wiegraf: @strict

Ah, I see, you embedded the answer in there. Too long, and I don't have the time. But for most of that post you clearly don't understand how the burden of proof works.

What you are doing here is a very basic mistake. I'm not the one making a claim here, you are. You claim there is a god, not me, and you expect me to just accept that on what, faith? Again, where's your evidence? In that case I say to you pikkiwokki created the universe using his cosmic mud, not abrahamic god. Accept it on faith. No? Prove me wrong.

How do you expect one to disprove something you've not even proven anyhow? You've not even presented testable or falsifiable evidence, or made any predictions. Evolution, look at fossils and microevolution. Big bang, expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, etc. No such thing for god, at all, except weak logic. Usually being made on the spot no less. If there's nothing there, then there's nothing to disprove.

Note, not believing in something that has not been proven is the very way to go. Or do you believe in santa? Do you believe in thor and zeus, or any of the myriad other gods you do not subscribe to?

And if you've not proven a god exists, yet you invoke it as an explanation to some phenomenon, then you are clearly begging the question

Anyways, for now, this for burden of proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

And this for arguing from ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The person denying existence God has equal burden to prove his position. "It is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not". All "truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist."

chrisj2000: human brain created god

Human brain created the idea that there is no God. Prove it!

striktlymi: @Wiegraf

Hi,
Are you sure you have made no claims of your own? I thought you were an atheist? I guess I thought wrong. But if you are then you should note that a fundamental belief of atheism is that there is no God. This is a claim that is not backed up by science.


Note that the proof of God's existence through the argument of a "First cause" is there for all to see. The big b.ang theory, the theory of evolution etc are really not attempts at proving the existence or lack of existence of God. These theories basically are attempts to tell us how the world began and how humans came to be.

Since your last comment suggest that you are not an atheist, I am quite curious to know were you pitch your tent. I know it's not religion!

Thank you!

I am an atheist, bordering on being a militant one sef. You seem to be unfamiliar with a few basics. The bold is completely wrong in most contexts, we may get back to that. You don't have a good grasp of what atheism is as well. Think carefully about this statement; it's not that we belief there are no gods, it's that we don't belief there are any gods. We are not asserting anything, you have to prove to us that there is one. Just like you'd expect me to if I told you that santa really exists.

To expatiate, my god pikkiwokki, says you should give me 15% of your belongings to prove your loyalty to him. If you don't do this, who knows what sort of disasters may befall you and your family, etc. Also, he does not want you going out past 6pm, because from that time till dawn he will be fighting demons in pikkiwokkiland, and he doesn't want distractions. You break these laws, then he has decreed that you would spend eternity trapped in mud while demons use bamboo sticks to cut your head off, repeatedly. What would your response be?

I suggest you read this as well

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

wiegraf:

I am an atheist, bordering on being a militant one sef. You seem to be unfamiliar with a few basics. The bold is completely wrong in most contexts, we may get back to that. You don't have a good grasp of what atheism is as well. Think carefully about this statement; it's not that we belief there are no gods, it's that we don't belief there are any gods. We are not asserting anything, you have to prove to us that there is one. Just like you'd expect me to if I told you that santa really exists.

To expatiate, my god pikkiwokki, says you should give me 15% of your belongings to prove your loyalty to him. If you don't do this, who knows what sort of disasters may befall you and your family, etc. Also, he does not want you going out past 6pm, because from that time till dawn he will be fighting demons in pikkiwokkiland, and he doesn't want distractions. You break these laws, then he has decreed that you would spend eternity trapped in mud while demons use bamboo sticks to cut your head off, repeatedly. What would your response be?

I suggest you read this as well

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Hi,
I guess you are getting yourself "confused". If Atheism is not the rejection of the belief in God I wonder what is. Note that to reject something implies that the person rejecting has some basis to show that what he or she is rejecting is actually false, if indeed you (let me not say atheist cause I don't think you speak. For all of them) are in search of the truth or if indeed you believe that rejecting the belief in God is true then you would have proofs to show that your rejection is in order.

The example you gave does not follow and frankly I think is baseless. I believe firmly that everyone has a right to choose what and who to believe in. If that individual in your analogy choose to believe in his god, all well and good for him. The fact that he says so many things about what his God wants and go to the extent of threatening people for thiis is also his personal beliefs. No one is compelled to believe what he freely chooses.

However, it would be very wrong to say because I don't think what he is saying is true, then the god he speaks of does not exist is very incorrect. The best I can say is that I do not believe in his god.

Also saying that the item in bold (your post) is wrong without you proving it is not thee scientific way you have been talking about.

TroGunn:

The person denying existence God has equal burden to proof his position. "It is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not". All "truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist."

This doesn't make much sense, at all. But addressing it, absolutely not. I am not making any claims. I do not know how the big ban.g took place, nobody knows, like you've already said. What I do know, to a great degree of certainty, is that there are no gods. Just like I know there are no invisible men in my tv operating it. There is no evidence to support the notion, especially of personal gods, at all.

I am not forcing my views on you, you can believe in whatever you want to. But if we were to engage in any type of business together, the default position for both of us would be to operate around verifiable facts. Any laws/dogma in your religious books? Throw them out. If I were a member of some atheistic religion, I would toss out my books as well. But religious people have a tendency to mistake their dogma for fact, and introduce it into places it shouldn't be.

Jehova's witness recently let his wife die by refusing to sign papers allowing a blood transfusion while she was in a coma. He based his actions around his faith and god. Now, supposing that were my wife, and the doctor was a jw and told me he couldn't administer the blood because of his religious beliefs, do you really think I should first disprove the existence of his yet to be proven god to him? Now flip the situation around again and assume I were the doctor, I had some sort of legal authority to administer the blood, and I was also aware of the fact that she wanted to live. I surely would administer the drug, over the eediots jw husband's objections. Why? Facts are, I know the blood would save her and I also know she wants to live. My decisions are not based around unverified claims, they are based around facts. Unlike whatever faith-based religious nonsense motivated the husband to let his wife die.

In god we trust. God will provide. Homosexuality is bad because god says so. We'll get 72 virgins for blowing ourselves up. So and so is good or bad because god says so. For any action at all that you justify by invoking god, I have to ask what god? Where in the universe is he siding? We aren't the ones basing our actions around unverifiable claims.
You are the one claiming there's a tea cup in orbit. Before you expect me to indulge you, best be sure you can backup your claims. I don't see a teacup anywhere there, and I'm not going to accept your claims just because you say so. I also have absolutely nothing to defend, you haven't even shown me the teacup exists, empirically or logically. You expect me to waste my time proving an invisible teacup isn't there?

striktlymi:

Hi,
I guess you are getting yourself "confused". If Atheism is not the rejection of the belief in God I wonder what is. Note that to reject something implies that the person rejecting has some basis to show that what he or she is rejecting is actually false, if indeed you (let me not say atheist cause I don't think you speak. For all of them) are in search of the truth or if indeed you believe that rejecting the belief in God is true then you would have proofs to show that your rejection is in order.

Lack of belief, non. I've already told you why I don't believe, there's no evidence to support one. You've not provided any other than 'I say so' and maybe first cause. For first cause, like I've already stated, if the big bang did come from something and is not the uncaused caused, then it likely came from some form of basic energy. Assuming something complex and conscious would be violating ockhams razor. Can you think of any way something would acquire complexity out of the blue? With us and haphazard evolution, big bang and star formation and planets etc, it's taken 14 billion years to come up with conscious beings. The pattern from nature is always simple to complex, not the other way round. There aren't even any theories that could dream up something showing
up conscious, except maybe magic.

Now supposing some consciousness set off the big bang, it too most have been formed by some simple form of energy, that would technically be the uncaused cause, or first cause. Any such being will be likely subject to some laws, so the supernatural bit is a stretch as well.

striktlymi:
The example you gave does not follow and frankly I think is baseless. I believe firmly that everyone has a right to choose what and who to believe in. If that individual in your analogy choose to believe in his god, all well and good for him. The fact that he says so many things about what his God wants and go to the extent of threatening people for thiis is also his personal beliefs. No one is compelled to believe what he freely chooses.

It does follow, because it demonstrates who the burden of proof lies with. The rest of this part is correct though, there's definitely no compulsion.

striktlymi:
However, it would be very wrong to say because I don't think what he is saying is true, then the god he speaks of does not exist is very incorrect. The best I can say is that I do not believe in his god.

Not necessarily, it depends on the nature of the claim. Just like I say there are no people in my tv despite what anyone else says. For unverifiable claims, yes you cannot fully discard them. But you certainly don't need to consider them seriously as well, depending on their nature of course.

striktlymi:
Also saying that the item in bold (your post) is wrong without you proving it is not thee scientific way you have been talking about.

Again, you don't understand the burden, you haven't provided any evidence (well, except maybe first cause, but depending on your definition of god, that is weak, and I had addressed that before, like I've said), so I cannot take your claims seriously. Provide evidence, then I'll see about disproving it if it is valid, else I'm not wasting time disproving something that isn't there. If it is genuinely valid, I will gladly change my position.

wiegraf:

This doesn't make much sense, at all. But addressing it, absolutely not. I am not making any claims. I do not know how the big ban.g took place, nobody knows, like you've already said. What I do know, to a great degree of certainty, is that there are no gods. Just like I know there are no invisible men in my tv operating it. There is no evidence to support the notion, especially of personal gods, at all.

I am not forcing my views on you, you can believe in whatever you want to. But if we were to engage in any type of business together, the default position for both of us would be to operate around verifiable facts. Any laws/dogma in your religious books? Throw them out. If I were a member of some atheistic religion, I would toss out my books as well. But religious people have a tendency to mistake their dogma for fact, and introduce it into places it shouldn't be.

Jehova's witness recently let his wife die by refusing to sign papers allowing a blood transfusion while she was in a coma. He based his actions around his faith and god. Now, supposing that were my wife, and the doctor was a jw and told me he couldn't administer the blood because of his religious beliefs, do you really think I should first disprove the existence of his yet to be proven god to him? Now flip the situation around again and assume I were the doctor, I had some sort of legal authority to administer the blood, and I was also aware of the fact that she wanted to live. I surely would administer the drug, over the eediots jw husband's objections. Why? Facts are, I know the blood would save her and I also know she wants to live. My decisions are not based around unverified claims, they are based around facts. Unlike whatever faith-based religious nonsense motivated the husband to let his wife die.

In god we trust. God will provide. Homosexuality is bad because god says so. We'll get 72 virgins for blowing ourselves up. So and so is good or bad because god says so. For any action at all that you justify by invoking god, I have to ask what god? Where in the universe is he siding? We aren't the ones basing our actions around unverifiable claims.
You are the one claiming there's a tea cup in orbit. Before you expect me to indulge you, best be sure you can backup your claims. I don't see a teacup anywhere there, and I'm not going to accept your claims just because you say so. I also have absolutely nothing to defend, you haven't even shown me the teacup exists, empirically or logically. You expect me to waste my time proving an invisible teacup isn't there?

As you do not force your non-belief in an intelligent Creator on others, am sure no one is forcing you to believe in God. As I stated earlier, many chose to believe that an intelligent being must be responsible for intelligent creation, as opposed to believing that it happened by blind chance. Of course, another option is not believing in anything - be it Big B.ang or creationism.

Each of them is a position or choice - a matter of faith. Each party is convinced that the position chosen is the best. Each party have same burden of proof to justify their choice - whether it's creation, evolution or believe in neither. Because rejecting one means substituting it with something else, and yes, believing in nothing is a belief.

A good question is, which position makes the most sense based on the evidence? The evidence being, of course, the observable universe.

And it's not only Christians, for example, that present their position as Fact. Evolutionists do that everyday - presenting their theories on the origin of the universe and life as fact.

About religious practices done to please God, and agreed some of them can be hard to grasp by a rational mind, they are many and varied and best handled per thread basis.

wiegraf:

Lack of belief, non. I've already told you why I don't believe, there's no evidence to support one. You've not provided any other than 'I say so' and maybe first cause. For first cause, like I've already stated, if the big bang did come from something and is not the uncaused caused, then it likely came from some form of basic energy. Assuming something complex and conscious would be violating ockhams razor. Can you think of any way something would acquire complexity out of the blue? With us and haphazard evolution, big bang and star formation and planets etc, it's taken 14 billion years to come up with conscious beings. The pattern from nature is always simple to complex, not the other way round. There aren't even any theories that could dream up something showing
up conscious, except maybe magic.

Now supposing some consciousness set off the big bang, it too most have been formed by some simple form of energy, that would technically be the uncaused cause, or first cause. Any such being will be likely subject to some laws, so the supernatural bit is a stretch as well.




It does follow, because it demonstrates who the burden of proof lies with. The rest of this part is correct though, there's definitely no compulsion.



Not necessarily, it depends on the nature of the claim. Just like I say there are no people in my tv despite what anyone else says. For unverifiable claims, yes you cannot fully discard them. But you certainly don't need to consider them seriously as well, depending on their nature of course.



Again, you don't understand the burden, you haven't provided any evidence (well, except maybe first cause, but depending on your definition of god, that is weak, and I had addressed that before, like I've said), so I cannot take your claims seriously. Provide evidence, then I'll see about disproving it if it is valid, else I'm not wasting time disproving something that isn't there. If it is genuinely valid, I will gladly change my position.

It therefore means that your decision is to adopt the: "If I cannot see it, touch it or experience it, then I don't think it exist". This too is very lame and weak cause if scientists adopts this stance then there won't be anything to discover.

It does not make sense to say someone's belief is false because the person cannot show you physically what he or she is talking about. There are a number of things that can't be seen or felt but it does not mean that they are not there.

As much as I believe in God I am also conscious to the fact that there are other beings too who we cannot see or touch. I have experienced such powers first hand before but this does not imply that I accept them. I haven't seen them, I haven't touched but I have experienced.

The only proof I believe you would be happy with is when I bring God to you for you to see and touch. This is not the way to knowledge, this is not the way to the truth. Your stance is really not in comformity with what is actually happening in the world. There are a number of things that happen which are beyond the physiccal but yet they are true. The fact that you have not experienced something does not mean others do not have experiences to share.

I guess we would have to leave this discourse till we go 6 feet under. Then we might know what happens next after now.

And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

striktlymi:

It therefore means that your decision is to adopt the: "If I cannot see it, touch it or experience it, then I don't think it exist". This too is very lame and weak cause if scientists adopts this stance then there won't be anything to discover.

It does not make sense to say someone's belief is false because the person cannot show you physically what he or she is talking about. There are a number of things that can't be seen or felt but it does not mean that they are not there.

As much as I believe in God I am also conscious to the fact that there are other beings too who we cannot see or touch. I have experienced such powers first hand before but this does not imply that I accept them. I haven't seen them, I haven't touched but I have experienced.

The only proof I believe you would be happy with is when I bring God to you for you to see and touch. This is not the way to knowledge, this is not the way to the truth. Your stance is really not in comformity with what is actually happening in the world. There are a number of things that happen which are beyond the physiccal but yet they are true. The fact that you have not experienced something does not mean others do not have experiences to share.

I guess we would have to leave this discourse till we go 6 feet under. Then we might know what happens next after now.

And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

Load of nonsense. One doesnt always need solid evidence to prove everything. There is also a logical deduction from the available knowledge of things.

No one was there at the bang but they use the laws and nature of the universe to trace existence back to a single point.


There is no concrete evidence for god and there is no logical argument for god

Logicboy03:


Load of nonsense. One doesnt always need solid evidence to prove everything. There is also a logical deduction from the available knowledge of things.

No one was there at the bang but they use the laws and nature of the universe to trace existence back to a single point.


There is no concrete evidence for god and there is no logical argument for god

Good afternoon,
You are really a funny lad. "Attacking the straw man" will not really do you much good. Let your logical argument prove your point. Making statements you did not back up and sly remarks are indications that you are trying without much success to draw d line between speaking out of emotions and speaking out of good thought.

I never claimed that physical evidence is needed to prove everything. I only made an observation based on a previous argument.

Your claim that there is no logical argument for God is very false. You only choose the argument you want to accept and that really is not the way to go.

The argument of the "First cause" is logical enough for scientists even though they choose to see the first cause as some form of energy but I guess to you this is a load of horse sh.it. Anyways, you have every right to choose what you want to believe without fear or favour and frankly I don't expect the mention of God to make much sense to you.

Thank you!

striktlymi:

Good afternoon,
You are really a funny lad. "Attacking the straw man" will not really do you much good. Let your logical argument prove your point. Making statements you did not back up and sly remarks are indications that you are trying without much success to draw d line between speaking out of emotions and speaking out of good thought.

I never claimed that physical evidence is needed to prove everything. I only made an observation based on a previous argument.

Your claim that there is no logical argument for God is very false. You only choose the argument you want to accept and that really is not the way to go.

The argument of the "First cause" is logical enough for scientists even though they choose to see the first cause as some form of energy but I guess to you this is a load of horse sh.it. Anyways, you have every right to choose what you want to believe without fear or favour and frankly I don't expect the mention of God to make much sense to you.

Thank you!

The first cause argument is illogical.


Simple way to destroy the argument is to ask what caused the first cause? If you answer that god is uncaused then you have to deal with 2 further problems


a) Then you have to accept that one can also claim that the universe was uncaused or that a naural uncaused atom caused the universe

b) There is no evidence of something comes from nothing just like the case of your uncaused god

Logicboy03:


The first cause argument is illogical.


Simple way to destroy the argument is to ask what caused the first cause? If you answer that god is uncaused then you have to deal with 2 further problems


a) Then you have to accept that one can also claim that the universe was uncaused or that a naural uncaused atom caused the universe

b) There is no evidence of something comes from nothing just like the case of your uncaused god

Like I mentioned, you are quite funny! The theory of thw first cause was roven though empirical knowledge. This is not in dispute in science (or may be you don't believe in the scientific method). How did you know that something cannot come from nothing? Or that there can't be a first cause which is not caused? Do you know this yourself or someone told you?

striktlymi:

Like I mentioned, you are quite funny! The theory of thw first cause was roven though empirical knowledge. This is not in dispute in science (or may be you don't believe in the scientific method). How did you know that something cannot come from nothing? Or that there can't be a first cause which is not caused? Do you know this yourself or someone told you?

lol.....how illogical.


The big bang is scientific and not the first cause.

Logicboy03:


lol.....how illogical.


The big bang is scientific and not the first cause.

I guess you still have a long way to go. I thought you have done your research before joining the argument. I guess I thought wrong. I will advice you do some reading before we continue on this.

Thank you!

striktlymi:

I guess you still have a long way to go. I thought you have done your research before joining the argument. I guess I thought wrong. I will advice you do some reading before we continue on this.

Thank you!

lolz....the irony is killing me!

Logicboy03:


lol.....how illogical.


The big bang is scientific and not the first cause.

(Why won't Seun allow us have our b.ang, or at least allow the combination Big B.ang. This slam thing na wa)

Yes the universe is expanding, yes one can theorize it started from a singularity. Where did the singularity come from? What caused it to start expanding. Scientific Theories do change - it's why they are not Facts. The Big B.ang attempts to explain the development of the universe, but still can't answer the problems of how and why it all began.

The Big B.ang right there might even be your proof of First Cause - it needs a reason (God?) for it all to start.

People who reject God's existence are the ones who have to proof that something can come from nothing, they have to explain where the "simple" energy and/or singularity came from.

TroGunn:

(Why won't Seun allow us have our b.ang, or at least allow the combination Big B.ang. This slam thing na wa)

Yes the universe is expanding, yes one can theorize it started from a singularity. Where did the singularity come from? What caused it to start expanding. Scientific Theories do change - it's why they are not Facts. The Big B.ang attempts to explain the development of the universe, but still can't answer the problems of how and why it all began.

The Big B.ang right there might even be your proof of First Cause - it needs a reason (God?) for it all to start.

People who reject God's existence are the ones who have to proof that something can come from nothing, they have to explain where the "simple" energy and/or singularity came from.

So whole argument revolves around an illogical statement;


We dont know X therefore X proves god.


We dont know what came before the big bang therefore this proves god.

Logicboy03:



So whole argument revolves around an illogical statement;


We dont know X therefore X proves god.


We dont know what came before the big bang therefore this proves god.

Is it logical to say : We can't understand or explain God, therefore he doesn't exist?

The evidence in the observable universe does not make believe in God unreasonable.

TroGunn:

Is it logical to say : We can't understand or explain God, therefore he doesn't exist?

The evidence in the observable universe does not make believe in God unreasonable.

If you don't understand or know anything about God, then why put forward the claim for God??

Kay 17:

If you don't understand or know anything about God, then why put forward the claim for God??

I do understand him. It's the atheist who reject the possibility of his existence because they don't understand him.

TroGunn:

Is it logical to say : We can't understand or explain God, therefore he doesn't exist?

The evidence in the observable universe does not make believe in God unreasonable.

r.etarded logic there.



First off, that is not my position. My position is that there is no evidence for God and therefore, no reason to believe that he exists.


Belief in god is unreasonable.

Logicboy03:


r.etarded logic there.



First off, that is not my position. My position is that there is no evidence for God and therefore, no reason to believe that he exists.


Belief in god is unreasonable.

The observable universe points to the existence of an intelligent being. The odds favor such a position more than believing that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless energy can create intelligence including personal, moral beings seeking understanding of life's meaning and purpose.

The scientifically calculated odds of intelligent life occurring by chance is said to be 1 to 10 to power 138 zeros - that is so many times more than what is accepted to denote practical impossibility.

striktlymi:

It therefore means that your decision is to adopt the: "If I cannot see it, touch it or experience it, then I don't think it exist". This too is very lame and weak cause if scientists adopts this stance then there won't be anything to discover.

It does not make sense to say someone's belief is false because the person cannot show you physically what he or she is talking about. There are a number of things that can't be seen or felt but it does not mean that they are not there.

As much as I believe in God I am also conscious to the fact that there are other beings too who we cannot see or touch. I have experienced such powers first hand before but this does not imply that I accept them. I haven't seen them, I haven't touched but I have experienced.

The only proof I believe you would be happy with is when I bring God to you for you to see and touch. This is not the way to knowledge, this is not the way to the truth. Your stance is really not in comformity with what is actually happening in the world. There are a number of things that happen which are beyond the physiccal but yet they are true. The fact that you have not experienced something does not mean others do not have experiences to share.

I guess we would have to leave this discourse till we go 6 feet under. Then we might know what happens next after now.

When you make a post now, do you see the signals as 1's and 0's zoom off into the horizon? You don't have to see or feel for yourself, but you definitely have to be able to test it. Or better yet, make testable predictions. That is all. You are now saying we cannot test your convictions unless we're dead.... Have you ever seen a dead person test anything? Oh, our souls, my bad. Can we empirically test anything about this souls? No? I should believe you just because you say so? Then why don't you believe Pikkiwokki is right now facing off an army of soap demons with his magical invisible mud?

I'm glad you can at least grasp how this works now. If I make the claim, before I expect you to take me seriously I'll have to provide you evidence else quite frankly, I'd be insulting in you. I would basically be dictating to you, and expecting you to follow me just because. That, I believe, is sometimes called dogma. I am not the boss of you, so why in the universe should you believe me just because?
Personally, you are welcome to believe in anything you wish to of course, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. But don't expect others to humor you if you don't have any evidence.

Like the bolded statements, you have no evidence for them, empirically or logically, then you shouldn't be making such assertions in a discussion like this. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong. But if you can't, you're basically saying I should believe you just because you say so.

striktlymi:
And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

Yea, this is trollish. You asked me to explain myself, more or else, I spend time doing so then you say I shouldn't have? Also, I personally shouldn't seek knowledge because? What makes you think that I did the research(?) just now for the sake of this discussion anyhow? I have addressed basically everything you've asked for, including abiogenesis and pre-big bang, you're unhappy because I don't subscribe to your baseless "because I say so" claims, then you make it sound like I did something wrong...Well

TroGunn:

The observable universe points to the existence of an intelligent being. The odds favor such a position more than believing that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless energy can create intelligence including personal, moral beings seeking understanding of life's meaning and purpose.

The scientifically calculated odds of intelligent life occurring by chance is said to be 1 to 10 to power 138 zeros - that is so many times more than what is accepted to denote practical impossibility.

Pls stop using the word "chance", you try to demean and put up false arguments for the other side. A rolling ball isn't operating by chance for example.

Let's assume atheists don't understand God. I will follow your argument: that the world displays structural complexity which points to intelligent life as the source.

You either have to claim that God is the ultimate simplicity OR

Ultimate complexity from whom the world broke down from.

wiegraf:


When you make a post now, do you see the signals as 1's and 0's zoom off into the horizon? You don't have to see or feel for yourself, but you definitely have to be able to test it. Or better yet, make testable predictions. That is all. You are now saying we cannot test your convictions unless we're dead.... Have you ever seen a dead person test anything? Oh, our souls, my bad. Can we empirically test anything about this souls? No? I should believe you just because you say so? Then why don't you believe Pikkiwokki is right now facing off an army of soap demons with his magical invisible mud?

I'm glad you can at least grasp how this works now. If I make the claim, before I expect you to take me seriously I'll have to provide you evidence else quite frankly, I'd be insulting in you. I would basically be dictating to you, and expecting you to follow me just because. That, I believe, is sometimes called dogma. I am not the boss of you, so why in the universe should you believe me just because?
Personally, you are welcome to believe in anything you wish to of course, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. But don't expect others to humor you if you don't have any evidence.

Like the bolded statements, you have no evidence for them, empirically or logically, then you shouldn't be making such assertions in a discussion like this. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong. But if you can't, you're basically saying I should believe you just because you say so.




Yea, this is trollish. You asked me to explain myself, more or else, I spend time doing so then you say I shouldn't have? Also, I personally shouldn't seek knowledge because? What makes you think that I did the research(?) just now for the sake of this discussion anyhow? I have addressed basically everything you've asked for, including abiogenesis and pre-big bang, you're unhappy because I don't subscribe to your baseless "because I say so" claims, then you make it sound like I did something wrong...Well

Oh you are back! Do you realise, you like taking somethings out of context? When. I said we might get to know when we die, it was said in context and it was an ofshoot of some of the comments you made in the previous post.

I don't think I asked you for an explanation. You profered to challenge one of my posts yourself. Check your first post in this thread.

Why should I be upset over nothing. Everyone has a right to choose their own path. This is one of my fundamental beliefs. People should not be gagged to doing what they don't want to do. If at all, I think your post suggests that you are the one becoming temperamental over nothing. This should be a discourse between friends and really, I see no reason why I should be upset by it.

I never asked that you believe me because I said so, may be you got that from someone else. And quite frankly I will not reject the belief of God just because you say so.

TroGunn:

The observable universe points to the existence of an intelligent being. The odds favor such a position more than believing that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless energy can create intelligence including personal, moral beings seeking understanding of life's meaning and purpose.

The scientifically calculated odds of intelligent life occurring by chance is said to be 1 to 10 to power 138 zeros - that is so many times more than what is accepted to denote practical impossibility.

You say that the odds favour an intelligent creator called god but you fail to put any number to the odds. Epic fail

striktlymi:
Hi, Now you are getting me kinda confused. What's really your argument? Are you saying there is no God or are you trying to let me know about science? If the latter is the intent, I already know what scientific knowledge is about but if the former is what you are driving at, then make it a bit clearer.

To answer your earlier question more clearly, I am saying there is very little doubt there is no god (by most definitions, particularly the personal ones), and there's no need to invoke one, at all. It complicates things. If you do not think so then you probably do not understand how science works, or you're not willing to apply the scientific method here.

striktlymi:

My defiinition of God might not be palatable to you but here it is:

God is a supernatural being who existed of himself and is infinite in all perfection.

God is the first cause who caused all other things to be without he himself being caused.

God is the unmoved mover.

Supernatural is simply science that has not been understood. Or are you implying something that could never be comprehended? If you are, you've now crossed the boundary into nonsense, and that cannot be classified as science. We can now assume anything goes, like the FSM. We'll also have to look at what "perfection" means to you. I assume 'god' is conscious, yes? How did it become conscious? By magic? And do you have any proof to suggest the supernatural exists?

striktlymi:

God does not complicate things Humans do!

Begging the question. God, where? As far as we know, the concept was created by humans. The logic to support his case is weak and there's absolutely no empirical evidence to back the claim up. As we created the concept, we also create the problems then assign them to 'god'.

striktlymi:
Now to your very insightful research: I have read a number of publications about the theory of Darwin and the big b.ang and really, to this very day not every scientist is convinced that, the theories are what actually happened. And when we think about it: the questions remain: what caused the big b.ang if there was one? The elements that acted to form the b.ang where did they come from? I am very sure you do not have answers to these. Even in the theory of evolution the same applies, there is no thought about what happened before evolution took place. Both postulations would remain at best: Theories!!! No one is in doubt about the order in science. This serves as the very basis of the principle that whatever has been set in motion was made so by some other force. This law has been tested and proving to be true for one, true for 2 upto the nth term and has been validated as true for all.

This has already been addressed. Do not confuse theories for scientific theories. Only thing you could criticize is their accuracy, or the details, which is fine. But that has also been addressed via "Effective Theories". Evolution is accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community by virtually all accounts, so your personal conclusions or those of the articles you read do not concur with mainstream science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Regardless of scientific support even, I've already pointed out how "I don't know"!="God did it". "I don't know" simply means; "I don't know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

To be specific though, conditions prior to the the big bang != big bang. Same with evolution, it is not abiogenesis.

For pre-big bang conditions, yes, science has no answer presently, and may never for various reasons. But there are also various hypothesis. And they remain just that, hypothesis, not scientific theories. They are not accepted as fact, at all. Your 'god' theory would also qualify as a hypothesis, not a fact, and the logical evidence to support it is weak, empirical evidence non existent. From all indications it's simply god of the gaps, again.

Abiogenesis has blurrier details than evolution. How it came about is still not entirely clear. Testing its various forms or details, considering conditions on early earth and time, is usually complex. But it is by far and away a better option than "god did it", which begs a rather larger question. Random article on abiogenesis and odds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

striktlymi:
Science is not in disagreement with the of a first cause. If you allow me borrow your words: this is simple logic. If the world starts going back back in time, we would get to a point where it all began for which we can't move any further and at that point we would arrive at the first cause. The issue of whether the first cause is not in existence because nothing caused it really shouldn't arrise cause no one, I repeat no one knows how the first cause did it. But the simple fact is that, the first cause or force if you like, did it. This first cause is who we call God.

The nature of first cause is the issue here, which is why I asked for your definition of god. You've replied with the claim of supernatural and perfect, I've responded above I believe. I also addressed this in the edit by mentioning that if something does come from nothing, why would you assume a complex god would form rather than some simple form of energy? Which do you think would logically be more likely to form from nothing? And note, considering uncertainty, something does come from nothing all the time in this universe. And it is; simple energy. An example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Even now, as you read this, the particles that make up your body are constantly tuning themselves, phasing in and out of reality.

striktlymi:
I believe that eternity does exist. A good example is with numbers. You can count from negative infinty to positive infinity. There is no end to a number. Once you think you have gotten to the end, add one or minus one and you would get another. The issue of eternity is factual and glaring for all to see.

I addressed this in my edit as well. What I meant to say is it's possible infinity does not exist in the physical world.

So I address your issues, then you come up with...

striktlymi:

Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.

Since you believe in the scientific method then what inspired your beliefs that there is no God? I know science did not tell you this. The belief of there being no God is mainly inspired by this line of thought: "If I can't see it, feel it or experience it then it does not exist". This has nothing to do with empirical knowledge or using the scientific method. If you believe in the scientific method as I do, then prove empirically that there is no God.

The fact that one is yet to understand something does not prove that it does not exist. You ask for proofs that the supernatural exists? Do you have proofs that it does not exist? It's quite easy to go on the offensive and ask someone to "prove things" but in fact the proof against such things is not in existence. Anyways, there has been cases of things happening which are yet to be explained by science. We have seen people get cured of their ailments after they have been written off by science. I am not talking about some fake miracles people are performing these days. If this is not a pointer to the existence of some higher "force" then I wonder what is.

The existence of a first cause was proved empirically using scientific methods. The fact that we do not know how the first cause came about does not suggest the use of magic. Anyways I pretty much believe that you do not believe there is anything like magic.

I hope you know what it means to "beg the question"? None of my definitions about God has the word "God" as part of the definition. You still seek empirical evidence after the proof of a first cause? Anyways since this logic is weak to you, don't you thnk that not believing something you are yet to prove as none existent is also very weak?

The fact that a majority of scientists choose to believe in something does not in anyway suggest that it is correct. Like I have pointed out, I do believe in the scientific method and that's how I know that your belief that there is no God is not in line with the scientific method. Science does not claim what it has not proven. Your belief that God does not exist is far from being scientific. The belief that there is no God is also your personal conclusion cause this is yet to be proved by science.

The phrase "God did it" ws curled from somewhere. I believe it was used in context but now you prefer to use it in isolation. Anyways, if I choose to believe that God actually did it, I believe that is my choice. You believe God has no hand in it, iff there is a God for you. This line of thought of there being no God is also not scientific.

For abiogenesis the same question would be asked: what happened before the fossils?


Note that scientific theories are hypothesis that have been tested over time and have been found to be true for most cases without knowing if there is anything to the contrary. Scientific theories can be disporoved with better understanding and facts. Scientific theories are not the same as scientic laws because they are not regarded as true for all cases.

I suppose you actually feel comfortable with the term "energy", well that so callled "simple energy" that has the power to come from nothing is who I call God. Atleast since you have proof of an uncaused cause I wonder what proof you still seek. It is not all the time that something comes from nothing, what you would simply say is that science has no clue where some of those things come from.

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

I've more or else already addressed everything in this post. But you do not understand basic things, like what atheism is and how burden of proof works. So I now have to explain these to you in what little time I have....

So eventually we end up with this...

striktlymi:
And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

There are several threads here. I'll just take one for now, the nature of atheism

striktlymi:
Are you sure you have made no claims of your own? I thought you were an atheist? I guess I thought wrong. But if you are then you should note that a fundamental belief of atheism is that there is no God. This is a claim that is not backed up by science.

wiegraf:
I am an atheist, bordering on being a militant one sef. You seem to be unfamiliar with a few basics. The bold is completely wrong in most contexts, we may get back to that. You don't have a good grasp of what atheism is as well. Think carefully about this statement; it's not that we belief there are no gods, it's that we don't belief there are any gods. We are not asserting anything, you have to prove to us that there is one. Just like you'd expect me to if I told you that santa really exists.

striktlymi:
Hi,
I guess you are getting yourself "confused". If Atheism is not the rejection of the belief in God I wonder what is. Note that to reject something implies that the person rejecting has some basis to show that what he or she is rejecting is actually false, if indeed you (let me not say atheist cause I don't think you speak. For all of them) are in search of the truth or if indeed you believe that rejecting the belief in God is true then you would have proofs to show that your rejection is in order.

wiegraf:
Lack of belief, non. I've already told you why I don't believe, there's no evidence to support one. You've not provided any other than 'I say so' and maybe first cause. For first cause, like I've already stated, if the big bang did come from something and is not the uncaused caused, then it likely came from some form of basic energy. Assuming something complex and conscious would be violating ockhams razor. Can you think of any way something would acquire complexity out of the blue? With us and haphazard evolution, big bang and star formation and planets etc, it's taken 14 billion years to come up with conscious beings. The pattern from nature is always simple to complex, not the other way round. There aren't even any theories that could dream up something showing
up conscious, except maybe magic.

Now supposing some consciousness set off the big bang, it too most have been formed by some simple form of energy, that would technically be the uncaused cause, or first cause. Any such being will be likely subject to some laws, so the supernatural bit is a stretch as well.

Note how I've defined what atheism entails. Note how I point out that the only piece of evidence you've provided is first cause. Note how I go out of my way to show you why first cause is not a valid reason to assume a concious god, let alone a supernatural god which is what you are pushing, based on the description of god you gave earlier.

And you keep on harping about how science agrees this is evidence of 'god', which you described earlier as supernatural. That is in no way true and you've not provided any evidence for that. I've pointed that out but you've ignored it

So, again...

striktlymi:
And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

Note how I've already told you that is not what atheism entails. I already addressed that but have had to go through a fair bit of nonsense to make you understand the basics... Simple:
we don't know != god.
you are the one making the claim god exists, rather than saying
we don't know = we don't know
You are saying
we don't know = god

It seems you cannot grasp how the burden of proof works, and what atheism is...

Sooooo.... wait, I'm not done yet

After all that story.....

striktlymi:

Oh you are back! Do you realise, you like taking somethings out of context? When. I said we might get to know when we die, it was said in context and it was an ofshoot of some of the comments you made in the previous post.

What comments?

striktlymi:
I don't think I asked you for an explanation. You profered to challenge one of my posts yourself. Check your first post in this thread.

I proffered a challenge to you post, you responded. I responded back. Isn't that how things work? Though I've had to clarify and clarify and clarify...

striktlymi:
Why should I be upset over nothing. Everyone has a right to choose their own path. This is one of my fundamental beliefs. People should not be gagged to doing what they don't want to do. If at all, I think your post suggests that you are the one becoming temperamental over nothing. This should be a discourse between friends and really, I see no reason why I should be upset by it.

You can believe what you want of course, but you most certainly cannot claim them scientific just because you say so. I have shown you, several times, how your claims are most definitely unscientific, but you insist on claiming they are. To quote myself much earlier

wiegraf:
"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

So, again, if you concede they are not scientific we have no problems.

striktlymi:
I never asked that you believe me because I said so, may be you got that from someone else. And quite frankly I will not reject the belief of God just because you say so.

You are asking me to believe because you say so if you claim they are scientific. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?? If you don't have any, then don't claim to know the truth. Do we have to have another 20+ posts of me explaining how the burden of proof works?



edit: btw, you seem worried by my temper. never worry about that. I'm always angry at something, it's normal

TroGunn:

As you do not force your non-belief in an intelligent Creator on others, am sure no one is forcing you to believe in God. As I stated earlier, many chose to believe that an intelligent being must be responsible for intelligent creation, as opposed to believing that it happened by blind chance. Of course, another option is not believing in anything - be it Big B.ang or creationism.

Each of them is a position or choice - a matter of faith. Each party is convinced that the position chosen is the best. Each party have same burden of proof to justify their choice - whether it's creation, evolution or believe in neither. Because rejecting one means substituting it with something else, and yes, believing in nothing is a belief.

A good question is, which position makes the most sense based on the evidence? The evidence being, of course, the observable universe.

And it's not only Christians, for example, that present their position as Fact. Evolutionists do that everyday - presenting their theories on the origin of the universe and life as fact.

About religious practices done to please God, and agreed some of them can be hard to grasp by a rational mind, they are many and varied and best handled per thread basis.

The first bold, you live in 9ja? Hahahahaha. Yeah, but of course in this discussion, obviously no ones forcing anything on another

The second bold is the juicy bit, and we've already addressed that actually. Privately, you can hold onto any choice you wish, a matter of faith if you will. In the public sphere, or lets say morally, holding those positions is wrong. You should focus on the facts, or objectivity, once it's not a private issue anymore. The fact is: we have no evidence to support god(s). That does not require faith. If you choose to believe there is a god, you do that against reason. Anyways, I can see you're making your logical case for god, so I'll leave you to that.

The third bold, what do you mean?