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?
"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.
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 | 02:33 AM
”Getting back to the original comment, Akabilk said atheism is a belief system just like religion (emphasis mine). I say it isn't.”
You’re entitled to your opinion. Mine is that for some people atheism clearly is their religion, and they are as dogmatic and proselytising about it as any Baptist minister. I notice a lot of Christians disagree about whether other Christians are really Christian, and argue that their view of Christianity is exclusively the right one; I also notice a lot of atheists do the same. So that’s another point of similarity.
Atheism is clearly a religion in the sense of “a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by”, or occasionally “an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by”, for some people it is also a religion in the sense of “an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine”. But I do not believe it is a religion in the common parlance of an institutionalised and inflexible system of beliefs demanded of or espoused by individuals claiming to follow it. There’s no Atheist Church to excommunicate me for saying something against their doctrine.
“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).”
Because I already know some (Hood, Hamer, Newberg, Aquili, etc.), I would also dispute many of their conclusions. Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, however, I do not consider the converse position proved. In fact, the only published evidence (even if disputed) is against your position.
“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).”
Why is Ockham’s razor ‘common sense’? Why is a purely ‘common sense’ view even desirable? Why should we not multiply entities beyond necessity if it might allow us to arrive at a true conclusion that would otherwise be unreachable? How do we know what is a necessary amount of complexity before we have completely answered the question?
“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.”
You do not get to decide where the burden of proof lies for anyone but yourself. To assume that your opinion of where the burden of proof lies should be everyone’s is presumptuous. If you are going to claim that it should be then you will have to prove it.
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 | 02:44 AM
"Logic and reason are the enemies of religion. No one knew this better than the 16th century theologian Martin Luther."
Many other theologians did (and do) embrace reason, so to quote your own argument, "Who cares about the ones that didn't?"
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 | 03:11 AM
Akabilk wrote: "I didn't say "We know cats can be dead or alive" [thanks for the obvious]. Your circling the problem it presents."
It depends on your interpretation of Quantum Theory. In the many-worlds model, for instance, there is a live cat and a dead cat in mutually inaccessible universes. Assuming you are perfectly isolated from the cat, there remains one 'you', but when you open the box you split into two 'you's, dechoherent with each other and entangled with the particular live/dead cat you see in the box.
In fact that is a gross oversimplification. There are vastly more than two paths that can be taken by the experiment, so in fact a practically infinite number of cats and universes would result, fairly equally distributed between 'live-cat' and 'dead-cat'.
Of course, not all interpretations are that simple...
samba
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 | 10:39 AM
"...common sense dictates..."
Common sense doesn't exist,invoking common sense is an appeal to authority to lend weight to one's argument,but citing a non-existent authority is another logical fallacy.
Appeal to common sense is another way of saying 'What's obvious to me should be obvious to everyone'
If common sense did exist,I doubt it would dictate.It wouldn't need to.
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 | 04:24 AM
Actually, samba, it's an 'appeal to the majority', also called an argumentum ad populum or, ironically, an 'appeal to belief', perhaps best paraphrased as "The many believe it, hence it is so.".
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 | 04:46 AM
Personally, I base my atheism on a principle of sufficiency not unlike Ockham's. As a (former) scientist, I am used to working within the framework of methodological naturalism, which - in its broadest sense - assumes that all the effects in whatever you are studying are amenable to study.
Hence whatever your experiment, you assume that the effects in operation follow strict laws, even if they are stochastic ones. If they didn't, then studying it becomes pointless. In fact, that these laws can be suspended by some higher being becomes irrelevant (unless you can positively determine that it is happening in your experiment).
But methodological naturalism (the assumption that there are no supernatural effects at work in one specific case) is not philosophical naturalism (the assumption that there are no supernatural effects), and I don’t presume to extend my assumption as to what effects I see around me to apply to the universe at large.
I do not need to believe in gods to provide me with an explanation for anything I wish explained or meaning to anything I wish to understand the purpose of. I can accept that some things are unknown, and some unknowable, and not feel as though there must or should be a supernatural explanation.
Hence I reject the concept of gods because it has (for me) no utility, not because it has no validity.
David B. Member
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 | 04:48 AM
Incidentally, I can think of no greater 'violation' of Ockham's razor that the many-worlds interpretation of QM. I mean, if anyone but a physicist had said, "Okay, to understand this you need to first assume there are an infinite number of whole universes..."?!
David B. Member
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 | 05:33 PM
But let's for a moment go back to Captain Al's simile, which boils down to:
"Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
The clear implication is that since not collecting stamps isn't a recognisable hobby, atheism isn't a recognisable belief system. But is that true? Apart from being an appeal to ridicule, clearly it is not, as can be seen by simple a transformation.
"An atheist does not have a belief system like someone who does not collect stamps does not have a hobby."
The same relationships are present, but now the converse implication seems as ridiculous as the former one. The only possible conclusion is that "atheism is a belief system" is not like "not collecting stamps is a hobby". The analogy is invalid, and the epigram is worthless.
Annie
in ??
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 | 06:00 AM
Do You Believe This???
A girl went to her friends house and she ended up staying longer than
planned, and had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was a
small COMMUNITY and she lived only a few blocks away.
As she walked along under the bike trail Diane asked,
'God to keep her safe from harm and danger'.
When she reached the alley, which was a shortcut to her house,
she decided to take it. However, halfway down the alley she
noticed a man standing at the end as though he were waiting for her.
She became uneasy and began to pray, asking for 'God's protection'.
Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness and security
wrapped around her,
she felt as though someone was walking with her.
When she reached the end of the alley, she walked
right past the man and arrived home safely.
T he following day, she read in the newspaper that
a young girl had been raped,
in the same alley just twenty minutes after she had been there.
Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy and the fact
that it could have been her, she began to weep.
Thanking the Lord for her safety and to help this young woman,
she decided to go to the police station.
She felt she could recognize the man, so she told them her story.
The police asked her if she would be willing to look at
a lineup to see if she could identify him.
She agreed and immediately pointed out the man
she had seen in the alley the night before.
When the man was told he had been identified,
he immediately broke down and confessed.
The officer thanked Diane for her bravery and
asked if there was anything they could do for her.
She asked if they would ask the man one question.
Diane was curious as to why he had not attacked her.
When the policeman a sked him, he answered,
'Because she wasn't alone'.
She had two tall men walking on either side of her.'
Amazingly, whether you believe or not, you're not alone.
(people) will not stand up for 'God'.......
PS: God is always there in your heart and loves you no matter what
'If you deny me in front of your friends,
I shall deny you in front of my Father'
'STAND UP FOR HIM'
'93% of people wont pass this on.... Will you be one of them???'
Annie
in ??
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 | 06:05 AM
GOD
IF SOMEONE HAD A GUN HELD IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IN GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? SAY NO AND FEEL ASHAMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? OR SAY YES, I DO, AND DIE STANDING UP FOR GOD? IF YOU'D SAY NO, THEN DELETE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU WOULD SAY YES, AND STAND UP FOR JESUS CHRIST, PLEASE READ THIS AND PASS ON.
Note: This is a true article that was printed in a southern newspaper less then a year ago
TAKE A DEEP BREATH BEFORE READING THIS
There was an atheist couple who had a child. The couple never told their daughter anything about the Lord. One night when the little girl was 5 years old, the parents fought with each other and the Dad shot the Mom, right in front of the child. Then, the dad shot himself! The little girl watched it all. She then was sent to a foster home. The foster mother was a Christian and took the child to church. On the first day of Sunday School, the foster mother told the teacher that the girl had never heard of Jesus, and to have patience with her. The teacher held up a picture of Jesus and said, "Does anyone know who this is?" The little girl said, "I do, that's the man who was holding me the night my parents died."
If you believe this little girl is telling the truth that even though she had never heard of Jesus, he still held her the night her parents died, then you will forward this to as many people as you can.
Or you can delete it as if it never touched your heart.
Funny, isn't it?
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Funny how everyone wants to go to heaven provided they do not have to believe, think, say, or do anything the Bible says. (Or is it scary?)
Funny how someone can say "I believe in God" but still follow Satan (who, by the way, also "believes" in God).
Funny how you can send a thousand 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Funny how someone can be so fired up for Christ on Sunday, but be an invisible Christian the rest of the week. Not be able to forgive and forget!!! (Are you laughing?)
Funny how when you go to forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them.
Funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me. (Are you thinking?)
Pass this on only if you mean it.
Yes, I do Love God
Annie
in ??
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 | 06:19 AM
Oh yes...
and all you who dont beleive that god exists ill pray for you! ( yes I know that youre busiy laughing and you think that ist stupid to pray) but you know god loves you SO much!! I know youve heard alot of people say that but its true.. Just look around you ... look at a tree... mankind cant make something as little as a tree... what about a Flower and sand can we just go poof and ther will be Trees and Flowers and Animals? We as humans will never be able to understand how these things are possinble only god can ... an for those of you who beleive in scientists I found a little text on the innternet it would be great if Youd have aread through it :
were looking into the trajectories of known asteroids and meteors so we wouldn't send astronauts and satellites up only to have them bump into something. Satellite orbits have to be laid out in terms of where the heavenly bodies will be so that the whole thing won't become a head-on traffic collision." As they ran the calculations of the planets' positions back and forth over the centuries, "the computer stopped and put up a red flag. ... They called in the service department to check it out". When the technicians asked what the problem was, the operators replied "Well, the computer show's there's a day missing somewhere in elapsed time." After rechecking everything, the scientists "scratched their Educated Idiot Boxes."
Finally a religious member of the team suggested the answer might lie in the events recorded in the Book of Joshua. With some difficulty he persuaded the others to check out the possibility. When they did, they "found the explanation was close, but not close enough. The elapsed time in Joshua's day was only 23 hours and 20 minutes, not a whole day." Then the religious member recalled that in the Second Book of Kings, God makes the Sun go backwards ten degrees as a sign to King Hezekiah. "There was the whole twenty-four hours, the missing day that the space scientists had to make allowance for in the logbook."
I know most of you wont beleive this but... I hope you do !! God bless
