TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- 'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles, Spark Heated Debate
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 »

Ha. I'm not trying to prove if there is a God or not. I'm saying - you don't know. The same way I don't know. So stop saying there is when you have no evidence of such. (Hence why I'm not an atheist of 6/6 on Dawkins scale).

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade I love how the burden of proof is on Atheists. Last time I checked there isn't a single shred of evidence of a God. Now, evolution on the other hand..

There is all kinds of wrong in this post:
a) Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). The burden of proof in any argument is on the person taking the positive position; thus, it is incumbent on anyone taking the position that there is no god(s) to prove there position; the same is true for theists who take the positive position that there is a god(s). The only people in this discussion with no burden or proof are the agnostics, as they take no positive position.

b) Your assertion that there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god(s) is inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence, it is up to each person to decide how much weight they put on that evidence. Those who believe put a great deal of weight on that evidence, those that do not believe put little or no weight on it; nevertheless, the evidence exists... each of us has the freedom to judge the quality of said evidence for ourselves.

c) You seem to suggest that evolution and atheism are inextricably linked and creationism and religion are as well. This suggestion on your part is patently false. Evidence supporting evolution is not evidence against the existence of god(s) nor is it evidence in support of the existence of no god(s). Furthermore; the creation myth of Genesis only applies to three religions and all but a very few sects of those religions regard it as an apology rather then a literal account (in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has gone so far as to endorse the Theory of Evolution as being truth). One cannot cite evidence of evolution as evidence that there is no god(s); the two things are not mutually exclusive.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced at this time, science can only explain so much....at some point you have to believe in something that science just hasn't been able to explain. That being said, I am not a religous person and scientific proof is where I look first for any explanation.

What if one holds the belief that eventually science can and will explain everything?

However, having a belief/faith in science is not for the purpose of disproving a god. Didn't Newton say something along the lines of his desire to understand the universe, was his desire to understand gods creation?

Following the train of thought that God being 'perfect/rational' being, designed the universe along universal/rational principals, and these principals were free for all to discover. That understanding the laws of nature was to understand the logic of gods creation, and to get to know god better?

So, even if Science gets to the point of being able to explain/prove 'everything' - its coming to an understanding of Gods creation, not disproving the existence of god.

Not saying that I agree or disagree with this notion, but I do find it interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by kaniz What if one holds the belief that eventually science can and will explain everything?

Science will never be able to explain everything as the laws of physics break down at plank time, which means we can only ever speculate what existed prior to then. I fail to see how science could ever get around this as science can only ever hope to explain what is measurable/observable and without the laws of physics in play nothing is measurable/observable.

quote:

However, having a belief/faith in science is not for the purpose of disproving a god. Didn't Newton say something along the lines of his desire to understand the universe, was his desire to understand gods creation? Following the train of thought that God being 'perfect/rational' being, designed the universe along universal/rational principals, and these principals were free for all to discover. That understanding the laws of nature was to understand the logic of gods creation, and to get to know god better? So, even if Science gets to the point of being able to explain/prove 'everything' - its coming to an understanding of Gods creation, not disproving the existence of god. Not saying that I agree or disagree with this notion, but I do find it interesting.

This notion is Pope Benedict's view as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Science will never be able to explain everything as the laws of physics break down...

Isn't the general consensus in the scientific community that the current laws of physics break down at various points because they are still incomplete? I don't believe that physicists are of the opinion that the universe's processes are (or were (in the past)) so complex that they are not theoretically explainable according to rules/laws. For instance, astronomers believe that very early on in the universe's history, the four forces that presently exist as separate (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) were unified as a 'super force'--it is not yet known exactly how this 'super force' operated but that doesn't mean scientists assume it cannot be explained. Similarly, quantum mechanics and general relativity appear to be rather incompatible as present--the consensus seems to be that this is so not because the theories are thoroughly mistaken but rather because a common link has yet to be discovered.

Either way, I think it's obvious that the world is intelligible and, as such, operates in accordance with principles that can be understood.

But what do I know? I study criminology and philosophy

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Cenik Isn't the general consensus in the scientific community that the current laws of physics break down at various points because they are still incomplete? I don't believe that physicists are of the opinion that the universe's processes are (or were (in the past)) so complex that they are not theoretically explainable according to rules/laws. For instance, astronomers believe that very early on in the universe's history, the four forces that presently exist as separate (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) were unified as a 'super force'--it is not yet known exactly how this 'super force' operated but that doesn't mean scientists assume it cannot be explained.

The superforce you speak of is a theory of what existed at plank-time (the point at which matter sprang into being and time/distance became a reality). Because we cannot measure/observe anything that does not exist in time (physics does not exist without the four forces... they don't exist until there is time/distance) we cannot explain what existed before time... thus science cannot hope to explain anything before plank time.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee i love how choice and belief are considered the same here...

In any event, neither have anything to do with homosexuality.
Although that's not what Mr Haggard said on Larry King last night.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The superforce you speak of is a theory of what existed at plank-time (the point at which matter sprang into being and time/distance became a reality). Because we cannot measure/observe anything that does not exist in time (physics does not exist without the four forces... they don't exist until there is time/distance) we cannot explain what existed before time... thus science cannot hope to explain anything before plank time.

The force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The superforce you speak of is a theory of what existed at plank-time (the point at which matter sprang into being and time/distance became a reality). Because we cannot measure/observe anything that does not exist in time (physics does not exist without the four forces... they don't exist until there is time/distance) we cannot explain what existed before time... thus science cannot hope to explain anything before plank time.

At least science can explain something...

quote:

Originally posted by dipsetrenegade At least science can explain something...

ffs how stupid are you?

CAN WE END THIS BY RESTATING THAT RELIGION IS BASED ON BELIEF?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Atheism is the assertion of one particular explanation - that there is no god, creator, overarching intelligence, etc. - and therefore, as with any other hypothesis, requires supporting evidence. And its claims are every bit as vague and untestable as the claims of theists.

This is got to be one of the stupidest things I�ve ever heard.

The atheistic position, when approached scientifically, will have come as the end result of studying the evidence--scientifically. Someone like Daniel Dennett is not basing his atheistic stance on the same grounds of a theist, who cannot support his case scientifically. So I don�t know what your nonsense about "vague and untestable" is. When you present a physicist, a biologist, or a chemist with the question of "is there a God?" they will apply the question to our current standard models of science and logic, and based on their evidentiary research, they will rationally arrive at their atheistic position. Even if you say something like they are forced to take a position of skepticism, seeing as they can�t entirely disprove the existence of a supreme deity; based on the probability that the evidence yields--let me say that again--based on the probability that the evidence yields, you know, that thing you get after you examine something. Based on this, they can logically take the position which is more probabilistic,the atheistic one, which has come as the end result of scientific and logical reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard b) Your assertion that there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god(s) is inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence, it is up to each person to decide how much weight they put on that evidence. Those who believe put a great deal of weight on that evidence, those that do not believe put little or no weight on it; nevertheless, the evidence exists... each of us has the freedom to judge the quality of said evidence for ourselves.

This is utterly fallacious.

Evidence in the scientific term is never pending our �personal� approval. Evidence does not wait to be approved from a person to person basis. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence unless it goes through and survives the following steps:

If and when you have �y� in support of �x� you then universally check �y� via our scientific models--it�s not complicated. If �y� withstands the scrutiny, and you have consensus, then you have evidence.

So no, you are wrong. There is no �plenty of evidence� for the existence of God. If there was, then it would have been scientifically affirmed.

And what is with this constant negative proof bullshit argument that seems to be echoing in this thread?

No we cannot disprove a negative. So we cannot disprove the existence of a supreme being no more than we can disprove the existence of a 3 headed flying fucking pig that shoots whip-cream out of its ass when it laughs. What we can do, and what we do is put a probabilistic number on the likelihood of �3 headed flying fucking pig that shoots whip-cream out of its ass when it laughs� and �god.�

Interestingly enough, my advisor is currently publishing his latest book which shows via Bayes' Theorem, that the existence of a personal God is not only improbable, but impossible. Although I have read it, and I�m very much existed to hear rebuttals, we�ll have to wait and see the sort of scrutiny it has to withstand once the book is
published.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard One cannot cite evidence of evolution as evidence that there is no god(s); the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Wrong.

Yes I can, watch me do it--on the origin of morals: (for the sake of our discussion let�s stick to the three Abrahamic religions.)

1.All three religions attribute morals to a divine force.

Scientific evidence: none.

2.Via kin-selection and Memetics theory (one of many explanations) evolutionary biologists have argued that morals have been established as norms through an advanced mechanism of heredity.

Scientific evidence: plenty. Go read the Selfish Gene to get you started.

So, once again, you are wrong. Although it doesn�t make sense for someone to say that evolution via natural selection proves that there is no God. You can rephrase and say something like; certain characteristics of evolution via natural selection are contradictory to the notion of a divine intervention (i.e. morals). Thus, you can use this piece of evidence to further negate, what are otherwise, tenuous arguments for the existence of God, in spite of evolutionary findings.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee ffs how stupid are you? CAN WE END THIS BY RESTATING THAT RELIGION IS BASED ON BELIEF?

I'd use the word 'faith' specifically--but yes, I agree absolutely. One of the smartest comments made in this dreadful thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie The force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Evidence in the scientific [sense does not depend on one's] 'personal' approval.

+1.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Evidence in the scientific term is never pending our �personal� approval. So no, you are wrong. There is no �plenty of evidence� for the existence of God. If there was, then it would have been scientifically affirmed.

This is where your argument falls apart. The existence of anything supernatural cannot be confirmed or ruled out by science as the pursuit of science is limited to that which can be observed by humans. It is utter folly to try to apply the standards of science to anything that is outside of it's scope. The existence or lack thereof of god(s) is not a question for science... it is a question for philosophy.

quote:

And what is with this constant negative proof bullshit argument that seems to be echoing in this thread? No we cannot disprove a negative.

No one is asking anyone to prove a negative... Atheism is the antithesis of theism; it is a POSITIVE position that there is no god(s). The fact that it is a positive position means that it is subject to the burden of proof. Now, if one were to take the position that they do not believe in the existence of god(s) or that they have not been afforded proof of or even persuasive evidence in support of the existence of god(s) then there would be no burden of proof; however, as soon as one takes a positive position then it is incumbent on them to prove that position. Incidently, this is why I would never take a positive position on this subject... no positive position is provable in this debate.

quote:

Wrong. Yes I can, watch me do it--on the origin of morals: (for the sake of our discussion let�s stick to the three Abrahamic religions.) 1.All three religions attribute morals to a divine force. Scientific evidence: none. 2.Via kin-selection and Memetics theory (one of many explanations) evolutionary biologists have argued that morals have been established as norms through an advanced mechanism of heredity. Scientific evidence: plenty. Go read the Selfish Gene to get you started. So, once again, you are wrong. Although it doesn�t make sense for someone to say that evolution via natural selection proves that there is no God. You can rephrase and say something like; certain characteristics of evolution via natural selection are contradictory to the notion of a divine intervention (i.e. morals). Thus, you can use this piece of evidence to further negate, what are otherwise, tenuous arguments for the existence of God, in spite of evolutionary findings.

Okay, you can cite it but it is not supportable. Again, evolution does not negate the existence of god(s). At very best your argument above would support that the description of how morality was revealed to humans contained in Genesis is inconsistent with the theories of kin-selection and memetics put forward by evolutionary biologists. Even if it were proven that the morality evolved in a matter other then described in Genesis (which very few people would argue against) one could not conclude anything on the nature of god(s) from that other then that the book of Genesis is not a literal account of early humans... which nearly all adherents of the Abrahamic faiths already and have long since believed.

quote:

I'd use the word 'faith' specifically--but yes, I agree absolutely. One of the smartest comments made in this dreadful thread.

Indeed it is... I don't think anyone here has argued otherwise.

We all know Swamper is God so lets just leave it at that....without him none of you would exist here on the interweb

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced We all know Swamper is God so lets just leave it at that....without him none of you would exist

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is where your argument falls apart. The existence of anything supernatural cannot be confirmed or ruled out by science as the pursuit of science is limited to that which can be observed by humans. It is utter folly to try to apply the standards of science to anything that is outside of it's scope.

Once again, wrong.

Let�s break this down.

1.We have theory A and theory B
2.Theory A is scientifically supported
3.Theory B is not scientifically supported
4.Theory A cannot explain X (�supernatural phenomenon�)
5.Therefore theory B is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The existence or lack thereof of god(s) is not a question for science... it is a question for philosophy.

Well isn�t that just dandy--that god is exempt from scientific reasoning; that the very question of �how life began?� is not scientific, but philosophical. If that�s your position, so be it. If you�re convinced by this I�m happy to oblige. Just don�t ever talk about science or logic when you�re discussing your faith.

I think you�d enjoy this principle:

quote:

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[48] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[48] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[48]

In short: science has its realm, and faith has its.
Sounds good don�t it?

Except, it�s a fantasy and not the least realistic. Consider:

quote:

Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope. Dawkins argues that "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." These "existence claims" include miracles such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary: whether Mary's body decayed when she died or was physically lifted to Heaven is a material fact, and thus outside the moral magisterium to which NOMA would limit religion. [50]

You�re telling me virgin births and a body that was supposedly lifted to heaven is not a scientific question? And these are just two examples.

Religions make assertions that are contradictory to science when studied--like the two mentioned above. Pure and simple.

quote:

Okay, you can cite it but it is not supportable.

What in the name of holy crap are you talking about?

X is supported
Y is not.
X says �a� via �b�
Y says �a� via �c�

So I ask again, what?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

That was by Kenobi, not Madden

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Once again, wrong. Let�s break this down. 1.We have theory A and theory B 2.Theory A is scientifically supported 3.Theory B is not scientifically supported 4.Theory A cannot explain X (�supernatural phenomenon�) 5.Therefore theory B is true.

I did not state that theory b (religion) is true, I merely stated that because theory A cannot measure X then it can neither confirm or rule out X. I don't see how that is difficult for you to understand... the two are not inextricably linked... if all science is correct on all matters it endeavors to study that does not make all positions held by religion invalid; they are not mutually exclusive.

quote:

Well isn�t that just dandy--that god is exempt from scientific reasoning;

What I said was that science can only be applied to that which is observable/measurable, which I believe all would agree the existence or lack there of is not. Science can never hope to prove the existence or lack thereof of god(s).

quote:

that the very question of �how life began?� is not scientific, but philosophical. If that�s your position, so be it. If you�re convinced by this I�m happy to oblige. Just don�t ever talk about science or logic when you�re discussing your faith.

You're putting words in my mouth. "How life began" is a question that can be addressed through science, as this is an observable process.

Interesting that you would assume I am a person of faith... I am; however, I've not made any reference to my faith in this discussion. Nevertheless, I do talk about science and logic when discussing my faith, as I believe both I must reconcile them. You need to understand that the two are not at odds with each other. That said, I would never use any arguments based in science to extrapolate to questions such as the existence of god(s).

quote:

You�re telling me virgin births and a body that was supposedly lifted to heaven is not a scientific question? And these are just two examples. Religions make assertions that are contradictory to science when studied--like the two mentioned above. Pure and simple.

Sure they could be studied by science... interestingly, many species do have virgin births... not that that supports the myth surrounding Jesus' birth. While science may contradict elements of various religions that does not discredit the entire faith. Additionally, it should be pointed out that; again, this only applies for those that take a literal interpretation of the source material.

quote:

What in the name of holy crap are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is that you are extrapolating things beyond what the science is actually telling you. If the science says that humans developed morals in a matter other then what is described in the Bible then all you can logically conclude from that is that the particular story concerning the revelation of a moral code is inconsistent with the evidence presently available. One cannot conclude that because one story is incorrect then God cannot exist... that is an illogical jump to make... it's tantamount to the 911 truthers that claim because there is some inconsistencies between how the official report explains how building 7 fell and the available evidence then it must be true that the whole thing was an inside job by Bush and Co.... it's an illogical assumption. Making the extrapolation you have jumps beyond what the science actually supports.


The long and short of it is this; science cannot prove the existence of god(s) or the existence of no god(s); subsequently, both of the positive positions described as theism and atheism are beliefs, not knowledge, and can never be knowledge... unless the theist position is correct

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't see how that is difficult for you to understand... the two are not inextricably linked... if all science is correct on all matters it endeavors to study that does not make all positions held by religion invalid; they are not mutually exclusive.

I never once said that all positions were nullified--in fact, I�ve already show you how your position is wrong by saying

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Although it doesn�t make sense for someone to say that evolution via natural selection proves that there is no God. You can rephrase and say something like; certain characteristics of evolution via natural selection are contradictory to the notion of a divine intervention (i.e. morals). Thus, you can use this piece of evidence to further negate, what are otherwise, tenuous arguments for the existence of God, in spite of evolutionary findings.

You really need to understand the importance of probability--that�s all science is. As I�ve mentioned many a time:

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie ...these are the rules that science operates within. Any scientist will tell you that the scientific method is designed to give an approximation. Now, if that approximation is verified through standard and universal models, than we can put a probabilistic number on it--the number is never 100.

So, on matters like the virgin birth, miracles and what have you, we can put a probabilistic number on there that is aligned with our scheme of logic and physics.

To illustrate:

Theory A asserts �x�

�X� is then scrutinized and tested against current models of physics and logic.

�X� is a given a probabilistic number pending its soundness.

Our universe as we know is governed at the quantum level by some laws that are infallible and others that are highly stochastic, and others that are impossible to predict. Using what we know we can hypothesis on any given claim and label it with a probabilistic number--anything, no exceptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What I said was that science can only be applied to that which is observable/measurable, which I believe all would agree the existence or lack there of is not. Science can never hope to prove the existence or lack thereof of god(s).

What are you basing this on?

The big bang theory is modeled after a simple point of origin--a singularity to be more specific.

Consider: Hubble�s Law
v = Ho * d

v = is the galaxy's recessional velocity (in km/sec)

H0 = is Hubble's constant and corresponds to the value of H (often termed the Hubble parameter which is a value that is time dependent) in the Friedmann equations taken at the time of observation denoted by the subscript 0. This value is the same throughout the universe for a given comoving time.

D is the comoving proper distance from the galaxy to the observer, measured in megaparsecs (Mpc), in the 3-space defined by given cosmotology time.

Tell me how Hubble�s Law is constantly observable.

Surely you know, in order to make the statement above that �science can only be applied to that which is observable/measurable.� Additionally, I refer you to quantum observatory effects. If you think physics at the quantum level can be invariably observed and measured, then you are wrong. This invalids your aforementioned claim. As Richard Feynman put it �If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don�t understand quantum mechanics.�

In brief, the singularity, Hubble�s Law, and likewise the question of a supreme being cannot be observed in a state other than flux. What we can, and do observe and measure is the relative information we have to base our probability on. In regards to god, Einstein mentioned that a universe with a supreme deity capable of doing all the stuff it�s attributed to being able to do, would result in a different universe than the one we have now.

To simplify:

If universe �x� is observed via a set of given laws without unaccounted for variable(s) that undermine said laws, then our universe is expected to operate with a very high probability of predictability �y� (standards)

If the universe �x� is observed via a set of given laws with an unaccounted for variable (g) capable of all the things we attribute to it, then our universe cannot be expected to operate within any high levels of predictability, thus we�d have no standards based on this unaccounted for, random variable

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While science may contradict elements of various religions that does not discredit the entire faith

Once again, I never said �entire faith.� What I have said is that we can place a number on the likelihood via probabilistic and deductive reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard One cannot conclude that because one story is incorrect then God cannot exist... that is an illogical jump to make...

I agree, and I�ve never done this--nor do I know any reasonable scientific that would make this claim. However, what I have done, and what the scientific community has consensus on is this: that through examining ALL, not one, ALL--every single one--the claims made by religions since the Greeks and the Vikings, we have collectively agreed that the probability of the existence of a supreme being; and all that it entails, is a statistically probable element. Key word: all that it entails. Scientists have looked at the absolute broad picture and have concluded that the probability is extremely low.

I�ve mentioned this before, the great American geneticist Francis Collins, formally head of the gnome project that mapped the human DNA, is a devout Christian. But he understands, and has said, in his books and interviews, that if examine the question of god scientifically we can logically deduce its improbability. However, Collins is a firm believer that god is not to be found via science or evidence, but faith. If this is what you agree with, then so be it, we have nothing else to discuss. Just don�t make scientific assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot A suitable choice would be the average integral dt of human happiness or satisfaction over a lifetime.

So you've substituted one form of ambiguity ("better") with another ("happiness"). The question remains: in concrete terms, what are you measuring, and where is your evidence?

quote:

Many authors have written about social implications of game theory and you are naive to dismiss it as irrelevant.

I didn't dismiss the social implications as irrelevant. The social implications are clear. I dismissed game theory as a complete and reliable model for the entire realm of individual and social behaviour. Chaos theory is a better model, but unfortunately it doesn't claim to be able to answer such broad philosophical questions as "does religion cause more problems than it solves or prevents".

quote:

In the social sciences, one often seeks a mathematical model by which to model human interaction.

I'm not disputing this. Models are useful for making predictions, but they are not evidence. A complex enough model could perhaps be used to make the prediction "if religion disappeared today, humanity would be better off in the capacities of [x], [y] and [z] when measured using the techniques [a], , and [c].". Of course, I have yet to hear of any testable model making such a claim. Do you have one that I don't know about?

quote:

Dismissing these types of analysis as "the tools of writers and politicians" is doing a great disservice to the entire field of social science. I don't think you actually believe this, but then either you're failing to understand my argument, or you're attacking a straw man.

I stated in plain language that argument by analogy is empty rhetoric that doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. You've chosen to interpret that as a blanket dismissal of all sorts of theoretical models period - that is your straw man, not mine.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Some people would claim that saying "I know there is no god" is as reasonable as saying "I know there is no tooth fairy".

I believe we've been over this point already and I agree, they are analogous. While the idea of a tooth fairy may seem ridiculous to most of us, it is not a trivial task to prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

The statement "I know [x]" is equivalent to the statement "[x] is true." This is a positive claim. All positive claims place the burden of proof upon the person making the claim. The only claim that does not require positive evidence is "I don't know whether or not there is a god/tooth fairy", or more granularly, "I do not believe that the current body of evidence supports the existence of a deity/tooth fairy." That is agnosticism, though, not atheism.

---

Posted by DigiNut on Feb-02-2009 22:52:

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie blabber blabber blabber

Please explain, then, how you "support scientifically" the assertion that there is no god.

Remember, you're not talking to a theist here, so I'm not interested in counter-arguments to the theistic arguments. You don't have to convince me that we evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms - I already know that. You don't have to convince me that the world couldn't have been created in 7 days - I don't believe that it was and it's not important anyhow. You don't have to convince me that the story of Noah's Ark is full of contradictions and physical impossibilities - that's already obvious to me.

This should be easy for you if it's as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. My position is neutral. I don't know or really even care whether or not there is a god. I'm open to pretty much any definition for the sake of argument. Prove to me that not only is there insufficient evidence to support any theist's position, but that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there cannot be any type of super-sentience, or any type of deterministic will influencing the universe other than our own.

As you point out in a later post, it mostly comes down to probabilities. Show me that the probability of the existence of god is zero, or close enough to it that we can close the book on it unless some fabulous new contradictory evidence presents itself.

---

Posted by DJ_Elyot on Feb-03-2009 00:01:

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No one is asking anyone to prove a negative... Atheism is the antithesis of theism; it is a POSITIVE position that there is no god(s). The fact that it is a positive position means that it is subject to the burden of proof. Now, if one were to take the position that they do not believe in the existence of god(s) or that they have not been afforded proof of or even persuasive evidence in support of the existence of god(s) then there would be no burden of proof; however, as soon as one takes a positive position then it is incumbent on them to prove that position. Incidently, this is why I would never take a positive position on this subject... no positive position is provable in this debate.

I wish people in this thread would stop treating atheism, and strong atheism in particular, as if it were a logical fallacy. It's not, and many authors have argued this.

Authors like Dawkins have written about the following forms of atheism:

1) Weak atheism: I don't know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it does not.

2) De facto atheism: I cannot know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it has extremely low probability and live my life as if no god exists.

3) Strong atheism: I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there is no god. I believe that the event of a god existing is impossible.

Now, in order to describe which of these you belong to, you have to qualify WHAT god you're talking about. I am a de facto atheist when we're talking about ALL supernatural powers, because I can't know for certain whether or not there are magical fairymen living in the sky.

However, I am a strong atheist when it comes to the typical Christian/Muslim view of a single, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity that constructed the universe as a home for humanity, listens to prayers, performs miracles, etc. I know for certain that such a being cannot exist, because its existence leads to various logical contradictions.

---

Posted by evil_cookie on Feb-03-2009 00:15:

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Please explain, then, how you "support scientifically" the assertion that there is no god. Remember, you're not talking to a theist here, so I'm not interested in counter-arguments to the theistic arguments. You don't have to convince me that we evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms - I already know that. You don't have to convince me that the world couldn't have been created in 7 days - I don't believe that it was and it's not important anyhow. You don't have to convince me that the story of Noah's Ark is full of contradictions and physical impossibilities - that's already obvious to me. This should be easy for you if it's as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. My position is neutral. I don't know or really even care whether or not there is a god. I'm open to pretty much any definition for the sake of argument. Prove to me that not only is there insufficient evidence to support any theist's position, but that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there cannot be any type of super-sentience, or any type of deterministic will influencing the universe other than our own. As you point out in a later post, it mostly comes down to probabilities. Show me that the probability of the existence of god is zero, or close enough to it that we can close the book on it unless some fabulous new contradictory evidence presents itself.

I have never said that there is no god. I have said that the probability of an all-supreme personal god has been shown time and again to be extremely low. Now I�m not exactly sure what you want me to illustrate or cite which I have not already, and I�m not sure what you�re asking for if you�re already well aware of the abundance of contradictions in holy texts. So I suppose you want the probability argument that addresses even the idea of a supreme being--for a minute forgetting that he listens to prayers, intervenes, cares about your sex life, and the list goes on...

Forgetting all of that, here is the argument for irreducible complexity and how it (a) creates a bigger problem than the one it attempts to solve and (b) how it is logically impossible.

Before we examine the argument, there are two distinct interpretations of probability (i) as some intrinsic measurable property of a statistical model, and (ii) epistemic in character, re: Bayes' theorem. For our purposes we�ll examine it via the (i) first method--which concerns itself with statistical model of random generation, or chance.

Let (p) be probability, let (x) be any divine uncaused deity, let (y) be an incrementally motivated singularity, let (q) be complexity, and let (e) be effect (existence), further let�s assume that existence and nonexistence of any variable is 50/50, so we�re on even footing.

If (x) >= (e) and likewise (y) -> (x) or (y) have been the result of unmotivated chance--incredibly stochastic.
If chance is (e) nonexistence or existence, and if the (p) of (e) is probable logically via deduction --> (x) = inevitable complexity and (y) = inevitable simplicity --> (e) of (x) and (y) != 50/50
--> via logical deduction (y) and its incremental simplicity is far more probable than (x) and its self-sufficient, standalone (q)

Thus, even with chance in mind and a 50/50 footing, logically (y) simplicity is more probably to evolve to complexity than absolute complexity (x) that is its own greatest cause.

And so in logic, you cannot create a bigger question to the dilemma you�re trying to solve--that is, you can�t invoke a complex creator to stop the regress if the complex creator cannot be traced back to its own origin.

So it's clear that the physicist and their hypothesis about the big bang--starting simple --> complex--is much more probable than complexity out of nowhere.

There is your improbability argument. hah, this is of course forgetting all the other awesome stuff like omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, that are logically contradictory as well. Or answering prayers, receiving sacrifice, etc..etc..etc..

Reminds me of something Hume said on the virgin birth:

"Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"

---

Posted by DJ_Elyot on Feb-03-2009 00:26:

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So you've substituted one form of ambiguity ("better") with another ("happiness"). The question remains: in concrete terms, what are you measuring, and where is your evidence?

Well, you could give everyone a survey, for example. We both understand that it's hard to measure these things. For the purpose of thought experiments, its useful to imagine being able to query everyone for "how happy are you right now?" and obtain a response from them on some kind of normalized scale. The point is not to actually do this; the point is to define a metric by which we may logically analyze the consequences of changes in human behaviour.

quote:

I'm not disputing this. Models are useful for making predictions, but they are not evidence. A complex enough model could perhaps be used to make the prediction "if religion disappeared today, humanity would be better off in the capacities of [x], [y] and [z] when measured using the techniques [a], [b], and [c].". Of course, I have yet to hear of any testable model making such a claim. Do you have one that I don't know about?

Well, we can't just grab a bunch of people and conduct an experiment here. Too bad. There are, however, various studies and metastudies which link, for example, a decrease in participation in organized religion with an increases in intelligence, happiness, and success in life. Of course, these are not good enough to prove the hypothesis you stated, but they provide some evidence.

quote:

I stated in plain language that argument by analogy is empty rhetoric that doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. You've chosen to interpret that as a blanket dismissal of all sorts of theoretical models period - that is your straw man, not mine.

My argument was a theoretical model--or a thought experiment, if you wish. These are used in physics all the time, and cogently provide justification for many types of natural phenomena by reducing them to problems that we already understand. Consequently, by telling me that I was arguing by analogy, either you misunderstood my argument, or you're full of crap.

quote:

The statement "I know [x]" is equivalent to the statement "[x] is true."

I think here you meant to claim that "I know [x]" implies "[x] is true"; obviously there is no double implication going on.

However, I still think many philosophers out there would disagree with you. Epistemology is a wide open subject with many competing theories, and not everyone agrees that [x] must be true for one to be able to claim "I know [x]". Particularly, those subscribing to pragmatism, weak verificationism, and so on will disagree with you. That said, I'm sure you already knew this, and are just trying to push your personal beliefs as absolute truths.

Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 »

---

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.