|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes: It's that a universe with a god is identical to a universe without a god. No God - no universe  Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes: I wasn't referring to the god of the old testament. I was referring to the god here and now. So far, I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that would suggest this omnipotent god would have any affect on the physical reality that I live in. This, of course, doesn't mean that god does not exist. It just means that so far the universe that I live in is identical to a universe that doesn't have a god. You have no way of knowing that. All we know is how things are. If God exists we have no idea what it would look like if He were to retire or resign. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes: Let me be more specific. Can you think of any single natural phenomenon that requires a miracle being to exist? Can you name one mathematical equation that describes a physical system that also has a variable "god" in there? If there is a god then all natural phenomenon and mathematical equations required the miracle of creation.
Taz writes: Again, I must go back to the immaterial pink unicorn. Suppose we are in a room. Someone comes up with the idea that there might be an immaterial pink unicorn standing in the room with us. What's the point of believing in its existence if there is no conceivable way we can detect this immaterial pink unicorn? It is apples and oranges. The discussion of whether Theism or Atheism is true is largely dependent on what we are to make of our world and the universe, of the fact that we have emotions and can make moral decisions etc. There is non-scientific evidence available and we can all come to our own conclusions about that non-scientific evidence. There is also a large body of people that do believe that there a god in one form or another exists. Nobody believes in immaterial pink unicorns. There is no evidence scientific or non-scientific for an immaterial pink unicorn. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes:
Would the mathematical formula used to indicate the time of the BB qualify.
Right, right. Can you give us the mathematical equation(s) that represent this miracle of creation?Taz writes: Are you trying to say that I'm a murderer and a rapist? No. I'm have no idea of why you would infer that I am. Being a Christian does not mean that I am ging to be a "better" person than my Atheistic next door neighbour.
Taz writes: GDR, just because a bunch of people are delusional doesn't necessarily make the delusion true. I've seen your posts enough to know you are well aware of this logical fallacy. Are you playing dumb or are you lying for your faith? I'm not saying that it does. However I am just making the point that if there is a latge percentage of people believe somrthing is true, it should be considered differntly than something that nobody believes is true. However, that in no way proves that it is correct. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: I don't see any particular reason to conflate gods with creation. Why can't we have gods poking their noses into a universe they didn't create? Whether there are other gods or not isn't really germane. All we are talking about is basic Theism which, as I see it implies an intelligence that is responsible for all that there is. By the way, as I'm originally from the Hat I figure that I'm close enough to be considered an honourary citizen of that province for yours for the weekend. Go Riders. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes: Then stop bring morality into this issue. GDR, just don't try to deny it. I've talked to enough christians to know this is essentially the crux of the matter everytime morality is brought into this issue, that atheists can't have any moral. Here is what I said.
GDR writes: The discussion of whether Theism or Atheism is true is largely dependent on what we are to make of our world and the universe, of the fact that we have emotions and can make moral decisions etc. How do you construe that to mean That I am making any judgement about your morals or anybody else's for that matter. I am just saying that people have a sense of morality. I repeat. My being a Christian does not necessarily make me a more moral person than my next door neighbour. How can I be more clear? This of course has absolutely nothing to do with my original point.
Taz writes: Then provide it and point to me where the miracle part is. The miracle part is, if my beliefs are correct, is that we have something instead of nothing. I attribute that to a prime mover for which we have no mathematical formula and no scientifc proof. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
bluegenes writes: What, exactly, is non-scientific evidence? The fact that there is something instead of nothing--that we have consciousness -- that we seem to have a moral code -- that we experience beauty etc. We can all draw our own conclusions.
bluegenes writes: "Free thinkers" recommend that people think for themselves, rather than following their parents and/or the predominant beliefs in the society around them. I'm all for free thinking but a free thinker can come to the same conclusions as their parents or their society.
bluegenes writes: Which gives them the same status as the Abrahamic God just before Abraham invented it. ---or before he was divinely inspired. If you don't believe that there is anything more than the material then of course you are going to believe that it was all human invention. However, he must have been a free thinker because here was this desert nomad who came up with something very different than the pagan societies that surrounded and dominated him. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes:
I'm not saying that it is something we know like we know the earth is round. We all work out what we believe makes the most sense of the world we experiemce. We have come to different conclusions. But this is just it. How do we know the "something instead of nothing" part isn't an inevitable thing? Also, how is this not GOTG? I think the GOTG thing is way over used. We don't at this point know why there is something instead of nothing. Is it a gap? Sure. I fill it with God and you fill it with the natural and say that someday science may figure it all out. Take your pick. GOTG or SOTG. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
bluegenes writes:
Just how do you examine morals scientifically.? As far as I know no one has ever seen a moral under a microscope. Even if it could all be explained through genetics that would only show how it works it wouldn't explain why it exists at all.
There being something is just evidence that there's something. Consciousness, morals and the experience of beauty can be examined scientifically, although they're all complicated. Having morals isn't surprising.bluegenes writes:
Humans perform many altruistic acts that aren't in their own best interests. ie. why do we as individuals send money to 3rd. world countries? I don't disagree with what you say about animals.
They're behaviour standards that are advantageous in a social species. There are other animals that will look after each other. bluegenes writes: What thought processes made you pick out Christianity from the pile of religions and philosophies you could have chosen, and how old were you when you did this, may I ask? To be honest I don't want to go through the fairly lengthy process that brought me to the point I'm at today. I accepted Christianity at the age 0f 35, but actually as I've learned more my faith has changed considerably from where it was at 35.
bluegenes writes: You wouldn't have to believe that there is nothing more than the material to make an educated guess that Abraham's God was an invention. As humans are always inventing Gods, pick any one at random and the chances are it's an invention. That's fine. I don't disagree. In spite of that however, I do believe that God did single out Abraham to lead a people to be his messengers to the world.
bluegenes writes:
So different? A God who might want a human sacrifice? A God who would want people tortured to death for working on his Sabbath? A jealous God who wants the wholesale slaughter of people (and their children) if they turn to worshipping other Gods? A God who would wipe out all but one family of a species he created in a flood for being evil, without saving the blameless children? I just went through a long discussion about this with Taz. http://EvC Forum: Pick and Choose Fundamentalism -->EvC Forum: Pick and Choose Fundamentalism I don't believe those accounts reflect who God is. I've used this a few time, but it is short. Here is a quote from CS Lewis.
CS Lewis writes: Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology - the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: There simply is no "required" relationship between gods and creation. We have no way of absolutely knowing if that is the case or not. As I have said we can look at the world and come to our own conclusions. We have come to different conclusions. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Crashfrog writes: So, how well did filling gaps with God work out, in the past? Just fine. Science has effectively worked out things like a round Earth, genetics, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics etc. Science works out the way things are and in some cases how they became to be that way, but it doesn't answer the question of why things are the way they are.
Crashfrog writes: I'm asking you to compare, historically, the accuracy of both of those presumptions - the first that something would never be explained by science, and the second that something eventually would be explained by science. When Christians used the Bible as a science text it didn't work well at all.
crashfrog writes: The reason that it's so much more reasonable to fill gaps with the presumption of scientific explanation is because, in the past, that's always turned out to be true. God of the Gaps has never, ever been true. Science answers different questions. Take abiogenesis for example. Let's say that science can discover how various elements came together to create the first cellular life. That still won't answer the question of whether it was caused or just happened. It's the same with the BB. No matter how much we find out about it scientifically we can still only come to our own conclusions about 1st cause. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Taz writes: See, this is the number one misconception about people like me. I don't fill the gaps with science. I don't fill the gaps with the natural. I see it as nothing more than gaps. Why? Because I'm honest with myself. That's fair enough and although I know I said otherwise I believe I do the same. I see no contradiction betwen science and Christianity, both fascinate me. See my answer to Crash by the way. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ringo writes: What I'm saying is that SINCE we have no way of knowing for sure, any conclusion about such a "requirement" is just made up in our heads. Similarly, if somebody decided that God must wear size 11 shoes, that would be just made up in their head. You completely discount the possibility of divine revelation. I do believe it exists and on a very small level I believe I have experienced it. Can I prove it? No. Do I believe I can convince any of you? No.
Ringo writes: And, as I have said, some of those conclusions are based on reality and some are just made-up fantasies. The idea that existence requires a creator is made-up fantasy. Obviously we fundamentally, (if you'll excuse the expression) disagree. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
