Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
The reason why I find it hilarious is that neither person can prove with irrefutable proof that a god does indeed exist or not.

No. There is no reason to prove something does not exist if it cannot be proven to exist in the first place. Atheists are not the ones who need evidence, theists do.

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
And if you deny that you hold within yourself that abhored thing we know as "faith" and "believing," then you're just screwed for life. Which means, you have no trust in anyone or yourself. Belief is everywhere. You believe and have faith that the food you get from the store is good enough to eat. You believe and have faith that you can trust your friend. You believe and have faith that the home where you're at is safe enough to sleep in at night. So on, so forth. So...as it has been explained again, I said you have faith, but I didn't say "faith in a god."

Not all "faiths" or "beliefs" are equal though. Some are rational and some are irrational. It's a bit similar to Occam's razor (in a way) where we have to weed out the ones that contradict everyday experience and reality. There is good reason to believe that food will nourish you because this is a proven scientific fact. You trust your friend because of past everyday experiences...etc. However, the belief that your life is guided by an "unseen hand" is irrational and idiotic. The belief that an invisible being created everything around us, exists with us, and actually CARES about any of us is ignorant at best.

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PerhapsItsTruth
Okay, evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Well then, let�s use some logic and reason here. Say my friend's mother has a terrible heart problem (true story), so bad, in fact, that one, she can't walk anywhere without immediately being out of breath, two, the doctors just tell her to get over it, she's going to die, nothing they can do. Well, my friend goes to church, is told to pray, and immediately after they pray, the heart problem disappears. They go in the next morning, no sign at all of any heart problem at all. So, by logic and reason, by any I know of, that is evidence.

There is no "logic and reason" in what you just said. What about my wife's mother who prayed for God to spare her life when dying of breast cancer? She suffered and died. By your logic, that is "proof" that god DOESN'T exist.

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
We also have seen zero evidence of mindless natural processes causing complex universes to pop into existence out of nothing, yet this doesn't deter you and most atheist from believing it nonetheless.

Secondly, the infamous claim that there is "no evidence for god" is somewhat empty in the fact that you (as well as most atheists) fail to define what this evidence should look like if a god did exist. If you are so certain that no such evidence for god exists, certainly you are quite aware of what the evidence *would* look like if it *did* exist, or else you wouldn't be so confident that you haven't already seen it.

So I ask you..... if a creator god did exist, what do you predict the evidence *would* be?

Refractor

First of all, there is evidence for a big bang. But we can discuss that in the E/C forum.
Secondly, evidence would be seeing god and hearing god (seeing and hearing him in my "heart" does not count) along with scent (phew-wee), feel, and touch. Proof by the Scientific Method. Proof by experiments. Proof that consequences of his actions have no other logical explanations. Mathematical proof supported by visual proof. He would have mass, energy, temperature, length, and would give off electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths. It would help if there weren't so many problems with the bible either. The list goes on.

Mageth · 03-12-2003, 12:12 PM

Refractor:

Secondly, the infamous claim that there is "no evidence for god" is somewhat empty in the fact that you (as well as most atheists) fail to define what this evidence should look like if a god did exist. If you are so certain that no such evidence for god exists, certainly you are quite aware of what the evidence *would* look like if it *did* exist, or else you wouldn't be so confident that you haven't already seen it.

So I ask you..... if a creator god did exist, what do you predict the evidence *would* be?

I predict that, if such a god exists, that god would know what the evidence *would* be, i.e. what evidence would be necessary to convince us of its existence.

If such a god exists, the responsibility would lie with it to define and provide the evidence that would convince us, and to make us capable of recognizing it.

So, the evidence either doesn't exist or I'm incapable of recognizing it. Either god deliberately set things up this way to fool us, or there is no god. Thus, until such evidence for a god is made known to me (and I'm sure such a god would arrange things so I would recognize it as such), I'll continue under the assumption that god doesn't exist.

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
I "believe" an intelligent designer god created the universe because I see abundant evidence of intelligent design in the universe and in all life forms. The idea that there is an intelligent designer is a logical induction,...I am a theist because I see the concept of a supernatural intelligent designer...

These are opinions. Not facts. I have a good reason to believe that many things are poorly designed. Take the human body. The back is a terrible design. Also, it is poor design for god to give us assholes in order to rid of waste (fecal matter). You may think shit is wonderful, but I don't. I think god could have done something better. At least he could make it smell better. Not all living things have such foul-smelling waste.

Fiach · 03-12-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
A few rather parenthetical observations here. Fiach, your comments on ID are topical and relevant, but if you want to pursue that path I suggest E/C, because of the available expertise there. (Although I mod that forum too, I make no bones that I am not the acknowledged expert that so many of the E/C regulars are.)

Refractor, when a competent and well-spoken apologist for theism comes here, they do tend to get mobbed- and no matter how polite the mob may be, it's hard to keep up with the exchanges. So you do exactly what you said- answer the questions you feel are most relevant. If someone has a question they feel is important, and repeats it, please try to address it in your own time. I adjure all our infidel posters to remember this, and be patient; the same thing happens to us if we go to Christian boards, and often the mobbing is far, far less than polite. Refractor has addressed us capably and politely (save for one or two comments at the beginning, which inspired my cautionary remarks); we should continue to return the favor, even if he doesn't directly and completely address each of us. (So far, this conversation has been of very high quality all around!)

Many of us here have stated specifically that we are agnostic about a deistic god, Refractor. The trend of this conversation towards the actual moment of origin explains why- since we know nothing about the actual creation event (if creation is the correct word) we are unable to say yea or nay to the possibility that it was in some way designed or induced. But neither can you! So agnosticism is the correct stance- we have no knowledge. (Belief is the problem here, and it's perhaps impossible to justify gut feelings when no evidence pro or con is available.)

So- might I suggest that we move away from discussing the origin of the universe, and explore the reasons you believe in a God for whom you have no direct evidence? I've been fascinated by your listed belief in your profile- "agnostic theist (Christian)"- and would like to find out just why you choose to add the 'Christian' there.

(This is not to imply in the least that you are required to do that- I make that suggestion without my 'mod hat' on. If you feel that you have more to say concerning origins, please do!)

I think you are missing the point. The concept of Intelligent Design is a linchpin in the arguments for God apart from the standard Biblical quotes. It was posted not directly to prove evolution but to emphasise that the many faults of evolutionary process show that it is a somewhat random or maybe quantum process and does not require design. This was an argument for and against the belief in God.

Fiach

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
Every time you sit on a chair, you believe it will support you before you actually "know" it will support you. Past evidences do not dictate future events. Even if the chair supported you 1 billion times previously, that does not automatically guarantee that it will support you on the 1 billionth-and-oneth time you sit on it.

I can SEE the chair, FEEL the chair, TOUCH the chair, and conclude whether or not it is safe to sit in. I do this very quickly everytime I sit down. Anyone who sits in a chair without considering its appearance deserves to fall on his ass.

Hawkingfan · 03-12-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
A mathmatical model is not scientific proof, nor does it tell us anything conclusive about the origin event.

Mathematics is a form of scientific proof. Put together with observation and experiments, it composes scientific abstraction. Math is equal to observation and experiments.

The math that will tell us about the initial state of the universe is being invented as we speak.

Shadowy Man · 03-12-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
Mathematics is a form of scientific proof. Put together with observation and experiments, it composes scientific abstraction. Math is equal to observation and experiments.

Well, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that. I've always been bothered by the answer "it works out that way in the math" when I've asked a question.

But then again, I'm not a theorist.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 12:12 PM	#115
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Refractor: Secondly, the infamous claim that there is "no evidence for god" is somewhat empty in the fact that you (as well as most atheists) fail to define what this evidence should look like if a god did exist. If you are so certain that no such evidence for god exists, certainly you are quite aware of what the evidence would look like if it did exist, or else you wouldn't be so confident that you haven't already seen it. So I ask you..... if a creator god did exist, what do you predict the evidence would be? I predict that, if such a god exists, that god would know what the evidence would be, i.e. what evidence would be necessary to convince us of its existence. If such a god exists, the responsibility would lie with it to define and provide the evidence that would convince us, and to make us capable of recognizing it. So, the evidence either doesn't exist or I'm incapable of recognizing it. Either god deliberately set things up this way to fool us, or there is no god. Thus, until such evidence for a god is made known to me (and I'm sure such a god would arrange things so I would recognize it as such), I'll continue under the assumption that god doesn't exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.