument. Nobody ascribes to the God of the gaps idea on my side of the isle. That is, we don't use God to explain things we don't understand in the natural world. Here's why dredging up that stupid thing is just misdirection.
The existence of a sentient creator, based on the lack of supporting evidence, is pure speculation. The speculated existence of something as highly attributed and specific as the Christian God must actually defy evidence against it. So when this video argues that God is the 'explanation' behind all of science it fails to consider the fact that there is nothing whatsoever that backs up that speculation.
Instead of joining the 'we do not currently know' honest answer by science, the theistic answer is 'God'. The video says that this is not god of the gaps, but it most certainly is: god of the gaps = inserting 'God' as the answer for that which we do not currently know.
So sure, people do not say 'God did it' on every little gap of knowledge such as why in particle physics we have superposition. But the fact that people are not that ridiculous does not mean god of the gaps is not in play. As soon as you state that God is that which created our known universe you have engaged in god of the gaps. The fine-tuning argument, for example, is a god of the gaps argument. "It must be God ... what else could possibly explain this!"
And if you try to equate 'God did it' in fine-tuning with the notion of multiverse note that while the multiverse is scientific speculation, it is based on modern scientific knowledge. It is not just some fictional notion but is founded in serious theoretical physics and is actively under scrutiny. If found to be wrong it will be scrapped (just as Hawking's black hole information paradox was scrapped).
It is quite obvious that you and Gordy and Sandy and a couple others will never allow people to express religious beliefs on Newstalkers without you contesting every inch of it. And that is exactly what you do. Even though you KNOW that you cannot disprove God with science, you incessantly demand that people who are not even interested in "proof" must demonstrate the existence of God through science. Or else you come after them with truly constant objections to whatever they say.
Its a wonder there are still people here who will "debate" you and Gordy.
Oh don't start with this crap now John. You seeded this article which spawned sub-topics. We have the right to express our positions and rebuttals as much as anyone else.
Here you go again ignoring the explanation I gave you (yet again) and just complaining as if I had not offered a word.
It is the claim of CERTAINTY that is challenged, not the belief.
If someone states: "I believe in God", you will not see a "prove it". It is when someone states: "My God exists" and leaves zero room that they might be mistaken or when someone makes an argument wherein at least one of the premises is "My God exists" that you will see a challenge.
Most of the time they do not actually engage in debate except maybe for the first several posts. It is mostly game-playing to avoid actual honest debate. As I have oft-noted to Gordy, one must be patient in these discussions and think in terms of mining for gold because we will see a lot of crap inbetween.
Stupidity and stubbornness accounts for it on my part. I never learn, it seems.
That is not my position. The last attribute I would apply to you is 'stupid'. My responses to you are based on my interpretation of your words coming from a highly intelligent mind. In result, you do not get much of a benefit of the doubt from me anymore. I do indeed expect more of you than most.
So you want people who believe in God and follow a religion to not express "certainty" about it?
Give it a goddamn rest Tig.
I dont see anyone on this site , with one exception, who goes around flaunting "certainty" about their religious beliefs.
But you want people who believe in God to either express that they lack "certainty" or just stay quiet.
It is not fair to people.
(Insert whatever you imagine I would say here)
(Insert more stuff)
(Some different stuff that more directly relates to this point)
(Insert something that refutes this, or seems to in my imagination)
(Something that indicates strong rejection of this statement. Comments that give basis for refutation. more comments stating your side is actually doing the same thing)
(Some refuting comments and a general summation of my points)
Wow! That's certainly a lot easier than laboring at an actual argument you're going to reject out of hand without thought. Should have done this a long time ago!
That is not true. Say "I believe in God" until the cows come home. I can agree that it is likely that you do, indeed, believe in God.
Say "God, and only my God, is real, and all others are false", and evidence will be requested, or your claims dismissed as lacking credibility.
When in hell has anyone on Newstalkers ever said that? One person. XX Jefferson will say that, and he is roundly ridiculed by everyone.
Is that what you got from my explanation?
If someone states that Trump absolutely won the last election, no possibility they are wrong, do you challenge that claim of certainty? Do you ask them to prove the claim of certainty?
If someone states that they think Trump won the last election but imply that they might be wrong, do you hold that as equal to the certain claim by the nutcase (above)? Would you ask them to prove that they think Trump won?
I think you have every right (and are indeed correct to do so) to challenge the claim: "Trump won the election, no way I am wrong" and ask for proof.
Pay attention to when proof is called for. Then you will see one of those certain claims that you apparently cannot see.
Again, where do you see me suggesting that? Quit putting words in my mouth. People do what they will and people will react as they will. You are here telling me to STFU. Do you not recognize your hypocrisy?
We know Trump lost the last election. They counted all the votes. That is what we call PROOF.
There is no proof about the existence of God one way or the other. Yet, you keep demanding it.
Don't be so literal.
You, @8.2.19
Tell that to a follower of a polytheistic religion.
John, this is an example of what I was referring to regarding debate. You are intentionally skirting past what I wrote. Instead of addressing my questions you jump to: there was proof with Trump but there is no proof with God.
Irrelevant! The point is that a claim of certainty bears the burden of proof. You would demand proof for the claim of certainty but would not demand proof for the modest opinion. See?
Further, if one does not have the proof, then it would be wise to not make a claim of certainty. Make a claim wherein you allow the possibility that you are wrong. That applies in every discussion, not just the religious ones.
Note my position on sentient creator. I must have written this a hundred times on this site by now:
Although a sentient creator remains a possibility, I am not persuaded that one exists based on the evidence.
I would be genuinely thrilled (intellectually) if someday someone offered something persuasive on the existence of a sentient creator. But until that happens, I am not impressed by fellow human beings merely declaring 'truth'.
They do that so they can feel superior about their position, even though they know on some level the proof they demand isn't really relevant to the issue. So if they just keep screaming "objective evidence" they don't have to think about alternatives or the holes in their own arguments. I guess they think it proves materialism or something like that.
Don't engage in armchair psychoanalysis.
If someone states that their god exists and there is no possibility that they are wrong (allow for all sorts of ways in which this sentiment can be expressed) would you find it wrong to ask them to prove their 100% correct claim?
If someone states that no god could possibly exist and they cannot be wrong about this, would you ask them to prove their claim?
Do these claims bear the burden of proof?
I am confident that if people read my responses to your comments that most would not agree with you that I reject what you write without thought.
I put forth plenty of effort to use clear, precise language, quote you, maintain context, etc. To reject what you write without thought means that I would not be writing detailed rebuttals logically countering what you state (and quoting you for clarity) but rather simply writing a bunch of Gish Gallop bullshit.
Your latest posts read like sour grapes.
Since no one I know in here does that, except maybe one person, maybe you should take it up with them? What you guys actually try to do is make it seem as if anyone who claims belief in God is also telling you God is a scientifically verifiable objective fact. Not the case, so go ask someone who's interested in answering.
You should pay closer attention then. Typically what happens is that, in reaction to some theistic claim, 'we' might note that there is no evidence for a sentient creator. I just did this in my reply to your video's claims @3.4.6 And by 'evidence' we are indeed speaking of that which is objectively verifiable and repeatable. The evidence, by the way, could also be mostly logical; remember how I have asked you for your logical proof of God (which you refuse to provide)? The evidence of interest is in contrast to an individual simply claiming experiences, feelings, etc.
I understand that if one does not have a good answer they will not like the call for evidence. And if someone, like you, claims 'evidence' such as the fine-tuning argument, personal experiences, etc. and 'we' are not persuaded, you should not get upset simply because others are not persuaded by that which you hold dear.
I do pay close attention. Here's what actually happens rather than the blather listed here. Imagine you are in a square ten yards to a side. In that square contains all you believe is true or suspect is true. The reasons why you believe it and the methods that lead you to those beliefs.
I also have a square of the same dimensions, containing the things I believe are true or suspect is true, why I believe it and the methods I use that lead me to those beliefs.
What you and Gordy constantly do is ask a question and when we try to answer, you stop us and say, no. You can't argue from your square. Your answer doesn't satisfy the criteria of my square. Stand in my square and use only the tools, beliefs and methods in it. And nothing we say is even considered unless we do that. Argue within the confines of your square is all that is allowed by you. Thing is, such a requirement exists only in your mind. You have decided what is valid and what isn't and somehow think it applies to everyone. Sorry, but it doesn't.
What is so utterly, frustratingly stupid about it all is that you know as well as I do your criteria can't examine the question of God. If it could, God would have been proven a long time ago. Yet even knowing this, you still try to use the methods in your square to discuss the issue. You have to know this as well as I do, yet you persist.
And yes, I refuse to provide. We've been through all that stuff many times over. You are aware of all the arguments, as am I.
(sigh) That isn't even a good try.
Oh that's BS John and you know it! You and anyone else can freely express your religious beliefs and no one has ever said otherwise. Some of us simply challenge the claims made based on those beliefs. Quite the difference there!
If one claims "God is real," "God did it," ect. (as fact), then that is a claim of certainty (which one cannot possibly know, much less demonstrate) and is therefore subject to scrutiny or challenge. That's been explained to you and others ad nauseum now.
Not much debate at all. Most quickly become emotional, irate, or engage in other slimy tactics like Strawmen arguments, deflection, ect.. Few seem able to "debate" logically, rationally, or civilly.
Religions purposely define God in such a way that it is impossible to examine. There is nothing to evidence, nothing to investigate, no possible way to falsify. God is defined as an abstraction that is outside of our reality. So (even though believers somehow get around this since some, like you, claim personal, direct interactions with God and knowledge of God's thought process, intentions, etc.) any attempt to verify these religious claims of personally engaging God conveniently cannot be conducted in a formal setting.
And, of course, this works superbly for religions. If God cannot be falsified then people can continue to freely believe in it and so much better for religions. All the religions need do to make this work is to get people to believe them on faith alone. And clearly they have long since figured out how to work that system.
But when speaking with others who do not simply accept as truth what other human beings claim, the standard religious faith-based reasoning does not cut it. And you know it is not going to be persuasive. Using the style of your own words here for effect: "What is so utterly, frustratingly stupid about it all is that you know as well as I do your mere claims of faith will not be persuasive."
You are frustrated that we do not see things your way. But note also that you do not provide anything that takes the notion of 'God' out of the realm of pure speculation. You claim that God is real and get pissed when we note that we simply see it as speculation. But you offer nothing much more than your good word, the Bible, fine-tuning, etc. and expect that will be persuasive. That is not realistic. (Indeed, the Bible is a truly horrible way to persuade someone that the God defined by that collective set of books is real.)
I know this, you know this. But only one of us is getting pissed and blaming the other for finding their square to be rational.
Sentient Creator was not 'Good Enough'
Ultimately, there seems to be nothing that supports the notion of 'god' above the level of pure speculation. And the more detailed the definition of god the worse the speculation. If people just had the good sense to stay at the sentient creator level of abstraction, they would be on much stronger ground. There is nothing that indicates a sentient creator is impossible. So unlike believing in gods like Zeus, Yahweh, Brahma, etc. where one must accept all the baggage that goes along with these well-defined characters, the notion of a sentient creator is focused, unencumbered, logical and has no contradictions.
And if people really were to take such an approach they would also necessarily know nothing about the sentient creator. This removes another major problem. Religious people speaking for the grandest possible entity, making comments as though they have insight into a mind of this magnitude, that they understand what such an entity wants and plans to do, etc. All that nonsense disappears. All that a believer would 'know' (so to speak) about a sentient creator is the belief that this is the creator of the universe and is sentient. No human authority exists. No control of people through their faith.
Kenneth Copeland would be out of business.
But, human beings do not operate that way. 'We' all must have our own view of the sentient creator and create attributes and stories so that our god is the best god. Our ancestors invented all sorts of characters that conform well to their times and cultures. In result, we have thousands of historical gods. In our time, most of these gods have been abandoned and the last few standing are the Christian god (defined differently depending upon the denomination), the Islamic god (variants of Allah exist too), the Jewish G-d (YHWH), the Hindu gods and then a smattering of far lesser known gods.
You do not seem to understand why —given this history— some of us do not simply accept as truth what ancient men merely claimed as such. Even when you can see what a mess the god landscape is and the overwhelming evidence of flawed human imagination at work.
Nobody forces you to participate. You know that we live in different squares yet here you are complaining about it as if I am at fault for my thought process. That somehow my not expanding my square so that it overlaps yours is unfair.
So, given that background, what, in very precise terms, would you have me do? Am I supposed to change my criteria? To accept 'faith' instead of evidence?
Are you saying you never request or require proof when someone makes an affirmative claim for something?
I suspect Gordy was giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing the possibility that you had a significant point. Apparently it was yet again nothing more than your exclamation that you can detect nothing more from these discussions other than 'prove it'.
Ironic that you then use the phrase "don't get".
How about a simple answer to my question. A yes or no will suffice.
I am convinced that you will never change your mind; you cannot see anything more than what you have described. The problem is with you. Nothing I worry about.
When someone makes an affirmative claim with certainty, it is reasonable to inquire about proof for the claim. As long as there are claims of certainty, there will be the call for proof. Why is that a problem for you?
The trouble with being specific is that one is then vulnerable to being shown as wrong. Being vague is safe.
Yes, that was my question. I even said as much. Now that has been established, you seem to take issue when proof us requested to support an affirmative claim. Hence, my question. Now, how about you actually answer rather than deflect.
I never said people who belive in God was a problem for me. So why do you seem to get irate when proof is requested?
Indeed. And when that fails, note how defensive and irate some seem to become. Even trollish.
Do you think he gets bored and goes looking for specific members to troll?
Not a doubt in my mind TG.
If god's existence cannot be proven, then it's silly and disingenuous for someone (not saying you specifically) to make a claim of certainty regarding god. As for acceptable "proof," objective empirical evidence would be sufficient (proof might be too high a bar) as that is the highest standard and quality of evidence there is. That is why science prefers objective, empirical evidence. Anything else is lesser "evidence" and more subject to error, bias, or less validity.
Affirmative claims themselves warrant the condition of proving it. Funny how some require proof for some things, but god gets a free pass in that regard.
While you continue to seemingly miss mine. deliberately. I suspect.
You know, that's actually a pretty good summation of them. Forever crying for "proof" but never supplying any for their own position.
What claim of certainty have I made for which you desire proof and none has been provided?
Prove it.
Prove why such a level of evidence is necessary.
Prove, even though everyone knows science can't even address the question of God, why this actually matters at all?
Prove that someone who doesn't worship at the church of science has to prove anything.
Imagine discourse if people were to engage in such a practice on every opinion as per your post. Why engage in such ridiculous exaggeration when you know that nobody here is even close to your extreme?
Thank you for helping me prove my point in 3.4.53 . Every one of those quotes are quotes of certainty. I'm applying the same standard as you both apply to us. Deal with it or keep proving the things I've said are right.
You are engaging in cheap theatrics.
If you want to seriously and honestly attempt to prove your point then address the challenge I gave you @3.4.54:
Replace "god" with anything else, such as magical fairies. Do you see how silly that sounds? It's no difference when using god. No evidence/proof means the claim has no merit. Therefore, such claims are disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
Why settle for less than the best? It establishes the greatest level of veracity for a claim.
See previous statement. Anything else just sets the bar lower. It sure matters in science. Especially where credibility is concerned.
It seems you haven't been paying attention. No one has to prove anything. But as a course of logic, claims bring the burden of proof.
None of that is proof. None of that is empirically true. You are just expressing opinion. Why are you settling for less than the best?
What it is is a rational explanation, unlike the religious based assumptions some make here.
Given you have returned after many hours it is clear that you cannot deliver where I have made a claim of certainty and have refused your request to deliver proof.
I am sure that you understand the notion of burden of proof but you pretend otherwise. I have explained this many times even several times here in this main thread so I will simply quote myself:
and
I go out of my way to note the important factor of: "there is no way they are wrong".
So to be super specific, if you assert that your God exists with no possibility that your God might not exist then you bear the burden of proof. But if you opine that you believe your God exists then no burden of proof applies.
So you claiming belief in God is essentially opinion unless you explicitly or by context connote that your assertion is 100% truth (cannot be false). Then, and only then, do you bear the burden of proof. Thus someone can and should challenge your claim.
The supporting evidence of this can be found by Googling 'burden of proof' and reading as many third party explanations you wish.
Finally, your theatrics here are based on you presenting statements made by Gordy where you declare they are claims of certainty and not normal opinion. You then demand proof. You think that this silly display is equivalent to when Gordy says "That's nice, prove it" in response to someone making a claim of certainty that their God exists.
That is, you do not find Gordy (or anyone here) demanding proof on every statement that people make in ordinary discourse. The call for proof (and this really is intended to mean evidence not literal proof) is for assertions of certain truth (no way the assertion is wrong).
In short, you are being ridiculous.
Aaa I say, proof would be nice. But evidence is fine too. But people never have either when they make claims regarding God. Just simple assumptions based on belief. But somehow, that is more acceptable or valid than actual empirical evidence. I suppose prefer a low bar to jump.
People tend to resort to tactics when they run out of honest, intelligent rebuttals. This is a pet peeve for me. I just have no patience for it anymore.
The idea here (as you know) is extremely simple:
An assertion of certain truth bears the burden of proof. So if someone makes an assertion and states or implies that they could not possibly be wrong, then they bear the burden of proof. And since formal proof is largely impossible unless speaking of formal systems such as logic, mathematics, etc. the burden of proof means the burden to substantiate the assertion with persuasive evidence.
In this forum, this is almost always limited to the assertion: "My god exists; no possibility I am wrong" (phrased in many ways). Reason being is that it is an extremely bold assertion (about as bold as one can get) and that there is no real evidence to support it. It is, in clear language, an irrational claim just as "No god exists; no possibility I am wrong" is an irrational claim.
So if someone has heartburn that they are challenged to evidence an extremely bold assertion of 100% truth, maybe they should just dial down their language a bit so that they give room for the possibility that they might be wrong. "I believe my god exists" does not bear the burden of proof (evidence). Easy remedy. Whining that a claim of certainty is challenged is a waste of time.
To illustrate the nonsense in your theatrics, using your little game I could ask you to prove this ⇡ statement. (In fact, I could ask you to prove each of your three assertions.)
Ridiculous, right?
Real simple, if you do not make an assertion of certainty (where you explicitly or implicitly declare that you could not possibly be wrong) then I doubt anyone would challenge you to prove your assertion.
One must first have an honest, intelligent rebuttal to begin with. I rarely see that from those whose claims are challenged. They simply ignore the challenge and repeat themselves or engage in various dishonest tactics. The concept of logic, especially where the burden of proof is concerned, apparently seems lost on them.
We all know that it is impossible to support the claim: "My God exists; no way I am wrong". So yes they have no intelligent rebuttal and they know it. And if someone were to state: "No god exists; no way I am wrong" they too would have made a claim that cannot be supported. The claims are both irrational. People should not make such claims.
To whine about being challenged for same while continuing to make the claim is silly. Either stop whining or dial down the claim to one that is not an assertion of 100% truth.
"I believe my god exists" will not be met with "prove it". It likely will be met with: "explain why" (phrased many different ways).
It's also funny how some people want proof of affirmative claims, except when it comes to claims about God. They give God claims a free pass, which only shows a bias or dishonesty on their part.
The "Big Bang Theory" could be inserted as well.
No, it can't. The difference is, the Big Bang Theory has supporting empirical evidence. God does not.
Not just empirical evidence. Modern cosmology theory can predict (describe) the evolution of the universe from the Planck Epoch (the first 10−43 seconds) on. So Big Bang is consistent with all modern physics. That is no tiny feat.
What is not known is what took place in the Planck Epoch where quantum dynamics appears to have ruled and our science can only speculate (at this point).
Here one can insert anything from quantum fluctuations to sentient creator. We just do not know. But, crucially, anything inserted is speculation. And at least quantum fluctuation is not just some wild idea but is indeed a real phenomenon.
"We do not know" is an honest answer. Anything else is just an assumption as best. But claiming anything with certainty is illogical and warrants challenge, regardless if the claim can be "proven" or not. Of course, some don't seem to get it or care and think such claims can pass unchallenged simply because it can't be proven. Possibly because they might agree with the claim itself?
That only reinforces the concept and probability of the Big Bang itself.
So gooseisback, what were you saying about the Big Bang Theory?
Exactly. But that is exactly the mindset that religions (all of them) counter. Instead of "we do not know" they offer an answer. And that in itself is not a problem except they claim the answer is 100% truth.
People who actually believe in God often have certainty. Maybe it is a product of faith, maybe it is upbringing, or even what you call indoctrination. The thing is why do you care. You have repeatedly said that people who have faith or belief in God should not express certainty. Certainly not in your presence. You seem to want everyone who wishes to express religious belief to preface it with some sort of disclaimer related to uncertainty. With all due respect to you and Gordy, that is not fair to other people, and that is about the mildest thing I could say.
Just let it go once in a while for God's sake (pun intended.) People are not going to obey you anyway. They don't have to modify their beliefs in order to meet your standards.
Agreed.
This kind of question shows you are trolling. You should understand why I say this. When people ask you why you care about Trump, do you not find that to be offensive? This is a forum. We post here because we care to do so. Just leave it at that.
That simplification misses the point. I am not telling them to not express certainty. Rather I am explaining that making statements where you declare explicitly or implicitly that you cannot be wrong is unwise. Such an assertion bears the burden of proof. If one is okay with that burden then they should not be surprised if they are challenged on it.
Further, the only reason I explained any of this is because people are complaining about being challenged.
Again, I do not care what people do. I am suggesting how to avoid the consequences of claiming (in effect) perfect knowledge.
And yet again, I am not making any demands. I am explaining why certain assertions are challenged. Why do people (as you are doing here) feel compelled to spin what others write? It is intellectually dishonest and just causes problems. Your post is presented as though you are trying to be the voice of reason yet you ironically have issued an attack post that totally misrepresents what I have written.
Your post was pure trolling.
Really? Let's look at what you said.
Oh, totally agree. It doesn't just sound silly, it is silly. Only someone who doesn't understand the issue would attempt to do such a thing.
But Gordy, saying there's no difference is what makes it silly. May as well replace God with a crescent wrench. You see, no one puts forth a crescent wrench as an explanation for the universe any more than anyone puts forth fairies. Neither of those things are understood to have attributes that can account for creation. To say that you could replace God with something else and still come out the same could only be true if you could prove God doesn't exist. If you don't, it's hardly rational to attempt to replace God with something that can't account for creation.
That doesn't prove why such a level of evidence is necessary, I'm afraid. It may be your personal preference, but there's nothing to compel someone else to accept it. Let me remind you of what the question is.
Who decided such a level of evidence is what's acceptable? Why should that be the standard when it doesn't, nor can, apply to the greater part of our lives, meaning you don't move through your day constantly acting according to empirical evidence? How do you apply such a standard to something that the standard cannot apply to? How do you resolve the contradiction that empirical evidence, a part of the scientific method being universally agreed can't address the question of God but asking for it anyway?
How is this answer not simply refusing to contemplate anything that science cannot address? Based on your other "reasoned" answers and comments over the years, it seems clear that the only valid lens through which to determine reality is science. For you, at least. I will remind you again to what I am referring.
If we were speaking of science I would agree. We aren't. The subject is God. So, again, why does what science prefers matter at all? And, by the way, science doesn't prefer anything. It is a method, not a person. What you mean is that you prefer it. So would I, if I were dealing with what science was meant to deal with.
You claim to have given a rational explanation but say stuff like this. Why would anyone have a burden of proof on the subject of God? We aren't talking about a subject science can address so how can there be a burden of proof? If the people in your life tell you that they love you do you require empirical proof of it before you believe them? I wonder how you'd go about getting your proof or evidence?
If you are one of those unfortunate people who believe free will is an illusion and we're really just the result of electrochemical processes, would the question of love even make any sense? It seems pretty evident that there are plenty of examples like this where we can't have empirical evidence of something, yet we believe it and it's important to our well being. So, where's the burden of proof with God? A Spiritual Being who is said to relate to us spiritually.
Also, forget the slight of hand TiG is trying to introduce. I am certain God exists. I do not doubt it at all. It would be idiotic to devote my life to God if I doubted His existence. However, that does not mean I can't be wrong. In all the years I've been on NV and NT, I've never heard anyone ever say there was not possible they could be wrong. Not one single time. I've never heard them say anything like it. So, you can both put that foolishness away right now.
To the contrary, my post was very straightforward.
Slight of hand??
Then you are not claiming certainty. You are, in effect, an agnostic theist. You recognize that your belief could be wrong.
Good grief man. I put that qualification in there for clarity. I explicitly spelled out the 'certainty' element so that the meaning would be clear. People of course do not state "I cannot possibly be wrong", it is implied. When a gnostic atheist states: "No god exists" s/he does not state "... and I cannot be wrong" but I included that in my example too.
It would be entirely naive for you to believe that I was stating that only that specific language is used. You are not naive thus you are being intellectually dishonest.
Don't listen to him, JR. You're not trolling and anyone with a brain can see that. As to why he cares, he believes the world would be vastly improved if everyone got rid of religion. This is a sort of crusade for that. About the only belief he can tolerate is a more or less deistic view of God, one where someone can say "yeah, there might be a god but if it exists, it doesn't have any practical meaning to humans."
What's funny is this place will scream "proselytizing" at the slightest thing a Christian might say but totally okay with TiG telling everyone else what an acceptable belief in God might look like and we should all do that.
It was a straightforward misrepresentation of what I have written.
And since even after I have explained this yet again you come back as if you are not misrepresenting proves that you are indeed intentionally misrepresenting.
That is trolling.
Another fun fact about talking with you. Whenever someone catches you at something, you just change what it "meant" and presto! You're not wrong again. Spare me.
Where did this come from?
And yet again you misrepresent. I offered a belief in a sentient creator that would have the least speculation. You translate this into a demand.
Nonstop intellectual dishonesty from you Drakk.
Just tossing out bullshit allegation after bullshit allegation. Show me where I have done this. Deliver the link.
I barely commented on this seed over the past three days. But I do occasionally look at it and I keep seeing you insisting that people who believe in God should not include certainty in the expression of their beliefs. Why? You cant possibly think that people who actually believe in God and are not agnostic wont express certainty. So what is your point?
Yet again, I just answered that. I am not insisting that people who believe in God not express certainty, I am explaining why expressing certainty bears the burden of proof and thus opens one up for a challenge.
Note that I have used people who claim there is no god as my second example. See?
How many times are you going to misrepresent this same point? How ridiculous are you going to be here?
And now you come back to troll me. Classy behavior, seeder.
No one is trolling you.
When you repeatedly misrepresent what I write ... even right after I write it ... that is most definitely trolling.
Even worse since you are the seeder.
Putting forth god as an explanation is equally silly. They all have the same value and validity as an explanation.
A logical fallacy. The only way god could be considered a more valid explanation is if you could prove (or provide evidence) that god exists. So far, no one has been able to do so.
You're willing to settle for less reliable or valid evidence? I'm not sure why anyone would unless it fits a personal bias or preconception.
I never said anyone's acceptance was necessary. If people want to settle for less or nothing, that's on them.
It's not just about what's acceptable, but what is of greater validity, especially when discerning truth or fact. Objective, empirical evidence offers greater veracity for a claim than subjective evidence.
A strawman argument. I'm clearly speaking about evidence as it applies to claims made and its validity.
Hello!? I have said before that science deals with reality.
It's not even that. The subject is about the affirmative claims for god.
Science is a method, but objective evidence is preferred over subjective evidence! Either you do not understand what I am saying or you are playing games again. Which is it?
Once again Drak, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim of certainty. That's been mentioned many times now! Have you not been following?
"Love" is the result of a biochemical reaction in the brain and the effect of hormones. All of which is measurable. What's your point?
Once again, it's on the one making the claim or certainty for a god.
I'm sure you believe that.
At least you acknowledge the possibility your belief can be wrong. That's better than many theists wo not only think they are absolutely correct, but refuse to even consider the possibility they can be wrong.
Depends on whom you ask. I've noticed that more from theists.
Easy enough.
So, what we have here is a wasted effort to cover a situation that is not relevant to this conversation since no one has ever, to my knowledge, said God exists and there's no possibility that He might not. All anyone has ever presented (unless you can provide evidence otherwise) was what they believed and why.
So, what could be the purpose of this waste of effort? Maybe to differentiate between the "That's nice, prove it" schtick I level against Gordy and what you guys leveling the same schtick against those who believe, say or intimate that God exists? What else could it be? And why would this differentiation be necessary? So you can "justify" a different standard for yourselves than you apply to your opponents. You inserted this "No possibility that God might not exist" crap as the reason.
It can't be anything else, TiG, because by your own argument quoted above in blue, if no one is claiming that God exists and there's no possibility that He doesn't, then there's not the burden of proof you guys keep leveling at us. The fact that you do means you are inserting something that was never there in the first place to justify saying we have the burden of proof.
What? More evidence?
Good job, TiG. I definitely got the clarification. Seems I was correct.
Okay. I see you're not going to provide any evidence for your claims. Thanks for your time, Gordy.
I just finished looking through the comments on this seed.
I have many of your comments collected on a note pad , but instead I will just post 3 of them, two by you and one by Gordy.
Tig : Further, if one does not have the proof, then it would be wise to not make a claim of certainty. Make a claim wherein you allow the possibility that you are wrong.
-
Tig: Proof of God only arises when you make a claim like: "My god exists and there is no possibility I am wrong". That claim is irrational because of the 100% certainty. For you to have that certainty you would need to be omniscient. The challenge "Prove it" is challenging your implied claim of omniscience (perfect knowledge).
-
Gordy : If god's existence cannot be proven, then it's silly and disingenuous for someone (not saying you specifically) to make a claim of certainty regarding god. ----- As for acceptable "proof," objective empirical evidence would be sufficient (proof might be too high a bar) as that is the highest standard and quality of evidence there is. That is why science prefers objective, empirical evidence. Anything else is lesser "evidence" and more subject to error, bias, or less validity.
====================================================
In the bold sections I have posted here, we can clearly see that both you and Gordy have expressed intolerance for people who speak of God with certainty unless they provide proof. Gordy even says "empirical" evidence.
This is what I was saying to you in the comment you called trolling.
Looking at the definition for agnostic atheist tells me that isn't even close to right, but if it makes you happy.
Where do you show me making a statement and changing meaning? You offer this large quote as a "waste of effort". Where does that come from?
Looks like you are playing a baffle with bullshit game Drakk.
Correct about what? You made an allegation and I gave you the explanation.
Note, Drakk, that I also use the gnostic atheist as an example. Where do you see a gnostic atheist state: "There is no god; I cannot be wrong about this"?
You ignore that.
I have used this same approach of explicitly stating the certainty in my explanations for years now. The reason is to avoid people being nit-picky and saying: "well that is not necessarily an example of certainty".
Seems you are going out of your way to try to invent allegations.
I swear, you just refuse to listen. Truly amazing.
My quotes are me explaining how to avoid burden of proof. I keep writing this and you keep ignoring it. Trolling!
Take your first point:
"if one does not have the proof, then it would be wise to not make a claim of certainty. "
I am saying that it is wise to not make a claim of certainty if you do not have the proof. A claim of certainty bears the burden of proof.
More trolling. What is your problem?
You are a theist but you recognize that your belief might be wrong. You just expressed that notion, right?
If that is true then you are an agnostic theist (but barely because you have no doubt but still recognize you might be wrong — seems like if you recognize you might be wrong then that is doubt).
Anyway, going with the fact that you recognize that you do not have perfect knowledge, then, if you are consistent, you will never claim that your God exists as 100% truth because you recognize that you cannot possibly know that your conviction is actually true.
A belief can not be proved. You are free to believe it, but if you can't prove it, then it's still just a belief. It goes both ways, and both Gordy and Tig have acknowledged this.
Using your example:
Saying that my god exists and there is no possibility that I am wrong, is irrational. You can neither prove that there is a god, as you can not prove that there isn't one. Tig is not wrong.
Again, this goes to proof. No one can prove god's exsistance. You can say I feel it deeply so it is real to me, but you can not say without "proof" that god does exist (the same can be said the other way around, too).
Repeatedly. Constantly.
Gotta wonder the motivation of those who keep repeating the same allegation and repeatedly ignore the consistent explanation from the authors and substitute their own misrepresentations.
These were YOUR words.
A lot of people would consider this a smoking gun illustrating what I said in the comment you call "trolling"
In the quote you say "Make a claim wherein you allow the possibility that you may be wrong"
This is what I said in the comment you called trolling
You're busted.
Correct. As I have stated repeatedly, if a person makes a claim of certainty (and that means a claim that cannot be wrong) then that claim bears the burden of proof. If there is no claim of certainty I have stated there is no burden.
There is no way on the planet that you have not read that from me. Yet here you are continuing your misrepresentation.
And I see you're just playing games as usual.
Yes, I just quoted and explained that. You have to actually read my responses.
What is the wild ass way you are spinning that?? I am explaining how to avoid the burden of proof. Surely you can comprehend that. To avoid the burden of proof, make a claim wherein you allow the possibility that you may be wrong.
Buy a vowel John. You are being ridiculous.
Another allegation that defies your evidence.
Ya think? Good grief. LOL
You're imagining things John.
Yes, and? Is that a problem? I wanted that to be very clear, as some people have a different idea as to what constitutes "evidence."
Then a lot of people would be wrong! TiG has been very clear in his explanations. It seems you are taking it the wrong way or personally. I highly doubt that is TiG's intent.
I feel quite confident your own words illustrate the truth of what I said in the comment you call "trolling".
The readers can draw their own conclusion.
You know what, I'll go so far to say I'm 100% absolutely certain and there's no way I could be wrong!
There is no point explaining to John or Drakk. They cannot support their allegations so they are both engaging in theater to make it seem as if they have something.
Unfortunately too many people turn to intellectual dishonesty when they have nothing.
Ok, after following this line of discussion, I conclude TiG is correct and you are not John!
Bullshit. I do not believe that for a second. No way that you cannot comprehend repeated explanations of such a simple concept.
Both from Wiki and serve well enough.
I have no doubt God exists in the sense I have no doubt the sun is the center of our solar system, but recognize that there may still be a way both are wrong in some way I cannot see. I believe God is a personal God who wants to be known and has in fact revealed Himself to Mankind. I believe God has a plan for us and I have a place in it. I believe that Jesus died for my sins and through his sacrifice I have access to God, both now and forever.
Now, if you can find anything agnostic in that, knock yourself out. I imagine you seize on the idea that I know I could be wrong as evidence for agnosticism. If so, have at it. From my perspective, admitting I could be wrong is simply a lesson life has taught me. As happens to everyone, we are sometimes absolutely convinced of some event in our lives, only to find out later we wrong. Afterword, you spend hours wondering how you could have been so sure, but before being proved wrong, there was not a shred of doubt you were right. There was no "agnosticism" in your surety.
But call me whatever pleases you. Mary Poppins on ice skates if it makes you happy.
I've noticed. Explanations have been ignored or twisted around.
Not to mention trying to (and failing) to turn it back on us.
Indeed.
You're busted. I wont bother with the other 10 comments I was going to post.
At what? I think you meant to make that reply to TiG.
I doubt it would help your case anyway.
'I believe' is all in the realm of agnostic theist. Having no doubt God exists I am interpreting as a statement of confidence. Necessarily we must combine the two to produce that you see no way you could be wrong but accept that you might be wrong. That remains in the realm of agnostic rather than gnostic theist.
It is right there. Nowhere do you imply that you cannot be wrong. To not be an agnostic theist you have to hold the position that your God exists (or whatever) and that there is no possibility that you are wrong about that. Just being supremely confident does not make you a gnostic theist if you also recognize that you might be wrong.
This is why the gnostic theist and gnostic atheist positions are both irrational.
Well that fits the definition for 'agnostic theist' so, yes, of course. But note I am not talking about agnosticism. Agnostic theist is not a synonym for 'agnosticism'.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
You are trolling, seeder. I am not going to just keep repeating my rebuttals only to see you flat out ignore them. You are playing a stubborn, childish game John. It is now pathetic.
No shit, Sherlock. I freaking quoted you, didn't I??? Do you think it escaped me who I was quoting? What the hell are you talking about? How does this even work, logically? You say I'm "Correct" and then say I'm misrepresenting you, while totally ignoring the post you're quoting that spells out in detail why I am most definitely not misrepresenting you. There's no twisting of words. There's no rewording going on. I quoted the whole thing so no context would be missing. And the best reply you have is "misrepresentation". You should be a lawyer. You could just claim the prosecution was just misrepresenting your client and they'd just let him go.
You think I get pissed because you guys won't believe what I believe. Complete horseshit. I get pissed off because you pull crap like this while accusing me of misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
Now you are just grandstanding. Calm down and try to make a real point.
Your posts have been pure attack. And it has been one-sided (have you noticed)? They ignore my explanations, they misrepresent what I write. I challenge you to deliver a link as proof and you deliver quotes that have nothing whatsoever with what you are to prove.
Get a grip, Drakk. Calm down and try to engage me honestly.
This thread locked until Owner comes back.
I haven't met an atheist or scientist yet who claimed science 'disproved' God. Most atheists are 'agnostic atheists' who simply see no proof of God but wouldn't go so far as to say what humans might define as God definitely doesn't exist, that would be a 'gnostic atheist'.
I've also never met a believer who could actual prove their brand or any brand of God, but there are far more gnostic theists (believe there definitely is a God regardless of proof) than there are gnostic atheists.
As for science, it doesn't take sides, it simply studies actual testable, definable universal phenomenon in an attempt to understand our universe better.
If there was a trail of verifiable evidence of anything supernatural science would follow it to its end regardless of what the results or conclusions might be, even if it proved there was a God. There is no trail to follow to prove there is no God, to prove such a thing you'd have to be able to look in every corner of the universe and possibly beyond. There is only the trail of truth to follow for true scientists. Now there will always be partisan scientists hired by parties invested in the results, like the scientists hired by the oil and gas industry who are tasked with undermining other scientific data for their own personal financial benefit. And the same is true of religions who get partisan scientists to try and undermine scientific data with wild fantasies in an effort to support their God theories hired by fundamentalist's like Ken Ham.
The fact is science doesn't make the claim "there is no God" therefore it has no burden of proof to disprove any God.
Theists do make a claim that "there is a God" therefore they do have the burden of proof but have been coming up short since God theories began. For thousands of years they have proclaimed unexplained phenomenon as their proof, the problem is that the more science explores and understands those phenomenon it ends up undermining the believers premises (which is often the unpinning of their faith) that those phenomenon are proof of their God. If they truly want to maintain their faith I recommend not trying to tie their faith to still unexplained phenomenon since they just never know when, through study, experimentation and observation, that phenomenon could be explained and prove to be free of any supernatural origin.
So while science cannot disprove God, it can be very useful for disproving the false narratives where believers claim unexplained phenomenon are evidence of their God. Lightning can no longer be simply attributed to angry deities in the sky because we now understand it far better now through science. And while that may be a bad thing for those who still believe in Zeus, most rational humans can see that science is truly doing us a favor by being able to explain many things that were once simply attributed to the supernatural.
They dont have the burden of proof any more than an atheist does who says the big bang proves there was no need for God.
This "burden of proof " business is an attempt by atheism to claim the default position. When neither side has any "proof" the default position is a mighty valuable thing to have.
People who believe in God have no burden to "prove" the existence of God to you unless they are trying to force you to believe, which is basically impossible.
The "burden of proof" is a concept of logic. The one who makes a claim of certainty bears the burden of proving the claim. A claim for or nay sans proof is logically indefensible.
I dont think there are very many religious believers who are into "proving " the existence of God. They take God's existence as a matter of course due to their faith. You keep wanting people who debate with you to "prove" God exists, when you are the only one in the discussion that cares about proof.
The God of the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu or Buddhist scriptures, tribal religions, they are all cultural expressions. No one has to "prove" any of it. Nor should any of them try to force their beliefs on others.
I only challenge those who claim with certainty that God exists or is responsible for something. If someone says it's just their belief, then fine. But there are certain individuals who do claim god as fact, which invites challenge. Like I said, belief does not equal fact either.
No one can prove God exists, no one can prove God doesnt exist. Its even in the article I seeded.
Tru dat!
So if someone cannot satisfy the burden of proof, they should not make a claim of certainty.
Thus: "no god exists" and "my god exists" are both unprovable claims (unless one plays semantic games with the definition of the word 'god').
This is true. But it's the claims of certainty that warrant challenge.
Exactly.
Someone saying there is "no need for God" is very different than saying "there is no God".
People who believe in God have no burden to "prove" the existence of God unless they are proselytizing aka trying to convince others of the veracity of their beliefs. As for the claim it's "basically impossible" to try and "force" others to believe, history proves it not only very possible but occurred with frequency.
Proselytizers dont use logic, they use emotion. They dont have any burden of proof.
At least that much is true.
Wrong! They make the claim, they bear the burden of proof. An emotional state does not automatically absolve them of that. It just likely means they really can't prove their claim and is basically BS!
No , you're wrong. No one has to prove to you that God exists according to your "science" prerequisites in order to promote their faith.
You are talking about your own preferences.
Depends on the claim. "My god exists; no way I am wrong" bears the burden of proof. "I believe my god exists" does not.
He is referencing the philosophical burden of proof. Hardly his invention.
It has nothing to do with faith or not. It's all about the claim made.
I'm talking about logic and logical fallacies.
That is why I call myself a liberal agnostic. I don't believe there is a God but who am I to say that there isn't.
That is correct, there is no obligation to prove anything for mere belief.
And even when someone declares with certainty that their god exists and that they could not possibly be wrong, there is no obligation for them to prove anything.
They bear the burden of proof, not an obligation to deliver proof.
Do you understand the difference here?
The burden of proof is a liability on their argument. A claim of certainty that does not satisfy the burden of proof that it bears becomes an unproven assertion. If this claim is in an argument then the argument will be unsound.
So, in simple terms, the burden of proof speaks to the demonstrated veracity of the claim and its use in an argument. It is not some legal or moral obligation to actually deliver the proof.
This is logic we are talking about here.
So, if someone says:
My god exists (100% certainty)
They bear the burden of proof because of that certainty.
Thus someone can legitimately challenge them to deliver the proof.
If they do not deliver the proof, their claim is basically bullshit. That is the consequence. They are not obliged to defend their claim; they would only do so if they cared about the veracity of the claim as seen by others.
Did you not read what I wrote?
Nobody is forcing you to do so.
Again, Texan, I have explained this in very clear terms. You comment as if people approach you and demand that you deliver proof of God. But that is not what happens in this forum (to my knowledge). Proof of God only arises when you make a claim like: "My god exists and there is no possibility I am wrong". That claim is irrational because of the 100% certainty. For you to have that certainty you would need to be omniscient. The challenge "Prove it" is challenging your implied claim of omniscience (perfect knowledge).
I doubt anyone challenging you as above thinks you can deliver proof. That is not the point. The point is to challenge your impossible claim. If your claim was something like "I believe in my god" then the challenge of "Prove it" does not apply and makes no sense. It would be asking you to prove that you hold your stated belief. No, Texan, it is the claim of certainty that is challenged.
Another example: "The Earth is flat; no way that I am wrong" is a claim of certainty that logically should be challenged with "Prove it" whereas "I think the Earth is flat; but I could be wrong on that" is not a claim of certainty and "Prove it" does not apply.
I almost never see a debate on whether or not God exists. The debate is usually about something else where the premise that God exists is foundational to their argument. In that case, that implied premise is often exposed and noted as necessary to the argument and thus needs to be proved true. That is logic 101: all premises of an argument must be true in order for the argument to be sound.
Have any of your comments on this seed addressed the premises of the seeded article?
You continue to insist that people who want to profess belief in God do so through scientific evidence. As the passages above show us, that is not the way it works.
Moreover, very few people claim to be able to "prove" the existence of God, it is not even something that "believers" normally think about. You think about it and Gordy thinks about it.
Your reply reads as though none of it sunk in.
Yet another angry, trollish comment in reply to a serious attempt by me to communicate with you.
Where do I insist that? Deliver a quote.
Nobody can prove the existence or inexistence of god (barring a definition of 'god' that could indeed be shown to not exist as defined due to contradiction).
Obviously you have not been reading my posts. I have explained this now several times right here in this seed.
Where do you find me suggesting that science can disprove the existence of God (where God, in this case, is defined as supernatural)? What, precisely, is your complaint? Making vague complaints makes it impossible for me to intelligently respond to same. I have to guess at what you are talking about.
Did you not even read my response @5?
[removed]
BRAVA!
I'm surprised nobody responded to that. Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with knowledge of man-made myths about imaginary deities, any more than they're born with knowledge of other man-made myths like vampires or Santa Claus. It all has to be learned. At birth our minds are a default blank slate.
Absolutely not. First of all, if God exists, its existence is not in the slightest dependent on what human beings think.
Second, are human beings born with a belief that there is no God? I doubt it. They learn that too dont they?
Of course. The opposite is true as well - if God doesn't exist, no amount of believing and declaring him to exist will poof him into existence.
They are born without a belief in God. They are taught belief in gods. You believe in the Abrahamic god because it's what you've been taught. If you'd been born in ancient Greece, you'd be paying respects to Zeus and Hera. If you'd been born in pre-Christian Britain, you'd dance around a bonfire at Beltane. If you'd been born in India, you might be worshipping Vishnu.
Are they born with a belief that there is no God?
With all due respect to the point of view that the default belongs to atheism because babies are born without a belief in God, it is ridiculous.
Babies are born without any beliefs and have nothing to do with whether or not there is a "default position" on God's existence.
I have done so in the past with JR. He just nuh'uhs the fact that we are born without knowledge of any god and that all 'knowledge' of a god is a result of learning and what is learned is a function of one's environment.
No, babies are not born as gnostic atheists. They are born as agnostic atheists. They are not convinced there is a god ... they do not even know what a god is.
Being born without any beliefs translates into agnostic atheism. Gnostic and agnostic theism both are based on a belief in a god and gnostic atheism is based on the belief there cannot be a god. Only agnostic atheism allows one to be free of a belief of or against a god or gods.
Dig said that babies being born with no information about God one way or the other demonstrates that atheism is the default position. That is absurd.
They are born without any information about baseball either. Does that then mean that the default position should be that baseball doesnt exist ?
They are born without any beliefs regarding any gods, period.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It is not necessarily an absolute claim that there is no god.
Why is that absurd? Do you have evidence that babies even have a concept of god? I think it is absurd for you to suggest that babies are born with a concept of god.
Oh, so you acknowledge that babies are born without knowledge of god. So what is the problem here?
You insist on defining atheism as: 'no god exists'. That is utterly naive and wrong. You think that atheism = gnostic atheism when in reality almost every atheist is an agnostic atheist.
Agnostic atheism = 'I am not convinced a god exists'. That is profoundly different from: Gnostic atheism = 'No god exists'.
No way do I believe you incapable of making the distinction. So why do you insist on redefining atheism as simply the irrational position of gnostic atheists?
Babies are not convinced a god exists. Obviously. They do not even know what a god is. They are, thus, by default, agnostic atheists.
You are not making the slightest bit of sense. I never said that babies are born with a concept of God.
The rest of your comment I do not understand.
You did by implication. Dig posited that babies are not born with a concept of god and you called his posit absurd:
What, JR, do you think that implies?
If you recognize that babies have no concept of god then obviously they cannot possibly be convinced a god exists. That is exactly the position of the agnostic atheist: 'I am not convinced a god exists'.
Babies are all agnostic atheists by default. To change that condition, they must be taught the god concept and then, ultimately, they will either be persuaded that a particular god exists (theism) or not (atheism).
The absurdity was that babies being born without a concept of God means that the default position is atheism.
You skip over that I said this in another comment
A big 'if,' but also true. We cannot honestly say with certainty if god exists or not.
A lack of belief is not a belief in itself.
I doubt they are born with any beliefs. Beliefs are generally taught and/or personally derived.
That would make babies agnostic atheists by default. They don't know one way or another, but rather have that position shaped by outside influences.
Are you suggesting theism is the "default?"
Why is that absurd? A baby has no concept of god. That means the baby does not believe in a god. That means the baby is technically atheist. (Agnostic atheist to be specific.)
Then use the language 'default condition' as I noted earlier. Does that not clear things up for you? A baby is born an agnostic atheist because the baby is not convinced there is a god ... the baby could not be convinced since the baby does not even know what a god is.
By default of birth, we all start out as agnostic atheists.
It's not absurd. It's the truth. They lack belief in gods because they've never even heard of them. The default position for newborn brains is a lack of "belief" in everything, by the way, not just god concepts. As we grow up and gain experience with reality, we tend to learn how to discern between what is real and what isn't. Or some people do, anyway.
You are obviously aware of how gullible, if not downright stupid so many people can be, in light of the recent QAnon conspiracy stuff and the idea that Trump won the election. You post about it all the time, about how there's absolutely no evidence for any of it. You seem to be fully aware that it's all nonsense that people have glommed on to for factional, cultish reasons that affirm something about their own psychological perceptions of identity. Strange that you can't (or refuse to) connect the dots in the same way when it comes to theistic concepts, which are alternate reality conspiracy theories in their own right.
Yes. And it is. Nobody "believes" baseball exists before they've even heard of it. That's putting the cart before the horse. Unlike gods, however, the existence of baseball can be learned about and then quickly confirmed with empirical evidence. You can see baseball. You can see people playing it. You can learn the rules and play it yourself. And everything about it obeys the known laws of physics. No magic. No leap of faith required.
Babies dont believe in mathematics or physics either. Should we have a default that mathematics and physics dont exist because babies dont believe in them?
The argument that atheism is the default position because babies dont know about God is absurd.
That is not what Dig stated. I think you are purposely pretending to not understand his point.
Dig did not say that the default is that babies believe that god does not exist. He wrote that they have no beliefs at all (shit, just read his latest):
So, to correct your misstatement, babies by default do not believe that 1+1=2 or that gravity is what causes them to fall down. They have no concept of arithmetic or gravity and thus hold no beliefs about same.
Similarly, babies have no concept of god and thus have no beliefs about same. If one does not believe in a god, one is by the very definition of the term, an atheist.
No matter what people say to you guys, you want to frame it all in a way that is favorable for your previously stated positions.
Forget about mathematics. Are babies born believing that murder is wrong? There is no evidence for that, at all, is there? Then are we to believe that "murder is OK" is a default?
Babies are born innocent. If concepts of God are not in the world for exposure and vice-versa concepts denying or seeking physical evidences of God. . . a child would have to find such concepts in itself. . .or not.
There is a Christian hymnal chorus:
I think we are being consistent and disallowing our meaning to be misrepresented.
No. They do not understand what murder is. They do not understand right vs. wrong.
No, the default is that a baby does not know if murder is right or wrong because the baby has no concept of murder. That does not translate into 'murder is OK' in any way, shape or form.
Why do you pretend to not understand the very simple notion that because a baby is born with no knowledge of god that the baby thus 'has no belief in any god' and is ipso facto atheist?
And are blank slates (cognitively).
Until that happens, the child does not believe in a god. Correct? If so, when the child does not believe in a god (for whatever reason) that child is by definition an atheist.
What are you trying to accomplish here CB? Are you going to eventually claim that babies are born theists (they believe in a god before they even know what a god is)? If not then they are born atheists (they do not believe in a god because they do not even know what a god is).
So tell me where you think this is headed.
They are not born believing that murder is wrong because they have no conception of it yet. It's not even a question of right and wrong, or of morality and immorality, because that kind of stuff has to be learned socially, after the default condition of amorality (just like religious concepts aren't a thing for them yet, making them initially atheistic by default).
I posed a similar question to John above. No answer, no surprise.
What are you talking about? Who has claimed babies are born theists? This is why I dont "debate" you people more. It is just endless objection to anything anyone says that you dont agree with.
The existence of God cannot be disproven through science. That was the premise of the seeded article. How many of your comments on this seed address that premise? I dont think there were many.
I do not think anyone disagrees with that (assuming the definition of 'God' is supreme entity or sentient creator or equivalent).
I noted this earlier. What else can one say if one agrees?
I think you want to assert that babies are all agnostic. That is true. They have no knowledge so they are pristine agnostics.
But 'agnostic' is a measure of knowledge. When one questions the theology of babies the result must be theist or atheist. There is either a belief in some deity or there is not. If you object to babies having no belief in a deity (meaning they are atheists) then you must be arguing that they are theists.
I think you want to limit discussion to simply focus on knowledge and labeling babies agnostic so as to ignore the fact that in terms of theology, we are all born atheists (agnostic atheists to be more precise).
Correct. We do not know the concept of theist, atheist, heaven, hell, arithmetic, physics, etc. In particular, we as babies obviously do not believe in any god. There is a name for that.
You said the idea that babies are born atheist as a default was absurd. What is the alternative?
Yes, that has been established. Now what?
I've already said science doesn't deal with god or establishing proof one way or another. So what's left? What more are you looking for?
How about neither? For someone so religiously logical you forgot about that one.
I think I'm done with this.
If one has no religion, belief, or theistic concept at birth, then one is agnostic atheist by default. They may not remain that way, but that is the starting point. Why is that such a problem?
A contradiction in terms.
Is a baby is born innocent, it does not conceive of God one way or the other: positively or negatively.
Something (whether) strange just happened in your commenting to me which threw me off-balance for a second: It appeared you were "attacking me" in your third paragraph without provocation. . . until 'seconds' later I assume you are responding to my mention of the Christian hymn: He Lives.
Are you asking me for my intentions (here) regarding the "message" in the hymn—without acknowledging its presence in my comment?
Moving down further. Of course, I am not claiming babies are born theists, when born innocent. I stated so @4.1.48. The hymn is an after-affect learned through living and speaks to education and 'knowing' through other means.
Babies are innocent. They are not atheists in any sense, because being an atheist is a state of being, it is an informed condition where one is decidedly against, or inconclusive about holding to a belief in God.
Does this make sense? Is not - why not?
Nope. Believe it or not religiously has more than one meaning.
Agreed.
My third paragraph was asking where you were taking the discussion. I was asking, in effect, what point you were making.
Religiosity is the state of being religious or too religious. Since I am not religious, your statement is erroneous.
Anyone who claims that science has proved that there is no sentient creator should not be speaking for science because the individual clearly does not understand science.
There are specific claims attributed to a god that science has, inadvertently, provided extremely convincing evidence to the contrary. For example, the belief that human beings were created in our current form directly from the elements (and not the result of billions of years of evolution). And prior to that, the primitive beliefs such as gods controlling thunder, volcanoes, etc.
But science does not ever engage in trying to disprove 'god'. There is no 'god' hypothesis in science. Science observes phenomena, gathers formal evidence and surmises potential explanations (hypotheses). If, after much experimentation, validation, challenges, etc. an hypothesis turns out to reliably explain the phenomena, is backed by solid evidence, has predictive capabilities (especially if verified) and is falsifiable then it elevates to the level of scientific theory.
The notion of a 'god' has absolutely nothing to do with this and will not unless, as some time, we uncover actual evidence of a supreme entity. Then the 'god' hypothesis would be a consideration of science.
Bottom line, science does not disprove a sentient creator ... it does not even concern itself with such matters.
Exactly. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving a god. It doesn't even try. It searches for knowledge without reference to the existence or nonexistence of a creator.
And if evidence were to emerge to warrant an hypothesis, science would be all over it. Discovering a sentient creator theory could be the greatest achievement ever.
But first the evidence must arrive.
That depend on whether or not an individual holds the explanation to be truth.
Typically, theological explanations are held by the faithful as truth.
The scientific explanation of multiple universes is not held as truth. It is simply an hypothesis pending further exploration. There is no faith involved.
Another debate between theists and atheists. The arguments are overly constrained to a binary conclusion that there is or isn't a God. Science versus God. That stark contrast may sell books but is not particularly enlightening.
Is astrology science or religion? Is Feng Shui science or religion? Both astrology and Feng Shui utilize direct observation of objective reality and depend upon cause/effect relationships. Both astrology and Feng Shui incorporate deities, as a matter of convention, but neither astrology or Feng Shui involve anything that could be considered religious practices. Astrology and Feng Shui do not include worship, prayer, offerings, rituals, or devotion to deities.
Astrology and Feng Shui are based upon the idea that the universe is controlled by determinate physical relationships and that the deterministic universe influences the indeterminate human condition. Both astrology and Feng Shui are based upon observations of a complex, well ordered, and predictable objective reality.
Astrology and Feng Shui have all the characteristics associated with science. Astrology and Feng Shui use physics as a tool as do many other sciences. Astrology and Feng Shui have none of the characteristics associated with theist religion. And astrology and Feng Shui have few, if any, of the characteristics associated with pagan religion. So, are astrology and Feng Shui science or religion?
What differentiates astrology and Feng Shui from climate science or evolution science or social science?
Does astrology and Feng Shui disprove God? IMO the debate is more than just an argument between theists and atheists. The real contrast at the heart of the argument is between determinism and indeterminism. Are we controlled by a determinate objective reality or can we exert our own independent influence on objective reality?
Science based upon the idea that knowledge allows us to control and shape objective reality to what humans desire really is searching for God. Only a god can overcome determinism and act independently to alter objective reality according to their will. In many respects, scientists are theists who have not yet found God.
You are doing the constraining. Where do you see a debate on whether or not God exists here?
I didn't say anything about existence, either. You're addressing a point that isn't there.
The question of disproving God is all about whether or not a belief in God is justified. The arguments between theists and atheists are about belief in God, not about the existence of God. The belief does exist. Faith does exist.
The question being posed is whether or not scientific facts address belief and faith. Does belief and faith in science disprove belief and faith in God?
Did you forget what you just wrote??:
What I wrote is that the arguments are overly constrained to a binary conclusion there is or isn't a God. A belief is a conclusion.
And in doing so you did indeed write of existence.
Sometimes it is best to not try to deny the glaringly obvious.
I was writing about conclusions, belief, and faith. I have corrected what you incorrectly highlighted to prove that point and refute your claim. Since you wish to bring existence into the discussion, belief exists. The conclusion exists. Faith exists.
Are astrology and Feng Shui science or religion? Astrology and Feng Shui have the characteristics associated with science but have none of the characteristics associated with theist religion. Does astrology and Feng Shui disprove a belief in God?
I am done with you again Nerm. I have no patience for such blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Can a god be surprised?
Human behavior is indeterminate and unpredictable. Humans have certainly been endowed with the ability to surprise God.
According to Biblical scripture, humans have convinced God to change a course of action, convinced God to intercede, and angered God. Biblical scripture suggests that humans have surprised God at times.
How does one surprise an omniscient entity? If an entity knows everything (past, present and future), explain how surprise is possible.
I predict you will be fast and loose with semantics of common words.
I'm bowing out of this conversation. I have had this discussion too many times to be interested in re-hashing today the similarities and differences of thousands of gods that have been created, worshipped and discarded throughout human history.
Maybe, I'll find some new info to bring to a new discussion in the future.
Understandable since whatever you write will be dismissed in venues like this. The best result to ever expect is a civil, thoughtful disagreement or maybe some new twist might emerge that you had not considered. I call this mining for gold.
The overwhelmingly common result, however, is intellectually dishonest tactics.
I can only relate that Biblical scripture describes instances suggesting God has been surprised by humans. Human behavior is indeterminate and unpredictable. A God that acts out of anger and disapproval of human behavior and expresses regret for acting in anger does suggest that humans have the capacity to surprise God.
If God is all knowing, why is The Bible full of stories about how mankind confounds him?
Thus when the Bible defines God as having perfect knowledge of past, present and future the Bible has produced a definition of God that is a contradiction.
That God, as defined, cannot exist. X and ~X cannot both be true.
Now, there could be a God that is similar to what the Bible defined as long as it is defined free of contradiction.
I am married to a narcissist. This is the only level of discourse that he is capable of.
I have no way of knowing the true personalities of people online, but I have learned to be very wary of people who talk past the point made or ignore it altogether. Being defensive, angry and hostile - all red flags that no one should ignore whether online or offline.
I wouldn't have thought to use that terminology, but you are correct, I am online to mine for gold. And occasionally, I am rewarded enough to make it worthwhile.
Offline, when I desire conversation, I go shopping and have conversations with people shopping for the same items I am. Sometimes, it is really interesting, but at least, it is socially polite. This usually takes care of my need for social interaction.
Beats me. I never said God is all knowing. That was TiG. Direct your question to TiG and ask why TiG believes God is all knowing.
I've only pointed out that Biblical scripture is full of stories about how mankind confounds God; just as you have stated.
Do you disagree with the Bible's definition of God as omniscient: perfect knowledge of past, present and future?
Are humans knowable? Is evolution knowable? Is the behavior of life knowable? What you are describing is a God that knows everything that can be known. But does that mean a God knows what cannot be known? I can only point to Biblical scripture that suggests God has been surprised by humans. The Biblical description of God may not be a contradiction since humans may not be knowable. The contradictions in the Bible may tell us more about humans than they tell us about God.
Astrology and Feng Shui attempts to apply what can be observed, predicted, and known to the unpredictable behavior of humans. Astrology and Feng Shui attempts explain the indeterminate using knowledge of the determinate. Does knowing the determinate really provide knowledge of the indeterminate? Does that mean astrology and Feng Shui are science or religion?
If God has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future then God knows everything. There is nothing that is unknowable to God per this definition.
You are trying to make X and ~X both true. While entertaining, it is pointless. Try something else.
I've directly answered your question. You asked can God be surprised? The answer is yes. Biblical scripture suggests God has been surprised by humans.
What does that have to do with similarities and differences between thousands of gods?
I'm pointing out that the situation may be X and Y rather than X and ~X as you have claimed. I've pointed out that your logic may not describe the actual situation.
Humans may be unknowable; humans may be beyond knowing. Even an omniscient God can only know what can be known. That which is unknowable cannot be construed as knowledge.
Now that is just abstract bullshit Nerm. I give an X and ~X and you say ... oh no, really it is Y and not ~X.
That which is unknowable is so abstract as to be meaningless. We were talking about an omniscient entity. If an entity has perfect knowledge of past, present and future then there is no possible way to surprise it. You cannot surprise it with 'non-knowledge'. Your argument is ridiculous.
Give me an example of how an entity with perfect knowledge of past, present and future can be surprised (learn something that it did not know and actually did not even expect)?
Science does not concern itself with proving or disproving any of the tens of thousands of gods that men have created. Why would scientists not study whether a god existed or not?
Yahweh was just another evil god that demanded blood was spilled as a tribute - including human blood sacrifice. Yahweh is not unique in this regard because Yahweh was created along the lines of the gods that were in vogue at the time. Hence, the comment that I wasn't wasting my time researching and referencing the history of the region because I knew it would be ignored. If anyone cares about the history of world religions then they can do their own research.
Furthermore, if Yahweh was real, the last thing I would do is worship it.
I find ALL of the following to be unacceptable and immoral.
This is ALL in the Bible that you are citing.
People either don't know what is in their Bible or don't care. I have real difficulty to believe that anyone, with other an abhorrent personality, could willingly worship the god the Bible.
If this is evidence of Yahweh's form of love, I believe the world would have always been better off without it. Certainly, the men, women and children slaughtered, tortured, raped, pillaged, etc., would have been better off. The men carrying out the slaughter, torture, rape and pillage are supposedly doing this on Yahweh's orders. Not the kind of people that I want in my life.
You have a thing for attacking the God of the Bible. Many atheists do. Its not really pertinent to this discussion though.
How is the god of the Bible different from all of the rest of the tens of thousands of gods that science does not concern itself about?
Quoting Yahweh of the Bible is not an attack on Yahweh of the Bible. I have actually read the Bible. I know what the Bible says. I also attended various sects of the Christian religion for close to 30 years and heard their interpretations of the Bible. I don't recall any of them saying that any of it did not happen on Yahweh's orders and Yahweh was pleased and rewarded his chosen people for doing his bidding.
Maybe some of the 30,000 sects that I have not attended preach it differently, but what is in the Bible is in the Bible.
I am not saying science should concern itself about the God of the Bible. But there is only one God, there are not multiple "gods" in terms of a Supreme Being.
That is your belief. The people who worshipped the other 30,000+ gods were just as convinced about their gods as you are about yours.
There is just as much proof of the other 30,000+ gods existing as there is of Yahweh existing.
Religious ritual fills a need for unity and community that many people have. As long as no one is harmed, I see it as beneficial to some people's well-being.
It is when the message and/or rules are forced on anyone inside or outside the sect that religion becomes intolerable, cruel and completely unacceptable.
If the Catholic Church wants to condemn birth control in their doctrine that is fine. Using their power/money to deny birth control to anyone in any way should never be tolerated.
If the Baptist Church wants to ban dancing inside their church - fine. If the Baptist Church works to ban it outside their church - not tolerated.
Unfortunately, the Christian religion is all about controlling lives from cradle to grave and claiming it is love. If it was love, then it would not have to be legislated through the courts.
The propaganda is that Yahweh allows freewill and choices. In reality, the various sects are working to control governments the same way the Roman Catholic Church did in Europe for over a thousand years. This is only about power and control by the men who head up the various religious sects in the name of a god there is zero proof of existing.
There is only one God. It is not possible for their to be more than on God. It is like saying there could be two highest places on earth or two fastest baseball pitches ever thrown.
The thousands of Gods you are referring to are cultural expressions of the same God.
That is only your belief.
These gods were created for specific purposes before a god was created that knew how to multitask.
There was the god of hearth, the god of the horse, the god of war, the god of love, the god of whatever a person needed a god for - therefore, 30,000+ gods.
None of this proves or disproves God. Doesn't a justification for rejecting any God depend upon a belief in that God? You've listed facts concerning God to present a conclusion about God as truth. And those facts depend upon a conclusion there is a God. Otherwise those facts wouldn't be facts. Basing a conclusion upon chosen facts really isn't any different than Flat Earthers concluding the Earth is flat. Facts can mislead to an untruth just as easily as lead to a truth. Knowledge and facts, alone, are not enough to test truth.
A conclusion presented as truth requires more than chosen facts. A conclusion based upon chosen facts doesn't prove or disprove.
The facts you've presented about Yahweh also describes the natural world. Humans must sacrifice life on the alter of survival every day because the natural world has imposed that requirement on humans. If God were named Survival instead of Yahweh, the same chosen facts would be objectively true. What does that suggest about the conclusion presented as truth?
By definition there can only be one Supreme Being. I dont care if some people believe in thousands of gods, such beliefs are cultural expressions.
Why does anyone have to justify rejecting a belief in a god anymore than they have to justify rejecting a belief in mermaids, leprechauns, etc.?
Why do you not consider the Christian God to be a cultural expression?
Ever occur to you that mocowgirl is making an argument for why she does not believe the God of the Bible exists? And that she was pointing out how so many religious people are ignorant of what is really in their Bibles?
No offense intended since I know you are Catholic, but most of my friends and family are Catholic and I know after decades of living that the Catholic church teaches a very nice, highly edited (and very pleasant) depiction of the Bible. I have been quite impressed by how much of the Bible (especially the OT) is entirely brand new news to lifelong Catholics.
To wit, I think mocowgirl has a point. And it is not just Catholics. Too many religious people IMO simply listen to their authorities and accept whatever they tell them. A very dangerous practice.
All religions are cultural expressions.
There is no point to saying that "these other people believe in different gods than you do" . It is not something that interests me.
It has been my experience that many atheists like to attack Christianity. And some of them believe that if they can disprove aspects of Christianity they are disproving the existence of God. I completely disagree and it is not something I am interested in.
Yup. Let's note agreement.
I can see someone holding that if they disprove aspects of Christianity (e.g. disprove the resurrection) that they are disproving the existence of the Christian God. But that is only relevant in a debate where one's interlocutor has claimed that the Christian God exists and that there is no way they are mistaken.
Disprove those other gods.
I have always found it fascinating that when people back then heard voices, they were called the chosen ones. Now we call them schizophrenics.
Well, they claimed to hear voices. Since those voices often granted them some sort of authority or superiority of rights over others, one must question their credibility.
When we grow up we are supposed to quit believing in vampires and werewolves and fairies and elves and ghosts and magic...
Except for a holy ghost who will raise up an army of the dead at the end of time. Game of Thrones has got nothing on the Bible...
South Park ruined me with their head of the Mormons episode...
He found these scrolls, that no one else can see...
Dumb dumb dumb dumb...
In Biblical times if someone claiming to be a prophet proved to be wrong, even once, they were brutally executed for false prophecy...
Today they get a TV show that runs 55 years!
Why would I do that? The seed is not at all about what gods people believe in.
Secondly, there is by definition only one Supreme Being. Obviously "thousands of gods" are not God.
Religions are all human creations.
You misunderstand what religion is.
The point is that rejecting the idea of a God wouldn't use chosen facts about a specific god for justification. Rejecting a specific God based upon facts about that specific God is actually a search for a better God.
An atheist would justify rejecting the idea of a God because that idea is unnecessary to explain things and serves no purpose for survival of the species. A theist would reject a specific God because that God does not conform to their concept of what a God should be.
You've presented a theist argument based on the idea that there is a God but that Yahweh is a false God, for the reasons you cited. The argument you presented is not an atheist argument that the idea of any God is unnecessary and the idea of any God does not warrant belief.
Anti-Bible, anti-Christian arguments are not arguments to support atheism. Those arguments are made by theists who believe there is a God but are searching for a better God.
You're the one making the declaration, John. If you make a declaration you can't support, expect to be called on it.
I dont even know what you talking about. I said God is by definition the Supreme Being. There can be only one Supreme Being. "gods" are human creations, and that includes the Bible religions. If God exists (the Supreme Being) it exists independently of what human beings think about it.
Why do so many atheists get hung up on this pointless topic of thousands of competing gods? I guess they think it makes some important point but i dont see it.
In monotheistic religions. You sort of skip some very important words, there, John. Not all religions are monotheistic. In fact, most religions are polytheistic, and your own has polytheistic roots.
Why are you atheist regarding other gods, but don't apply the same standards to your own?
You are completing misunderstanding me. All religions are human creations and cultural expressions. They ALL worship the same God. The reason they all worship the same God is because God is THE Supreme Being, and there can only be one Supreme Being.
How can you seriously state that the ancient Greeks, an example of one set of humans, worshiped the same God as you? How can you seriously state that Hindus worship the same God as you?
The Greek gods, for example, had no supreme being. In fact, if you follow the lore, Zeus is the son of Cronos and Cronos is the son of Uranus (Heaven) and Gaea (Earth). The supreme being is who, exactly?
Sez you.
Without evidence.
I assume you would agree that there can be only one first cause. Two or more first causes negates the meaning of "first cause".
If we define God as the Supreme Being, which is the commonly accepted definition of capital G God, then no human religions that worship multiple gods are worshipping the Supreme Being, unless they are but dont realize it (which would be my explanation).
The biggest mistake atheists make is all this pettifogging over "multiple thousands" of gods.
Let's see your evidence that these cultural expressions dont all ultimately refer to the same Supreme Being.
===================================================
Massive Similarities Between Different World Mythologies
Not my job, John. You're the one declaring they're all the same, and somehow all valid (if you're saying they're al expressions of your belief). It's on you to prove it. I'm interested to see if you'll apply the same standards of evidence to your own mythology as to others'. Because they're all myths, with similar lack of evidence to support them, yours included.
I have said, at least a half dozen times on THIS seed, that ALL religions are cultural expressions. Tig specifically agreed with me. And when I say specifically I mean he said "yes" . And yet you continue to say, to me,
That strikes me as disingenuous. Religions were created to explain the mysteries of existence to people within a geographical or cultural location in the world. Religion in India is not the same as religion in Israel. But to the extent that the religions refer to the "Creator" they are referring to the same God.
I am actually surprised that you people continue to insist on arguing about this.
That's nice. Prove it!
How do you know this? Perhaps there are 2 or more gods on the exact same level?
Demonstrably false. Many cultures have multiple gods and with different attributes that the Abrahamistic god. Even the one "God" is an expression of its base religions and cultures.
More like they challenge some of the affirmative claims christianity makes!
This is true. By the same token, god/s can also be human creations. A means to explain the various aspects of the world around them.
You have said they are all cultural expressions. That, we can agree on.
Your last statement goes further. Now, you're claiming that they're all cultural expressions of the exact same idea - one supreme being. That is a statement you need to support. You've just subsumed numerous religions and cultures into your own, negating them and declaring your own valid, with no evidence.
John, you're still arguing, too. It's a bit silly to point out that others are arguing, when you're doing the same.
You assume correctly.
Agreed except for polytheistic religions that have a supreme being and lesser gods. One could argue that Christianity is constructed in this manner. The supreme being is the Father (creator, etc.) with the Son and HG as lesser (albeit this is countered by the trinity concept which makes all three hypostases the collective God). But more clear are the angels who actually correlate more with the ancient Greek and Roman gods.
My Zeus example shows that the ancient Greek did not have supreme being (as you and I define that term).
Seems like a very logical challenge. Why is your god the correct god and all these other gods, believed in just as strongly, false gods?
If I could choose a god to party with, it would be Zeus. He knew how to rock the place.
Yeah, but he and Hera were pretty much always fighting because he was out fathering demigods with human women. That could get awkward, and depending on her temper and aim, dangerous.
You might be right.
When I was a theist, I did not search for a better God, I searched for a better version of Yahweh than I had yelled at me by the fire and brimstone preachers. I attended many different denominations of Christianity including Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Methodist and Mormon. I had friends who were members of different denominations that could openly discuss their beliefs without becoming defensive and hostile. I could only be comfortable with Yahweh as long as I ignored the sheer brutality, ignorance and ineptness of such a god. I damn sure had to ignore that Yahweh condoned rape and maltreatment of women and children.
I have never been happier in life than when I discovered that Yahweh was just as much a myth as Zeus, Apollo and Odin. This is why I learned more about the history of humans and what gods they created and what purpose those gods was supposed to serve. The purpose usually boils down to nothing less than an attempt to control the masses by the men who were intelligent enough to manipulate the less intelligent/gullible.
Rulers enacted laws long before the Ten Commandments were conceived. Our species is not the only species who has "rules". It is just that we have the ability to write them down. The people, who are capable of being fair to others, obey the laws and the people, who are not capable of being fair to others, skirt or ignore them.
As stated previously, people usually want order in their lives. Laws provide a way to protect the victims from the predators if the predators are not allowed positions of authority.
Among others things, when predators are in charge then even law abiding people are told they are born evil and must spend their lives atoning for things they never dreamed of doing in the first place. Even worse, the law abiding citizens are told they are no better than the predator and must accept and forgive the predator for all their crimes against humanity.
There is not a perfect legal system, but there are probably few in existence today that are worse than that in the Bible.
He also had quite the way with the ladies too.
If there is one, there is no evidence of it except in myths and legends.
I tend to think of the word god the same way I think of dragon, mermaid, leprechaun, vampires, werewolves, etc. - nothing more than a mythical creature.
I googled "list of mythical creatures". It returned some interesting results. Imagination should not be confused with reality.
I agree with your definition in 8.2.36 "Religions are all human creations."
So what don't I understand about "religion"?
Kathleen, I can't and won't argue about your personal experience because of all of the hours, days, weeks, months and years that I have spent trying to understand the influences that shape an individuals perception, perspective and personality in order to better understand myself and others.
What I will say, that extraordinary claims do require testing and replication to be accepted as fact.
We are not necessarily a "blank slate" when we are born. There are genetic influencers that will have a role in how we interact with our environment.
As a child, I was indoctrinated to believe that the dead could communicate with living via "signs". Since I had been orphaned as a baby, I desperately looked for "signs" that my deceased mother was looking out for me.
As a child, I was indoctrinated that Yahweh loved me and everything that happened to me was according to his perfect plan - a plan that He did not have to explain to me or anyone else. I was just to accept whatever Hell was thrown my way and be grateful for it.
So I actually worked to accept that Yahweh loved me so much that I was orphaned and placed under the authority of a sadistic stepfather who tormented me with mental and physical abuse until I escaped at 17. (My stepfather never once touched me in a sexual way. At least, he had a few boundaries.) My stepmother had already suffered the humiliation of going through a divorce in the 1950s at the age of 19 so she rarely said anything about whatever abuse he heaped on me and her daughter from her first marriage. My stepmother's mother (the person I always refer to as my grandmother) was my only sanctuary as a child. Without her, I would not have ever known a hug, a tender touch or love.
At this time, I just can't go into detail about meeting my very large biological family at the age of 17, but the assortment of educated and uneducated narcissists, alcoholics, pedophiles, liars, thieves ....and I was even raped by a member of my own biological family.....
Yet, through all of this, I was still trying to find acceptance of Yahweh's perfect plan for my life because I had been taught that abuse was love.
I cannot tell you in words how painful it is to relive these experiences when I write about them. I only do it because it is in the only way I can try to spare others from being controlled by abusers.
The abusers will try to say all kinds of things to ignore or justify their abuse by attacking the credibility of the victim. Unfortunately, this has proven to be an effective tactic. Maybe, if enough victims speak out our society will listen and change for the better of all.
Turning to religion is akin to being codependent with your abuser.
There are people who actually pray for forgiveness before they commit crimes just in case they are killed while committing their crimes. There is little to no fear of judgement because they cherry pick the Bible and only pay attention to the forgiveness text. If the Bible were true as written, they would be in Hell for eternity since they entirely skipped the repent the sin and sin no more rule.
Personally, I don't have any wish to live for eternity.
If Heaven existed, it would be boring beyond belief. Everyone and everything would have to be perfect 24/7. There is no room for individuality because that would cause conflict. According to the Bible, everyone would happily spend eternity endlessly praising Yahweh. This sounds more like punishment than reward.
When you speak of Yahweh I think of this: I don't know if the group at Yahweh City was associated with the Nation of Yahweh, founded by Yahweh ben Yahweh, as an offshoot of the Black Hebrew Israelites. The use of the name Yahweh is uncommon in Christian discussion; the common usage in Christian discussion is Jehovah. The name Yahweh emphasizes the orthodox Judaic canon of the Old Testament which is, indeed, very harsh.
You attribute what can be generically thought of as evil to God. Claiming God condoned evil doesn't acknowledge that humans, alone, performed the evil. Don't atheists do evil, too? So, humans will do evil with or without God. Claiming God condones evil attempts to shift responsibility away from humans who actually did the evil. But humans are responsible for doing evil, not any god. ' God made me do it ' is an excuse that doesn't avoid or absolve responsibility.
Why would one God need so many denomination of churches? Why would a God need a church at all? Consider the possibility that the church is the myth created by humans. Churches condone evil in the name of God. And churches do evil in the name of God. IMO that's why there are so many denominations; humans create denominations and churches to condone the evil that humans do.
The Bible of the church was not written by God. The Biblical canon of the church is made up of chosen facts; there are apocryphal gospels that have been rejected by the church. And facts can mislead to an untruth as easily as leading to a truth. Facts chosen by the church was not intended to enlightened; the choosing of facts is intended to mislead. Faith in the church is unwarranted. The Bible that God wrote is nature; God created nature, humans did not create nature. The test of truth is to compare church canon to nature. Nature may refute or disprove church canon but that church canon is a work of humans, not God. Science, as a human endeavor, may disprove the human endeavor of the church but that doesn't address questions about God. Science using nature to disprove the Bible really disproves the church because science is using the Bible written by God to refute and disprove the Bible written by humans.
When science begins choosing facts to establish orthodox canon then science assumes the authority of a church. Choosing facts is intended to mislead and not intended to enlighten. Science acting as a church will condone evil as have other churches. Science will shift blame and responsibility onto God by claiming that humans were made this way. Science will justify evil by claiming that a determinate universe has imposed evil onto humans; human evil is a result of determinate cause. And scientists will assume the role of interceding between humans and nature just as priests intercede between humans and God.
Faith in the works of humans is unwarranted because it is humans who do evil and it is humans that avoid responsibility for the evil they do by blaming God. Personally, I'd rather have faith in God than have faith in humans.
Then why give any credence to the Bible ... a work of mere humans pretending to be divine?
If God, the creator, created everything - this would include good and evil.
If God, the creator, created humans to do good and evil as an experiment to see who would do what, then humans would be this god's lab rats.
Why do you have a need for faith in anything?
God is only used as a defense attack in a society that might be swayed by such a claim.
This is why our laws should not be based on a religion.
Why give credence to any works of humans? Humans who created the Bible and the church aren't any different than humans who created science. Why should we believe humans would use science any differently than humans have used the church?
Theist religion and the canonical church are works of humans. But then so are atheism and humanist secularism. Why give credence to any works of humans?
Humans would be petty, fickle, and selfish gods. Humans do evil for the sake of doing evil. What's to stop humans?
The difference is, the work of humans in science is supported by empirical evidence.
You stated:
I responded to that. Make up your mind. Do you have faith in the human beings who wrote the Bible or not?
If you do not have faith in the authors of the Bible then how could you possibly believe it to be divine? Why not just treat it as very influential ancient historical fiction literature and leave it at that?
I disagree. The living universe, within the determinate inanimate universe, must exploit nature, must kill to survive. and must reproduce to perpetuate itself. When did these necessary activities for life become good or evil? Why are the concepts of good and evil only applied to humans?
Without faith I become nothing more than a domestic cat killing songbirds out of instinct rather than need. Without faith I become a kept animal with no purpose other than to follow the natural instincts of exploiting nature, killing to survive, and reproducing to perpetuate the species.
A statement of faith is an expression of freewill to exert control over instincts. I can choose. And my purpose is to understand the choice. My behavior may be programmed by the determinate laws of nature but I have faith that I can rewrite that programming by making choices.
Wow. You honestly think that without some sort of religion, people are just basic animals with no thought or free will...
Guess what, I don't have this faith and I am not out stalking prey.
What I find amusing is people that say they have to have religion in order to keep themselves on track.
If you ask me, that is weak minded people saying they need other people to tell them what to do.
Which faith? There are literally thousands to choose from. If just choosing any faith supposedly gives a human purpose, isn't it less to do with what you believe and more to do with simply choosing a path in life? And if you have to have faith to keep you from being an animal, aren't you admitting that you'd be a violent child rapist if there wasn't that invisible God watching you over your shoulder?
It really sounds more like you're just reading some religious marketing pamphlet. Of course the seller of a product is going to tell you that you simply can't live without their product. Your skin won't be as soft, your hair won't be as shiny, you'll never get invited to the 'cool people' parties, you'll never be as prosperous or happy without their products. Does this kind of marketing work? Of course it does, that's why businesses spend billions on marketing. There is a sucker born every minute, or more precisely, humans tend to be extremely gullible.
An incomplete Bible made up of chosen facts could still be divine. The divinity of the Bible doesn't address the intent and purpose of rejecting material that may also be divine.
The divinity of the source doesn't address the slicing and splicing to establish the orthodox canon of the church. It's the divinity of the church that is questionable.
Then you have faith in the authors of the Bible.
That's not what I said. What I said is that people without faith are just basic animals. You're establishing a false equivalency between faith and religion.
People can practice religion as a matter of convention without any faith. Herd mentality and groupthink doesn't require faith but people do religiously follow the herd and will repeat groupthink as a form of dogma. Conforming to the status quo doesn't require faith; that only requires following convention. That's why faith and freewill can pose a threat to the status quo and conventional wisdom.
What I said still applies. I do not have 'faith ' and I am not some privative beast prowling the streets.
You are trying to say that people that do not have any faith in a god are lacking freewill.
The premise itself is absurd.
Yet, animals do not need or believe in magic...
There appears to be a misunderstanding of the nature of faith.
Someone can claim to have faith in humanist philosophy. Generations of the individuals family have been humanists. The individual has been trained in humanist philosophy since birth. Most of the people the individual knows are humanists. If the individual is following humanist philosophy because his family is humanists, his friends and acquaintances are humanists, and the individual has been spoon fed humanist philosophy since birth then what does faith really mean?
Does conformity to the status quo and conventional wisdom require faith? Does following the herd require faith? Does doing things the way they've always been done require faith?
Yes, there are thousands of religions, philosophies, and beliefs. But faith in any or none of them is an expression of freewill. Faith is a choice. Faith challenges belief.
People claim that believing religions and philosophies require faith. But that's not really true. People can believe in religions and philosophies as a matter of convention without making any choice. Believing in God or a church as conventional wisdom doesn't require any faith; that only requires following convention.
How can you believe one side of the coin yet not the other.
If faith is a choice and freewill, would it not conclude that people without faith chose that path as well, being their 'freewill'.
I am not a Bible scholar. But having said that, I have concluded that the various authors of the many books of the Bible were not attempting to intentionally deceive or intentionally be dishonest. But accepting the honest intent of the many authors does not require faith in the authors.
I must have faith in my acceptance of the honest intent of the many authors. I have freely and independently arrived at a conclusion and I have faith in that conclusion. I understand that my conclusion may be incorrect which would require questioning my faith in my conclusion.
Faith is my responsibility. No one can impose faith on me. No one can give faith to me. I must choose and have faith in that choice.
Glad we have that settled. I do not have faith that the authors of the Bible wrote the truth.
Maybe their truth...Haha
Wasn't some of the stories in the bible copied from other ancient stories.
Not necessarily copied but versions of.
Like Gilgamesh.
What you wrote there I can applaud you for. It was real and heartfelt.
And to be honest, I don't think anyone is condemning you for your faith.
I have found just the opposite.
The faithful use their god as their crutch, their pacifier and their scapegoat. No thinking involved when their god is in charge and has a master plan for their lives.
Depending on the intelligence level of the faithful, they can interpret their god's words/commands in ways to justify just about any criminal act of their choosing.
When all else fails, the fail safe clause is supposed to be the forgiveness doctrine.
People really should acquaint themselves with all of the atrocities committed at the behest of the highest leaders of organized religion in the world throughout history.
I suggest reading European history in regards to the wars over control of governments by the Roman Catholic Church.
Read of the people tortured and murdered in heinous ways because they were of the "wrong" faith.
I don't understand how a person uses faith to control themselves, but as long as they aren't bothering others with it there is no harm, no foul.
Throughout history, the primary use of faith has been to control others in the same way it is being used today.
Yes! There are all sorts of stories in the Bible that have roots in earlier material. Exactly what one would expect of human authors.
That's demonstrably false, and also somewhat insulting.
Then demonstrate it!
But that demonstration needs to explain why only religion requires faith. Especially at a moment when the full faith and credit of the United States is on the line. Because that's the question I'll ask.
Using God as crutch, pacifier, and scapegoat doesn't really require faith, does it?
Even you are using God as crutch, pacifier, and scapegoat. Atheists do that all the time by making arguments that rely on blaming God for their lack of belief. Claiming to be an atheist because God is bad is a self defeating justification; they're really theists searching for a different god. People use science, history, and anything else they can think of as a crutch, pacifier, and scapegoat to replace God.
Is that an expression of faith in their own victimhood?
Understanding the history of the Roman Catholic Church requires an understanding of the history of the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church is the last vestige of the Roman Republican. SPQR. The dying Roman Republic sliced and spliced the Bible to establish the orthodox canon of the church.
The Roman Catholic Church is as Roman as it is Christian.
Millions of rational agnostic atheists prove it everyday.
If you're now trying to weasel out of the faith debate claiming you meant that all humans have to practice some sort of "faith" aka belief in a currencies value it's obvious you're losing the argument.
It is clear your original comments had nothing to do with faith in currency.
"Faith" in a currency clearly has no effect on whether a human would "do evil". The claim that a human without faith is a "kept animal" is clearly claiming that humans without religious faith or faith in some higher power are "animals" or wouldn't hesitate to give in to animal instincts. The facts clearly show you wrong as millions of humans live without faith in a higher power and are often less evil and less likely to give in to "animal instincts" than those with faith.
There are thousands of known cases where parents have killed their children because they believed they were "evil" or had the devil in them, history is full of religious zealots starting wars, torturing, burning and hanging other humans because of their faith. In fact "faith" can be used as a strong rationalization to "do evil" when it divides humanity and is interpreted by believers to give them the right to kill non-believers.
It is clear from your comments what you meant, no amount of twist and spin will change that, but its clear you recognize you're on the losing side of the argument when you're trying to shift your premise from "Without faith I become nothing more than a domestic cat killing songbirds out of instinct rather than need" to "full faith and credit of the United States is on the line".
Really? Agnostic atheists have no faith? In anything?
Faith is an expression of freewill. Without freewill humans are just basic animals. So, without faith humans are just basic animals.
Now explain why only religion requires faith. Explain why atheism doesn't require faith.
That is flawed logic.
As usual Nerm, you play fast and loose with semantics of ordinary words.
Faith (religious usage) ≠ faith (common usage)
Faith (religious usage) = " Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "
Faith (common usage) = " Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "
Agnostic atheists have faith (common usage) that their cars will start, their kids love them, the sun will rise tommorrow, ... They do not have a strong belief in God or ...
See how this works? Don't play semantics games; it is a cheap tactic that is easily exposed.
I'm playing semantics? Let's exercise your dictionary.
Explain how those two usages of faith are mutually exclusive. Explain how the thought processes are different between those two usages in practice. Explain why those who practice transcendental religions do not have religious faith.
Explain why any belief involving God is not a religious belief. Why is a strong belief that their isn't a God not a religious belief and why doesn't that belief require faith.
The explanations shouldn't be difficult. The Oxford orthodox canon can explain anything. Just have faith.
No. I am not going to play your games. If you cannot see that those two usages are not interchangeable then that will have to remain your problem.
I am done explaining the absurdly obvious.
That is a choice made possible by freewill; something inanimate matter and energy are incapable of doing.
My comment @8.2.75 wasn't talking about religion which is also absurdly obvious. Here's the comment if you don't want to click:
"Without faith I become nothing more than a domestic cat killing songbirds out of instinct rather than need. Without faith I become a kept animal with no purpose other than to follow the natural instincts of exploiting nature, killing to survive, and reproducing to perpetuate the species.
A statement of faith is an expression of freewill to exert control over instincts. I can choose. And my purpose is to understand the choice. My behavior may be programmed by the determinate laws of nature but I have faith that I can rewrite that programming by making choices."
What does a domestic cat chasing songbirds out of instinct have to do with religion? I explicitly stated that a statement of faith is an expression of freewill to exert control over instincts.
You chose to play semantics and defend the falsehood @8.2.76 without reading what I wrote. That, too, was a choice made possible by freewill. Your twisting and spinning linguistics was a choice made on faith.
Honestly, you are making this far more complicated than it is.
I am not an atheist because your God is bad, inept or ????. I believe in just one less god than the people who believe in one god.
The people, who worship one god, have rejected belief in the other 30,000+ gods people have created and worshipped. Again, I believe in just one less god.
I do not worship anything or anyone.
I am in awe of existence itself. That is enough for me.
I do not speak for other atheists so if you really want to understand their thought processes you will have to ask them.
Honestly, you are overlooking the complication. Atheists cannot use God as an excuse. God cannot condone evil because there is no God. People do evil simply because people are people. Evil is part of human nature.
Should we accept people doing evil as an inherent part of human existence? People are only doing what people do because of their evolved natural instincts; that's the way the determinate universe of cause and effect made people. Or should we attempt to control the natural instinct to do evil? And how would we go about controlling the natural instinct of humans to do evil? Who is going to have the authority to control human nature?
How did people have governments without a god belief?
How do people have governments now without a god belief?
This is not complicated.
One more time for those who refuse to understand. mocowgirl said
She's not using God as an excuse for not believing in God. She just doesn't believe, and in the absence of evidence, needs no excuse for her lack of belief. I'm pretty sure everyone can understand that concept. So your accusation of using God as an excuse for not believing in God is a strawman.
Persisting in propping up a strawman when it has been pointed out as a straw man is dishonest and ridiculous.
Atheists do not accept there is a God. If there is no God then God cannot condone evil. Atheists using the Bible to say what God does, allows, or condones is pointless because there is no God. Why would atheists discuss God in definite terms if there is no God?
Without God, humans are the source of all human evil. Atheists attempt to claim that a belief in God causes human evil but there is no God. So, eliminating a belief in God will not eliminate human evil because only humans are the source of human evil. There is no God so there is nothing to blame except humans.
Atheists discussing God and placing blame on God are using God as an excuse because there is no God for atheists. Atheists are attempting to blame something that isn't there. Atheists attempting to blame God and the Bible are doing the same thing as those who have a belief in God. That's not a rejection of the idea that there is a God; that's searching for a better God that meets their expectations.
You can cobble together all sorts of allegations and accusations by slicing, splicing, and editing comments to fit your worldview. But that doesn't alter that atheists discussing God as cause of anything cannot make those arguments if there is no God. There must be a God if God causes and condones evil. Atheists making allegations and accusations against God are doing more to prove God than disprove God.
A correction: atheists do not accept claims for a God without evidence. But most are probably willing to reconsider their position should evidence be forthcoming. As it is, there is no evidence for any god/s. If atheists use God or the Bible to discuss such matters, it's essentially debating theists on their own terms. The proverbial fighting fire with fire.
Is astrology science or religion? Atheists can believe in spirits and metaphysical phenomena, without evidence, and still be atheists. Atheists can practice religion and still be atheists. Agnostic atheism does not preclude gnostic beliefs.
Debating theists on their own terms is actually fighting metaphysical fire with metaphysical fire. That's actually a debate between gnostic atheists and theists. The debate is still a religious debate with atheists expressing religious beliefs. And atheists must make their arguments based on faith in their own conclusions (and beliefs).
You're discussing God and the bible while referring to atheists. So why are you trying to move the goalposts by switching to astrology? Poor form Nerm!
Directly addressing your assertion is not moving the goalposts. Ignoring the rebuttal to your assertion so you can discuss something else and make false allegations is not honest, rational discussion.
You are attempting to argue in the same manner as a Jesuit Catholic.
Nowhere did I remotely mention astrology or the like. I specifically referred to God and biblical claims with regards to atheists, while correcting your misconceptions. Instead, you're the one trying to deviate from that, which is blatantly obvious.
I never claimed you mentioned astrology. What's your point?
I also referred to God and biblical claims in regards to atheists in my rebuttal to your assertion. And my direct rebuttal was to demonstrate your misconceptions and weak logic. Now you are expending effort to avoid and ignore that rebuttal. I am not the topic of discussion.
You went from God to astrology. Now you're trying to backtrack while suggesting I'm the one off on this. Your so called "rebuttal" doesn't address my statement. It's little more than a deflection from it. Don't waste my time with your games!
We were discussing atheists engaged in religious debate concerning God and the Bible. We were not discussing God. Atheists were the topic of discussion; God was not the topic of discussion.
Atheism does not preclude holding spiritual beliefs and does not preclude practicing non-theist religion. Is astrology science or religion? Atheists can believe in astrology for spiritual guidance which would be a religious practice not based on worship or acceptance of a deity. Again, the topic of discussion is atheists; the topic of discussion is not God.
I went from a discussion of atheists to a discussion of atheists. You're the one trying to change the topic of discussion.
You realize that when we criticize the God of the Bible, we can do so without believing in its existence, yes?
Voldemort was both a tragic and terrifyingly malevolent character in the Harry Potter series. Ditto for Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the Star Wars franchise. Lady Catherine de Bourgh was an overbearing old biddy in Pride and Prejudice, and Wickham was a fortune-hunting cad.
None of the characters I described existed. I described them and their actions in the context of the literature in which they featured.
Atheists do the same regarding your God. They especially do so when theists claim moral superiority based on their literature, which features a protagonist who champions terrible morals and is self-serving, needy, and arrogant.
Whoever wrote the Bible directed people to kill other people for various things that his god (Yahweh) found offensive.
So you are probably absolutely 100% correct. People, who follow Biblical law, are evil or they would reject that god as barbaric, bloodthirsty and completely unacceptable to be considered the epitome of morality and benevolence.
And yet, you said this, "Atheists do not accept there is a God. If there is no God then God cannot condone evil. Atheists using the Bible to say what God does, allows, or condones is pointless because there is no God. Why would atheists discuss God in definite terms if there is no God?"
That sure sounds like a discussion involving God and the bible, which is specifically what I focused on, since your opening statement is somewhat inaccurate.
I never said it did. I did not mention spiritualism or religion. That's a Strawman on your part!
Neither.
Again, I focused primarily on your aforementioned statement.
No Nerm, you deflected from my critique of your statement and started playing these games!
Humans want order - not chaos.
That is probably why their god has a definite plan with a definite outcome. In Christianity, the plan is the rapture, apocalypse, judgment, eternal reward or eternal torture. - Everything set in stone as to outcome. If their god has a perfect plan then the outcome has already been decided since their god poofed into existence.
Which explains why humans engage in astrology and Feng Shui. But are astrology and Feng Shui science or religion?
A science will produce explanations —based on verifiable objective evidence— that are falsifiable and predictive and which can be repeated by objective third parties. If Feng Shui or astrology were to consistently make accurate predictions (for example) based on verifiable objective evidence and repeated by objective third parties then they would likely be considered sciences. As of now, that is not true.
That precisely describes what astrology and Feng Shui does.
Astrology and Feng Shui have been used to make accurate predictions for thousands of years; astrology and Feng Shui predates Abrahamic religions. Those predictions can be replicated and reproduced; random chance is not involved in making the predictions.
falsifiable? predictive? repeated (that means verified to be true) by objective third parties?
Only in the loosest usage of those words (and certainly not in the scientific usage of those words).
If we were to take the predictions of Astrology, for example, that came true compared to those that did not come true, would you expect Astrology to be 90% correct? ... 50% ... 10%. Give me a gauge on what you think qualifies as being predictive when compared to a scientific theory (which of course is the predictive meaning I am talking about).
NOTE: A scientific theory that produces the wrong prediction for that which it should have predicted is considered to be a broken theory and is either scrapped or reworked.
Unfortunately very few people have addressed the premises of the seed.
Not really a surprise on Newstalkers though.
I think I have. So what is the premise of the seed that you think we are ignoring? Be specific and maybe we can correct this situation for you.
Can the existence of God be proven through philosophic argument, or do you require scientific proof? The premise of the article is that science can not disprove philosophic argument and transcendent experience.
Many of the comments on here are complaints about the Bible religions, which is not at all what the article is about. Many of the comments on the seed argue that believers have the burden of proof , which is also wrong.
The existence of God (defined as sentient creator since you did not do so) cannot be proved true or false by philosophical argument or by science.
Yes, thus far, but that does not mean the philosophic argument or transcendent experience is true.
In an article, the comments will naturally fracture into variations. This happens all the time and you know this.
The premise of this seed, as you have now authoritatively declared as the seeder, is very simple and very obvious. Not much to debate. Further, I do not know of anyone who claims that science can disprove a SOUND philosophical argument. Science (i.e. modern knowledge) can render an argument UNSOUND by countering the truth of at least one of its premises. But that is not what you described.
So, if one were to argue:
1. God is the sentient entity which directly created the first two homo sapiens
2. Adam and Eve were directly created whole by a sentient entity
⛬ God exists
Science (evolution) shows that premise 2 is false. Human beings are the result of the process of evolution. Thus the argument is unsound and the conclusion is not shown to be true.
Either "nature" (what we call this existence ) is eternal , without any beginning, OR this existence was created from outside. Either one of these choices would be described as supernatrural. Nature did not create itself, and the only way we can avoid a creator is if nature is eternal.
Don't we know that every effect must have a cause? The big bang is an effect, no?
I think the best argument for atheism is that nature (this existence) is eternal, but that is not something anyone can comprehend.
Simplifying:
True. And we do not know if the first cause is sentient or if existence itself is the first cause. If the first cause is sentient then somehow the most complex, sophisticated, powerful entity has always been and is irreducible. One must avoid thinking about what that really means to believe it. If the first cause is existence itself then all of reality is just emergent properties of existence interacting with itself.
By the way, if existence itself is the first cause then it actually makes the notion of a sentient creator more sensible. The sentient creator could have emerged after uncountable interactions. Once emerged, this sentient creator could then create what we know as our universe.
Alternatively, and with parsimony, our universe might have simply emerged without the intermediate step of a sentient creator.
Nobody here is arguing FOR atheism. Atheism is not a position (unless you one of the few, irrational gnostic atheists). Atheism is a condition or state, not a position. Atheism = 'not being convinced a god exists'.
You suggesting that atheism must be argued for tells me that you continue to not understand atheism.
Up until the bs started, most people recognize three categories of belief or non-belief in God. Believers, agnostics and atheists. Now you and others want to incorporate atheism into agnosticism, presumably to try and gain an advantage in arguments. If atheism is nothing but a lack of belief in God why do you want to argue about it so much, constantly asking people to prove the unprovable? It is totally fair for believers to say to atheists "ok you prove your argument too". This is all related to the assigning of the default position. The side , in an argument where no one has any proof, that can claim the default wins the argument.
Lets stay with believers, agnostics, and atheists.
Good grief John, I did not invent this. All that has been done is to take atheism and theism and then divide each of those into camps based on the dimension of knowledge.
Ergo we have the gnostics who hold their beliefs as certainty:
The gnostics are both irrational since they presume omniscience.
The remaining two are rational:
This is not some conspiracy or movement. It is part of philosophy and it matches what happens in reality.
I am an agnostic atheist. It is possible that sentient creator does indeed exist, but I am not persuaded that this is true.
XX, Drakk, etc. are gnostic theists (unless they acknowledge that their god might not exist)
I suspect you are an agnostic theist.
I do not know anyone here who is a gnostic atheist.
That confuses belief and knowledge and is too simplistic. It would force me, for example, to simply be an agnostic but that is not correct. An agnostic does not know if a god exists or not (and/or thinks it is unknowable) but some think a god is more likely then not while others think the opposite. You seek to bundle theists and atheists into the same pot.
If someone makes a claim of certainty they should be challenged. Why does that bother you? If someone says: 'I believe in God' they are not challenged to prove that they hold a belief. It is those who claim truth such as 'if you do not believe in my God you will burn in hell' that are challenged. And if someone makes a claim that has as its foundation the certainty that their god exists then that should be challenged.
The arguments are almost always triggered by theists. Gordy wrote a series of articles on the Bible but outside of that, there are very few articles here on NT from atheists. The atheists on NT are typically reacting to what theists write. If you have a problem with that then that is your issue to deal with.
And that was only because someone (who shall remain nameless) accused me of posting "anti-religion" articles, even though at the time I infrequently posted anything dealing with religion. I figured it would have been rude of me to make them a liar. Hence, the Fallacy of Biblical Stories series (9 parts in total) was born.
and they were good and made sense
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Indeed. The perception (and thus the accusation) was that articles on religion from atheists were common but the metrics showed that they are actually extremely rare. Funny how perception can at times be so at odds with reality.
Tell us from where you are deriving that conclusion.
A member of NT made the accusation that NT atheists were frequently writing/seeding anti-religion articles. The name will not be disclosed.
So true. I even counted the number of articles I posted dealing with religion at the time. Compared to the amount of time I've been on NT, the articles were relatively few. And they generally were not " anti-religious." They dealt with a religious issue, but that was about it. But then, how often have we been accused of anti religious animus simply for challenging a religious based claim? Perception is indeed a funny thing sometimes.
In religious topics, mere disagreement is often viewed as an attack. I understand the emotions involved given I have lived my life surrounded by Christians (family and friends), but that does not make it true.
That is why I am very cautious about the topic with family and friends and instead use forums.
Claiming that babies are born atheists is absurd. Stop saying such absurd things and maybe people will stop giving you a hard time.
I've noticed responses to challenges to religious claims are often emotionally driven. The longer the challenge is drawn out or pushed, the more emotional and irrational the "defending" party becomes.
Are they born with a belief in God or religion?
Also, I think a common religious reaction is that our counter-arguments are taken as an attack on their intelligence. The better our rebuttals, the more they presume we think they are stupid.
That is one of worst reads in these discussions. Those who can actually put forth a decent argument for religious belief are necessarily intelligent (and clever). I would never want to be in a position to defend many of these beliefs. So many times (while rebutting) I am genuinely impressed with the skill that is involved in crafting what I find to be an utterly wrong view. To work with crap material and turn it into something that at least looks like a good argument is impressive to me.
Of course most people just react emotionally (you know, like endlessly repeating a simplistic complaint that the only thing we ever really say is 'prove it' LOL). But there is nothing that can be done about that other than never broach the topic.
Stupidity (so to speak) tends to emerge in political conversations; not religious conversations (albeit there might be a glaring exception to that).
It is if you define 'atheist' exclusively as gnostic: 'there is no god'. It would be absurd to claim babies hold that position.
It is not absurd to note that babies do not believe in a god. Their condition is one of agnostic atheism: lack of belief in a god.
We are all born without a belief in a god.
This has been explained to you repeatedly but you refuse to understand and instead cling to your own personal totally incorrect fabrication of what we have written.
Agreed. I'm also mystified as to how some can cling so tenaciously to belief and utterly reject anything which contradicts the belief, even in the slightest, and even when there is evidence which directly contradicts or discredits the belief and/or belief based claim. How often have we heard people say "The bible/God says it, I believe it, that's it!?" It's irrational and close minded
Especially the Bible. The Bible is so obviously errant and contradictory. Instead of simply re-reading the Bible, people ought to read the analysis by biblical scholars and learn something about the meaning of words in that time period, the blending of different sources into a single story (in particular the Flood), the extremely questionable original authors, the passage of time from the claimed event before it was ever penned, etc.
History alone tells us the origin of the books of the Bible (e.g. the Council of Nicaea). So without even opening the Bible one should be wary about the claim that this is the divine word of a perfect god.
But then when one reads the content and observes the many, varied attempts by apologists to explain away its flaws ... things just get ridiculous. The Bible itself demonstrates that it is the work of ancient men (e.g. condoning slavery) over many years with many revisions. It is ancient men penning their imaginative thoughts through the lens of their culture and based in part on lore from their ancestors.
Ken Ham is my exemplar for this behavior. He actually argues that the Ark carried dinosaurs. He logically was forced into that because he holds the Earth to be <10,000 years so that means dinosaurs had to be around at the time of the Ark.
Oh, and the dinosaurs on the ark were babies who, after the ark settled, grew up, mated and then there was a massive explosion of species which then all quickly died.
How can someone possibly believe such crap? Worse, he has a successful organization designed to spew this kind of crap and is actively teaching this to the younger generations. What a disservice to society.
Perhaps they are agnostic atheists who would love to be a believer but just can't believe without some compelling evidence. Most atheists are agnostic atheists who are not certain there is no God but are unable or unwilling to believe without evidence since to do so is effectively accepting that ones belief is essentially active fantasy role playing and is no different than any other faith based purely on conjecture and imagination with no concrete evidence.
With so many thousands of different God/Goddess/gods beliefs even if you want to believe, and have decided you don't need evidence to convince you, how do you choose between the God beliefs when they all have the exact same amount of evidence? How does one choose between Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism? If we look at the different faiths it is fairly clear that the most determinative factor in people choosing a certain brand of belief is either where they were born and raised on the planet or to whom they were born. And if location or heritage are the largest factors in determining which faith a person will accept isn't it essentially proving that peer pressure is the most likely reason people believe what they believe?
If you are born in an area where most people are Christian or Muslim, where your parents and peers have already accepted a certain belief passed down through history by their ancestors in that region, why would any rational person believe that faith to be 'more true' than any other faith? And if it's not 'more true' then any other faith, why wouldn't any rational person ask for more, like say evidence of the God those around them are trying to convince them of on which those believers doctrines, traditions and beliefs are based on before they accept those beliefs as 'true'?
If believers were honest with themselves they would admit they believe because they want to believe even though they have no evidence their faith is any more valid than any other religion or religious traditions and that they are most likely a believer in that faith due to the random chance of being born into a region that adopted a specific brand of faith hundreds if not thousands of years ago and they have accepted the benefits of 'fitting in' by adopting the religion of the region. Social acceptance is a very powerful motivator.
Those who refuse to simply believe just because everyone around them is attempting to recruit them by marketing the benefits of 'fitting in', being a part of a larger social group that can open doors, get you jobs and other opportunities within that community, are truly the brave people who reject the status quo in favor of seeking truth instead of simply seeking acceptance and following the path of least resistance. Those who seek truth often ask for evidence on which they can build a foundation of belief. Only those who are asked for proof but know deep down they cannot provide any would feel uncomfortable or get angry and even attack the questioner when asked for proof which is really evidence of their own lack of faith or understanding that their faith is really built on the sandy foundation of random birth location chance.
Cutting to the chase, eh?
Indeed. And we've seen how...irate certain individuals become when challenged.
It speaks poorly of our society that people like Hamm con others or possibly worse, other who buy into Ham & Co BS, no questions asked.
I think the fact that faith/religion is a multi-billion dollar enterprise which requires no facts or evidence and simply appeals to emotional fulfillment, basically selling memberships to specific clicks, like being able to buy your way into the cool kids group in school, it invites people like Hamm or Jesse Duplantis to sheer the sheeple.
Almost every faith spends a large amount of time and effort convincing their followers that being sheered of their excess wool is a good thing, it's the best state of being and that being shorn isn't something to be ashamed of but revered. Those who give the most are treated as hometown heroes, some faiths allow you to effectively buy your way, or that of dead loved ones, into heaven.
Their business model relies on their followers never questioning the foundation of their faith and focuses on praising and rewarding those who continue to invest in it blindly, because once heavily invested the effects of the sunk cost fallacy phenomenon effectively chain the believer to that specific faith and even motivates those captured to convince others to invest which is a way to validate their own investment.
You are quite correct.
If a God, of whatever type, is there and wants us to believe in and worship the God and the God knows how people are and many want proof then why does the God hide itself?
He's testing our faith.
Of course, being omniscient, he should know exactly how faithful we are at any given moment, but somehow, we still need testing.
Well Charger, it would seem that at most ⅓ of the planet will be saved. Does not seem as though God really is all that into the salvation thing. And the process seems pretty wasteful (66% waste).
This article is going to be closed when it
reaches 550 comments, or the end of the
day Friday, whatever comes first.
The discussion has been concluded. Thanks to everyone.