|
On March 25 2013 04:05 MVega wrote:
Phase 1 of this thread was pretty much ended on the first page. This is a completely pointless and impossible exercise as we all already know that you cannot empirically prove the existence of any god. At best Phase 1 of this thread is going to turn into a likeminded circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back and condemning those who feel differently. I attempted to report the original post specifically for that reason but it appears that someone beat me to it. There is absolutely nothing constructive that can come of this thread.
How do you figure that you can't empirically prove the existence of any god?
|
On March 25 2013 01:49 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:46 iDope wrote:
It is quite interesting that most of atheist rebuttals on the existance of God hinge on the assumption that if something can be explained by the well known principles of science, then God has nothing to do with it. I don't understand how the existance of certain rules proves or disproves the existance of God. Can someone comment on why having a scientific explanation for most phenomenon proves that those immutable rules weren't put in placed on our universe by a higher being? Because we are modern, rational men of the 21st century? Answer this: do you believe in unicorns? flying carpets? genies?
No I don't believe in any of those. They come as part of myth which is known to be myth. It is not backed by a history of people who wrote books and swore that those things are real and were willing to and in many unfortunate cases died without changing their stance.
But that is not the point of my question. As you mentioned in another post, this topic should be about logical and empirical discussions on what proves or disproves the existance of God. My question was simply how do you empirically use the existance of laws and principles which define how things work in our universe, disproves the existance of God. I just asked for someone who can make the clear logical conneciton between those things. A counter question asking if I believe in certain objects from fairy tales is not really in the spirit of the thread is it?
|
On March 25 2013 04:23 iDope wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:49 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 01:46 iDope wrote:
It is quite interesting that most of atheist rebuttals on the existance of God hinge on the assumption that if something can be explained by the well known principles of science, then God has nothing to do with it. I don't understand how the existance of certain rules proves or disproves the existance of God. Can someone comment on why having a scientific explanation for most phenomenon proves that those immutable rules weren't put in placed on our universe by a higher being? Because we are modern, rational men of the 21st century? Answer this: do you believe in unicorns? flying carpets? genies? No I don't believe in any of those. They come as part of myth which is known to be myth. It is not backed by a history of people who wrote books and swore that those things are real and were willing to and in many unfortunate cases died without changing their stance. But that is not the point of my question. As you mentioned in another post, this topic should be about logical and empirical discussions on what proves or disproves the existance of God. My question was simply how do you empirically use the existance of laws and principles which define how things work in our universe, disproves the existance of God. I just asked for someone who can make the clear logical conneciton between those things. A counter question asking if I believe in certain objects from fairy tales is not really in the spirit of the thread is it?
But suppose people wrote books and swore in the reality of unicorns, would that mean it were true?
The question of what divides fairy tales from religion is a very important one.
|
First of all having no empirical proof of god doesnt mean God don't exist. a few years ago we had so little knowledge about the universe and galaxies and such, yet they existed even though we couldn't speak for their existance.
Someone said it was pointless to argue on god's existence if we didn't clarify what God meant. Good point, and if we're trying to be objective we can barely even describe god outside "the primary force of the universe", the first cause. calling god god or allah or yaveh is already subjective and refers to culture more than to god.
On the other hand God as seen in many religion is not Tangible. Based on that criteria, I doubt it is even possible to find any empirical proof of God.
If we look at religion instead, Levis-strauss, famous anthropologist, have said many times religion was more than often related to culture, he meant in there, that almost every god appears to be lookalike of its worshipers. meaning that religion is a very subjective manner to think the world. It is not an absolute truth, but generally if you beleive in allah, there's a good chance it's because your culturally related to islam.
Durkheim, reknown sociologist, studied the elementary bases of religous thoughts. he studied the simpliest form of religious which is totemism. his functionalist approach led to conlusions that described religious thought as a mean to justify the means of production of individuals, and strongly related to their direct environnement.
After the Shoa and Holocaust, Jews also questionned their beleif in God. How could God let such an irrational thing happen. it was pure nonsense, there's no possible and logical explanation to what happend. Thoughts were brought saying if there was a god, he was not what we believed he was.
There is emprical proof that human brain also has propention to religious thinking, it is true that we learn via causality. Ultimately religion is a human thing.
I think this debate needs an even larger philosophical question : what is existance.
to some extand we exist only through others (our relations), in subjectivity. not only do we need to physically exist we need to be recognized by others in order to give meaning to simple existence. I'm not religious myself, nor do I "believe" in god, I wouldn't call my self atheist tho, I just don't care. God doesnt give meaning in my life, humans do. friends, love, family.
|
On March 25 2013 04:16 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 03:18 soon.Cloak wrote:On March 25 2013 03:13 mcc wrote:On March 25 2013 02:50 Shiori wrote:On March 25 2013 02:44 mcc wrote:On March 25 2013 01:28 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
User was temp banned for this post. lollol did i cause this? hahaha On March 25 2013 01:09 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, on to Ontological Arguments! + Show Spoiler +This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument. First, some definitions: 1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence). 2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God. 3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast). 4) The notation M(p) is read as "It is possibly the case that p". Note that I am referring to a Subjunctive Possibility, not a Epistemic Possibility. 5) (PϽQ) is read as "If P, then Q" 6) ~p is read as "Not p" The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +Based off the definition of an Anselmian God (II) M(There is a God) If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q) (IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with
(i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p))
(ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p
(iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p)
(iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition
(v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition
(vi) M(L(p)), then L(p) If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question  . This is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this. It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion. Do you reject logic as possessing explanatory power? If so, then empiricism doesn't make any sense because it is founded on simple logical rules. If you accept logic as possessing explanatory power, then if the ontological argument is sound, it's true. What you need to show is that there is a flaw in the argument. You can't just say "it's playing with symbols" because all logical arguments are just playing with symbols, including the argument that, say, gravity exists because we observe objects being affected by a force which varies proportionately with mass. You can't get from p and q to if p then q without logic (even with logic it's debatable whether you can). In fact, p and q don't even make sense without logic. "all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ? Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world. So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning. S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument. At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter: i) It is possible that god does not exist ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world iv) god is a necessary being v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail.
Premises 1/2 and Premise 4 contradict each other directly. It is not possible for them to both be true at the same time, ergo the argument is unsound. Consider:
1)Blue is green
2)Blue is not green
C1) Therefore Red is the prettiest colour.
This is actually a valid argument, but it's still false.
Your argument appears to be constructed in reverse, or something. It should be:
1) Being is necessary iff it exists in every possible world
2) God is not a necessary being
C1) Therefore God does not exist in every possible world
You can't say "God could possibly not exist" and "God is necessary" as two premises. That's the same as saying "P" and "not P" and then deducing "the moon is made of cheese." It might work better if you had said "If God exists, then God is necessary."
|
I'm not sure about the goal of the post, the very thing about god is that it is not possible to prove if he exists or not.
Even if he existed and presented himself to humans or sent some other Jesus on earth people would not believe him and call him a madman or an extraterestrial trying to abuse us.
The only thing out there is what people think, spiritual guys or science guys, whatever will be brought here will be subjective opinions. If there was some rational scientific way to "test" God(s) existence it would have been done, and if there was some kind of proof of any sort there wouldn't even be a debate.
Gods are not meant to be "proven" for a believer, even more for a scientist ( which isn't uncompatible with the first):
Believers just want something to believe, they don't want to meet/proove what/who they believe in, the only thing which matters is to have that unmovable anchor in their mind that protect them from whatever could threaten them
Constant; that's what religion is made to be, something that doesn't change. If some bad luck made God(s) decide to take obvious actions again, it would completely nullify what's in the holy books because their new words would be what matters, and I don't think humans would like to be told what to do.
For scientists, if God existence is proven, god becomes an "Object" of the universe; another thing which existence must have an origin/reason. You should not be able to "measure" god.
And even if we someday discover that there is an intelligent design in the structure of the universe or particles, it could have been done by some technologically advanced beings, not necessarily gods.
Like if in the future humans manage to create totally new lifeforms with their own will; that would be a big hint that some other dudes might have done the same with us ( or DNA ),
And wouldn't that be a proof that an absolute god doesn't exist? or would religious people claim that the souls of our creations would have been put there by God as an approval of it?
A thing I don't understand is all the pseudo arguments or "spiritual theorems" people put on the table to argue for the existence of god like the "motion chain" and all those foggy sentences that attempt to sound like some scienrific demonstration.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
In short I think there can't be any proof that God exists or doesn't exist; because it's inherent to the concept of deities to remain unanswered. It's just a choice ( or an indoctrination most of the time unfortunately ).
As to my personal belief, I think I am amongst the agnostics. But if God(s) exists, I couldn't care less, just like a son with a father he never met. Why should we adore or be devoted to whoever created us?
|
On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
|
On March 25 2013 04:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:23 iDope wrote:On March 25 2013 01:49 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 01:46 iDope wrote:
It is quite interesting that most of atheist rebuttals on the existance of God hinge on the assumption that if something can be explained by the well known principles of science, then God has nothing to do with it. I don't understand how the existance of certain rules proves or disproves the existance of God. Can someone comment on why having a scientific explanation for most phenomenon proves that those immutable rules weren't put in placed on our universe by a higher being? Because we are modern, rational men of the 21st century? Answer this: do you believe in unicorns? flying carpets? genies? No I don't believe in any of those. They come as part of myth which is known to be myth. It is not backed by a history of people who wrote books and swore that those things are real and were willing to and in many unfortunate cases died without changing their stance. But that is not the point of my question. As you mentioned in another post, this topic should be about logical and empirical discussions on what proves or disproves the existance of God. My question was simply how do you empirically use the existance of laws and principles which define how things work in our universe, disproves the existance of God. I just asked for someone who can make the clear logical conneciton between those things. A counter question asking if I believe in certain objects from fairy tales is not really in the spirit of the thread is it? But suppose people wrote books and swore in the reality of unicorns, would that mean it were true? The question of what divides fairy tales from religion is a very important one.
Supposing there were successive people in different eras of history who claimed that unicorns are real based their lives on propagating this belief, and were willing to die for this cause, I'd at least be inquisitive about what makes them say this. Since that didn't happen and this is a what-if lets leave unicorns, fairies, flying rugs and such out of this discussion.
The OP clearly mentions that at this stage people of faith are to put forward their empirical arguments on why they are so certain that God exists. Now in order to present any such arguments or evidence, it should at least be clear that: Is someone claiming that scientific principles prove that God doesn't exist? And if so what is the basis for this deduction. And that also would help with laying down what constitutes proof of existence and arguments for the opposite
|
On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
I'm not sure about the goal of the post, the very thing about god is that it is not possible to prove if he exists or not.
Even if he existed and presented himself to humans or sent some other Jesus on earth people would not believe him and call him a madman or an extraterestrial trying to abuse us.
The only thing out there is what people think, spiritual guys or science guys, whatever will be brought here will be subjective opinions. If there was some rational scientific way to "test" God(s) existence it would have been done, and if there was some kind of proof of any sort there wouldn't even be a debate.
Gods are not meant to be "proven" for a believer, even more for a scientist ( which isn't uncompatible with the first):
Believers just want something to believe, they don't want to meet/proove what/who they believe in, the only thing which matters is to have that unmovable anchor in their mind that protect them from whatever could threaten them
Constant; that's what religion is made to be, something that doesn't change. If some bad luck made God(s) decide to take obvious actions again, it would completely nullify what's in the holy books because their new words would be what matters, and I don't think humans would like to be told what to do.
For scientists, if God existence is proven, god becomes an "Object" of the universe; another thing which existence must have an origin/reason. You should not be able to "measure" god.
And even if we someday discover that there is an intelligent design in the structure of the universe or particles, it could have been done by some technologically advanced beings, not necessarily gods.
Like if in the future humans manage to create totally new lifeforms with their own will; that would be a big hint that some other dudes might have done the same with us ( or DNA ),
And wouldn't that be a proof that an absolute god doesn't exist? or would religious people claim that the souls of our creations would have been put there by God as an approval of it?
A thing I don't understand is all the pseudo arguments or "spiritual theorems" people put on the table to argue for the existence of god like the "motion chain" and all those foggy sentences that attempt to sound like some scienrific demonstration.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
In short I think there can't be any proof that God exists or doesn't exist; because it's inherent to the concept of deities to remain unanswered. It's just a choice ( or an indoctrination most of the time unfortunately ).
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct?
|
On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
On March 25 2013 04:49 Crushinator wrote:
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct?
What if some advanced beings could design a device enabling them to "answer prayers" ?
What i'm telling you is, how could you distinguish between very highly advanced beings (that remain hidden but nonetheless use technology and not "magic") from God?
It's a bit of a paranoid point of view I admit; but still, how would you distinguish? Because you would feel like it?
|
On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc.
I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
|
On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:49 Crushinator wrote:
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct? What if some advanced beings could design a device enabling them to "answer prayers" ? What i'm telling you is, how could you distinguish between very highly advanced beings (that remain hidden but nonetheless use technology and not "magic") from God? It's a bit of a paranoid point of view I admit; but still, how would you distinguish? Because you would feel like it?
This is not specific to God. It can apply to any empirical observation. Any empirical evidence could just be some aliens fucking with our minds. Maybe there is no gravity, and some alien, perhaps a spaghetti-based lifeform, is using its superior technology to push us all down to the earth.
I just realised you distracted me from my question. If prayers get answered, can it be a God?
|
On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:49 Crushinator wrote:
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct? What if some advanced beings could design a device enabling them to "answer prayers" ? What i'm telling you is, how could you distinguish between very highly advanced beings (that remain hidden but nonetheless use technology and not "magic") from God? It's a bit of a paranoid point of view I admit; but still, how would you distinguish? Because you would feel like it?
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
At least when you can acknowledge that perceived events have an understandable cause you can eventually work towards understanding. Eventually then we could realize that in fact it was some unknown beings tampering with earth. However the problem comes with how much religion loves ignorance, if you simply believe that God did it and don't look any further you will never know the truth.
|
On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
On March 25 2013 04:59 Crushinator wrote:
This is not specific to God. It can apply to any empirical observation. Any empirical evidence could just be some aliens fucking with our minds. Maybe there is no gravity, and some alien, perhaps a spaghetti-based lifeform, is using its superior technology to push us all down to the earth.
I just realised you distracted me from my question. If prayers get answered, can it be a God?
yep sorry I didn't mean to distract you :p
If prayer get answered, it can be God just as much as it can be someone else. So it's still not a proof, it's still subject to belief.
|
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence?
|
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:59 Crushinator wrote:
This is not specific to God. It can apply to any empirical observation. Any empirical evidence could just be some aliens fucking with our minds. Maybe there is no gravity, and some alien, perhaps a spaghetti-based lifeform, is using its superior technology to push us all down to the earth.
I just realised you distracted me from my question. If prayers get answered, can it be a God? yep sorry I didn't mean to distract you :p If prayer get answered, it can be God just as much as it can be someone else. So it's still not a proof, it's still subject to belief.
Proof is something that is limited to mathematics.
|
I don't mind at all telling people that I am a religious person. I do believe in God.
To turn the great question around: Are there any empirical proofs that there is no God?
Why is there such a notion that knowledge based only on personal experience should only be handled as imagination and is not true? Why do people think that faith and belief is something that only regards religion and has nothing to do with science?
The principle of faith - to hope that something exists that is not seen nor experienced - is well embedded within all human beings. You have done a great deal of things in your life without knowing the outcome, but only hoping for it. Would a farmer sow without hoping it would grow? Would you ever turn on the light switch if you did not think it would be light? At some early point in your life you did this by means of faith, without knowing it would happen. In fact, you still do this by faith (back up by a lot of past experience) since the bulb may be out, or the power may be down.
Let's talk about other aspects of your life you take for granted only backed up by faith and personal experience without empirical evidence. I'm sure there is someone in your life you love. You believe they love you too. You may be experiencing their love, and this knowledge is way more important to you than Fermat's last theorem, but there is no empirical evidence of their love. Is this all an imagination?
Even in science we see a lot of this. I am from Norway and in Norway feminism stands really strong, so the theory of evolution may for some feel political incorrect since it gives clear roles to males and females. Gender research actually base all their work here on the assumption that there are no mental and psychological differences between males and females, only physical. (They ignore biology completely). This has resulted in some pretty hilarious results that the rest of the world just can't accept. This because of a belief. These are professors and not just graduate students. It is the same in the real subjects (except for math). The hypothesis is the belief that something intuitive, but neither seen nor experienced, may be true and the scientific method is used to check whether this is actually the case.
I am under the firm belief that 99% of all human actions are based on feelings and not rational thinking. (This fact in itself has nothing to do with religion). We use our rational thinking to justify our acts of feelings. Just use the example of why you bought that delicious candy, or why you chose to be together with your girl/boyfriend. Did you try to calculate all possible outcomes of your actions and follow the one which was most logical or did you "follow your heart"?
I can only speak for myself, but I feel that my personal conviction of there being a God is somewhat similar to the hypothesis --> theory ---> law method, but on a personal level. You hope that there is a God. You do something to check your hope (pray, try to follow what you think a God would want you to do etc.) Then I experienced an answer from God. (I do not want to go into details on that in this forum), that for me, was a sufficient proof. My faith, however, is not based on that one experience (as gravity has not only been experienced once) but I feel I receive constant confirmations of my belief.
We cannot say that all things we just feel are right and have no empirical proof of are just out imagination fooling us. For most of us, our most precious convictions, atheist, agnostic or religious are actually not based on any empirical proof. Rather our faith and feelings.
I understand many of you disagree with me and that's OK, but please don't call me a blinded fundamentalist with little understanding of science. I have studied many religions and have a masters degree in mathematics. I am, in fact, often more mad with fundamentalists than most atheists are 
|
On March 25 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote:
Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence?
I don't reject or believe in gods; i just say that if i saw one, it could as well be some very advanced being. Hence, even with god under my eyes it couldn't possibly be an absolute proof because of the doubt. In the end it's still just a choice between believing or not.
My position is "I don't know, and if I knew I'd doubt what I know" Oo
|
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
|
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word.
When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
