[quote]Hanzo wrote:
There is no natural evidence of God. [/quote]
Try looking in the mirror.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
Is it possible to disprove the toothfairy? No? But, this is a straw man argument.[/quote]
Actually, that’s usually to counter calls to “prove that God doesn’t exist.” If you believe in an entity that no one has ever seen and that gives no other sign of his existence, the burden of proof is on those positing it’s existence, not on those who question it.
Usage of a fairy as an example simply underscores the impossibility of proving a negative, even for very simple beliefs.
The issue here is extremely confused. Most religious people have a limited conception of God in the sense that he is seen as some some of super human, with great powers; but also with human emotions and failings. This varies by faith and even by individual, but you’ll often hear of a jealous god or of an angry god. God can be sad, have desires, regrets, etc. Later the same individuals/faith will proclaim god all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving while remaining oblivious to any logical contradictions those attributes entail, especially in light of their previous characterization of god.
I have yet to encounter an atheist who use that reason to absolve himself of responsability for his actions. Surely they exist, but they appear to be a small minority.
On the contrary, I find that many atheists have extremely strong morals and values; and often show more compassion and acceptance towards their fellow men than many of the faithful.
That God’s existence is supernatural is an article of faith. That argument is simply an attempt to remove God from science’s domain.
ID is simply creationism couched in scientific sounding terms and methods. There’s nothing actually scientific about it. ID assumes the conclusion it wishes to attain a priori; and disregards alternative explanations that do not meet it’s agenda.
The God of the Gaps. People have used God to explain phenomenas they don’t understand since the beginning of human history.
In these modern times, there are still unanswered questions in science, and you’ve listed the ones we understand the least about. How did the universe begin? Why is it the way it is? How did life begin from non-life? Because science offers no definitive answers yet, people use these questions as “evidence” for God. It is the same reasoning that people used thousands of years ago when they had a god for the wind, one for the sun, etc.
Red herring. Define love. There doesn’t exist a single, well accepted definition of love that everyone agrees on. If you can’t define it in clear terms, why fault science for the same?
If you read about love, you’ll find that there’s no clear definition of it. Some question it’s very existence. If you’re looking for a scientifically unproven concept that you can compare God to, you’ll need to find another one.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If you read about love, you’ll find that there’s no clear definition of it.
[/quote]
Love is not a feeling.
Love is a presence of being so complete you are able to experience the fullness of life with complete immediacy.
Love is a constant feature of the spiritual nature of the material world - we only have to be opened to experience it.
Love is the Ultimate Reality.
This is clear to me because this is both my definition and my experience of it.
Alpha F
The Big Bang? Forget the question, the actual fact is the proof of God’s very own existence.
Pre-Big Bang, the universe was a collapsed mass of nothing. Out of a single point in the universe, everything unfolded, the creation of the universe, the creation of Earth (other possible worlds… who knows?), the evolution of organisms from nothing here on Earth to the point where he have humans here defying laws of nature and taking over the whole planet. The complexity of the whole procedure, as well as the fact that that the whole thing started from a single point, makes you think how all that could have spontaneously happened from one point of nothingness.
You can’t use science or logic to debunk the existence of God. Because clearly, science (all forms), logic and religion all go hand-in-hand. All hte ideas that science presents only exemplifies the idea that the universe is wholly an amazingly complex thing.
And Alpha F, your posts here are amazing. Thank you.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
pookie wrote:
If you read about love, you’ll find that there’s no clear definition of it.
Love is not a feeling.
Love is a presence of being so complete you are able to experience the fullness of life with complete immediacy.
Love is a constant feature of the spiritual nature of the material world - we only have to be opened to experience it.
Love is the Ultimate Reality.
This is clear to me because this is both my definition and my experience of it.
Alpha F
[/quote]
indeed alpha f, i agree whole heartedly
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
This is clear to me because this is both my definition and my experience of it.[/quote]
It’s a nice one too.
I’m sure everyone has their own definition of what love is; but that’s my point. There isn’t ONE definition of love, but many.
The post I was commenting was using love as an example of something that science can’t prove. I was simply pointing out the impossibility of proving something that isn’t clearly defined.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
This is clear to me because this is both my definition and my experience of it.
It’s a nice one too.
I’m sure everyone has their own definition of what love is; but that’s my point. There isn’t ONE definition of love, but many.
The post I was commenting was using love as an example of something that science can’t prove. I was simply pointing out the impossibility of proving something that isn’t clearly defined.
[/quote]
because something cannot be clearly defined does that mean that it does not exist? arguing for argument sake is pointless. hell, if u want to get abstractedly philosophical I’ll say that the only thing that is certain is that I alone exist and that the T-Nation forum is a figment of my imagination. Please, prove to me that you exist?
Furthermore, I think comparing love to God is very appropriate because there are no clear definitions of what God is. People across the world have varying ideas of what a higher power is. Nevertheless, we can grasp the essence of the concept just as we can with love.
edit… look at my post further down
[quote]pookie wrote:
That God’s existence is supernatural is an article of faith. That argument is simply an attempt to remove God from science’s domain.
[/quote]
since when has God not been seen as supernatural. or perhaps your a proponent of ID because in the same post your arguing against those who try to remove God from science and then those who try to identify God’s work through science. you can’t have it both ways.
Huh?
guys, guys, get back in the gym this instant!
Wow you fella’s are deep.
The fact that people used to believe in Gods overseeing celestial bodies and various natural is different from there believing a God that was responsible for the first cause.
The idea of the first cause is based on physical and logical principles. Every effect has a cause, nothing can cause itself and a causal chain cannot have infinite length therefore there must be a first cause. Let me remind you that it’s an accepted scientific theory that the Big Bang occured.
Nowadays, there are even atheists that dispute that the Big Bang even occurred because LOGICALLY it would point to the existence of a Creator.
As far as abiogenesis is concerned I Like to refer to a quote, “The probability of forming the 2,000 or so enzymes needed by a cell lies in the realm of 1 in 10^40,000. This makes the conceptual leap from even the most complex ‘soup’ to the simplest cell in the time available (that is about 500 million years) so dramatic that it requires some suspension of rationality in order to accept it.”
The theorized time span for abiogenesis has since shrunk to 50 million years making the odds for it substianially less. Then there’s is the problems and paradoxes concerning RNAs, DNA and enzymes but that’s too much get into at the moment.
“So what you have to ask yourself: What kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, and sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?” - Graham Hess, Signs
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
"So what you have to ask yourself: What kind of person are you?
[/quote]
We criticize what we don’t understand.
We deny what we don’t experience.
If any of us is in denial of an experience - be it the experience of love, God, or growing muscle by lifting heavy ( assume the evidence of growing muscle is in the experience of lifting heavy ).
Would it be logical to say if we can’t understand it without an immediate experience of it that this usually leads to us criticizing it and requiring proof of something we are not actually allowing ourselves to experience in the first place?
So a more pertinent question might be; What kind of person are you?
Are you the kind of person who allows yourself the experience of love, God, lifting heavy or do you believe that growing muscle is for steroid freaks, love is for romantics, and God is for the weak?
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
This makes the conceptual leap from even the most complex ‘soup’ to the simplest cell in the time available (that is about 500 million years) so dramatic that it requires some suspension of rationality in order to accept it."
[/quote]
Or maybe it requires:
Some form of denial masquerarading as intellectual arrogance.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If you believe in an entity that no one has ever seen and that gives no other sign of his existence, the burden of proof is on those positing it’s existence, not on those who question it.
[/quote]
The burden of proof is on those trying to force their ideas on everyone else, or to convince us that their beliefs make them superior or ‘enlightened’, whether those ideas are atheistic, catholic, islamic, or anything else.
People who want to discuss their respective beliefs with other people have no responsability to prove anything, especially since no proof in either direction is possible.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that can be accomplished by demanding proof of the existence or non-existence of God (or Gods) is to satisfy yourself that you are right and those who don’t agree with you are wrong. I think there’s much more to be gained by trying to understand why other people believe the things they do (at least those who don’t just believe them because their parents told them it was true).
In the end, we’re all doing the best we can with what knowledge we’ve been given, and I think talking down to people in that situation is less than pointless.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
pookie wrote:
The God of the Gaps. People have used God to explain phenomenas they don’t understand since the beginning of human history.
In these modern times, there are still unanswered questions in science, and you’ve listed the ones we understand the least about. How did the universe begin? Why is it the way it is? How did life begin from non-life? Because science offers no definitive answers yet, people use these questions as “evidence” for God. It is the same reasoning that people used thousands of years ago when they had a god for the wind, one for the sun, etc.
The fact that people used to believe in Gods overseeing celestial bodies and various natural is different from there believing a God that was responsible for the first cause.
The idea of the first cause is based on physical and logical principles. Every effect has a cause, nothing can cause itself and a causal chain cannot have infinite length therefore there must be a first cause. Let me remind you that it’s an accepted scientific theory that the Big Bang occured.
Nowadays, there are even atheists that dispute that the Big Bang even occurred because LOGICALLY it would point to the existence of a Creator.
As far as abiogenesis is concerned I Like to refer to a quote, “The probability of forming the 2,000 or so enzymes needed by a cell lies in the realm of 1 in 10^40,000. This makes the conceptual leap from even the most complex ‘soup’ to the simplest cell in the time available (that is about 500 million years) so dramatic that it requires some suspension of rationality in order to accept it.”
The theorized time span for abiogenesis has since shrunk to 50 million years making the odds for it substianially less. Then there’s is the problems and paradoxes concerning RNAs, DNA and enzymes but that’s too much get into at the moment.
“So what you have to ask yourself: What kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, and sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?” - Graham Hess, Signs
[/quote]
If you are so inclined you will find threads on this site dealing with your questions, including the question why they are strawmen.
You could also go there:
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
because something cannot be clearly defined does that mean that it does not exist?[/quote]
No, it means you can’t use that example as something that science can’t prove, since no else can either.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
since when has God not been seen as supernatural.[/quote]
I don’t believe in God. You’re the one who’s claiming he’s supernatural and then arguing that some natural occurences are proof of his existence.
You’re the one who tries to have it both ways, not me. No god = no need to try to show his existence through flawed arguments.
[quote]Hanzo wrote:
The idea of the first cause is based on physical and logical principles. Every effect has a cause, nothing can cause itself and a causal chain cannot have infinite length therefore there must be a first cause.[/quote]
Everything that’s caused in the universe has a natural cause. If the universe is caused, it is logical to assume that it is also a natural cause.
You say that everything has a cause. What caused God?
You reject the idea of an infinite causal chain, but solve the paradox by inventing an infinite God who’s not subject to your previous objection.
I don’t see much logic in your logical reasoning.
It’s currently the theory that explains the most and has the least problems. There are many questions still unanswered by the theory; and portions of it (such as the required “inflationary” period) are disputed by many researchers.
String theory currently posits the existence of an enormous amount of simultaneous universes; discounting the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter and time for anything other than our universe.
If you want to argue using science, try to keep up with the latest developments.
Do you have a reference? I’ve never read any atheists make that argument anywhere.
You need to read up on this too. This reasoning is flawed as it assumes that a fully functional “modern” cell must suddenly appear from the soup.
The talk.origins archive has a lot of good explanation of actual abiogenesis theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/
You might also read Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker” for a layman’s explanation of evolution and abiogenesis.
You’re like a blind man trying to paint a rainbow…
I’d also recommend “Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences” by John Allen Paulos; for an interesting look at probability, statistics and coincidences.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
because something cannot be clearly defined does that mean that it does not exist?
No, it means you can’t use that example as something that science can’t prove, since no else can either.
[/quote]
That makes no sense. In fact, for that very reason it should be the most logical comparison. It is like you are pissed because it fits this circumstance perfectly. I could very well claim that I don’t believe in Love. Therefore, I now put it on you to prove that it exists since you keep talking about it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
since when has God not been seen as supernatural.
I don’t believe in God. You’re the one who’s claiming he’s supernatural and then arguing that some natural occurences are proof of his existence.
you can’t have it both ways.
You’re the one who tries to have it both ways, not me. No god = no need to try to show his existence through flawed arguments.
[/quote]
no, first you criticize people that try to explain God through science then you critize those who say he’s supernatural. I said all along that I am using logical deduction which is in part based on science to illustrate the existence of a God. never did I say that that science could outright prove it. there’s a distinct difference between the two. Again, I believe that the universe that god created was pre-ordained to have natural order and be conducive to life.