Amaranth

Seeing as though you're going to ignore most points if we throw a lot of them, let's try throwing just one:

You hold? You mean "You believe without any proof, and thus illogically". Beyond even that, you have continued down the cosmological argument to the next fallacy: Assuming that because there "must" be a first cause, that first cause was god. Once again, you posit something as true without showing it as such. Why must it be a god? Why can't it just be a singularity? Why can't it be a cosmic chicken? Do you have any proof one way or the other, beyond your own illogical beliefs?

Amaranth

emotional

God doesn't NEED fellowship, or anything else. The fact that He created the universe (15 billion years ago, not 6000 as the Bible says) is a given. I reject the Trinity because it leads to a split-personality picture of God. A person who is divided into three persons and they interact between themselves would find himself in a mental institution. God is one nature, one will, one personality. God IS a Holy Ghost (as well as figurative Father of all His creation), and He doesn't have a son. God begetting a son is pagan mythology.



If God could be known by reason there would be no atheists.



There are no eye-witnesses today, only a story. There is a story of 500 people seeing Jesus rising from the dead, but we can't bring any of them for questioning today.

For that matter, Joshua 10:13 says the sun stopped its course (oh well - the earth, more accurately) for a single day. The whole world was witness to that happening, yet there is no mention of it in world histories of the time, and the pyramids are aligned exactly as if it never happened. So a story can claim the whole world as eye-witnesses and never have happened.



No, you could absolutely know your friend loves you by his actions - not harming you, caring for you, doing you good etc. No faith at all needed here.

Faith is required when evidence is lacking. I've already been through these forums trying to reasonably and evidentially prove the existence of God and the afterlife, and I've found that there's no argument without a refutation, and no airtight evidence for those. It was upon that discovery that I decided to leave the shell-game of evidence and reasoning and accept God and the afterlife on pure faith alone. I expect that you, after the atheists here refute every one of your arguments, will be prompted to do the same if you wish to keep your faith (or you can choose atheism; I didn't because atheism doesn't offer an afterlife).

danielius

To Stephen T-B:

So you believe in the likely existence of extraterrestial life, though all our available evidence is currently insufficient to reach such a conclusion. I have no problem with that whatsoever, except - some atheists say that it is wrong to believe in God because the evidence for His existence is, in their opinion, insufficient.

SETI was set up in the proactive search for extraterrestial life, so clearly many atheists do believe extraterrestial life to be likely. That is in the face of there being no conclusive evidence to support such a belief. In fact the parallels are too delicious to avoid comment:

Many atheists assert that if there were a God, He would have communicated in a 'clear way' by now.

However, no aliens - even supposing immensely superior technology and science - have communicated with us in any way, clear or otherwise.

Some claim that the aliens are there, but not communicating for reasons we do not know or understand. When religious people make the same suggestions for God, they are rejected out of hand.

It is, according to the definitions of some here, irrational in view of the current best available evidence and the obvious and unambiguous non-communication of any alien thus far, to believe that there really are extraterrestials 'out there'.

If you will allow for the possibility of extraterrestial life in the absence of any really good evidence, I see no reason not to allow for the possibility of a God, even as you regard such a belief as being inadequately supported evidentially.

To Dr Rick...

Thank you.

So those at SETI have faith that there really are E.Ts out there. I have no problem with such a definition - faith as belief in the absence of evidence - however, I do question the idea that all faith is blind faith. The scientists at SETI have faith, but only because it is based on a very credible hypothesis, one supported by external evidence. As far as they can take that evidence (a considerable distance) they are rational in their belief; where that evidence ends, in the absence of any final proof, I do not conclude that those scientists that then assert a belief in E.T life are irrational. Therefore I question the underlying assumption that the Christian hypothesis, which I really do believe is credible, can only be held by 'irrational' thinkers.

Clearly I'm saying a lot more than that. The historicity of the Christian faith is important, as many atheists will dispute other religions, perhaps understandably, on the basis of they being only a collection of myths and legends.

Well, similarly, my mother claims I was born on January 31st 1979. Being a baby at the time, there's no way I could prove this conclusively. I have my birth certificate, but of course what's not to say the certificate was typed out wrongly, and my mother simply stuck with the error after she realised it? There are lots of everyday things we take on good, but not necessarily overwhelming, evidence.

Danielius

Amaranth

Non sequitur. There is substantial evidence to support the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life. There is no substantial evidence to support belief that there is a god. At least, not the god I assume you are referring to; I can't be sure, as you keep refusing to define it.

Futhermore, this argument is yet another logical fallacy - tu quoque. Regardless of whether or not some atheists believe in aliens or not does not support whether or not your belief in god is rational.

Dr Rick

Looking for or even hoping for the existence of something is not the same as believing something exists.

It's just as understandable that we dispute Christianity because it appears to have as much mythology and legend as other religions.

Good, but not overwhelming evidence is still much different from no evidence.

danielius

I mean that of the major possibilities, I hold the uncaused Cause to be the most likely. I'm not sure how one could go about 'proving' the origins of the universe, certainly Professor Hawking hasn't. As I am basing my belief on what I consider the most logical of the major available options, it is not an 'illogical' belief, just not a proven one.

I never said 'must'. I said that an uncaused Cause is the 'most probable' of the major available options.

Because Christians, and before them, for many thousands of years, have held the belief in a creator God. This was millennia before the theory of the 'Big Bang' came along, so the idea of a caused universe and a creator God 'fits'. This is far from compelling evidence, but it is worth noting.

Additionally, if the universe was caused by an uncaused Cause, what properties would such a cause have? As it caused a universe in which mind evolved, we can posit an intelligent cause. As it caused a universe in which persons evolved, we can posit a personal cause. As it caused a universe with logical absolutes, and reason and morals, we can posit a logical, reasonable, moral cause.

I nowhere stated that God 'needs' fellowship, only that it would be readily conceivable if we believe in a God whose nature is relational and loving, that such a God would want to create.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I don't get such claims as 'God is a Holy Ghost' (in Christianity, the Holy Spirit is God's love - the love between the Father and the Son - personified), and a 'figurative father of all his creation'. If God is only your figurative father, then you believe that you are not created in God's image? It would follow that you believe God to be some immense, impersonal force. But if we, finite creatures, are persons, wouldn't God be *more* personal, not less?

If you do not believe that God has a Son, that God is relationship in nature, then you believe in an isolated God, one who would have no reason to ever desire fellowship. He is 'one' right? Well, then why didn't he stay 'one'? Why create and have fellowship?

You give no evidence for your claim that the Christian concept of God having a unique Son in one nature with Him is based on pagan mythology.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

I've read, though I doubt it could ever be proved one way or the other, that other ancient cultures, including the Chinese and Mexican, recorded details of an unusually long day.

I'm sure the atheist posters here will put their two cents worth in, but as we are dealing with things that cannot be proven conclusively one way or the other anyway (including the origins of the universe, the basis of logical absolutes, man's unique nature etc.), I intend only to show that my world-view is a logical, consistent and reasonable one, and one additionally based on credible evidence.

Danielius

BioBeing

Many people believe that, given a virtually infinite number of stars, the possibility is that one or more of them may have life on them. So yes, the possibility of extraterrestrial life is a possibility. And SETI has been set up to see if we can glean any evidence of aliens. We know that there is life on Earth. Thus, we have evidence of life. We do not have any evidence of any gods or supernatural prime movers.

Thus, it is logical to suppose that there might indeed be life on other planets.

Note also the semantic difference between supposing that there might be life on another planet and believing that there is life on other planets. The former is being open to the possibility, the latter suggests evidence (which we do not have, unless Area 51 really was a big conspiracy…)

Many theists claim that God has communicated in a clear way in the past - sending his son, performing miracles, becoming a burning bush and so on. Atheists ask why does he still not perform miracles? Why does he not come light my barbeque, when it was OK for him to do so in the past? God, supposedly, had a habit of intervening, but it seems like he has been through a 12 step programme now.


There is no reason to suppose aliens, if they exist, would communicate with us. Many factors might prevent them, such as say, not being able to travel faster than the speed of light.

I reject both claims, not out of hand, but out of lack of any evidence. I put people who claim UFOs and alien abductions as real in the same category as those who claim knowledge of any god. People who believe that aliens really are out there are not usually the true scientists. You have been watching too much X-files . As I pointed out above, the search for alien intelligence (eg SETI) is based on the chance that it is there, not on the knowledge or dogmatic belief that it is there.

Not out there. Possibly out there. And if we do not look, how will we find out? Now, if we could search for God in the same way, we would.

The evidence, as I said, is life on Earth. We (probably) arose from chemicals in the seas 3.5 billion years ago. Given the right conditions it could happen again. [No, probably not here – the conditions are doubtfully correct anymore, and any nascent life-form would have to be able to compete with all the existing ones.]. The evidence that God exists is one (very badly written, if you ask me) book that says he does. Plus – how can we search for God? We cannot, by definition. But, we can search for aliens.

Do the scientists at SETI really believe that there are aliens? Do they have that kind of faith? Do you have evidence for this?

So now you accept that that there is evidence for alien life? And that it is credible? So now you see how this is different from a god-belief?

However, again,. please provide proof that the majority of the scientists working on SETI actually believe that ET exists! They believe that he MIGHT, but that is not the same thing.

Again – this is different to a god-squader. Theists say “God exists” in the absence of ANY verifiable evidence. They do not (in general) say “I think there might be some kind of god-like thing…” These people are generally termed agnostics. Agnosticism can be defended as a rational system. Atheism says I have no evidence, so I chose the default, which is to not believe. Again, rational. Religion, on the other hand, claims knowledge where there is none. If there was knowledge of God – hard and fast evidence – there would be no atheists or agnostics. Religion is thus a lie. Living your life on a lie is not rational.

You need to take this to the BC&A forum. Many people here will tell you that the bible is just another group of myths and legends. A history book it is not.

If we really wanted to check, we could go to the hospital and check their records. Was Mrs Danielius actually admitted in the period indicated? Independent corroboration. A powerful thing.

This thread is just like Rational BAC’s one, really (except danielius is a lot more, er, poetic). Christianity is so wooly, so fluffy and so vague that it can mean just about anything to anyone. What we are talking about here isn’t is Christianity being a rational world view, its is Danielianity a rational world view. And, I say that if you make the huge assumption that there is some miraculous sky daddy, then the answer has to be NO.

danielius

There is substantial evidence to support the likelihood that aliens don't exist. If aliens exist, they would most likely be billions of years more advanced than ourselves. Their technology, including that in communication, would be vastly more sophisticated than our own. Yet, there has not been a single communication from aliens to us. Not one. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Rien.

If you can accept the possibility of alien life in the absence of any clear-cut evidence for such a proposition, then it is not a stretch to suggest that belief in God, in the absence of any clear-cut evidence as you clearly see it, is not unreasonable.

And, by the way, what is this 'substantial' evidence for the likelihood of alien life?

Source: http://www.astronomy4u.net/Seti/chances.htm

Many scientists do believe that the universe is 'teeming with life' and that 'detection of an artificial ETI signal from outer space is only a question of time'.

Are these scientists irrational to believe in something without clear-cut, unambiguous evidence?

Of course. I say that the alien life hypothesis has good - though far from unambiguous - theoretical evidence. I also say that the Christian hypothesis has good - though far from unambiguous - theoretical evidence.

Danielius

Amaranth

How is it the "most logical"? I've already demonstrated, as have many others, that your basic proof for the whole concept is logically unsound. Futhermore, the only logical belief in the absense of proof would be no belief.

How soon you forget your own arguments. To quote:

"3. Something was necessary to exist for the universe to exist; we call that something 'God'"

Emphasis mine.

A necessary thing must exist. You also stated this what you believed to be, not what you believed to be probable. You are shifting your position, again.

To reiterate your words, for your own memory: "1. I believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth"

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. It's not compelling, and you're going to have to do more than show it's old to make it worth noting as something other than a new logical fallacy in your argument.

Fallacy of composition? Not certain on the formal term for this bad logic, but to demonstrate why it fails: By this logic, since there are rocks, the uncaused cause is a rock. Because there are murderers, the uncaused cause is a murderer. Because entropy exists, the uncaused cause favors chaos. Et cetera ad naseum.

Amaranth

Dr Rick

There is evidence for ET life; there are other planets in the universe, some with atmospheres, there's extra-terrestrial water, and their are basic organic chemicals that were found in meteorites, and theres the mathematics and probabilities that have been worked out. None of this proves the existence of ETs, but it is evidence, not faith.

Even if it's "far from unambiguous," it's still evidence.