Jackie24:

That's the point. The idea is that God was always there, just because humans cannot understand it doesn't make it impossible. And I was not using it as proof that he does exist, you're only hearing what you want to hear. I said that unless you can explain everything, you cannot say there is no God because that is a big part of his purpose, the unexplainable.

If you want to call the cause of everything we cannot explain God, than that's well within your rights but that does not explain anything though, it's just a labelling exercise.
It is indeed logically impossible to disprove God, unless of course you give God properties that are comprehendable to us humans. Putting the God concept beyond human comprehension does not make him any more real though, it only makes him inscrutible and thus impossible to have a meaningful conversation about. In this context God is only an ellaborate intellectual construction to give purpose to that which does not have any purpose.

You gentlemen surprise me on this Forum. A labelling exercise??. . . only an ellaborate intellectual construction? Do you want us to go through the whole gamut of atheism all over again? Intellectuals don't talk the way you do.

4get_me:

You gentlemen surprise me on this Forum. A labelling exercise??. . . only an ellaborate intellectual construction? Do you want us to go through the whole gamut of atheism all over again?

Please do

Intellectuals don't talk the way you do.

What's an intellectual anyway.

4get_me:

You gentlemen surprise me on this Forum. A labelling exercise??. . . only an ellaborate intellectual construction? Do you want us to go through the whole gamut of atheism all over again? Intellectuals don't talk the way you do.

You certainly have not gone through the gamut of atheism. You only took a dictionary definition of atheism, apparently claiming it to be the reference on atheism and then just went on ignoring the actual arguments brought forth. On top of that you accused me of revisionism in order strengthen your position and labelling mine as irrelevant. This debating technique is typical for Christian apologetics (e.g. C.S. Lewis) and misrepresents the diversity that exists among atheists. You are indeed putting up a strawman of atheism.

Have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/229175.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/reference_books_2.htm

I will copy the first paragraph of the last link for further clarification:

If theism is the belief in the existence of God, then a-theism ought to mean "not theism" or "without theism." Actually, there is no notion of "denial" in the origin of the word, and the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist — if he exists at all. Rather, the word atheism means to an atheist "lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods." An atheist is one who does not have a belief in God, or who is without a belief in God. The importance of these distinctions is that one cannot understand what one cannot define accurately. An atheist cannot deny the existence of that which he finds to be without meaning, namely the term God. In order to deny the existence of something, one must know what the term one is denying means.


Let me state it once more: atheism is simply the lack of God- belief. Atheism only deals with the belief [/i]in deities, not with knowledge about the existence of deities. I, as an agnostic atheist claim that even though I do not [i]believe [/i]in the existence of God, I can not achieve positive [i]knowledge [/i]about the (non-)existence of a deity, unless that deity is defined in such a way that it becomes falsifiable.

Maybe you can address the merit of the first mover argument as a basis for God belief, intelectuals should not use [i]ad hominem arguments, sir.

i dont agree with stuffs like this topic been discussed

4get_me:

2. Now, that is precisely where the problem is - providing 'proof' for the atheistic claim. At best, an honest and rational thinker would say, "I do not know whether or not God exists", and he would not be required to prove his statement - for the simple reason that he has not made a categorical claim; he just does not know. This is closer to the agnostic, rather than to the atheistic, view about questions of the existence of God. On the other hand, when someone makes a categorical claim that "God does not exist", of obligation he ought to prove the legitimacy of that claim. He has made a claim that purports that he knows for a fact in the entire universe that God actually does not exist; and this kind of view takes center stage of acting like the atheist knows everything in the entire universe.

Once more, only some atheists make categorical claims about the existence of God(s), others do not. Theists are in the habit of making categorical claims about the universe based on flimsy evidence, at least the strong atheists have more evidence in their favor than the theists do.

4get_me:

It is sad that many atheists have come up with an escapist theory that someone cannot 'prove' a negative statement. Is that true in every field of learning - including science? Let's go back to the history of philosophy and science for an illustration:

Until the 5th century BC, many thinkers and philosophers, in speculating about the natural world,
were of the view that the earth was like a flat disk. Later, a few others came up and categorically
claimed that the earth was NOT flat. So, who was right? Notice that the views of the former were
speculations, and as far as we know, they had no experiential or experimental basis that confirmed
their position. But the refutation of those who claimed the opposite view were based on seeking to
provide proof for their claim. Explorers, voyagers, astronomers, and various others came up with a
plethora of 'evidence' for the contrary claim that the earth was in fact NOT flat. Today, we know better -
the earth is not flat but spherical or geoidal.

What does this go to show? It shows that the idea that negative statements need no attempted 'proof' is wrong.

Most of those that claimed the earth was spherical had astronomical observations as evidence for their claims. Many civilisations (among them the Maya and the Egyptians) had knowledge about the spherical nature of the earth. A lot of that knowledge was destroyed when God-fearing Christians decided to burn the Alexandrian library to the ground because it contained ungodly materials.
May I inform you that this is not really a negative statement, but a positive statement in a negative linguistically wrapping.

4get_me:

Therefore, the atheistic claim that 'God does not exist' requires more than refutation by statement or criticism - it requires the atheist to go beyond his mouth to his own experience in order to come up with a rational, experiential and experiemental proof or evidence that indeed God does not exist.

Once you start describing the properties of God, I will do just that, but it is really irrelevant, as it would only disprove your strawman.

4get_me:

However you look at it, the atheistic claim cannot be sustained - at least, not until the atheist himself is able to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. It is a weak excuse to say that a negative statement cannot be proven when stating it as categorically as the positive claim. If one cannot validate an opposite statement, he does not need to state it in the first place. In making an assertion that God does not exist, elbaron is required to provide evidence to that effect.

4gt_m.

On a purely philosophical level you might have a point here, but this is the same like claiming that he should prove that invisible unicorns that are undetectable by human machinery do not exist. This can only be done if the subject of study (God) is falsifiable, either in the realm of logic or through observation. Therefore, only if you make your God falsifiable in one way or another can we talk about him, but for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist.

nferyn:

Therefore, only if you make your God falsifiable in one way or another can we talk about him, but for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist.

There you have it nferyn - you have just arrived at the very thing you claim to deny: atheism proper comes to the conclusion that "God does not exist", as you have clearly stated. So, where do you begin to pull strings with all that strawman revisionist definition about agnostic atheism? Just as you argued above in one of your references, "the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist". . . do I take it you fall into this category?

4get_me:

nferyn link=topic=4284.msg262149#msg262149 date=1143711934:

Therefore, only if you make your God falsifiable in one way or another can we talk about him, but for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist.

There you have it nferyn - you have just arrived at the very thing you claim to deny: atheism proper comes to the conclusion that "God does not exist", as you have clearly stated. So, where do you begin to pull strings with all that strawman revisionist definition about agnostic atheism? Just as you argued above in one of your references, "the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist". . . do I take it you fall into this category?

I was actually hoping you would respond to that You forgot to embolden for all intents and purposes, obviously you rather ignore the parts that don't suit our purposes.
I clearly and explicitely said that I consider the non-existence of God a reasonable [/b]working hypothesis. I will stand by that hypothesis, unless someone bring convincing evidence of the contrary. To date, [b]not a single theist has been able to do that.
Anyway, you continue in your relentless zeal of misrepresenting my positions and ignoring everything that does not support your case. This is a clear example of out-of-context quoting. What about the rest of the argument? Do you ingore that in your galant don quichotesque charge against the strawman of atheism?

Do you actually have a case for the existence of God that does not rely on unproved assertions?

nferyn:

I was actually hoping you would respond to that You forgot to embolden for all intents and purposes, obviously you rather ignore the parts that don't suit our purposes.
I clearly and explicitely said that I consider the non-existence of God a reasonable [/b]working hypothesis. I will stand by that hypothesis, unless someone bring convincing evidence of the contrary. To date, [b]not a single theist has been able to do that.
Anyway, you continue in your relentless zeal of misrepresenting my positions and ignoring everything that does not support your case. This is a clear example of out-of-context quoting. What about the rest of the argument? Do you ingore that in your galant don quichotesque charge against the strawman of atheism?

You amuse me nferyn - in just the same way I anticipated you'd come back with that glib quip of "misrepresenting my position and ignoring everything that does not support your case." But do you not do the same by churning out only partial quotes from websites that guarantee your own position? Certainly, your definition of atheism is narrow and based on only those concepts of the term that props up your own view. I've heard quips like yours a thousand times from other apprentice atheists, (no harm meant) and you fell for your own noose.

I respect your position as an agnostic atheist (which is hardly what we're discussing here); but let me make it simpler for you: in everything you have said, I wanted a succinct statement that summarizes your position - and you posited that:

"for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist."

Now if Mr. AD hypothesized about an idea, for example, that certain events make the belief in the existence of God a viable option, and finally puts his points across at the end of his arguments in everything he would have said (in just about the same way you did about your position), what would you be led to believe about this statement:

"for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God actually exists."

You wouldn't think me unfair to draw from this statement that Mr. AD's position is 'God actually exists', would you? So, in the same way, if you claim that for all intents and purposes God does not exist, why has that become a misrepresentation of your postion, when afterall that was your summation?

Perhaps if you had stated, "for all intents and purpose, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, I lack a belief in God" I might not have been led to make the inference earlier of your summation about the non-existence of God.

Let me make another thing clear to you: atheism proper is not agnosticism. The latter term is a recent coinage by Huxley who could not properly identify himself as an atheist even though atheism was many years in use before his time. Atheism questions the existence of God, not the lack of belief in God; whereas, agnosticism simply does not question the existence of God but rather lacks a belief in God. Why is this distinction important? One deals with the EXISTENCE of God ("God does not exist" - atheism); and the other deals with a LACK OF BELIEF in God ("I do not believe in God, whether or not He/She/It exists). I'm quite aware that many atheists today have this revisionist acquiescence with agnosticism, and that's why they want us to believe that atheism proper has NEVER been defined as the belief that God does not exist. There are so many examples of this distinction if you do a careful search on the net yourself (just so you won't think I'm biased, here's an example from a website antagonistic to Christianity:  http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm ). The debate here does not seem to have started off being about lack of belief in God but rather about the existence of God.

Sometimes, some individuals are in the hilarious habit of trying to make such sweeping definition of atheism based on what they want the public to feel about them. An example is Dean W. Austin (http://www.galah.org/myreasons.html ) who says that "Belief that God does not exist" is the definition proffered by theists. NOT TRUE!! Some others have therefore asked that we ceased quoting such Christian apologists as C. S. Lewis because theists are the ones who proffer such definitions, as Dean Austin suggests. Austin is making a biased claim. Atheists themselves of no mean stature defined atheism as pointing to a claim that God does not exist, ala Doug Jesseph. Expantiating on his definition of atheism, Doug said: "Someone who simply lacks theistic belief, a small child who has never been taught about God, or someone who simply rejects God as an act of rebellion does not count as an atheist." His own claims runs like this: "I claim that there is no rational justification for the belief in the existence of God. I also claim that the evidence is strongly against it; that the rational conclusion to draw is that there is no God. I do not believe that agnosticism is necessarily a stable middle position. I believe that if you add the evidence up and start drawing conclusions, there is about as much reason to believe in the existence of God as there is to believe in leprechauns." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph2.html.  (emphasis mine).

Notice that Doug does not argue for merely the lack of belief in God, but rather against the belief in the existence of God. Further, he even mentions that he did not believe that agnosticism is necessarily a stable middle position.

And then again, take a good look at elbaron's topic: he loudly states that "God does not exist" - that is worlds apart from stating "a lack of belief in God". And what you have stated for all intents and purposes is, "God does not exist" - which is not the same as stating that for all intents and purposes, "I lack a belief in God". The former is categorically denying the existence of God; and the latter is a lack of belief in God, whether or not God exists.

The definition promoted by the Positive Atheists website and the American Atheists group as well as many individual atheists is "the absence of a belief that there is a deity or God" - and perhaps, that's what you assent to. In which case, your generalizations are too narrow that "atheism is simply the lack of God- belief. Atheism only deals with the belief in deities, not with knowledge about the existence of deities."  

nferyn:

Let me state it once more: atheism is simply the lack of God- belief. Atheism only deals with the belief [/i]in deities, not with knowledge about the existence of deities. I, as an agnostic atheist claim that even though I do not [i]believe [/i]in the existence of God, I can not achieve positive [i]knowledge [/i]about the (non-)existence of a deity, unless that deity is defined in such a way that it becomes falsifiable.

This is why I said that your definition is revisionistic and too narrow for applicable reasons of this discussion. Atheism proper works on one premise: the (non)[i]existence of deity/deities; which is what Doug Jesseph as an atheist has encapsulated in his claim: "the rational conclusion to draw is that there is no God".

Nferyn, the point of entry to the discussion or debate about atheism must be founded on what exactly makes atheism what it is - the belief in the non-existence of deity/God. There is admittedly no consensus among atheists themselves as to the definition of atheism and each individual or group scuplts their own ideas of what it means. To the extent that the topic is about the denial of the existence of God ("Refuting Monotheism: God Does Not Exist", this definition forms the working hypothesis for discussion here (as I suppose), and as has been seconded in your statement: "for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist."

4get_me, thank you for bringing the debate back to the level it is supposed to be carried out at. I will reply to your post tomorrow.

nferyn, many thanks for being a gentleman at this point. Do have a wonderful evening

To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist. In the realm beyond your present experience amazing things could dwell - even a God poised to shatter your insensibility to him. I am quoting net-burst.net

To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist. In the realm beyond your present experience amazing things could dwell - even a God poised to shatter your insensibility to him. I am quoting net-burst.net

Our claim to the non-existence of god is BASED on the IDEA of god PUT FORWARD BY YOU.

For all we know there might be an entity in the seventh heaven. . .categoricaly disproving its existence is impossible.

Our claim to the non-existence of god is BASED on the IDEA of god PUT FORWARD BY YOU.

For all we know there might be an entity in the seventh heaven. . .categoricaly disproving its existence is impossible.

Now that is the bottom line.

Tudór:

Our claim to the non-existence of god is BASED on the IDEA of god PUT FORWARD BY YOU.

For all we know there might be an entity in the seventh heaven. . .categoricaly disproving its existence is impossible.

Where is nferyn this days, who knows his whereabouts?

@topic

The cell theory states:
1. All living things are composed of one or more cells.
2. Cells are the basic units of structure and function in living things.
3. New cells are produced from existing cells.

Point 3 means that life comes from pre-existing life. Therefore, the theory of a primordial soup that produced life on earth a scientific myth.

For the theory contradicts the long established cell theory, except they will tell us another myth.

@ Dexmond, you are entirely correct: and we will be inviting others shortly to a NL symposium on this.

For me, i will start with the very simple equation: 0 + 0 = 0.

Something cannot come cout of nothing.

Therefore: The Universe came out of something, something brought it about.

We will later come back to define the qualities of that "something."

For me, one of its clear attributes is an all-encompassing Intelligence. We will talk.

But 0 +1 =1

Bump.

Or better still, 1 = 1