Atheists what is your proof?

[glaucon]

You should have evidence that there is not evidence for God.

???

It isn't apparent to you that there can be no such thing as evidence of non-evidence???

egads.

[Jan Ardena]

Atheists and theists alike have to face the problem of something from nothing.

Why?
If you think God is material, thereby subject to the laws of nature, please
state why?

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

???

It isn't apparent to you that there can be no such thing as evidence of non-evidence???

egads.

So what is meant by "there is no evidence of God"?

jan.

[gmilam]

Why?
If you think God is material, thereby subject to the laws of nature, please
state why?

jan.

Define "god"... I can't answer any of your questions without a definition.

[Jan Ardena]

Define "god"... I can't answer any of your questions without a definition.

I've already given a definition.
Go look see.

jan.

[gmilam]

I've already given a definition.
Go look see.

jan.

This is a big forum and you've already made over 3.5 thousand posts, how about you give me the Reader's Digest version real quick.

[jpappl]

I've already given a definition.
Go look see.

jan.

Do you know there is a god or only believe ?

[Jan Ardena]

post 34.

jan

[Jan Ardena]

Do you know there is a god or only believe ?

The latter.
Why?

jan.

[jpappl]

The latter.
Why?

jan.

Why is it that you only believe ?

[Jan Ardena]

Why is it that you only believe ?

I don't understand the point of the question, but I'll throw "the scriptures
make the only real sense to me".

jan.

[AlexG]

phlogistician,




You should have evidence that there is not evidence for God.

The evidence that there is no evidence for god is the fact that the evidence for god is lacking.

I do wonder if you know what evidence is. Can you point to anything in the universe which in principle cannot be explained by science, and requires the conjuration of a diety?

[AlexG]

The latter.
Why?

jan.

Because trying to argue rationally with a belief system is futile.

[gmilam]

post 34.

jan

OK, lots of people use that one.

I see nothing to even hint that this being is no more than a myth. Along the same lines as Odin and/or Zeus.

So I guess it would be true that myths are not material and therefore are not subject to the laws of nature... OK, I'll give you that one.

[M00se1989]

???

It isn't apparent to you that there can be no such thing as evidence of non-evidence???

egads.

What? no and non- make your statement positive...

If were to go into the deepest reaches of space and brought with me a jar. Captured this substance that is "nothing" and brought it back, You would still say it is nothing. But if I said it were God you would not believe me, There is your evidence of no evidence.

[jpappl]

I don't understand the point of the question, but I'll throw "the scriptures
make the only real sense to me".

jan.

You dodged it. Why do you need to know the point of the question ?

I asked you if you believe or know that god exists.

You said you believe.

I asked why do you only believe ?

Can you answer the question ?

[spidergoat]

bollocks

In science (or at least your version of it) you claim to know that all and everything is a consequence of physical phenomena ... which is quite clearly a claim that "science" can never know (since empiricism is always girded by metonymic barriers at the marco and micro level ... or to put it another way, why at a certain level the investigation of the universe or a cup of flour falls on its ass ).

Needless to say, this is not rational.

I don't say that I know, I just say that there is as yet no evidence that there is anything non-physical. It would be the most revolutionary and exciting event in science if that were shown to be false.

He has Asperger's. Apparently that makes many things so much easier ...

seriously?

Source.[/URL]

Whether he is merely a self-diagnosed Aspie or has an official diagnosis, I do not know; but there must be something in a person to go so far as to self-diagnose themselves that way ...


Anyway, having some form of autism surely affects a person's philosophical outlook on life; it can make a mechanicistic outlook seem perfectly valid and acceptable.

I'll say

At the least it certainly explains why he insist on a certain definition of "science"

I didn't invent science or the definition of it. I am self-diagnosed with Asperger's. It is often the product of parents with a scientific mind, and that is true in my case. One of my parents is world-famous in their particular field. Although I never excelled in science or math in school, I read every science magazine we subscribed to in my family, and I had expert answers to any of my questions. There are plenty of religious aspies, but one could suggest that being social has also warped your outlook on life, to the extent that you see personality in everything, even where it doesn't exist. There is even a term for that, anthropomorphism.

When I was growing up, I was always interested in religion. I loved the idea of magic and the supernatural. I read everything I could get about ESP. My piano teacher practiced trancendental meditation and astral projection. She was an old Christian lady who said she could project her mind all over the countryside at night, even visit dead relatives. I meditated myself in an attempt to reproduce this power. So, it's not like I always had the same "mechanistic" point of view. This is something I came too after wading through reams of bullshit surrounding spiritual matters. The only ideas I found that were not bullshit were those of Buddhism and Taoism, particularly Zen Buddhism, since it tends to set itself apart from supernatural concepts. These are worthwhile investigations into the nature of everything, albeit from a different approach than science.

So with that in mind, what is God?

I don't know. I only go by the definitions you and people like you suggest.

How do you know?

Reliable evidence is observer-independent by definition. Personal testimony can be evidence, but it is not considered reliable by the courts or science, and for good reasons. Our senses can be fooled, indeed, our brain operates by creating illusions. We couldn't get around without it. But science cuts through the illusions.

You are claiming God does not exist because of lack of evidence. Right?
That means you know or have some idea of what God is. Right?
What is that knowledge or idea?

I am claiming that some definitions, such as the Judeo/Christian one, can be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, when that evidence should be there and isn't.

It's very relevant. If a handfull (by comparison to everybody) believed, it
would be very odd. They would need alot of power, and continuosly work very hard to try and brainwash the world they were correct.
Remind you of any group?

Truth isn't determined by popularity. I could point to surveys which show that it's popular to believe many things which have already been shown to be false. (Columbus discovered America...).

It's not a scientific edeavour.

Anything that has any effect on this world can be subject to scientific investigation.

That's a stupid question.

I don't think so, if the creation of the universe were miraculous, then physical laws must have been broken. That is the definition of a miracle, the temporary suspension of natural laws. If natural laws were not suspended, then nothing other than nature need be involved.

So nature brought nature into being?
Do you know how silly that sounds?

Do you know how silly it sounds when we say that matter is mostly empty space? (That is also true.) Many true things are not intuitive.

No it doesn't.
You only bring that up to waste time.

It's a vital question. If it takes a God (inherently complex thing with motivations and plans) to make a complex thing (life, the universe), then that begs the question. How did God come about? This complex thing must (by your own reasoning) have been caused by another complex thing.

Stuff coming from nothing.
Ultimately you have to subscribe to this nonsense
You're being conned, and now you want to con others.

Stuff is literally made from nothing. Matter can be converted to energy. All energy in the universe is balanced by gravitational potential energy, so they cancel each other out, which means the universe looks exactly as it should if it came from nothing. Nothing actually isn't the absence of all events, it is the lack of barriers to things happening spontaneously. We can see this at the quantum level where particles can move backwards in time, events can preceed causes, particle pairs can arise from nothing and return to nothing. The only con-men are God-men. They lack the imagination to concieve of a far richer universe than exists within the petty concerns of the majority of Biblical characters. Jesus even hints at such a thing in the Gospel of Thomas (obviously too revolutionary to be included in the official Bible):

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit,
it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the
body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this
great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

And that's what happened. In the beginning, everything was simple and dead. Complexity came about as a result of cooling, allowing complex structures and interactions to happen, and one of the most complex structures that those inanimate particles formed on their own, was life. It's self creating, self-sustaining, and self-organizing. I find this far more miraculous and uplifting than religion.

I'm admiting no such thing.
You, are wasting time.

No? You said science can't say anything about God. That means there is no rational evidence-based defense of God, which is something religions have been engaging in for centuries, they even started the whole scientific endeavor because they thought it would reveal the work of God, but it has done quite the opposite. As soon as it started to contradict doctrine, they got defensive, even tortured some people. Now they just work politically to contradict revealed scientific facts. Perhaps it is a waste of time to fight back, but it is a noble battle.

[Jan Ardena]

OK, lots of people use that one.

I see nothing to even hint that this being is no more than a myth. Along the same lines as Odin and/or Zeus.

So I guess it would be true that myths are not material and therefore are not subject to the laws of nature... OK, I'll give you that one.

How do you know it's a myth?

jan.

[M00se1989]

You dodged it. Why do you need to know the point of the question ?

I asked you if you believe or know that god exists.

You said you believe.

I asked why do you only believe ?

Can you answer the question ?

do you believe he is flesh, or Iron, or what? in a jar?

this what? Is the question most fail to understand in this instance.

might as well pull the devils number out of the bible... .66(6) to aid your cause.

It does nothing.

[Pandaemoni]

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen F Roberts

Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked.

The only type that is lacked? What other type of proof do you have? Logical proof of his existence? If there were a logical proof that was irrefutable, atheists would likely have to agree he exists...anything else would be irrational.

There are some attempts at logical proofs, but none of them are in fact "proofs" (like the argument from first cause), in that there are logically consistent refutations of them.

Or are you positing that there is evidence not of his physical existence, but of god's effects on the world...in which case I don't see it.

At the same time you cannot prove the opposite.

That is definitely true, but if you were a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you could not disprove the existence or the divinity of Thor and Odin, but is that a reason for a Christian to suppose that the Norse gods are real and divine? If I assert that giant invisible elves live in tunnels the Moon, no one here can disprove that at the moment, but I'd be surprised if anyone believed it.

Really, what's the harm in believing in Him?

None, so long as the religion is just a belief and does not impact the actions of its followers...or, if it does influence their actions, that it only does so in ways that are constructive and do not in any way adversely impact anyone else.

By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists? If not, what made you or your parents convert?

My grandparents were not atheists, nor are my parents. I didn't "convert" so much as, initially, come to realize that my initial religion (Lutheranism) was arbitrary and had no more claim to truth than any other. After looking at many others I found that none of them seemed to hold indisputable truth. Worse, the traditional role of God, as creator of the world, has yielded again and again to science. Ben Franklin was once upon a time condemned for inventing the lightning rod, because the preacher thought lightning was God's wrath...being thwarted. Today, virtually no one believes that God throws lightning at the wicked, but what is God's role? He's mostly limited to spiritual matters now, and perhaps the big bang.

Given the trajectory of His role in the physiocal worl, though, how can anyone feel confident that his role in the Big Bang will remain unchallenged. Even if He does have a role in the world...wh'o's to say that the "He" means your particular God? Maybe the Mormons are right. Maybe the Hindus. Maybe there is a God and every single human religion is *still* wrong...the real God only cares about the beings on the planet Omicron Perseii 8, His "chosen people".

Even *if* you make the leap to believing in God, the question of which God is still not one that can be settled. So even if I made the leap into belief, I'd be stuck not knowing who to believe in.

Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be? (and actually if you think about it doesn't even explain how we came to be, only how we evolved, therefore by definition creation backtracks further than evolution) e.g. I believe creation happened first and then evolution got us to looking like we do now.

I don't know any atheists who use it as the lynch pin of their case. I(t is important because (with certain assumptions) it provides a plausible way in which life could have developed without God, and for many people the notion of God as creator is a vital one. For people who believe that is often a major issue, and it helps them to understand the atheist position that the atheist has an answer to that "big picture" question.

More important though by a long way is the notion that I lack faith in your god for the same reason you do not believe in the Moon Elves I mentioned above...the possibility of god's existence is not a logical grounds for accepting his existence. In a practical sense, the possibility is not even grounds for hedging one's statement about how certain one is that He exists, no more than the possibility of Moon Elves means you should carefully hedge your disbelief in those. The invisible and the non-existent look exactly the same.