I'm not much for typing really long posts so hopefully I can get my main points in...

I've seen alot of athiests in these forums saying that there is no scientific proof of god, so they would rather go with science and be LOGICAL. One guy even went on to say that science is contradicting everything in the bible and that a pattern of disproving was emerging. The same guy went on to say that he couldn't prove how man got here because science hadn't progressed enough.

Well it's that little thing, science, that i'd like to talk about. What all of you athiest who put faith in science have to understand is that everything you believe in now will become bs sometime down the road. Everyone will look back at you and say, look at those jackasses, they thought the sky was blue and gravity held stuff down (example). The statement that guy made about science is absolutely true. It isn't yet advanced enough, nor will it probably ever be. It will just keep disproving itself over, and over, and over till the world ends.

The same guy mentioned above said that the church persecuted the guy who thought that the earth orbited the sun. Why, because all the scientists of the day thought the sun orbited. Galileo was a bit crazy, and you can go ahead and say that you would have believed him and went against the church, but with your logical minds, and all the days scientists saying other wise I doubt.

I've typed too much already. My point is that through the past 10,000 years no one has disproved a god. While your logical science has been disproved too many times to count. As the threads title says, believing science is shakier than putting faith in a god.

Science makes numerous important discoveries every year. If you "believe" in science, you're missing the point.

Faith is based on believing in things that may or may not be true. Faith, at least in an individual, cannot change or it is not true faith.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

not true. You do have to "believe" science. Like you have to choose if you believe creation, or if you believe evolution.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

not true. You do have to "believe" science. Like you have to choose if you believe creation, or if you believe evolution.

No, dumbass, you don't. I personally think both have immense holes in them, although evolution certainly has fewer.

And your whole position here is pretty indefensible. When logical types find a previous belief has been thoroughly discredited, they show the intellectual integrity to drop it and put stock in the new facts. You're just taking an obvious fact of reality and playing word games with it.

Oh, I get it, you just change your beliefs everytime something new comes along. But still, how does it feel to know, logically, everything you believe *put stock in* in will be proven wrong. You all say that logically there is a chance god exists. I say that logically there is 0 chance anything you believe in is correct.

[This message has been edited by bigtmoney (edited 09-06-2003).]

A human can't know anything except by faith. Oh, you saw something with your own two eyes, you say? Well, you put faith in your eyes didn't you? And you put your faith in your own interpretation of what you saw with your own two eyes, didn't you?

You think I'm full of shit? Well go ask the Indian yogis that stare into the sun all day about it. The very reason these Indian 'holy men' do that is because they don't WANT to be tempted into putting faith in their sight anymore. And for the rest of their days, they live in a fucking cave and somebody has to come feed and water them.

I'm not advocating this, I'm just saying, there's nothing that we do that doesn't involve faith. You ever stick your hand in a mailbox and drop a letter inside, believing that it is going to get where you want it to go? Well, that's faith, brother.

U.S.P.S.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Spankinz (edited 09-06-2003).]

Exactly, so why is God too hard to put faith in. Because science has less holes? No one has explained to me the fact that logically there is a chance of god, and that logically there is no chance of what we think is correct now being true.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

Oh, I get it, you just change your beliefs everytime something new comes along. But still, how does it feel to know, logically, everything you believe *put stock in* in will be proven wrong. You all say that logically there is a chance god exists. I say that logically there is 0 chance anything you believe in is correct.

Huh? You can't BELIEVE in science. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Anyone who believes in science is missing the point entirely, and is instead engaging in a religious system.

replace belief with puts stock in

When someone buys stock in a company they need proof for potential success. Believing doesn't. Believing in science doesn't exist. The whole idea behind the scientific method is that an excercise can be duplicated anywhere and achieve the same results. You cannot believe in gravity, you accept it. Very similiar to you not being able to accept everyone's points against yours.

Science allows for change if a proof is proven to be false.

This is a very good idea, as it's a lot more difficult to change faith.

To be a truly rounded individual, you must be open to ideas from both sides of the coin.

quote:Originally posted by Dr. Spankinz:

A human can't know anything except by faith. Oh, you saw something with your own two eyes, you say? Well, you put faith in your eyes didn't you? And you put your faith in your own interpretation of what you saw with your own two eyes, didn't you?



Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Seeing the sun rise and arriving at the conclusion that it is daytime requires no faith whatsoever. What you see is the current situation beyond any level of reasonable doubt. The fact that everyone else also sees that it is daytime is a good indicator as well.

Faith is jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute and believing you won't fall.

My argument is not against science. I appreciate and put my faith in what I consider 'good' science.

But I'm talking philosophy here. Most of the populations of the world have belief systems that do not even hold that there is anything like an objective reality to see, hear, or measure. The heart of Hinduism and Buddhism (practiced by at least 2 billion Asians) holds that the world we see and hear is nothing but an illusion. They do not 'faith' that what they see and hear and experience in this world is reality. We in the Western frame of reference take it for granted that everything we see and hear actually exists, and can be known.

So, you see, everything is taken on faith. Though I am conscious of experiencing gravity, or a sunset, what I believe the reality of those things to be is up to me.

Perhaps you are being confused by the difference between the word 'faith' and 'believe'. Faith is not belief. Belief is a mental agreement. 'Faith' is based on the Latin word 'fidere'. It means trust. Trusty Dog=Fido. Get it? The original word is not Latin based however. It is the Greek word 'pistis' which is found in the New Testament. There is no English equivilant for 'pistis' which is sad, since this word is so important to the millions of English speaking Christians everywhere. The best definition I can give you of pistis is:

An action, based upon a belief, sustained by confidence.

In this sense, we humans are faithing constantly throughout the day. We faith that the guy in the other lane is going to stop for the red light and not hit us. We 'faith' that our letter is going to make it to its destination after we put it in the mailbox. We put our feet on the floor in the morning with the faith that they will stick to the floor.

The object of Christianity is that people put this kind of faith (trusting action) in God and His Word.

Later.

D.S.

You guys are just playing a lot of word games. The fact remains that scientific facts may, at some point, be proven wrong, whereas there's never existed any proof whatsoever for any of the major religions. Ignoring science and putting blind faith in religion is hardly a step in the right direction.

As for knowing that current fact might be proven wrong (you don't know either, do you?), it doesn't bother me. I'm doing the best with what I have; you're not even trying.

Spankinz,

If you substitute the word "faith" for everything that one could reasonably expect, then the word ultimately loses value.

And comparing the sun rising to a supreme being that happened to arbitrarily exist which created the universe and all the life contained within and yet shows no sign of existing indicating that it either doesn't exist or doesn't want people to know of it's existence is a rather flawed comparison.

We have logical reasons to think that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has done it every day for billions of years. This unseen godforce that eludes all means of detection, however, has quite the number of logical problems and paradoxes with it.

I say, if I am to accept something as real, it will have to be out of hard corroborative convincing evidence and not out of sheer ignorance.

It is a very real possibility that no gods could exist and the universe came to be through unknown means, so to assert that Godtheory must be true, despite it having nothing to support it and no ground to stand on as the basis for an argument, would be grandiose speculation to say the least.

^ What he said.

quote:This unseen godforce that eludes all means of detection

Knowing he "eludes all means of detection" or that he "shows no sign of existing" implies knowledge of what means he would use to express himself. Please, share them with us; tell us how you know that life, light, the sun or anything else for that matter, could not be his form of expression.

quote:if I am to accept something as real, it will have to be out of hard corroborative convincing evidence and not out of sheer ignorance.



See, above...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2003).]

*Reason Senses Tingling*

"Life, light, the sun, or anything else for that matter" have no overt sign of intelligent design, and they aren't used to communicate thoughts or intentions. They follow set patterns that could just as easily have arisen through random natural growth. And of course, I have no reason to believe that any of these things are modes of communication, as none of you have proven them to be such.

quote:

"Life, light, the sun, or anything else for that matter" have no overt sign of intelligent design, and they aren't used to communicate thoughts or intentions

Just because you cannot understand, capture or see it; does not mean it is not there.

quote:and they aren't used to communicate thoughts or intentions

You forgot the "anything else for that matter". Secondly you should know, light, sound, color and/or smell can be used for Morse code, a form of communication and thus expression.

quote:They follow set patterns that could just as easily have arisen through random natural growth

Exactly, they COULD have arisen through random natural growth. That is not the problem. The problem occurs when Dark_Magneto says:

"if I am to accept something as real, it will have to be out of hard corroborative convincing evidence and not out of sheer ignorance."

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-07-2003).]

The difference being that there's plenty of evidence that they DID arise out of natural growth, whereas no evidence has ever existed that they were created by The Divine Hand of YHWH. I hate to bring out this old saw again, but can you prove that the items you mention actually ARE being used as divine communication? And if not, can you really fault me for not believing that they are?

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

Oh, I get it, you just change your beliefs everytime something new comes along. But still, how does it feel to know, logically, everything you believe *put stock in* in will be proven wrong. You all say that logically there is a chance god exists. I say that logically there is 0 chance anything you believe in is correct.

Hmmm.... You ask how it feels for one who puts stock in science to "know" all they do put said stock in WILL BE proven wrong.

I'm trying to grasp how you know it ALL will be so proven. Perhaps one would better ask, How does it feel to know there is some chance everything one puts stock in might be disproven?

If I were asked this question, I would smile and reply, "Just fine. I am hoping any erroneous assumptions are corrected with additional data."

quote:The difference being that there's plenty of evidence that they DID arise out of natural growth, whereas no evidence has ever existed that they were created by The Divine Hand of YHWH. I hate to bring out this old saw again, but can you prove that the items you mention actually ARE being used as divine communication? And if not, can you really fault me for not believing that they are?

Nice try, but I don’t have to prove anything. You see, the problem arises when Dark_Magneto KNOWS that God “shows no sign of existing”. And on what evidence does he base himself? None, hence “Sheer ignorance” as he called it. I am not arrogant enough to assert anything similar, with such confidence.

quote: And if not, can you really fault me for not believing that they are?

If you claim knowledge you don’t have, of course. This is similar to believing God doesn’t exist, which would be based on nothing. Atheists bypass that by saying: “they lack a belief”. In this case, Dark_Magneto obviously does not lack a belief.

P.S. It is irrelevant if light, sound, etc. were created by a God or not. The point is a God could use them to communicate.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you claim knowledge you don’t have, of course. This is similar to believing God doesn’t exist, which would be based on nothing. Atheists bypass that by saying: “they lack a belief”. In this case, Dark_Magneto obviously does not lack a belief.



Let me put it in simple terms:

"There exists no scientific evidence to conclusively prove nor strongly indicate the existence of a supernatural creator with a personal will and omnimax properties".

Do I lack a belief in any Godforces? Yes.

Do I disbelieve in certain representations of Godforces (Chemosh, Baal, Cthulhu, Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, etc. etc.)? Yes.

Do I discount the infinitely small yet nonzero chance of some sort of Godforces existing, given what we currently know about reality? No.

There's a chance there could be Godforces. There's also a chance that I may have a computer for a brain and noone realizes it yet since the contents of my skull have never been viewed either physically or through X-ray. In all likelihood there's a biological brain in there, but until my head gets X-rayed, it's a possibility.

It's also possible that you really can't die, death is just an illusion, and you are in a virtual reality dreamworld with different laws than those of the actual reality which you have never experienced.

All of these things are improbable at best and we have reasonable reasons to doubt them, but they are, indeed, possible.

quote: Let me put it in simple terms: ....

It is completely fine to doubt those things, something which I never dis-agreed with. But to claim knowledge you don't have, now that is wrong. And that is the argument.

quote: All of these things are improbable at best and we have reasonable reasons to doubt them, but they are, indeed, possible.

That brings nothing to the argument at hand. You said no God communicates with us. Now please show us how a God would communicate with us. To even claim such a thing, you would have to know what means a God would use to communicate. And since you know nothing of that; you would have to base yourself on “Sheer ignorance”. Something you claimed not to do.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-08-2003).]

science is right obvously.if you put faith in god you are wasting your life. personally after some of the things i have read about the bible about the contradictions ( i have looked them up) and the things i heard abt the bible beain translated wrongly and the missing chapters, i could not put my faith in such bullshit.

oh and i have read it, im not just judging it on false grounds. i gaave it a chance.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That brings nothing to the argument at hand. You said no God communicates with us.



Well at least not in any tangible, experienceable, unselective, unbiased, manifested method.

Humans can communicate with each other qute well. They can even parlay quite a bit when they don't understand each other's language. Mind you it is a crude form of communication, but they can still get the basic point across.

Now let's take a look at alleged Godforces. I haven't recieved any communication from any. Now, you would think that these Godforces would have much better communication capabilities then 2 people that don't even speak the same language, but evidently not.

I have come to some possible conclusions.

Either Godforces:

a. Attempt to communicate through ambiguous, non-revealing methods that anybody could honestly mistake for the natural course of events that would be expected to occur in any universe, Godforces or not.

b. Are super selective in who it/they communicate with, maintaining the ultra-deceptive illusion of their nonexistence.

c. Don't exist at all, which would be a really good reason why people of sound mind don't hear audible thundering voices from the clouds and such and why there appears to be no attempt by any godforces to establish first contact and keep an open channel to the people for communication purposes.

d. Aren't attempting to communicate.

Nowadays humans are very efficient at communicating. We have phones, the internet, pagers, verbal language, body language, machine language, sign language, prominant symbols and signs, morse code, etc.

All of that, and yet in teh grand scheme of things, we haven't even scratched the surface. We are generally very efficient at communicating and clearly get the message across, whether it be a statement, inquiry, or instructions.

Now if these Godforces are attempting to communicate with humans, which I highly doubt, and for good reason, then the mode(s) of comminication it/they use are so primitive that not only can we not distinguish what they are trying to say, but we don't even realize that an attempt to communicate has been made at all!

There are some people out there that claim to "speak with God/Allah/Zeus/Mithra/Cthulhu or what have you, but the messages conflict with each other, in many instances contradict each other, and in many more instances reflect the wishes of the person that claimed to recieve the "message" or "revelation".

The fact that only certain people seem to experience it, and there is no means of conformation also cast into heavy doubt whether they are actually picking up on something, delusional, or just plain intentionally making shit up.

The most effective way to communicate would be a massive transmission that you couldn't miss, like using the entire sky as one big projector screen. You couldn't miss that shit.

But since millions of people don't seem to be getting the signal, and everyone elses signals seem to be mixed, and it seems to be exactly what you would expect if people weren't actually recieving signals from supernatural authority at all and actually having things like chemical imbalances, confirmation bias, magnetic brain stimulation, and a slew of other factors known to have such effects giving them false positives, it says quite a bit.

quote:

Now please show us how a God would communicate with us.



Well, it has to be in a detectable fashion or otherwise it wouldn't be communication.

Hell, we've been listening to radio waves floating around out in space for decades and we still haven't got anything but garbage. People have their ear to the ground looking for anything that would resemble a meaningful communication attempt.

They also uses instruments that surpass a human's basic senses, so if there was sort of "hidden" message out there that eluded the senses, we could pick up on it.

So far, nothing. It's been a resounding silence all the way through.

Now you can make excuses all day as to why we aren't recieving any messages, but the simplest, no-nonsense answer is that there is nothing trying to communicate.

quote:

To even claim such a thing, you would have to know what means a God would use to communicate. And since you know nothing of that; you would have to base yourself on “Sheer ignorance”. Something you claimed not to do.



That's assuming the existence of a God to begin with, which is highly speculative and doesn;t have a shred of hard evidence whatsoever, to say the least.

If God is going to communicate with humans, he's going to have to do it on some level that we can understand.

A cool breeze wofting by is not supernatural communication.

The sun coming through the clouds is not supernatural communication.

Things that we can realistically expect in nature with no divine manipulation are not supernatural communication.

But God may secretly communicate with people that think they should kill people in the name of Christ like that guy on the movie "Seven". He may be sane and simply doing God's bidding. The "God's hand" killer might just be recieving direct, real-time quotes from God because he's special like that, or they might, just might be nutso delusional whackjobs.

Personally, I employ a good ol' Occam's razor when making decisions.

Whatever explanation that posits the least amount of entities, and fits the evidence, is most likely the correct one.

And for the record, I never claimed to have knowledge which I do not. I'm simply using logic, reasoning, and observation.

God's may exist that are so secretive and hidden that not even a modern-day Sherlock Holmes could find them and that damn people to eternal hellfire for believing the lie that they do not exist, when they created a universe that seemed to scream it out all along. I can't discount that possibility, or any other.

Yahweh, Cthulhu, Chemosh, The Evil Eye of Orms-by-Gore, and those space monkies and purple hippos in deep space that eat chip that I just arbitrarily pulled out of my ass may exist. I don't have any reason, logical or otherwise, to suspect that they do and there is nothing that would suggest that they do and they are all equally proveable.

They are false beyond any reasonable amount of doubt given what we know about reality and the way the world works, but they juuust miight exist in that fraction of a millionth of a percent of a chance.

I say "given what we know" because there is plenty that we do not.

The doctrine of a deity meddling with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, because the assertion can always back out like a dog with it's tail between it's legs and take refuge in the domains in which scientific knowledge has not even yet had the priviledge of bing able to set foot.

I'm persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of belief systems would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light of reason but only in the darkness of ignorance, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-08-2003).]

well whether you are pro science or not, the bible does not contradict science, nor does science contradict the bible. Science is the study of cosmic order, religion is the study(lack for a better term) of cosmic purpose. Science was originally based on beliefs like religion, but unlike religion science is self correcting, therefore it is possible that some things in the bible are true, but not all of it. its like believing in a total solid no question about it lie compared to believing a lie that has some truth in it. Science is the study of what we can see and understand, religion is the exact opposite.

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

well whether you are pro science or not, the bible does not contradict science, nor does science contradict the bible. Science is the study of cosmic order, religion



It depends. If you creatively interpret and twist passages around so they fit the current model of reality, then it doesn't. And everytime science discovers something that would contradict scripture, you have to undergo this interpretation metamprphosis to make it compatable, even if it wasn't designed to be.

The Bible says that the sun stood still for a full day. back then they thought the sun and moon were a few miles up in the sky. That is impossible because for that to happen, the earth would have to stop spinning, which would have catastrophic doomsday-like consequences.

They also thought that the Earth was flat and the sky was a solid dome hard as molten mirror and God opened windows in the sky dome to let rain fall through and the Earth didn't move and was established on a set of immoveable pillars.

Scripture does nothing but confirm it.

Nowadays, we know better, and in order to reconcile and apologize for the errors, skilled apolagetic masters must then twist the words around to fit reality again.

They have had to do it over and over and over again. It's just madness how they can practically rewrite the bible by rewording it and still maintain that it is infallible. Doublethink at it's finest.

quote: a. Attempt to communicate through ambiguous, non-revealing methods that anybody could honestly mistake for the natural course of events that would be expected to occur in any universe, Godforces or not.

b. Are super selective in who it/they communicate with, maintaining the ultra-deceptive illusion of their nonexistence.

..."yet shows no sign of existing"...

quote: Well, it has to be in a detectable fashion or otherwise it wouldn't be communication.

Code. Show me proof that a God could not be communicating through code. Just like Morse code, you could express it via sound, light, smell and/or touch.

The Sun light could be code, right? You can not prove it otherwise, yet you said he DOES NOT communicate with us. Based on what? "Sheer ignorance".

quote: A cool breeze wofting by is not supernatural communication.

The sun coming through the clouds is not supernatural communication.



Prove it to us that they are not. You know that it is impossible. Hence you based your past claim on "Sheer ignorance"

Ok, if you're going to make God so ambiguous and redundant and walk around with a big shoehorn and syringe and inject and slide it in to every single little nook, cranny, and crevacce, then of course it could be some God communicating.

It could be Invisible Leprechauns from the planet Rygil-4 as well.

Or we could just use parsimony, be logical for once, say the simplest solution that fits the facts is most likely the correct answer, and call the sun, the sun instead of regressing into mythos and start worshipping Amun Ra like the Egyptians because they didn't know wtf the sun was.

scientists just found that blackholes emit sound, as in sound comes from something with infinite gravity.

and ig you put stock in God your ideology is royally screwed and you're going to hell most certainly, develop right intentions.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

My point is that through the past 10,000 years no one has disproved a god. While your logical science has been disproved too many times to count. As the threads title says, believing science is shakier than putting faith in a god.

So you say nobody has disproved him...well nobody has PROVED him either. For all we know (if he is real), is that HE isn't even a HE.

You say science has disproved itself many times...yeah, well so has religion. Think about everytime somebody prayed for something and it never happened. How about all those poor hungry people who do beleive in God, and prey everyday for a bite to eat...or a leg up form somebody. You don't see it with your eyes, but many times God disproves himself and let's people down. And if anything they prayed for happens, then they may think he is real. It's jsut coincidence, there is somehting like a 50% chance (it will or it won't). Also, when they prey for "a sign", they let their own superstition get the best of them and take even the smallest, stupidest thing as a sign from God.

And who should beleive in something that requires "believers" give verbal confessions of faith and live in obedience to a set of religous tenets stipulated by the church. Furthermore, it was just some guys who wrote the bible in the first place. But who can blame you when you are born into this religous environment, and they manipulate your mind from the day you are born. Of course you are going to beleive what yoru parents have been telling you your whole life. Besides, what kind of person or peoples Baptise you at birth as a newborn baby against your will. What if you never want to be Christian...THEY DON'T CARE!!! They assume, this is the way you must be. They pick you life for you, and limit your life with these rules. And as it is, religion can't even get itself straight. There are catholics, roman catholics, baptists, lutherans, jehove witnesses, presbytarian, and the list goes on...none of you as it is can even get it right who's "Bible" is the right one, and which Christian way is the real one. SO not only are athiests felling shady about religion, but christians themselves aren't even sure of the truth (although they share a common belief of God existing). Even more so, there are a thousnad other religions who all say their God is the one and only god, and they have PROOF jsut as much as your you do about yoru God existing. So what do you say about that?

bigtmonkey:

You can't "disprove" science. Disproving science would be showing it's principles to be false, which makes the computer, the engine, fusion, and everything else we know that works on these principles, illusions.

What you are attempting to put forth as a weakness of science is, in fact, its greatest strength.

Science is not dogmatic. If new evidence comes to light that challenges a widely held belief, then that belief must be reevaluated in light of the new evidence and modified or discarded as necessary.

Religion on the other hand declares something to be true and rigidly hangs on to that belief despite an absence of (or, often, a tremendous amount of contrary) evidence.

Rust, you just don't get it.

The hypothesis of God shouldn't exist, because there's no basis for it! That's the long and the short of the argument.

There is no reason anyone should be thinking God does exist, so disproving the idea is a moot point.

There is really no such thing as "disproof". You don't prove anything to be untrue except by showing an alternative to be true.

There's no direct proof that God does not exist, because by not existing there is nothing to relate to it, so there's nothing relevant to disproof of it.

You say "prove that God isn't communicating through sunshine". That's not the point. YOU who are suggesting that God is communicating through sunshine bear the burden of proving the truth of the statement. You came up with the idea, show us why it's true.

I could sit around all day coming up with statements you can't directly disprove. For example:

-In the center of the galaxy there is a planet shaped like an eggshell, with only a crust and no core.

-There's a type of energy that floats all around us, but it is undetectable and doesn't interact with normal matter.

HAVE FAITH!!!

There's no reason to believe these things, and indeed no reason to think they're even likely. We don't know that they aren't true, but based on what we do know, it would be highly unlikely, and doesn't really fit any of the facts we now possess.

Faith is absolute stupidity. It is strict adherence to ignorance.

God must be held to the same standards as any other hypothesis, and it does not stand up. That's all there is to it. It's a theory utterly devoid of any support, and thus, utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever.

There's no argument against this.

Furthermore, the facts should lead to the conclusion. The conclusion should be the last step of the process of analyzing information.

Rather than seeing how the facts explain your belief, you must instead follow the facts and see what they show you, have them lead you to determine the most likely reason for the facts.

THE IDEA OF A GOD SURE AS HELL IS NOT LIKELY. Nothing we know suggests such a thing. Nothing we know supports such a thing. The closest you can come is to make excuses for how existing facts could fit under the dogma.

The only "evidence" for God is a book. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is any different from any other book: composed by man, written by man, translated by man, reproduced by man. There's no evidence that it is anything other than a storybook.

The Torah, Koran, and every other religious text is just the same. THEY ARE ALL WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE!

Religion is absolutely baseless, so lack of directly disproving evidence is a moot point. There's just no reason to even consider it as being true.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 09-10-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by irwins69:

science is right obvously.



So, all those scientists who thought the world was flat were right?

The great thing about science is that it CAN be wrong, and if it is, can be changed.

We don't know everything. We never will. But if we find something new, that which we previously believed to be true can be changed.

Sounds to me that you're like many other kids, who worship science as a religion.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:



The hypothesis of God shouldn't exist, because there's no basis for it! That's the long and the short of the argument.

How so?

Ancient people had the exact same brain that you have failing to operate inside your skull today.

They were not retards.

quote:There is no reason anyone should be thinking God does exist, so disproving the idea is a moot point.

No reason to YOU.

I have a reason. It is not a reason that can be proven empirically, but it is a reason nontheless.

quote:There is really no such thing as "disproof". You don't prove anything to be untrue except by showing an alternative to be true.

I say the sky's purple.

You show me that it's blue. But I still see a purple sky and say it's purple.

Have you proven that it's blue?

quote:There's no direct proof that God does not exist, because by not existing there is nothing to relate to it, so there's nothing relevant to disproof of it.

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Allow me to demonstrate by repeating what you said and altering it slightly.

There's no direct proof that God does exist, because by existing there's nothing to relate to it, so there's nothing relevant to 'disproof of it.'

quote:You say "prove that God isn't communicating through sunshine". That's not the point. YOU who are suggesting that God is communicating through sunshine bear the burden of proving the truth of the statement. You came up with the idea, show us why it's true.

Great job of completely stealing the argument of the very intelligent and insightlful A&A.

But it works both ways.

You say God doesn't exist. Let's say no one has ever thought of that before. You came up with the idea, show me why it's true.

quote:I could sit around all day coming up with statements you can't directly disprove. For example:

-In the center of the galaxy there is a planet shaped like an eggshell, with only a crust and no core.

-There's a type of energy that floats all around us, but it is undetectable and doesn't interact with normal matter.

An idea similar to that second one's been suggested by Hawking. You believe Hawking, don't you?

But, you are right, for once. You cannot prove any of those.

The only things we can relatively prove are the things we can directly interact with. Not counting quantum mechanics, and such.

However, your argument against those who disagree with you applies to yourself, as well. You are drawing a conclusion from what you see. You cannot be certain, nor can you prove it.

quote:HAVE FAITH!!!

I agree. You are doing a great job at having faith in what you believe to be true. That's all any of us can do.

quote:There's no reason to believe these things, and indeed no reason to think they're even likely. We don't know that they aren't true, but based on what we do know, it would be highly unlikely, and doesn't really fit any of the facts we now possess.

Once again, there is no reason, TO YOU. Believe what you want, but don't try to discount something because you just don't understand the reason why.

And, the facts that we currently possess could be wrong. Some may be right. I believe physics to be fact. But you still cannot be sure.

Lots of things are highly unlikely. Who in the hell would have though that matter could exist as both a particle and a wave simulataneously? Who would have thought that, mathematically, you could have infinite mass and infinite energy?

quote:Faith is absolute stupidity. It is strict adherence to ignorance.

Well, you've got a point there. You do a terrific job demonstrating that.

quote:God must be held to the same standards as any other hypothesis, and it does not stand up. That's all there is to it.

Why is that?

You change the very nature of sub-atomic particles simply by observing them. Doesn't that contradict with the scientific theory? How are you to know their true essence if you cannot observe them in their natural state?

I can respect most athiests. Their beliefs are their beliefs, and most are pretty smart guys. I like hearing what they have to say.

You give them a bad name. You blindly follow what you hear, just like those you complain about.

quote:It's a theory utterly devoid of any support, and thus, utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever.

You like using 'uttery devoid' a lot, eh?

I say that your theory is utterly devoid of any support, and thus, uttery devoid of any merit whatsoever.

Now, can you prove that it isn't?

There's no argument against this.

quote:Furthermore, the facts should lead to the conclusion. The conclusion should be the last step of the process of analyzing information.

True. That's how it should be.

But, isn't a hypothesis jumping to a conclusion? Of course, if you find that your hypothesis is wrong, you change it, but still.

If you don't come to a conclusion beforehand, how are you to know what you're looking for?

quote:Rather than seeing how the facts explain your belief, you must instead follow the facts and see what they show you, have them lead you to determine the most likely reason for the facts.

Good idea. Why do you constantly fail to follow your own advice?

quote:THE IDEA OF A GOD SURE AS HELL IS NOT LIKELY.

I say it is.

quote: Nothing we know suggests such a thing. Nothing we know supports such a thing.

I disagree. I know plenty that suggests that a god DOES exist.

Problem is, you won't accept it as something 'we know.'

quote:The closest you can come is to make excuses for how existing facts could fit under the dogma.

Or, perhaps you could come up with a whole new hypothesis.

You're one of those ignorant athiests who thinks that the only way we think God could exist is how it's stated in the holy books, aren't you?

quote:The only "evidence" for God is a book.

I disagree. I've seen some crazy shit when I've left my body.

quote:There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is any different from any other book: composed by man, written by man, translated by man, reproduced by man. There's no evidence that it is anything other than a storybook.

I could find some evidence. But, you'd dismiss it.

The Bible says that God decided to limit our lives to a maximum of 120 years.

Guess how long science has estimated that our bodies can last, naturally?

quote:The Torah, Koran, and every other religious text is just the same. THEY ARE ALL WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE!

So you say. Perhaps you're right, perhaps not. But who made you the deciding force?

quote:Religion is absolutely baseless, so lack of directly disproving evidence is a moot point. There's just no reason to even consider it as being true.

You see no reason. Other people see reasons.

Oh, but their reasons don't count, right? They're just brainwashed and ignorant.

quote:It could be Invisible Leprechauns from the planet Rygil-4 as well.

Or we could just use parsimony, be logical for once, say the simplest solution that fits the facts is most likely the correct answer, and call the sun, the sun instead of regressing into mythos and start worshipping Amun Ra like the Egyptians because they didn't know wtf the sun was

Be logical? But why in the world would you tell me to be logical when in fact you are not being logical.

You said that no God communicates with us, but you do not have any facts to prove your point. Hence "Sheer ignorance" Yet in that same post you denounce "sheer ignorance"? Very logical.

P.S. You and other posters on this thread have made the erroneous assumption that I believe that God exists. My point and arguement stands with or without that belief. I could be an atheist and still be able to show this argument.

zorro420:

Congratulations! You have just achieved stupidity!

You see, my point: That Dark_Magneto made an illogical statement, an erroneous one; does not need a stance on belief or lack o) of belief in a God.

Hence your whole point is as baseless and pointless as you accuse religion of being.

I never, not once in this post, mentioned the existence or non-existence of God. My point does not need it.

quote: You came up with the idea, show us why it's true.

Actually Dark_Magneto came up with the idea when he stated that no God communicates with us, which then implies knowledge of how a God would communicate.

Learn to read, it's a helpful skill.

Again, for other readers who might be as confused. Dark_Magneto made an illogical argument that actually disproved itself as he said it, and thus I called him on it. Existence or non-existence is irrelevant in my argument.

quote:Originally posted by bigtmoney:

Oh, I get it, you just change your beliefs everytime something new comes along. But still, how does it feel to know, logically, everything you believe *put stock in* in will be proven wrong. You all say that logically there is a chance god exists. I say that logically there is 0 chance anything you believe in is correct.

[This message has been edited by bigtmoney (edited 09-06-2003).]

You say that faith is better than science because science can be proved wrong. Ok, that's true, science can be proved wrong. But it can also be proved right, to the best of our abilities anyway, whereas you can prove NOTHING about God. That's the only reason you can't disprove anything about God; there is nothing proven TO disprove.

It's like saything that because some of my concept about oranges can be proved wrong, and your concepts about fakwackidar can NOT be proved wrong, your concepts must be right and better than my orange concepts. Not so. Your concepts are weaker than mine, even if they cannot be proved wrong, because there's no substantial evidence for fakwackidar's existance. Whereas I can get tangible evidence for the existance of orange's.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hypothesis of God shouldn't exist, because there's no basis for it! That's the long and the short of the argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so?

Ancient people had the exact same brain that you have failing to operate inside your skull today.

They were not retards.

They had a brain. They were not retarded. However, they had no empirical evidence, so there's no reason to assign any value to their ideas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no reason anyone should be thinking God does exist, so disproving the idea is a moot point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No reason to YOU.

I have a reason. It is not a reason that can be proven empirically, but it is a reason nontheless.

That's exactly my point. If it can't be proven empirically, it has no merit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is really no such thing as "disproof". You don't prove anything to be untrue except by showing an alternative to be true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say the sky's purple.

You show me that it's blue. But I still see a purple sky and say it's purple.

Have you proven that it's blue?

No, you're very right about that.

But if you say that the light filtering through the atmosphere is at the purple wavelength, I can show you that the light is actually at the blue wavelength.

There are tests that don't depend on human perception, and which can be replicated anywhere with the same results, showing the exact frequency of the light.

When I show you this, I have proven that the sky is blue, and if you still see it as purple, it's only an error in your perception.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no direct proof that God does not exist, because by not existing there is nothing to relate to it, so there's nothing relevant to disproof of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Allow me to demonstrate by repeating what you said and altering it slightly.

There's no direct proof that God does exist, because by existing there's nothing to relate to it, so there's nothing relevant to 'disproof of it.'

Sorry if I wasn't very clear. It's an idea that's made up such that it has nothing to do with anything we know or can measure.

Just because someone makes it up to be conveniently able to not be provable or disprovable, that doesn't mean it exists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say "prove that God isn't communicating through sunshine". That's not the point. YOU who are suggesting that God is communicating through sunshine bear the burden of proving the truth of the statement. You came up with the idea, show us why it's true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great job of completely stealing the argument of the very intelligent and insightlful A&A.

I'm not stealing it, I'm paraphrasing. It's something done often in the scientific community.

But it works both ways.

You say God doesn't exist. Let's say no one has ever thought of that before. You came up with the idea, show me why it's true.

It doesn't work both ways. The burden of proof is on the positive. Lack of God is the "default," if you will, since nothing is assumed until there is evidence for it.

So regardless of whether people have always thought there's a God, you still have to prove it. Without proof or evidence, it cannot be considered to exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could sit around all day coming up with statements you can't directly disprove. For example:

-In the center of the galaxy there is a planet shaped like an eggshell, with only a crust and no core.

-There's a type of energy that floats all around us, but it is undetectable and doesn't interact with normal matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An idea similar to that second one's been suggested by Hawking. You believe Hawking, don't you?

No, I don't believe Hawking. I think it's an interesting hypothesis, but without evidence I won't consider it to be true, and I haven't read enough about the issue to form an opinion.

But, you are right, for once. You cannot prove any of those.

Nor can you prove God. Until evidence shows up, each is just a baseless hypothesis.

However, your argument against those who disagree with you applies to yourself, as well. You are drawing a conclusion from what you see. You cannot be certain, nor can you prove it.

I cannot be certain there is no God. I'm not drawing the conclusion that there is definitely no God. I am simply stating that there is no reason to believe there is one, because there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAVE FAITH!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. You are doing a great job at having faith in what you believe to be true. That's all any of us can do.

Forgive me, I forgot my [sarcasm] tags there.

I have faith in nothing. If you actually paid attention to anything I said, rather than looking for ways to attack me, you would understand this. You obviously have missed the point of everything I've said.

Having faith is not "all any of us can do," it's what we all must NOT do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no reason to believe these things, and indeed no reason to think they're even likely. We don't know that they aren't true, but based on what we do know, it would be highly unlikely, and doesn't really fit any of the facts we now possess.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, there is no reason, TO YOU. Believe what you want, but don't try to discount something because you just don't understand the reason why.

No reason to me, and no reason scientifically. Emperical evidence is the only valid reason, because it's the only thing which is actually known to be true.

And, the facts that we currently possess could be wrong. Some may be right. I believe physics to be fact. But you still cannot be sure.

Very true. But that doesn't mean that facts we don't possess have any validity.

Lots of things are highly unlikely. Who in the hell would have though that matter could exist as both a particle and a wave simulataneously? Who would have thought that, mathematically, you could have infinite mass and infinite energy?

Unlikely, bizarre, unexpected... but supported by empirical evidence. Nothing else matters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faith is absolute stupidity. It is strict adherence to ignorance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you've got a point there. You do a terrific job demonstrating that.

I've done nothing of the sort. I have faith in nothing, and I accept only that which is supported by evidence, and that which the evidence demonstrates.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God must be held to the same standards as any other hypothesis, and it does not stand up. That's all there is to it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is that?

Because the hypothesis of God is not special. Everything is subjected to the same scrutiny.

You change the very nature of sub-atomic particles simply by observing them. Doesn't that contradict with the scientific theory? How are you to know their true essence if you cannot observe them in their natural state?

I think it's widely admitted that our understanding of sub-atomic particles is poor at best.

I can respect most athiests. Their beliefs are their beliefs, and most are pretty smart guys. I like hearing what they have to say.

I don't have beliefs. In fact, I'm not actually an atheist; I am an agnostic. Atheism is faith that there is no God, which I do not have.

As for most being smart guys, that's because most base their opinions on empirical evidence... as I do.

You give them a bad name. You blindly follow what you hear, just like those you complain about.

Not so in the slightest. I base my opinions SOLELY on fact, and consider any other basis invalid. I do not blindly follow what I hear, but rather subject everything I "learn" to scrutiny.

I'm just much more vocal than many in my disapproval of the stupidity of faith and religion. Sorry if that ruffles your feathers, but I don't think religious beliefs deserve any special respect.

It doesn't make me a blind follower of anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a theory utterly devoid of any support, and thus, utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say that your theory is utterly devoid of any support, and thus, uttery devoid of any merit whatsoever.

Now, can you prove that it isn't?

I have no theory that God doesn't exist. I simply do not accept the theory that God does exist. I need prove nothing, but simply state there is no proof, and all else is dust and air.

Unless you're challenging the Scientific Method? Because that would simply be folly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, the facts should lead to the conclusion. The conclusion should be the last step of the process of analyzing information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. That's how it should be.

But, isn't a hypothesis jumping to a conclusion? Of course, if you find that your hypothesis is wrong, you change it, but still.

If you don't come to a conclusion beforehand, how are you to know what you're looking for?

True, a hypothesis is jumping to a conclusion to a certain extent, but it is doing so with the implicit intent that the hypothesis be shaped through the course of the study by the empirical evidence discovered.

Under the scientific method, one does not cling blindly to a hypothesis in absolute absence of supporting evidence, when all available evidence either has no bearing on the hypothesis or suggests other alternatives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rather than seeing how the facts explain your belief, you must instead follow the facts and see what they show you, have them lead you to determine the most likely reason for the facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good idea. Why do you constantly fail to follow your own advice?

I don't. I live by it. I don't even see where you base this comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE IDEA OF A GOD SURE AS HELL IS NOT LIKELY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say it is.

Well, that's all a matter of speculation, and I admit it. However, there is no evidence to support your side of the argument, and since your side is the positive, you bear the burden of proof, and in absence it defaults to my side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing we know suggests such a thing. Nothing we know supports such a thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. I know plenty that suggests that a god DOES exist.

Problem is, you won't accept it as something 'we know.'

No, I won't, unless it's empirical evidence. And I'm completely justified in that stance. You, however, are not justified in yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The closest you can come is to make excuses for how existing facts could fit under the dogma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or, perhaps you could come up with a whole new hypothesis.

I don't see the need. However, if one were suggested, I would analyze it based on its merits.

You're one of those ignorant athiests who thinks that the only way we think God could exist is how it's stated in the holy books, aren't you?

No, I never suggested that. What I mean is that the "holy" books are the only evidence of any sort for any sort of God, so the ways a God could exist that are not mentioned in "holy" books are even slightly more baseless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only "evidence" for God is a book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. I've seen some crazy shit when I've left my body.

When I eat mushrooms, the fact that I see flames and teardrops and patters dancing on my girlfriend's face doesn't mean they're there. It's just tricks of the mind, alterations in perception. It's certainly not empirical evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is any different from any other book: composed by man, written by man, translated by man, reproduced by man. There's no evidence that it is anything other than a storybook.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could find some evidence. But, you'd dismiss it.

I can't say for sure, but judging by the trend in your arguments, I probably would.

The Bible says that God decided to limit our lives to a maximum of 120 years.

Guess how long science has estimated that our bodies can last, naturally?

And people have lived longer than that.

I'm not saying every word written in the Bible is necessarily wrong. There may well be passages based on scientific reasoning. The existence of God does not fall under that category, however.

Science and/or observation may have shown, way back then, that humans are very unlikely to live beyond 120. Just because it's written that it was God's design doesn't make it so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Torah, Koran, and every other religious text is just the same. THEY ARE ALL WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you say. Perhaps you're right, perhaps not. But who made you the deciding force?

Nobody did. I'm just observing that they don't stand up to scientific standards. You can't really dispute that... though I'm sure you'll try, and I look forward to discrediting that argument as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion is absolutely baseless, so lack of directly disproving evidence is a moot point. There's just no reason to even consider it as being true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see no reason. Other people see reasons.

Oh, but their reasons don't count, right? They're just brainwashed and ignorant.

Yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one.

If their reasons aren't based on empirical evidence, they don't count. The fact that they're brainwashed and ignorant doesn't necessarily discredit their reasons; rather, it's more of a reason why they consider their reasons to be valid when they are not.



[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 09-11-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Be logical? But why in the world would you tell me to be logical when in fact you are not being logical.



How is inferring the best possible answer illogical?

quote:

You said that no God communicates with us,



I included the qualifier "Well at least not in any tangible, experienceable, unselective, unbiased, manifested method.".

quote:

but you do not have any facts to prove your point.



The lack of any "tangible, experienceable, unselective, unbiased, manifested method of Godcommunication" is case-in-point.

quote:

P.S. You and other posters on this thread have made the erroneous assumption that I believe that God exists.



I kind of suspected you were playing devil's advocate.

Ok, allow me to invoke the Principle of Sufficient reason.

Nothing can be true or real or existing unless there is sufficient reason to indicate so and not otherwise.

Now with that in mind, unless there is someone here claiming that there is a supernatural entity and it does directly communicate with people, then this discussion is finished since the side arguing for such a position consists of noone.

quote:I included the qualifier "Well at least not in any tangible, experienceable, unselective, unbiased, manifested method.".



No you did not. You may have included afterwards, but not in your original post. Do you really think that, if you had said that, I would still be arguing my case?

Let me quote the post in question:

quote:

And comparing the sun rising to a supreme being that happened to arbitrarily exist which created the universe and all the life contained within and yet shows no sign of existing indicating that it either doesn't exist or doesn't want people to know of it's existence is a rather flawed comparison.

We have logical reasons to think that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has done it every day for billions of years. This unseen godforce that eludes all means of detection, however, has quite the number of logical problems and paradoxes with it.

I say, if I am to accept something as real, it will have to be out of hard corroborative convincing evidence and not out of sheer ignorance

-------

quote: I kind of suspected you were playing devil's advocate

My argument has no need for belief, so why include it? You could say my argument "lacks a belief".... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote: unless there is someone here claiming that there is a supernatural entity and it does directly communicate with people, then this discussion is finished since the side arguing for such a position consists of noone.

You are arguing the opposite; that he does NOT. Hence the argument is totally viable and still on-going. If you are stating that you did clarify yourself. (By saying that you have no possible way of knowing it for certain) Then yes, the argument would have ended with your clarification, an acknowledgement of being wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You are arguing the opposite; that he does NOT. Hence the argument is totally viable and still on-going. If you are stating that you did clarify yourself. (By saying that you have no possible way of knowing it for certain) Then yes, the argument would have ended with your clarification, an acknowledgement of being wrong.

Let me clarify my final position on this matter so noone here will be considered wrong or to have knowledge they do not.

It is impossible to prove a negative so I don't claim that there is not a God attempting to communicate to people through absolute dead silence or what have you.

Sorry for any misconceptions that may have arisen for me not being concise on that point.

The fundamental difference between religion and science as I see it is this;

Religion is based on the belief that god created everything. All that religious people do is try to reinforce and prove what they already believe they know.

Scientists are trying to explain how the world works. Scientists come up with theories to explain the facts that they obtain from experimentation and study.

Religion starts with the answer and tries match all questions up to it. Science starts with questions and tries to find answers.

Now which sounds more logically sound to you?

Quantized, I couldn't have said it more perfectly.

right on Dark magneto, That is Sciences greatest strength. There are two approaches to solve things in the world... Science, and Religion. Science has been wrong alot......and I mean ALOT, but they corrected through studies things that were incorrect and now were still trying to correct and discover new things in how the world works. Religion is basically science in its early early stages, but because of the nature of religion, it really isn't in the position to change its beliefs, I personally think that religion tried to combine its original beliefs, which would be about how human's act and the morals that should be exercised, with things that had not been explained. If you imagine that you were in the time of Jesus for example, alot of things, laws and principles had not been discovered so people tried to look for an answer. So they took an easy approach and just said some easy explaination. Religion...the true heart of it, is all about the morals and how you should live. Not about how the world was made. Its the morals of a religious belief that counts.