Atheism/Theism Offshoot Thread

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Hi, I'm new here, hope you guys don't mind if I butt in...

I can't type up the response I'd like to until I get home from work, but I would like to know what evidence (specifically) you may have that there is no Supreme Being?

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:14 am

I'm going to try and tie my question in, if it doesn't work, I've no problem with starting a new thread.

The reason I asked the question is because there is no proof that God doesn't exist. None at all. As you probably know, it is impossible to prove any negative. I think that the statement at the beginning of this thread is true. Atheism is a belief just as much as a belief in God.

Your statements here...
a) I know where you're going, but I'll still respond...

b) The "Supreme Being" is, by definition, undectable. The existence of a non-detectable object is, at a minimum, questionable. Did you hear the one about the dinosaur that left no fossils or footprints? Can you prove that it never existed?

c) Everything that exists requires a creator. The "Supreme Being" is defined as not having a creator. Therefore, it does not exist. (Certain modifications to this point must be made for the Mormon's "Supreme Being")

But since the existence of a "Supreme Being" is such an outlandish and un-natural claim, perhaps you'd like to prove to me that it exists? You might want to start by telling me exactly what this thing is...
... are not true. You are disproving only your own preconceived notions of a Supreme Being. In both points b and c you assume certain things that cannot be assumed. In fact, by your own words it seems that item "c" proves that if there is a God, then he must be the Mormon God. All item "b" states is that if there is a God, you cannot know of His existence.

The only difference between a theist and an atheist is they have chosen to believe different ways. The extreme on both sides would have you believe that the other is just ignorant. Truly, the only since there is no way to "know" that there is no God, agnosticism is the only atheistic belief that makes any sense.

... now as far as proving to you that God does exist, I would first like to know what kind of proof you would accept.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:01 pm

As I said before, I have no problem making a new thread. I'm not challenging your "moditude", I felt that I tied my comments in to the subject of conversation. If you will point out which points you feel are out of line here, then I will gladly start a new post to talk about them.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

User avatar
Yebra
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:48 am
Title: Shadow Zebra

Postby Yebra » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:00 pm

The only difference between a theist and an atheist is they have chosen to believe different ways. The extreme on both sides would have you believe that the other is just ignorant. Truly, the only since there is no way to "know" that there is no God, agnosticism is the only atheistic belief that makes any sense.
Well yes, in the same way it only makes sense to be agnostic of the tooth fairy, a flying teacup orbiting Mars or the flying spaghetti monster. To me, because the question can't be conclusively answered either way sends me towards presumption of absence rather than agnosticism.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:44 pm

now as far as proving to you that God does exist, I would first like to know what kind of proof you would accept.
I'd like to shake his hand, or maybe punch him in the face. I haven't decided yet.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Eddie Pinz
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:27 pm
Title: Ganon's Bane

Postby Eddie Pinz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:51 pm

The only difference between a theist and an atheist is they have chosen to believe different ways. The extreme on both sides would have you believe that the other is just ignorant. Truly, the only since there is no way to "know" that there is no God, agnosticism is the only atheistic belief that makes any sense.
From what you are saying here, agnosticism is the only way to go period. Since you can't definitively prove God doesn't exist, in your view, agnosticism is the only way to go. So the same could be said the other way. You can't definitively prove God does exist, so agnosticism has to be the way to go. Period. Right?

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:02 pm

Technically yes, you cannot disprove their existence. But nobody I know claims the non-existence of any of these things as an irrefutable truth. So until is any evidence to the contrary a presumption of non-existence is a pretty safe bet.

So to someone who says they need proof of the existence of God, I think that a relevant question to them would be, What proof do you require.

And when I'm talking about God, I'm not specifying any specific interpretation of who this may be... I'm using it in the Supreme Being sense.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:17 pm

From what you are saying here, agnosticism is the only way to go period. Since you can't definitively prove God doesn't exist, in your view, agnosticism is the only way to go. So the same could be said the other way. You can't definitively prove God does exist, so agnosticism has to be the way to go. Period. Right?
If the existence of God could not be proved, then you would be right. But if God does exist, then it should be provable. Lots of people have claimed that God has revealed Himself to them. I'm sure that Moses would say that he was convinced that God is real.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Eddie Pinz
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:27 pm
Title: Ganon's Bane

Postby Eddie Pinz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:28 pm

I find that lacking. That is circumstantial evidence. It may be good for Moses, he thinks he talked to God. But what does that do for me? God never revealed himself to me. Even if God did reveal himself to me and I go around saying, "God does exist. He has shown himself to me.", how does that help anyone else? Should they all just believe me because I said so? If you are going to come from the stand point that their is no way that God can be irrefutably disproven, then you have to understand that their is no way that his existence can be irrefutably proven, either. Otherwise, everyone would believe in God and, maybe more importantly, everyone would believe the same God.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:37 pm

I find that lacking. That is circumstantial evidence. It may be good for Moses, he thinks he talked to God. But what does that do for me? God never revealed himself to me. Even if God did reveal himself to me and I go around saying, "God does exist. He has shown himself to me.", how does that help anyone else? Should they all just believe me because I said so? If you are going to come from the stand point that their is no way that God can be irrefutably disproven, then you have to understand that their is no way that his existence can be irrefutably proven, either. Otherwise, everyone would believe in God and, maybe more importantly, everyone would believe the same God.
My point is, is that Atheism is a foolish and unsubstantial view, where any belief in God is superior just on the basis of provability. You seem to think that just because God hasn't made Himself known to you so far, He must not exist. IMHO, if someone doubts the existence of God, so be it. There are plenty of good arguments that either there is no God or that He is indifferent to us. But to claim that you can know or prove that God doesn't exist is silly.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Eddie Pinz
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:27 pm
Title: Ganon's Bane

Postby Eddie Pinz » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:58 pm

My point is, is that Atheism is a foolish and unsubstantial view
1) I never said I was an atheist.

2) Please do not insult view points different than yours, I know you are new but read the first topic in this board.
where any belief in God is superior just on the basis of provability.
3) Please don't state that your beliefs are better or superior than mine. I haven't even revealed my beliefs here.
You seem to think that just because God hasn't made Himself known to you so far, He must not exist. IMHO, if someone doubts the existence of God, so be it. There are plenty of good arguments that either there is no God or that He is indifferent to us. But to claim that you can know or prove that God doesn't exist is silly.
To the contrary, I am agreeing with you. You can't prove God doesn't exist. If you read my post more carefully you would see that. But I am also saying that you can't prove without a doubt that he does exist either. And if you think you can prove he does exist, then go right ahead. And to answer your question of what kind of evidence I need, I need hard evidence, you know, the kind that would hold up in a courtroom.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Seamusz,

A simple PM to let me know that you were starting a thread based on my statement in another thread would have been a nice courtesy. Not a necessity, but a courtesy.

And, unless I say, "Steve as Mod," or some such thing, I'm just a regular guy. If you (or anyone) happens to step out of line in the middle of a thread I'm attending, then I'll put on my Mod hat briefly to correct things, and then take it off again.

Back to being a non-mod:
My point is, is that Atheism is a foolish and unsubstantial view
WTF? Maybe you can show me how atheism is any more foolish than a fervent belief in Christ. Or how a belief in Christ is any more substantial than my belief in the absence of Christ.
But nobody I know claims the non-existence of any of these things as an irrefutable truth
I state as an irrefutable truth that there are no tooth fairies, flying teacups orbiting Mars, or flying spaghetti monsters.

The only difference between a theist and an atheist is they have chosen to believe different ways
More importantly, the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist believes in only one less god.


But back to one of your original claims: that I'm only disproving my own preconceived notions of what "God" is. How about this: YOU tell me what God is, and I'll show you how foolish and insubstantial that all is. Or if that's too much for you to handle, or too offensive, then I'll merely prove how there is a lack of evidence, a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, and/or a substantial lack of logic behind your claim.

--Steve (as Steve)

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:20 pm

I moved the posts, Steve, after some discussion between seamusz and me. Sorry if I startled/whatevered you.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:25 pm

I don't really want to fight over this. If you want to have a discussion about it, that's fine. So if you want to chill out, then let me know and I'd be more than happy to answer all of your responses.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:37 pm

EL--Gotcha! Thanks.


Seamusz,

I am "chill," dude. Besides, what do you expect? You call my beliefs foolish and insubstantial, and you expect that I'm going to bake you cookies and wipe the milk off the tip of your nose?

Besides, what part of my response was "un-chill"? Or, more preferably, bypass all that and start actually getting to the meat of the matter.

Your turn.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:47 pm

My point is, is that Atheism is a foolish and unsubstantial view
1) I never said I was an atheist.

2) Please do not insult view points different than yours, I know you are new but read the first topic in this board.
I was stating my opinion, I wouldn't label anyone as foolish just for being an atheist, but I do think that atheism is foolish, and I can accept that others believe that those who believe in God are up in the night as well.

Where any belief in God is superior just on the basis of probability.
3) Please don't state that your beliefs are better or superior than mine. I haven't even revealed my beliefs here.
Again, just my opinion. Feel free to tell me how this is wrong.
You seem to think that just because God hasn't made Himself known to you so far, He must not exist. IMHO, if someone doubts the existence of God, so be it. There are plenty of good arguments that either there is no God or that He is indifferent to us. But to claim that you can know or prove that God doesn't exist is silly.
To the contrary, I am agreeing with you. You can't prove God doesn't exist. If you read my post more carefully you would see that. But I am also saying that you can't prove without a doubt that he does exist either. And if you think you can prove he does exist, then go right ahead. And to answer your question of what kind of evidence I need, I need hard evidence, you know, the kind that would hold up in a courtroom.
Sorry for misunderstanding you. I don't understand how you can think that God's existence can't be proved. If He does exist, then why shouldn't it be provable. I'm talking completely theoretical here. Theoretically, if God does exist, shouldn't it be proveable? Of course if you are right that: If God doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be provable one way or the other.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:51 pm

If He does exist, then why shouldn't it be provable
Good. Start proving.

BTW, (Steve as Steve here), just copying and pasting various passages from the bible in a loosely veiled and pitifully sorry attempt to proselytize is boring, beaten totally to death, and in bad taste.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:06 pm

Right.
My point is, is that Atheism is a foolish and unsubstantial view
WTF? Maybe you can show me how atheism is any more foolish than a fervent belief in Christ. Or how a belief in Christ is any more substantial than my belief in the absence of Christ.
But nobody I know claims the non-existence of any of these things as an irrefutable truth
I state as an irrefutable truth that there are no tooth fairies, flying teacups orbiting Mars, or flying spaghetti monsters.
I explained my first quote there already. As far as your second statement goes, I have no problem with you not believing anything you don't want to believe. My point stands that you have no prove of the non-existence of any of those things... so it seems to me to be a waste of time to claim their non-existence as an irrefutable truth. If someone came up to you and declared their existence, would you waste your time arguing to them that they don't actually exist? What difference does it make to you that they believe whatever. Besides... maybe there is a tooth fairy... :o

The only difference between a theist and an atheist is they have chosen to believe different ways
More importantly, the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist believes in only one less god.
Technically not necessarily true
But back to one of your original claims: that I'm only disproving my own preconceived notions of what "God" is. How about this: YOU tell me what God is, and I'll show you how foolish and insubstantial that all is. Or if that's too much for you to handle, or too offensive, then I'll merely prove how there is a lack of evidence, a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, and/or a substantial lack of logic behind your claim.

--Steve (as Steve)
first, tell me what proof you have there is no supreme being, and tell me what proof you would require. Then I'll go hog wild on the rest.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:09 pm

If He does exist, then why shouldn't it be provable
Good. Start proving.

BTW, (Steve as Steve here), just copying and pasting various passages from the bible in a loosely veiled and pitifully sorry attempt to proselytize is boring, beaten totally to death, and in bad taste.
Didn't even cross my mind. To argue on the nature of God is a completely different discussion than to argue the existence of God, don't you think.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:30 pm

Wow, cut out the foreplay and get right to it, why don't you.

These have been around for a few years at this point, but I'll repeat them here (I had posted them on the OLD P-Web, but all that disappeared when the site crashed)



Boothby's five rules of theological debate:
RULE 1: Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..." After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them (just not yet--see RULE 5).


RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."


RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."

Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinely believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."

One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."


RULE 4: As things start to go downhill, you may have to use the old reliable notion that "God exists because people believe that He exists." There are deep theological problems with this approach, especially if other religions have more believers in their God than yours (except you know, of course, that they're totally wrong, anyhow). But still, it keeps you away from RULE 5.


RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.


To which I guess I should add RULE #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important. It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.
You cut to Rule #5 earlier ("Atheism is a foolish view") and now Rule #6 ("To argue on the nature of God is a completely different discussion than to argue the existence of God, don't you think") Unless, of course, you believe that a thing can exist while having no "nature" at all.


And for your earlier statements:
If someone came up to you and declared their existence, would you waste your time arguing to them that they don't actually exist? What difference does it make to you that they believe whatever
You mean, like God does not exist? Good point. If people went about saying that the Mars-Orbiting Tea-Cup told them to attack Iraq, for instance, then I'd start to care.
Technically not necessarily true
Well, I guess if you have a theist who believes in either zero gods, or more than one god, then I'd agree with you.


You tell me what a supreme being is, and I'll tell you how it does not exist. And the level of proof I require is proof sufficient to meet the general criteria of the "Scientific Method"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results
And I will allow "Thought Experiments" (syllogisms) , but the premises must be proven or proveable, and the inferential step valid.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:02 pm

Wow, cut out the foreplay and get right to it, why don't you.

These have been around for a few years at this point, but I'll repeat them here (I had posted them on the OLD P-Web, but all that disappeared when the site crashed)



Boothby's five rules of theological debate:
RULES
I'll keep that in mind when I join the "Boothby Board"
You cut to Rule #5 earlier ("Atheism is a foolish view") and now Rule #6 ("To argue on the nature of God is a completely different discussion than to argue the existence of God, don't you think") Unless, of course, you believe that a thing can exist while having no "nature" at all.
Well, if there is no God, then to argue about his nature is pointless. The existence of God is necessary to establish if you want to continue to the nature of God... I'll make that rule 1 of Seamus's Rules of arguing Theology. You act like your disappointed that I didn't bust out scriptures.
And for your earlier statements:
If someone came up to you and declared their existence, would you waste your time arguing to them that they don't actually exist? What difference does it make to you that they believe whatever
You mean, like God does not exist? Good point. If people went about saying that the Mars-Orbiting Tea-Cup told them to attack Iraq, for instance, then I'd start to care.
I have no problem with you not believing in God. I'm discussing it with you because I enjoy discussing things. As far as the war thing goes, why would you be angry at the teacup that doesn't exist? It seems to me the oddity is with the person claiming the communication.
Technically not necessarily true
Well, I guess if you have a theist who believes in either zero gods, or more than one god, then I'd agree with you.
The later was what I was referring to... but I personally don't put into polytheism, I was just kidding around.
You tell me what a supreme being is, and I'll tell you how it does not exist. And the level of proof I require is proof sufficient to meet the general criteria of the "Scientific Method"
stuff
And I will allow "Thought Experiments" (syllogisms) , but the premises must be proven or proveable, and the inferential step valid.
I asked you first off what proof you had that God doesn't exist, you gave me two statements that did not prove anything. I'm asking you if you have any proof at all that God doesn't exist, I've claimed you don't. Am I right or am I wrong?
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:55 am

You asked:
I would like to know what evidence (specifically) you may have that there is no Supreme Being?
Then answered your own question:
As you probably know, it is impossible to prove any negative.
And went on to ask:
now as far as proving to you that God does exist, I would first like to know what kind of proof you would accept.
To which Steve replied:
the level of proof I require is proof sufficient to meet the general criteria of the "Scientific Method"
Your move.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Eddie Pinz
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:27 pm
Title: Ganon's Bane

Postby Eddie Pinz » Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:10 am

Seamusz,
I really don't understand where you stand. Partly, because what Mobius has stated above. And also because what you posted in the other thread in response to EL. EL stated that to help minimize bad results from debates/discussions such as this, we need to stop asking for proof. You seemed to agree with her. Then you come in here, saying that the existence of God is provable. When asked for your proof, you ask to prove that God doesn't exist, which is impossible. So forgive me for being confused about where you stand, but I definitely am.
Seamusz,
I state as an irrefutable truth that there are no tooth fairies, flying teacups orbiting Mars, or flying spaghetti monsters.
It's a shame you couldn't have visited my apartment last school year, I think I could have made you think twice about the flying spaghetti monster. I definitely think it was living in my kitchen for a while.

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:11 am

It's a shame you couldn't have visited my apartment last school year, I think I could have made you think twice about the flying spaghetti monster. I definitely think it was living in my kitchen for a while.
:)

Maybe if you would have offered it some burnt offerings it would have been appeased and left of its own accord.

To clarify my position, my original purpose in posting was to refute the statement that there was lots of "proof" that there is no God. Maybe I've done that and I'm just beating a dead horse now.

As far as the proof issues. There is lots of evidence I consider proof of the existence of a SB, also I personally believe that God will make himself known to anyone who cares to truly inquire of His existence. But IMO, before you can have a meaningful conversation about the proofs or evidence of God you have to accept that it can proven, IF there is a God.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:56 am

For a thing to exist, there must be evidence or proof of its existence.

There can be no existence without evidence of existence.

There is no evidence or proof of God's existence (that meets the criteria of the Scientific Method)

Therefore: God does not exist.

You can refute my above statement simplpy by giving me an example of something that exists (or existed), but was or is without any evidence or proof.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W

Postby Wil » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:59 am

Just off the top of my head, and to be an ass... how about every species of animal we have yet to discover and name? Comets and asteroids we have not found? Planets circling stars we could not see?

Going to use an example I am most currently familiar with... ancient astronomers/philosophers(scientists of the ancient times) could not see or understand much. They worked with what they could see. They had no idea about galaxies, brown dwarfs, black holes, much of the energy spectrum, laws of gravity, etc. Not because it wasn't there but because they had not discovered a way to look for them (telescopes), or invented a way to make it all fit (calculus).

Besides, the scientific method is to attempt to disprove a hypothesis with new data, then rework the hypothesis so it fits the new data. We have no data but belief and the everyday occurrences that many consider miracles. The miracles that people are unable to explain (yet). Freak incidents, the "I shouldn't be alive" events, or the "I can't believe that just happened" events.

We really have no proof for or against any sort of god or gods. We likely never will. It is completely belief. For those of you who need proof: Why? Do you like being proved wrong, or are you so arrogant that you have to be right all the time? Belief does not hurt people. Belief gives people strength, and the will to move on. It gives them something to hold on to in the hardest times.

To the atheists: Good. At least you have chosen a side, albeit a very snide and mocking one. This side indicates that you believe you are always correct, and are all knowing. You can look at a subject without any proof in either direction and believe you are the source for what is correct and what is not. You contain the rare ability to discover the truth when you have not even looked upon what you are judging. You often mock or haggle with theists.

To the agnostics: You're not ballsy enough to choose a side, but at least you are open to possibility. You understand that you can't choose a side because there is no way to choose. There is no scientific way to discern which is correct. There may be a spiritual way, you're just too lazy and too skeptical to give it an honest go. Most theists are actually closet agnostics.

To the theists: Good. At least you have chosen a side, albeit a very arrogant one. This side either indicates that you have felt some divine presence, or you also have this gift at discerning the truth when not having looked upon what you are judging. You often times exude a superior attitude. You are capable of placing your full belief in something without ever having held witness to what it is you are placing your belief in. Theists are often times weak as their beliefs are easy to crumble.

There you go -- my list. You're either a snide and mocking atheist, an undecisive agnostic, or an arrogant and weak theist. I mean, really, isn't that what it breaks down to?

Theist and Atheist Common Traits:
Discern the truth without ever having laid eyes on that which they are judging.
Strong belief that they are completely correct.
Feel superior than the opposite.
Feels sorry that the other can't see their truth.

The only defining factor between the two is that theists are often time subject to a weaker state of mind. An atheist that can go through life without the support of belief in a supreme being is often times stronger of mind than a person who goes through life placing a significant portion of their life in belief.

Care to disagree? Hell, I would. I just pissed off every single pweber no matter their belief. Don't worry about it though... both sides will say that the opposite side is true while both will disagree that their side is wrong!

Irony... good for pressing pants and burning faces... bad for burned faces.

*curls up in a ball and cowers in the corner*

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:44 pm

If that wasn't a flame bait, I don't know what is.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:03 pm

I don't know, Dr. M. I can handle that. SOme points were good, others...not.

I'll answer it later, when I can give it the attention it deserves. Right now, I'm supposed to be working!
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
BonitoDeMadrid
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 am
Title: Bonzo was Framed
Location: The exact center of the earth

Postby BonitoDeMadrid » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:44 pm

You can refute my above statement simplpy by giving me an example of something that exists (or existed), but was or is without any evidence or proof.
There were many things that existed and had no evidence, or proof, until we discovered the proof. Like electricity, penecilin, radioactivity and many more discoveries in the Chemistry/Physics/Biology criteria (mentioning them all would be too long). How can we be sure that a supreme being, that is currently un-proofable (that's a word, right?) by scientific methods won't be proofable in the future?
Right now, I'm supposed to be working!
And I'm supposed to be sleeping, but I'm reading philosophical material that disguises itself as scientific methods, and thinking to myself "why the heck am I reading this stuff so late at night?"
Isn't life awesome?
Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!

User avatar
caretgraff
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:29 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby caretgraff » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:47 pm

There is not enough meat on this poor rabbit for all of you wolves...

User avatar
seamusz
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: USA

Postby seamusz » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:59 pm

ok, I'll take your silence on the question as an affirmation that you agree with me that there is no evidence that there is no God.

Now, this is where we go to evidence of God. Like EL said in the original post, it is not possible to prove to someone that there is a God if they are unwilling to accept it.

Consider, if there is a God, and he created the universe... wouldn't the universe and the world around us evidence of his existence? It may not be conclusive proof, but it is evidence. Or how about first hand witnesses who have conversed/interacted directly with God? Your opinion may be that their witness is unreliable or unsubstantial, but that does not eliminate their witness as evidence that there is a God. These are all groups of evidence that God may exist. They are not conclusive. But they are enough to make the possibility of the existence of a God more probable than the non-existence of God. At that point, it would seem to me that most people would then make an effort to search for a belief system that suits them. If that is to believe that there is no God, then fine.

From this and other evidence it is my own personal opinion that God's nature is such, that if a person really has a desire to know Him and to follow Him, that He will make Himself known to them. He will prove Himself. And if He is God, then He should be able to do this. But from the evidence stage you get into the whole discussion of the nature of God, the purpose of this life and other questions that are very difficult to get a consensus on. But there you go, I hope my ranting was lucid enough to understand.
Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet, and I am you and what I see is me....

Amka
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Title: Site Admin

Postby Amka » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:34 pm

Well, it looks like I should move my post on the other thread about "How can we overcome our differences" here. Would that be overstepping my superforum bounds?

Boothby,

I think you have overstepped reason to say that God cannot be proved by the Scientific Method. I say that God could be proved if we had enough ability to gather accurate data.

What if we studied every person seeking answers to the question, Is there a God? What if we could determine their state of mind? Exactly what questions did they ask, and what was their method? In fact, we have requirements outlined in scripture that could be tested: humility and hope are very important. The leap of faith is an important factor. If we could determine if those were actually a part of the process, I think we could start to gain some valid answers.

Anecdotal evidence becomes statistical once enough data with enough detail is accumulated.

The Scientific Method is a fantastic tool, but is not always the right one to use. Are you going to scientifically prove that your wife/mother/friend/partner/whatever loves you?

And now, this isn't exactly directed at Wil, but was inspired by his post.
Before atheists start thinking that atheism is the rational, evolved form of human thought, I'd like to introduce you to the brand of atheism that exists after the Soviet regime was brought down. These guys haven't really thought it out. They aren't too arrogant about that position, because they don't really bother thinking about it. Those that are still atheist after religious repression was lifted are often amoral. Russian mafia, anyone?

Should we judge atheists by these people? No. We shouldn't judge Islam by terrorists, either. We shouldn't judge any world view by it's worst practicioners.

Still, I cannot help but think this: The difference between thoughtless atheism and thoughtless theism is that there is at least a moral code imbedded into every major religion. If a religious person is not acting by that code, they are going against their religion. While atheists rightly claim that such a state does not guarantee immorality, it certainly does nothing to support it. Any ethics and moral behavior the atheist practices is derived from religion.

Thoughtless altruism (saving a stranger on impulse) is something that atheism cannot explain satisfactorily.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:36 pm

My silence on the question equals acquiescence?

Puh-lease.

You've still yet to tell me what this "god" thing is that I'm trying to disprove.

All you've said is that "God created the universe"

What evidence do you have that God (or, specifically, your particular God) created the universe? Or that the universe was created at all (in other words, perhaps it was always here)?


And you're still missing something important, here:
Your opinion may be that their witness is unreliable or unsubstantial, but that does not eliminate their witness as evidence
In fact, it does. Scientific method, remember? Repeatability. Think "cold fusion." Plus for every one witness who claims to have spoken to God, and might actually say something sensible ("God told me that it is going to rain on Tuesday"), I've got fifteen crazy people living in the New York subway system who claim that God told them to stick a rat's rear end to their lips and play it like a clarinet.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Amka
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:25 pm
Title: Site Admin

Postby Amka » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:43 pm

seamusz,

We can't take existance as proof. I wish we could. It feels right and intuitive. But if we apply the scientific method here, we realize that we have no control. I said this in the other thread:

"This world is exactly what it would be if there were a God, or if there weren't. We cannot see what existance would be like in a God/No God existance other than our own. "

You cannot rely on the witness of those in the Bible alone, either. The book has been through too many translations and hand copying even before it got to the 'original' greek.

A witness of God cannot be had by scientifically verifiable proof. But this doesn't disprove God, just like it doesn't disprove a number of things that we know to be true.

Boothby
Former Speaker
Former Speaker
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
Title: Battle School Engineer
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby Boothby » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:02 pm

So why is it when I ask someone (any one) to tell me what God is, I get absolutely no response (except the accidental slip-up that "God [allegedly] created the universe"?

There were many things that existed and had no evidence, or proof, until we discovered the proof. Like electricity, penecilin, radioactivity and many more discoveries in the Chemistry/Physics/Biology criteria (mentioning them all would be too long).
Interesting point (one I would have made myself, actually). But electricity existed--people could see and be affected by lightning strikes, static electricity, electric eels, etc. If anyone had cared to look, they might have seen that some molds stop the growth of some bacteria. Similarly with radioactivity. These things were and are observable, whether or not you have a name for them. If they affect you, they are observable and therefofe provide repeatable, quantifiable evidence of their existence.

If someone claims that megadoses of Vitamin "C" cures cancer, yet can offer no studies supporting that claim, well the claim exists, but the cure does not.

What about lighning, radioactivity and "penecillin" on far distant planets, where we cannot see or be afected by them? Do those things exist there? I would surmise that they do, though I have no real evidence.

Does a "local" god exist on a far distant planet? Do her followers pray to her for their salvation? More importantly, should WE pray to her? There is just as much evidence for HER existence as there is for Seamusz' God.
--Boothby

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 43 guests