Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 9:26 PM
324 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,877 Year: 25,483/21,208 Month: 1,110/2,338 Week: 231/450 Day: 51/52 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 3020
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 316 of 377 (721155)
03-04-2014 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
03-03-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
You do not seem to know much of what you speak about. I think we should start with the basics:

Eliyahu writes:

You really think that if you cannot see it, then it doesn't exist??

I don't think you understand.
I totally agree that just because we cannot see something then this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

However... if we look for something where it is supposed to be and cannot find it... ever... then this is evidence that it doesn't exist.

Do you understand this concept?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 12:54 AM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 317 of 377 (721169)
03-04-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Either it was pure chance or it was intelligent design. Do you see other possibilities?

Impure chance, unintelligent design, or some combination of these four.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 318 of 377 (721172)
03-04-2014 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Another Quote Mine
You might want to find out what "the anthropic principle" means, and then use other words to describe what it is you want to talk about.

Re your quote mine:

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Also: "Let us win the war for Nazism and then exterminate the inferior Jewish race. Heil Hitler!" --- Werner von Braun (my paraphrase). Just 'cos he was a rocket scientist doesn't mean he was right about everything. If he had any good arguments for theism, feel free to reproduce them. If not, I am hardly likely to start believing in God just on the say-so of a Nazi war criminal.

And similar remarks apply to your other quotes. True, most of the others weren't Nazis and didn't work thousands of Jews to death as half-starved slave laborers. Good for them. And yet I know nothing so positive about them that would impel me to believe in God just on their say-so. If they had actual arguments for the existence of God, now would be a great time to produce them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 319 of 377 (721173)
03-04-2014 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
03-03-2014 11:59 PM


Borel
A mathematician, Borel, calculated that the probability of something happening that has a chance of happening of only 1 in 10^50, is zero, meaning, something with odds of 1 in 10^50, will never happen:

Thing is, this is a lie. Borel was, as you say, a mathematician, and therefore never claimed to have "calculated" anything so repulsively mathematically illiterate.

You can prove that it's not true yourself. Take a pack of cards and shuffle them thoroughly. The chances of you getting that particular outcome is 1 in about 8 * 10 ^ 67. If the creationist lie was true, you have just done something "that will never happen". But it did.

Perhaps you could base your arguments on something that isn't obviously a lie. Or perhaps not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 12:57 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5101
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 320 of 377 (721175)
03-04-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Gosh the Anthropic Principle, I wonder if anyone has thought of an answer to that one?

Does it also prove that it's the Jewish God that created the universe and the ever so faulty foreskin?

You're terribly fond of the quote mine too. As you're so good at it, why don't you save us the trouble of quoting all the other guys that say the opposite - you can even get them wrong too if you like.

Thing is, no-one is impressed with anything other than evidence and argument - why not have a bash at that instead of the nonsense your spurting at the moment?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1802
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 321 of 377 (721204)
03-05-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Again, you forgot to mention that

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…

"God is no longer necessary."

Why did you not mention this about Hawking? Why do you try to mislead people about Hawking?

Let's give you a hint or two:

1. Using a logical fallacy such as an argument from authority tends to give others the idea that you can't think locically and also that you are either uneducated or not very intelligent.
2. When trying to use an argument from authority, make sure that the authority you use actually agrees with what you claim. If you don't do that it makes you look rather dishonest or unintelligent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 1:14 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1802
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 322 of 377 (721205)
03-05-2014 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
quote:
Either it was pure chance or it was intelligent design. Do you see other possibilities?
You’re providing a false dilemma. An informal logical fallacy.

Catholic Scientist provided you with a few other possibilities:

quote:
Impure chance, unintelligent design, or some combination of these four.

Another possibility:
Brahma sat on a lotus arising from the navel of Vishnu, who was resting on the cosmic serpent, Ananta (Shesha). The cosmic sepent died in the meantime.

Another one it that it was naturally formed the way because it can’t be any different. Another one is that it could have happened through a currently unknown process.

What nobody claims is that it was formed by ‘pure chance’ alone. That’s where you were dishonest and where the rest of your post is of no value.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1802
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 323 of 377 (721206)
03-05-2014 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
03-03-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Oh, and I forgot to reply to this one:

Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe.

Nope. That is an argument for a deist God existing more than 14 billion years ago. That's it.

It's defiitely not an argument for a personal God existing today.

If such a personal God existed then, it seems as if it has disappeared somewhere between 14.5 billion years ago and today.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 1:27 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 324 of 377 (721229)
03-05-2014 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Stile
10-15-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Do you know
Stile, responding to ringo writes:

Can you broaden my scope?
We're talking about God existing. So far throughout history we've checked wherever we can when people have made a testable proposal of where God might exist.
If we have checked all testable proposals, wouldn't you say that we have broadened our scope sufficiently to rationally say that "I know God does not exist?"

Which brings up the question of whether or not we can test other peoples subjective experiences.

An example of this context is being a member of a search party...a research team...or a group of explorers. The group does have advanced scientific detection instruments of course, (they are exploring a new planet) but they are also ordered to report what it is that their own senses perceive and to include this in a general group report. There are seven group members. The data is inconclusive regarding individual reports. Occasionally, some will report seeing or hearing something, but not everyone sees nor hears it. Occasionally, some may report feeling something...(inconclusive as to which sense was used...unless we allow for a sixth sense.) One fact remains. There are times when not every member of the team agrees on data.

One likely place that believers would have for finding God would be in their own heart and soul. This is, of course, highly subjective.

Another place would be in literature. Also subjective to the authors. Now...if one were to propose that the Bible was written by God through humanity, would the argument then evolve to the idea that God is subjective unto Himself?

Stile,responding to ringo writes:

...We know everything we know because it is part of our data set and we can make rational conclusions about the analysis.
We are likely wrong about a great many things we think we know. But that's never stopped us from saying we know them before, and it won't in the future.
But the only thing that will stop us from saying we know them... is actually finding more data to add to our data set. Irrational statements have no effect.

In a sense, our discussions add slowly to the data. We are the members of that search team.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Stile, posted 10-15-2012 12:02 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Stile, posted 03-06-2014 10:24 AM Phat has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3020
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 325 of 377 (721290)
03-06-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Phat
03-05-2014 11:55 AM


Re: Do you know
Phat writes:

Which brings up the question of whether or not we can test other peoples subjective experiences.

Not really.
I think the question is whether or not you think "people's subjective experiences" are worth testing.

...when we're not even sure if we can test them.
...and we know that they are generally unreliable.
...and there is lots of actual, normal evidence.

Say we were wondering if anything else existed. What would you look for?
People's subjective experiences would be great for getting you started. Then you'd look into their stories and see what you find.
What if you never found anything substantive?
What if most of humanity searched for thousands of years and still never found anything substantive?

Isn't this the situation we have for God?

It doesn't mean God absolutely does not exist. Such a thing may not be possible to show.
It does, however, mean that "all the available evidence" is pointing towards God not existing.

Then it's up to you to decide if this is the sort of thing you want to "follow the evidence" for... or go your own personal route on.

There's nothing "wrong" with either answer.
But it's only honest to acknowledge what's going on and what we're doing.

The data is inconclusive regarding individual reports. Occasionally, some will report seeing or hearing something, but not everyone sees nor hears it. Occasionally, some may report feeling something...(inconclusive as to which sense was used...unless we allow for a sixth sense.) One fact remains. There are times when not every member of the team agrees on data.

Sounds quite similar to all the original (and ongoing) stories about God.
But it's not like we just heard these things and that's all we have.
We've double-checked, triple-checked... and millionth-checked. Always... nothing substantive.
We've searched for thousands of years... still nothing substantive.

The evidence exists, and there's LOTS of it. The only question is whether or not you want to follow it.

In a sense, our discussions add slowly to the data. We are the members of that search team.

I agree.
And, after all our discussion (for thousands of years, even) we still have... nothing substantive for God existing.

The data for this conclusion is overwhelming. The question isn't whether or not the data is reliable or exists... the question is only whether or not you want to accept the conclusion that the evidence is pointing towards.

As long as you base your "knowledge" on evidence... then you can say "I know that God does not exist" as much as you can say that you know anything else based on evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Phat, posted 03-05-2014 11:55 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:05 AM Stile has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9891
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 326 of 377 (721448)
03-07-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Stile
03-06-2014 10:24 AM


Do humans even want God by nature?
The data for this conclusion is overwhelming. The question isn't whether or not the data is reliable or exists... the question is only whether or not you want to accept the conclusion that the evidence is pointing towards.

I tend to go with jar on this one. How do you test for the supernatural? Some claim to have found God. You perhaps claim that "we" equates to the collective of humanity and that as a collective no objective evidence has ever been found.

quote:
Evidence--the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

My question: Evidence of what? God? If I use you and your mind as part of my data I would conclude...upon examining you, that you honestly have no conviction, conceptualization, or belief concerning any God as defined by human literature being objectively real. If, however, I examine my Pastor, I see that he has a conviction,conceptualization, and belief...as well as anecdotal experience concerning at least the Christian concept of God. His behavior reflects it.

Now...you may well argue that due to the fact that you could produce a given atheist who behaves similar to my Pastor---in that he cheerfully feeds the poor, comforts the sick, encourages the young and old alike...without conceptualizing God in any way(bypassing the Jesus thing...remember? Phat--->Jesus----good works vs Stile---->good works) the data thus suggests Jesus and/or God as unneeded and thus not a required conceptualization/belief. Perhaps you believe that God/Jesus would be welcomed by you should evidence/data become available. The dogma suggests, however, that humans by nature do not want God/Jesus. Comments?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : added italics

Edited by Phat, : added quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Stile, posted 03-06-2014 10:24 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Stile, posted 03-07-2014 12:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3020
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 327 of 377 (721460)
03-07-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:05 AM


Re: Do humans even want God by nature?
Phat writes:

How do you test for the supernatural? Some claim to have found God.

Who cares?
Lots of people claim to have all sorts of things. Some actually have it, some don't.
How do you tell?
You see if there's an actual difference.

Some people claim to be great downhill skiers. Some are, some aren't. How do you tell?
Watch them ski.

Some people claim to have found God. How do you tell?
Well... that depends on what you think "God" is for.

Does "finding God" make you a more loving person?
Then watch what kind of person they are.

Does "finding God" give you everlasting life?
We'll only find this out when we die. Not even the person claiming it knows...

Does "finding God" mean everything in your life is going to be easy now?
Then watch how easy their life is.

"Finding God" can mean so many different things (or combinations of things) that it's basically an irrelevant phrase.

If you think being a loving person is important... then it doesn't matter if someone's "found God" or not, watch what kind of person other people are and find those who are loving.

If you think having everlasting life is important... then it doesn't matter if someone's "found God" or not, you'll find out what happens when you die.

If you think that having an easy life is important... then it doesn't matter if someone's "found God" or not, watch the life that is led to see if it's easy or not.

What's the important part about "finding God"? No one has answered that question with anything that cannot be obtained without God anyway... So, if all the factors about "finding God" are available without God... what does the phrase actually mean?
If it doesn't do anything... then who cares?

My question: Evidence of what? God? If I use you and your mind as part of my data I would conclude...upon examining you, that you honestly have no conviction, conceptualization, or belief concerning any God as defined by human literature being objectively real. If, however, I examine my Pastor, I see that he has a conviction,conceptualization, and belief...as well as anecdotal experience concerning at least the Christian concept of God. His behavior reflects it.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at here.
You've only provided the conclusion of your findings.. and asked me to comment on the evidence.
If you want me to comment on the evidence... you'll have to provide me a difference in the evidence for me to comment on.

What sort of behavior does your Pastor have that someone should aspire to have in the first place?
If your Pastor has a behaviour you think is important, and you also think it's only available because he "has a conviction, conceptualization, and belief"... then what is it?

I cannot say which is actually better unless you describe what we're actually talking about.
From what you provided, all I can say is "Phat likes it better when his Pastor agrees with him about believing God exists then when Stile disagrees with him." Which, is... well... kind of obvious.

If you want to imply that your Pastor is somehow better because of his belief... you'll have to provide what you think actually is better.

Now...you may well argue that due to the fact that you could produce a given atheist who behaves similar to my Pastor---in that he cheerfully feeds the poor, comforts the sick, encourages the young and old alike...without conceptualizing God in any way(bypassing the Jesus thing...remember? Phat--->Jesus----good works vs Stile---->good works) the data thus suggests Jesus and/or God as unneeded and thus not a required conceptualization/belief.

Yes, I could very easily argue that because you have yet to provide a reason why such an idea is undesirable.
I can argue why it is desirable: It's more direct. Therefore, there's a deeper understanding/connection to the end goal (good works... love, life, happiness, fun...).

Perhaps you believe that God/Jesus would be welcomed by you should evidence/data become available.

I don't have to believe that I would welcome God/Jesus if evidence/data became available.
I have a track record of accepting when I'm wrong and following the path shown to be correct.
Me continuing in that fashion is more of an expectation then it is a belief.

The dogma suggests, however, that humans by nature do not want God/Jesus.

I doubt this is true.
But even if it is, I don't see how it matters.
Aren't you asking me these questions? If so... what does it matter what anyone else thinks?
I've told you many times that I would really be happy if God/Jesus actually existed and did some wonderful things. It's just that there's no evidence of such... and lots of evidence saying that they don't exist.
So I deal with what I can and move forward.

So far, moving forward in this direction has only been confirmed by additional evidence. None yet to indicate that it may be the wrong path. This doesn't mean it's right... but it does mean I'm doing what I can with what I have. Does your God ask for more? (That's a rhetorical question... If your God actually did ask for more it would mean your God is evil).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:05 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


(1)
Message 328 of 377 (721661)
03-11-2014 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Stile
03-04-2014 10:30 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
I totally agree that just because we cannot see something then this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

However... if we look for something where it is supposed to be and cannot find it... ever... then this is evidence that it doesn't exist.

Do you understand this concept?

Bs'd

No. Don't understand at all.

If we don't find what we're looking for, it might just mean that we don't have the necessary instruments to perceive what we are looking for.

Of course it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Stile, posted 03-04-2014 10:30 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2014 11:47 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 338 by Stile, posted 03-11-2014 12:24 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 348 by Taq, posted 03-11-2014 1:20 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 329 of 377 (721663)
03-11-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Dr Adequate
03-04-2014 1:40 PM


Re: Borel
You can prove that it's not true yourself. Take a pack of cards and shuffle them thoroughly. The chances of you getting that particular outcome is 1 in about 8 * 10 ^ 67.

Bs'd

The above statement is totall nonsense and totally wrong on several levels.

Both the mathematics and the logic is totally off.

Try again.

If the creationist lie was true, you have just done something "that will never happen". But it did.

Perhaps you could base your arguments on something that isn't obviously a lie. Or perhaps not.

See above.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2014 1:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Pressie, posted 03-11-2014 1:15 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 330 of 377 (721664)
03-11-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Pressie
03-05-2014 12:17 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist doesn't exist
1. Using a logical fallacy such as an argument from authority tends to give others the idea that you can't think locically and also that you are either uneducated or not very intelligent.

I said this before on this forum, and it looks like I have to repeat myself:

quote:
One hopes you realize that no one person personifies the science of evolution and that using quotes is making the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Greater idiocy than your above statement I haven't seen in a long time.

You say that relying on authority is a "logical fallacy". Well that statement of you is the logical fallacy. Or you must be of the opinion that it is better to rely on laymen in scientific issues...

No, I didn't think so.

So let's stop talking nonsense and let's get down to the facts.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 12:17 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Pressie, posted 03-11-2014 3:02 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017