Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange Jan 12, 2005
Think and Reason is offering $1,000,000 if you can prove that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: "All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"
Is there really this money sitting waiting?
Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
Where's the proof that proof is possible?Consistant results?How could consistent results prove that the cosmos is chaotic and accidental? If the cosmos is random,how would consistent laws be derived by us infinitesimal humans using sets of symbols we invented? If we didn't invent math and logic,how do they arise from chaos? This is not an argument for or against the proof of God. These are fundamental questions that I don't think science can answer. Complexity theory may be able to deal with such questions eventually. Despite the cosmological constant looking pretty good right now,much of the standard model of the universe is unlikely to survive dark matter/energy and will look absurd in a generation or two just as geological gradualism which was once treated as settled looks now. We know a lot more than we once did,but of the total possible knowledge,we have such a miniscule fraction that it's absurd for anyone to claim they know what's true,what's possible,what's likely ,or anything of the sort.
Are you suggesting those who dismiss the idea of supreme being need to prove it? Archaeological and anthropological evidence seems to indicate the human race has existed in its present form for at least 80,000 years. If some uneducated goat herders suddenly start worshipping a deity for the last 2,000 of those years, then I'd say the burden of proof is on them.
Logically speaking, one can never disprove the existance of anything. However, we can assign a level of probability to things. Since this "god" of theirs has never shown itself and world events of the past 4.5 billion years have been happening in exactly the same way we would expect on a world with no "god", the level of probablility is essentially zero.
Akabilk
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 | 12:41 PM
Atheism is a belief system just like religion. An Atheist is saying "there is no God". That's statement of unproven fact. Archaeological and anthropological evidence 'proves' no such thing.
What it does prove that mankind is 'wired' with an innate belief in a God in one form or another.
Well at least for 99.9% of humans throughout history. Why?
Sorry, atheism is NOT a belief system. How can it be? You don't have to do or believe anything. To use my favorite example, it would be like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Everyone is born atheist. For most people, the idea of a god has to be planted in their head. Until then you have no system. The rest are those devious types who figured out how to manipulate the masses for their own personal gain by claiming to have some form of privileged connection with a god. That system has worked quite well down through the ages. It's more commonly known as organized religion.
"Archaeological and anthropological evidence 'proves' no such thing."
That's correct. Like I said, the evidence seems to indicate that homo sapiens have been around for about 80,000 years. This figure may change as new evidence becomes available.
"What it does prove that mankind is 'wired' with an innate belief in a God in one form or another."
Where is the evidence for this? Throughout history Gods were a common assumption for phenomena that couldn't otherwise be explained. These gods were replaced as scientific knowledge advanced. And even if your statement were true it would not prove the existance of a god.
samba
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 | 12:08 AM
"Everyone is born atheist" "For most people, the idea of a god has...."
Please provide some evidence ( I'm not even asking for proof ,just evidence) for your contention that you know what "EVERYONE" thinks at birth,and for your contention that you know the empirical process by which most people arrive at ideas about wether there is or isn't a god. Does this include everyone who has ever lived,and ever will live,or most of them? You make references to logic,but in citing everyone,and most people as authorites you construct false syllogisms. This type of logical fallacy is called an Ad Populum ie. Appeal to Popularity.
Because you cite false authority,your assertions are not testable ,therefor you are essentially asking that they be accepted on faith.Beleif systems have been known to inhabit this territory.
I would call atheism a belief system because it is based on the belief of the atheist that he or she has enough information to draw a conclusion about what is possible and/or probable in a universe that appears to be unimaginably vast and complex.
If someone says they have no reason to believe or don't have enough information to know if there is a God,that's significantly different than one claiming to know that no deity exists,or can exist.
I've never seen a cancerous tumor,I'm surrounded by gullible people who believe tumors exist-if they do ,why haven't I seen one? This is another logical fallacy.
I am not arguing for or against a deist or nondiest postion. I do think those who claim to base their statements on logic should employ logic.
David B. Member
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 | 08:58 AM
Captain Al wrote: "Sorry, atheism is NOT a belief system."
Yes it is, but it is not a religion.
"it would be like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby"
No, it would be like saying not collecting stamps is an activity. The empty set is still a set.
"Everyone is born atheist."
[citation needed], and irrelevant. We are not born able to speak or walk, but it is still our natural condition to do so.
"Please provide some evidence [that people are born atheist]"
Start with yourself. Did you know there was a god before someone told you? I didn't and I have never met anyone who said so. In fact I have never heard even the most vocal religious person ever claim such a thing. Of course that is not proof but I'm sure at some point I would have heard about it. And if we all were born with a knowledge of a god, why do we need Sunday School and those religious books written for children? You must have seen them. Why do they have to introduce us to "the Lord" if we already know?
"Because you cite false authority,your assertions are not testable ,therefor you are essentially asking that they be accepted on faith."
No. I ask that they be accepted on evidence or lack thereof. The idea that people are born atheist IS testable. One could isolate newborns, raising them until they mature and then question them about any deities. Of course no legitimate scientific organization would allow that type of testing but it is testable. Religions and gods were invented by men, that we know. Those who claim the existance of invisible sky-daddies who watch out for us despite the millions of deaths from floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc, are the ones who need to provide the evidence for them, not me. Until that time, we can say that the probablility of existance is so low as to be nonexistant, the same as we do with Santa Claus, unicorns, tooth fairies and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ramen.
"Yes it is, but it is not a religion."
If someone knows nothing about gods or religion they would be atheist. How would that be a belief system? They wouldn't have any opinion about it one way or the other. Now that's not to say some atheists who know about gods that others believe in could not be passionate in their disbelief but it doesn't have to be that way.
"No, it would be like saying not collecting stamps is an activity. The empty set is still a set."
So you are saying everyone who has ever lived or ever will live is a stamp collector? Interesting. I guess that makes us all bank robbers too. It's just that some people have robbed more banks that the rest of us. When was the last time you answered, "What are you doing?" with, "I'm not collecting stamps".
David B. Member
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 05:17 AM
Either you don't understand set theory, or your deliberately misrepresenting what I said (strawman) because it undermines your argument.
You have a set of beliefs, they may not include any beliefs relating to the existence of gods so could be described as atheistic, but it is still both a set and a system of beliefs.
In fact it appears that you believe that there are no such things as gods, which would distinguish you from the passive atheism of someone who had not been exposed to the concept.
In your case, then, atheism is a belief system like criticising stamp collecting is a hobby.
David B. Member
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 06:22 AM
The claim that atheism is the default position is an assertion that you can't support with proof, which would appear to make it an article of faith on your part. As an argument it is deeply flawed on several levels.
1. It is an example of a naturalistic fallacy. You are concluding that something is desirable (i.e. ought to be) from the ‘fact’ that it is. But you cannot derive an ought from an is, the former is prescriptive, the latter descriptive. Hence this is an example of a category error.
c.f.
W. J. Samuels, “You Cannot Derive ‘Ought’ From ‘Is’” - Ethics vol. 83.2 (1973).
M. Black, “The Gap Between 'Is' and 'Should” - The Philosophical Review vol. 73.2 (1964).
2. It is a non-sequiter. It is entirely plausible that spirituality or a sense of divine is hardwired into our brains. If this were to turn out to be so, would you reverse your position on atheism and become a theist because that would now be ‘the default position’? If atheism’s only support is that newborn infants exhibit it then the idea is, quite literally, puerile.
3. It is not supported by the weight of evidence. The anthropological evidence seems to indicate that all human societies exhibit a belief in some form of god or gods. You indicate that this is just a stop-gap explanation for the unexplainable, but that doesn’t answer why groups that have been isolated for upwards of 50,000-60,000 years have arrived at such similar stop-gap explanations.
Nor is the human brain some Tabula Rasa waiting to be filled with idea, in fact it is known to be preconfigured for many very abstract concepts. Children have been shown to have genetic predisposition to understand ideas like ownership or the distinction between living and dead (F. Keil, “The Origins of Autonomous Biology” – Modularity and Constraints in Language and Cognition vol. 25 (1992)), and similar predispositions have been identified for Dennett’s intentional stance (N. Humphrey, “The Adaptiveness of Mentalism” – Behavioural and Brain Sciences vol. 3 (1983); A. Leslie, “Pretense, Autism and the Theory-of-Mind Module” – Current Directions in Pyschological Science vol. 1 (1992)).
In the end, claims to the end that your beliefs are somehow special and distinct from other people’s are no more desirable or defendable in an atheist than in a theist or deist. That some atheists apparently hold to a set of myths and ‘sacred truths’ to no less an extent that any Christian, Muslim or Buddhist severely undermines the argument that atheism is not a religion, since that is pretty much the definition of one.
Atheism is a belief system that does not include the concept of a god or gods. As such it is as unconstitutional to promote atheism in school (in the US) as it is to promote Christianity. Science is not atheist, nor does it require atheism to practise. Science does not support atheism, and attempts to conclude atheism from scientific studies are non-scientific. While an individual claim about a god may be scientifically testable, most are not. Hence a claim that God is making a particular statue weep blood is subject to confirmation, a claim that God made Mrs. Biggleswade’s lottery numbers come up is not.
David B. Member
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 06:23 AM
”Since this "god" of theirs has never shown itself and world events of the past 4.5 billion years have been happening in exactly the same way we would expect on a world with no "god", the level of probablility is essentially zero.”
A classic example or ‘ought’ from ‘is’. Your proof that no god affected the past 4.5 billion years of events is that the past 4.5 billion years of events happened. How do you know that no god had a hand in it? How would you even prove that no god interfered?
“Rewind the tape of life to the early history of multicellular forms, and you get a whole different set of solutions every time--most of which, although equally explainable, do not include the origin of any self-conscious creature to have conferences like this.” – Stephen J. Gould.
A vast amount of our ‘godless’ explanations of the past 4.5 billions of years of events rely on an inordinate amount of randomness; we conclude that this variation is random because we can discern no pattern in it. This is equally a ‘common assumption’ for phenomena we can’t otherwise explain, it is a mistake to think otherwise.
samba
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 08:17 AM
Start with yourself -
OK. I was raised as an atheist-didn't encounter religion until age 5 when I was told people believed in God because they were afraid .I still find it very odd how many professed religious people believe things not supported by the scriptures they claim (male deity ,Just war ,for examples) Just as I find it odd how many people who claim scientific knowlegde profess beliefs not suopprted by logic,or peer reveiwede falsifiable data .My own interest in what might be called the transpersonal has nothng to do with western religion ,which seems ,esp historically,to mostly be a tool for political control. I have had the experience of remembering my consciousness coming into the womb.,and that consciousness was numinous I have also had near death experiences with the same numinous awareness Nothing to do with a Hairy Thunderer,heaven/hell sin/redemption (or whatever simplistic reductionist duality one prefers to filter thing through). I neither believe ,or disbelive in God as an objective reality in a cusal chain. I experience the entire cosmos as being consciousness .I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone that they should believe or disbelive any particular thing-but my experience does not support the view you propound.Your experience may be evidence,if so mine is too. So far,I see no reason to accept the notion that your experience is universal. Have you gone through som esort of focuses process to recover preverbal memories?.
"And if we all were born with a knowledge of a god, why do we need Sunday School... "
Why do we need to teach children to talk? The innate capacity doesn't develop in the so called wolf children,who aren't raisd by animals or exposed to human speeh,Apprently the window is small and if speech isn;t developed during the critical period ,it is very difficult for the feral child to learn.
Of course you realize that in many human societies floods, earthquakes, tsunamis,hurricanes were used as proof of the existance of gods/God.
"Your proof that no god affected the past 4.5 billion years of events..."
I never said I had proof. Now who's making a strawman? I said the past 4.5 billion years happened just the way we would expect it to if there was no god. Strictly speaking, of course we cannot prove any god did or did not affect the past but as humans we can use our power of reasoning to determine a level of probability. Like the classic example of the teapot in orbit on the opposite side of the sun from earth. Of course we cannot prove it absolutely doesn't exist but no one seriously believes it is there especially since we know the idea was just made up.
"The claim that atheism is the default position is an assertion that you can't support with proof"
I didn't offer proof but luckily I don't have to. Once again we can use our powers of reasoning. Since the concept of gods was invented by humans it would be up to these people to show otherwise. That is why being born atheist must be the default position. If you know of any gods that have always existed and could make new born babies non-atheist, please let me know.
So Dave if you wish to nitpick and split hairs about what defines a stamp collection and what doesn't you are free to do so but I have no desire to spend my days off debating it with you. It's a total waste of time. If you have no stamps and have no intention of getting any, you are not a stamp collector. Again, technically, you might say a set of zero stamps is still a set of stamps but who the hell cares? For everyday practical purposes, it isn't. The same goes for gods. Until they are proven, they don't exist. If societies that have been isolated for thousands of years develop religions, that in no way helps their argument. Those ideas came later and so appear to be merely a common by-product of other human characteristics [sorry, no citation available].
Getting back to the original comment, Akabilk said atheism is a belief system just like religion (emphasis mine). I say it isn't. Akabilk said there is proof humans are "wired with an innate belief in a God in one form or another". I say they are not (and I noticed David didn't ask for a citation for Akabilk's statement). The religious have been making up stories about gods for thousands of years but until the question of religion's validity is settled, common sense dictates we stick with known entities and not invoke unproven new ones (Occam's Razor). Akabilk said atheists need to provide proof there is no god. I say they don't. The burden of proof lies solely with those who make the claim.
Akabilk
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 12:57 PM
Commonsense? Reasoning?
Get a grip I say Captain Al. Back in time you would have (definitely) been a flat-earther with your logic and 'reasoning'!
No teapots circling planets so no gods? Wow, that settles it then doesn't it? 'Babies born atheist by default'. So politically, are they born left or right wing by default? Gay or Hetero?
And if they end up being wired as a natural musician or sports sensation, because they didn't know it when they were babies, it's wasn't true?
Yep Captain Al, your a mountain of reasoning and logic. Did you know that existed in you as a baby?
A long time ago common sense and reasoning was used to figure out the earth is not flat. Its a marvelous thing. You should give it a try sometime.
Today, in the 21st century, educated societies do not need gods to explain the unknown. They just keep on looking harder for the real answers. Unfortunately many people such as yourself have been left behind by advances in technology and they still need their supernatural beings to explain things they can't comprehend. Don't worry about it, it's not your fault. Keep on using your computer and the internet. It still works even if you don't know how and need to attribute its apparent magical capabilities to a god.
samba
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 05:33 PM
"Until they are proven, they don't exist."
Through this sort of application of 'our power of reasoning' one could conclude that before Magellan circumnavigated the globe,the world was flat-it's roundness didn't exist until it was proven.
So did micro-organisms exist before the invention of the microscope? They weren't proven until they were seen,counted measured classified etc. There certainly were people who belived in tiny invisible creatures before the discovery of micro-organisms-though they probably had something else in mind. There were certainly rationlists who found the idea of tiny beasties absurd-obviously not true,if they existed you could see them.There were scientists who refused to look in Gallileo's telescope-you could see the Sun revolving around earth.
I can't see any evidence of Dark Matter,black holes,dark energy or 11 dimensions-as far as I know the only evidence of 11 dimensions is mathmatical models showing it's possible. There are also mathmatical models showing time moving in several directions,the possibility of bi-location and all sorts of 'spooky action at a distance'.
Akabilk
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 08:02 PM
Considering what's real and what isn't,lets not forget Quantum physics [illusion or reality?]. Scientists know what it isn't, but not what it is.
It shouldn't exist and like the Copenhagen interpretation for it, we are left with the conclusion of the 'Schrödinger's Cat' problem: Until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive!
All things considered about the universe we don't know and some of the unexplainable things we do know, it's to early to make grandiose claims about God not existing.
Samba said:
"Through this sort of application of 'our power of reasoning' one could conclude that before Magellan circumnavigated the globe,the world was flat-it's roundness didn't exist until it was proven."
Educated people knew the world was round long before Magellan so try to pick examples that show you have a least a basic grasp of the topic. But since you brought it up, it was the application of logic and reason that showed the flat-earthers were wrong. And you have a problem with this?
"So did micro-organisms exist before the invention of the microscope?"
Obviously they did but before the microspope was invented no one went to war over the issue. The idea of micro-organisms is not all that far-fetched so no one could say one way or the other. That's logic and reason at work. Propose an idea and then figure out a way to confirm or deny it.
"There were scientists who refused to look in Gallileo's telescope"
So what? Many others did. That's what any scientifically curious person would do. Who cares about the ones that didn't?
Akabilk said:
"Schrödinger's Cat' problem: Until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive!"
We know cats can be dead or alive so there's no great problem with whatever answer turns out to be right. But for a god, no one has ever produced any concrete evidence. That's the difference you don't seem to understand.
What is all boils down to is not all claims deserve equal consideration. We can use our powers of logic and reason to filter out the absurd from the "might be possible". It saves a lot of time. This doesn't rule out the absurd, it just means they require more stringent evidence to make them seem possible. If that evidence never appears then perhaps it wasn't a good idea to begin with.
We don't know if gods exist and given what science has learned the idea is quite far-fetched. We have been waiting for thousands of years and no proof has been provided so we consider the probablility very low especially since we have discovered natural explanations for many of the things once credited to them.
"it's to early to make grandiose claims about God not existing."
And when is a good time? Do we have to wait for another couple of thousand gods to be invented before people finally understand they've been had?
I love how you use the word grandiose when referring to claims about God not existing. You have the logic backwards. Remember, it is the religious that must prove their gods exist since they are the ones making the claim. But be careful here. You wouldn't want to use any logic or reason. You might not like what you find. Logic and reason are the enemies of religion. No one knew this better than the 16th century theologian Martin Luther. Here are some quotes from him:
"Reason is the greatist enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the devine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
I can certainly see why you don't want to have anything to do with logic and reason.
Akabilk
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 10:28 PM
No, no, matey,
I didn't say "We know cats can be dead or alive" [thanks for the obvious]. Your circling the problem it presents.
I said dead AND Alive! I don't expect you to know much about the subject, but look up the problems with Quantum physics.
Apart from that, your augment of 'reason' has completely lost the plot!
samba
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 | 11:30 PM
Capt Al you remind me of some Christians I've met who claim to believe in Jesus,but don't practice his teachings. You claim to believe in Logic and Reason,but then make statements that are not thoroughly reasoned.
I don't really know why you don't understand that what I have a problem with is your statement:
"Until they are proven, they don't exist"
I provided examples that empiracly cast doubt on that assertion.
A more reasonable statement would be something like'until they are proven it's difficult to draw a conclusion' or 'we don't have enough data to know'
The ones who refused to look through Gallileo's telescope are examples of people who think they already have enough information to decide what is possible and what isn't,and won't accept that anyone else might discover anything that isn't 'obvious'.
Remeber ,I'm not making claims for or against gods/God, I'm critiquing your claim that your statements are 'logical' and not expressions of belief.
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 | 02:28 AM
"I said the past 4.5 billion years happened just the way we would expect it to if there was no god."
My mistake, I misread your post as saying "Since this "god" of theirs has never shown itself in world events of the past 4.5 billion years". Point withdrawn.
"I said the past 4.5 billion years happened just the way we would expect it to if there was no god."
Now all you have to do is prove that assertion, Otherwise it's just an assumption. And no, pointing to a few scientific principles won't cut it. There is neither scientific proof that any current or future understanding of science is sufficient to completely explain the past 4.5 billion years of event nor will there ever be.
"as humans we can use our power of reasoning to determine a level of probability"
Determine? I'd love to see your working out.
"I didn't offer proof but luckily I don't have to."
Yes you do. Your claim (and it is yours) is that atheism is the default position, now it's up to other people to prove it isn't? You have no proof it is the default position, yet you repeat the assertion because it is a dogma of your belief system.
"Since the concept of gods was invented by humans it would be up to these people to show otherwise."
Invented or discovered? Since you claim the former, prove it rather than assert it.
"If you have no stamps and have no intention of getting any, you are not a stamp collector."
Similarly, I have no belief in God and no intention of getting any, I am not a Christian. This, while generally true, says nothing about whether or not I have a belief system.
"The same goes for gods. Until they are proven, they don't exist."
So you repeatedly assert. Yet why? Because you say so? Because it is your belief that this is correct? You are saying that your way is right and that everybody else should abide by it, but do not feel constrained to prove it. Your espoused philosophy is provided by fiat as much as any fundamentalists'.
"If societies that have been isolated for thousands of years develop religions, that in no way helps their argument. Those ideas came later and so appear to be merely a common by-product of other human characteristics [sorry, no citation available]."
If by "appear to be" you mean "can be tentatively concluded as", then that gods are a common by-product of other human characteristics is indicative that they are part of the human condition and are wired into our brains. c.f. Noam Chomsky and universal grammar.
If by "appear to be" you mean "look it, but are not", that that is just another assertion that you believe without proof because it otherwise conforms to your world-view. You claim atheism isn't a belief system and only requires you not to believe that gods exist, yet have paraded a range of other beliefs directly arising from or supportive of that one. So you appear to have a system of beliefs associated with atheism of which a core one is that there are no gods.
You have the concept of gods, and you reject it by intention. That is not 'no belief in gods', that is 'belief in no gods.