Thread: The Poor Claim That God Does Not Exist

Okay, I rewrote the information I mentioned in the other forum. The title of the thread was “The Misery of Those Who Claim That God Does Not Exist”.

For one thing, I really did not mean psychological misery when referring to misery. I was implying that it is a miserable idea, as in unsuccessful and so forth. But it appears that the readers took it as psychological misery. Also, I might have made that unclear by saying “the misery of those who……”. I should have said something like “the miserable idea of……”.

Anyway, here is my new post. It is very similar to the other one, but I removed the concept of misery. Now the poverty I am mentioning here is not economic poverty, as it can be seen in the context. I also hope that this post will not be considered to violate any forum rules.

________________________________________

Saying that God does not exist is a poor claim. Here are some reasons for this poverty:

1. The difficulty of proving that something does not exist. Someone can easily prove that something really exists. For example, someone can prove the existence of a certain type of plant or so by having a sample of it. Therefore, this item exists.

But how does someone go about proving that something does not exist? Let us say, for example, that someone made a claim that a certain type of rock or gem exists, and let us also assume that this rock or gem is previously unknown to any human. Well, how do you prove that it does not exist? You might be able to say that we have not seen it or heard of it, or that we do not have any proof of its existence. But there is no way to disprove its existence.

If someone does actually make the claim that the specified item does not exist, how did he arrive at his conclusion? Did he check every part of the earth, and look in all the different places, to see that none of them contain this item? That is not within any human’s capabilities.

-So that was the first reason for the poverty of the claim that God does not exist.

2. Going against commonly established knowledge and principles. In common human sense and knowledge, we know everything to have a maker. This applies to different things like houses, cars, tools in general and so on. But we have some people who claim that this world has no Maker or Creator, and that it was the result of coincidence.

When someone makes a claim that goes against commonly established principles and knowledge, it is that person who has to bring evidence for such an idea. As for people who believe that the world was created by a Creator, they are not making any deviant claim that tries to challenge commonly established principles and knowledge. Their belief goes along with what has already been established.

-That was the second reason for the poverty of the claim that God does not exist.

3. Inconsistency. Let us take a look at an example. Assume that some ancient structure was found in an uninhabited place somewhere in the world, and that this structure bears the signs of being a house or dwelling used for that purpose—it has a door, rooms, windows, etc. Of course, people will believe that this structure was built by someone for some purpose.

So could this structure have been built by mere chance and coincidence? Could it be that the wind threw a group of rocks and other elements, and these parts somehow ended up building a house—just by coincidence? No one would venture to make such a claim, and it will be said that someone at some time must have built this structure purposely. But we have some people claiming that the entire universe was created by a series of very unlikely coincidences.

Okay, so those people would believe that the structure in the example cannot be the result of coincidence. But when it comes to the universe—that is much more complex—they claim that it was created by a series of coincidences. This is a logical and mathematical inconsistency. If someone cannot lift 100 kilograms, can you expect him to lift 5,000 kilograms? Of course you cannot make that expectation.

Well then, how can it be that a relatively simple structure like a house…cannot be created by mere coincidence, but that a much more complex structure (the universe) is the result of coincidence? This is a logical and mathematical inconsistency.

-This is yet another reason for the poverty of the claim that God does not exist.

The statement is claiming that God does not exist; it goes against commonly established knowledge and principles; and its advocates make claims that suffer from inconsistency. It is a poor statement to make.

As far as point 1 goes, of course you can not prove a negative. But given that there is no evidence for the existence of god, and that the universe operates quite well without this supernatural, omnipotent, etc, etc. being, god's existence is unneccessary and complicates existence. The principle of Occam's Razor would argue that god does not exist..

Your point 2 boils down to 'we just know', which is just plain silly. 'Forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"


Point 3 is the whole intelligent design argument. The present complexity of the universe evolved from a beginning much less complex than a house.

Your arguments are simplistic.

Here are some replies to some comments I received in the other thread. I have omitted the comments about misery, as they have nothing to do with this new thread. I will quote the member's words and then put my reply after a dash.


1. Replies to Strange.

"I couldn't be bothered to read this drivel first time round. Now I have, I am very disappointed."

-Believe me—I would not be surprised.

"Oh great. So now I am supposed to believe in Santa Claus, dragons, Fnorp, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, the whole pantheon of gods from Hinduism, Norse & Greek myth, earth spirits, universal intelligence, the Illuminati, ....

That is a lot to ask. I'll try."

-No, I did not say that you are supposed to believe in these things. I talked about believing that someone created the world. Believing that someone created the world does not mean that you have to believe in the things you mentioned. This is also true in general and in science--believing one idea or theory does not necessarily mean to believe in another idea or theory.

However, it seems that this is more of a sarcastic reply than a serious objective one. I would certainly prefer to keep it objective, and to address someone’s comments based on what he/she said. I would also prefer being to the point and avoiding sarcastic exaggerations used to score points in an argument/discussion. That way, we can get to the bottom of the issue more efficiently and with less unnecessary, time-wasting comments/replies to comments that are not part of the original idea of the topic.

"There is a very tiny subset of things that we know have a maker. For the vast majority of things we have no such knowledge. You might as well say "we know everything reproduces sexually, so obviously stars do"."

-For one thing, not every living organism reproduces sexually. In biology, there is sexual reproduction and asexual (non-sexual) reproduction. Also, the idea of stars reproducing sexually does not go along with commonly established principles and knowledge—like the idea of things having a creator.

You mentioned that there is a very tiny subset of things that we know to have a maker, and that we have no suck knowledge for the vast majority of things. Are some of those things highly complex, to the point that a human being cannot possibly make them or make something similar to them? I believe the answer is yes—for some of these things.

Now logically, would it make more sense to say that these things were created by someone, or to say they are the result of coincidence? I know some people are undecided on this issue. But if someone is to definitely choose one of the two answers, which one has a higher probability of being correct?
And for those who would choose the ‘coincidence’ answer, was there a reason for making this issue an exception in terms of following commonly established principles?

"As we have plenty of examples in nature of complex structures being formed by "random" processes, this is just an argument from incredulity. And, further, assumes some underlying structure or meaning to the universe. Which, given the human tendency for pareidolia is a pretty baseless assumption."

-What are some examples of such complex structures? Are any of them as complex as a functioning human body? The human body is more complex than any machine built by humans. Does it make any sense that it was created by a “random” process? Is that not a logical and mathematical inconsistency?

I would further add that it is a baseless assumption to assume that the universe—with all its contents and complexity—was formed by a “random” process. It appears, for some reason, that the forming of the universe and its contents is considered an exception, and that we do not have to apply the common logic and principles that we generally apply to other concepts. Any justifiable reasons for making such an exception?


2. Reply to adelady

"Lordy, just think of all those busy little gnomes designing each and every snowflake.

Or those fantastic fractal broccoli."

-Some of the contents in your statement are very good examples in showing that there is a creator. This broccoli you mentioned—how did it come about in its specific form? Was it designed out of nothing, or did it design itself? Is it a coincidence that it grows when watered? Is it a coincidence that it makes food for humans? Or was this all established as part of an ordered system?

Originally Posted by AlexG

As far as point 1 goes, of course you can not prove a negative. But given that there is no evidence for the existence of god, and that the universe operates quite well without this supernatural, omnipotent, etc, etc. being, god's existence is unneccessary and complicates existence. The principle of Occam's Razor would argue that god does not exist..

Your point 2 boils down to 'we just know', which is just plain silly. 'Forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"


Point 3 is the whole intelligent design argument. The present complexity of the universe evolved from a beginning much less complex than a house.

Your arguments are simplistic.

-My point 2 does not boil down to 'we just know'. I mentioned commonly established principles, meaning principles that are accepted by people in general, and not just a handful of them. Now there is a dispute regarding whether or not the universe was created by someone. The same dispute also applies to things like humans, plants, and so on. I understand that. However, I clearly did not mention that this idea is right because so many people say it. Therefore, your description of 'we just know' and the forty million Frenchmen is a very faulted description of my point 2.

-You mentioned that the universe evolved from a beginning much less complex than a house. Is that argument supposed to support my opinion or to go against it?

-Are my arguments simplistic? Or do they describe ideas clearly making them seem simplistic to you?

Originally Posted by FAS

-[/COLOR]No, I did not say that you are supposed to believe in these things. I talked about believing that someone created the world. Believing that someone created the world does not mean that you have to believe in the things you mentioned. This is also true in general and in science--believing one idea or theory does not necessarily mean to believe in another idea or theory.

However, it seems that this is more of a sarcastic reply than a serious objective one.

No, it is absolutely serious. Note that I am not interested in arguing for or against the existence of God. But you don't do yourself any favours by coming up with these absolutely pathetic attempts at "logical" argument.

You start off this point by yourself drawing an analogy with an unknown gem. We can't prove it doesn't exist. Your argument seems to be, "we can't prove this gem doesn't exist therefore it might". fair enough. But then you make the unsupported leap to say that "we can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore you should believe in him".

Why should someone, based on this argument, believe in God but not the gem you made up? Or unicorns?

Do you see: it is not a logical argument. It makes no sense.

"There is a very tiny subset of things that we know have a maker. For the vast majority of things we have no such knowledge. You might as well say "we know everything reproduces sexually, so obviously stars do"."

-For one thing, not every living organism reproduces sexually.

Exactly my point. Not everything we see is known to have a maker. You list a few things that we make (cars, houses, etc) and then say everything must have a maker.

This is exactly equivalent to my argument. Pick a subset of things with a characteristic and then (as if by magic) insist that everything must share those characteristics.

Do you see: it is not a logical argument. It makes no sense.

Let's look at your initial point again:

In common human sense and knowledge, we know everything to have a maker.

This is only true if you assume the existence of a Creator God who made everything. From this assumption you can prove the existence of a Creator God. This is a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question.

Are some of those things highly complex, to the point that a human being cannot possibly make them or make something similar to them? I believe the answer is yes—for some of these things.

Now logically, would it make more sense to say that these things were created by someone, or to say they are the result of coincidence?

You use the loaded word "coincidence". As pointed out before there are well known natural "random" processes that can produce results that have structure and look designed. Take a look at Chesil Beach for one trivial example.

I know some people are undecided on this issue.

On the other hand, people who understand mathematics and physics are completely decided.

But if someone is to definitely choose one of the two answers, which one has a higher probability of being correct?

This is an attempt at an Argument from Incredulity, another logical fallacy.

What are some examples of such complex structures? Are any of them as complex as a functioning human body?

Well, the human body (or any living organism) is a good example. No maker involved there.

It appears, for some reason, that the forming of the universe and its contents is considered an exception, and that we do not have to apply the common logic and principles that we generally apply to other concepts. Any justifiable reasons for making such an exception?

I don't know why you would consider this an exception. Look at the universe with all its complexity from the scale of chemical reactions up to the relationships governing planetary orbits right up to the large scale structure of the universe. All brought about by the same underlying physical mechanisms: electromagnetic and gravitational forces, energy minimization, conservation laws, etc.

-[/COLOR]Some of the contents in your statement are very good examples in showing that there is a creator. This broccoli you mentioned—how did it come about in its specific form? Was it designed out of nothing, or did it design itself? Is it a coincidence that it grows when watered? Is it a coincidence that it makes food for humans? Or was this all established as part of an ordered system?[/SIZE]

It is very good evidence for evolution.

Was it designed out of nothing, or did it design itself?

Neither.

Is it a coincidence that it grows when watered?

No. Plants have evolved to use water. No coincidence there.

Is it a coincidence that it makes food for humans?

No. Humans have evolved to eat the plants and animals around them. If we had evolved to eat the grafflex plant on the plane Zeboq we would not have survived very long.

This argument is the same as a puddle wondering if it is a coincidence that the hole it is in fits the water's shape perfectly. It would also seem to indicate that you know very little about evolution. Perhaps you would like to ask some basic questions in the biology forum?

Originally Posted by FAS

Are my arguments simplistic?

They are beyond simplistic. They demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge of (a) the relevant science and (b) logical argument.

I was implying that it is a miserable idea, as in unsuccessful and so forth.

Perhaps you would care to explain why it even matters.
You may believe that he exists.
Others believe in Allah.
Yet others follow the teachings of the Buddha.
And again others might venerate the spirits of the forest.
Other Gods of bygone times are entirely forgotten.
I might not believe in any God.
Can you tell who is right ? Can they tell who is right ? Then don't be so hasty in condemning other beliefs.

You are entitled to your beliefs. Everyone is. The existence of God is a matter of personal belief. Just don't try and force those beliefs on others, because that is where the problems start.

So far as I am concerned, this whole thing is a non-issue from the beginning. It is not like we know.​

Here are my replies, Strange. Again, I will mention the quote and then reply after a dash.

"No, it is absolutely serious. Note that I am not interested in arguing for or against the existence of God. But you don't do yourself any favours by coming up with these absolutely pathetic attempts at "logical" argument."

-You believe that my arguments are non-logical and absolutely pathetic. I believe that my arguments are very logical, and that they are founded on a very solid base. So we differ on this issue. Let us just leave it at that.

"You start off this point by yourself drawing an analogy with an unknown gem. We can't prove it doesn't exist. Your argument seems to be, "we can't prove this gem doesn't exist therefore it might". fair enough. But then you make the unsupported leap to say that "we can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore you should believe in him".

Why should someone, based on this argument, believe in God but not the gem you made up? Or unicorns?

Do you see: it is not a logical argument. It makes no sense."

-I mentioned God as a creator; I did not talk about other attributes of God. So here is the reason to believe in God but not the gem or unicorns: There are indications that the universe has a creator, and I mentioned some of these indications. As far as the gem or unicorns, there are no such indications. If someone is to claim that there are indications for unicorns, for example, I say that these indications are not as well-founded as the idea of the universe having a creator. Therefore, there is a clear difference between suggesting the existence of God and suggesting the existence of that gem or unicorns.

"Exactly my point. Not everything we see is known to have a maker. You list a few things that we make (cars, houses, etc) and then say everything must have a maker.

This is exactly equivalent to my argument. Pick a subset of things with a characteristic and then (as if by magic) insist that everything must share those characteristics.

Do you see: it is not a logical argument. It makes no sense."

-It is indeed a logical argument. Yes, I mentioned cars, houses, etc. There are some things that are much more complex than houses and cars. Therefore, applying logic and mathematics, it makes absolute sense that these more complex things were created by someone--someone who's ability exceeds that of the makers of houses and cars. If you do not agree to this, we can just leave it at that.

"On the other hand, people who understand mathematics and physics are completely decided."

-I do not know what you mean when you say this regarding the issue of creation. I know of a physics teacher that believes in God as a creator, and he is probably not the only one. There are also physicists who do not believe in God as a creator.

I further believe that physics and mathematics are good tools for explaining the existence of God. There are people that disagree.

Quote by FAS: "But if someone is to definitely choose one of the two answers, which one has a higher probability of being correct?"
Reply by Strange: "This is an attempt at an Argument from Incredulity, another logical fallacy."

-Obviously, there is a correct answer out of the two. There is no problem in trying to find the correct answer by means of logic and other indicators.

Quote by FAS: "What are some examples of such complex structures? Are any of them as complex as a functioning human body?"
Reply by Strange: "Well, the human body (or any living organism) is a good example. No maker involved there."

-This is one of the main points of the discussion--whether humans were created by someone or not. It is not suitable to say that there was no maker and then use that as an established fact. This also applies to the creation of the universe.

Quote by FAS: "Some of the contents in your statement are very good examples in showing that there is a creator. This broccoli you mentioned—how did it come about in its specific form? Was it designed out of nothing, or did it design itself? Is it a coincidence that it grows when watered? Is it a coincidence that it makes food for humans? Or was this all established as part of an ordered system?"
Reply by Strange: "It is very good evidence for evolution.

Was it designed out of nothing, or did it design itself?

Neither.

Is it a coincidence that it grows when watered?

No. Plants have evolved to use water. No coincidence there.

Is it a coincidence that it makes food for humans?

No. Humans have evolved to eat the plants and animals around them. If we had evolved to eat the grafflex plant on the plane Zeboq we would not have survived very long.

This argument is the same as a puddle wondering if it is a coincidence that the hole it is in fits the water's shape perfectly. It would also seem to indicate that you know very little about evolution. Perhaps you would like to ask some basic questions in the biology forum?"

-You said that humans evolved to eat the plants and animals around them. I believe that humans were always eating plants and animals. It seems that my belief contradicts your statement about humans evolving to eat plants and animals, although I am not completely sure of this contradiction.

-I obviously believe that God created the universe and what it contains. If someone says that there is no good evidence for the existence of a creator, then he should have no reason to believe there is good evidence for evolution.

And I am not claiming to have good knowledge of biology necessarily. I believe that the universe has a creator, and I have put forth evidences to support my belief. If there are people that disagree with me, we can just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I was implying that it is a miserable idea, as in unsuccessful and so forth.

Perhaps you would care to explain why it even matters.
You may believe that he exists.
Others believe in Allah.
Yet others follow the teachings of the Buddha.
And again others might venerate the spirits of the forest.
Other Gods of bygone times are entirely forgotten.
I might not believe in any God.
Can you tell who is right ? Can they tell who is right ? Then don't be so hasty in condemning other beliefs.

You are entitled to your beliefs. Everyone is. The existence of God is a matter of personal belief. Just don't try and force those beliefs on others, because that is where the problems start.

So far as I am concerned, this whole thing is a non-issue from the beginning. It is not like we know.​

I was referring to God as a creator, and I did not talk about God in general. Although I believe that God is the creator, the main point of my original post was to suggest that the universe was created by someone. I hope this gives some clarification.

I was also not trying to force my belief on others; I mentioned some information that explains why I believe what I believe.

Originally Posted by FAS

Therefore, applying logic and mathematics, it makes absolute sense that these more complex things were created by someone

That logic is seriously flawed, for it is the exact opposite - as complexity increases, it becomes less and less likely that it has been created by someone.
We can create a computer, it is straightforward - but we cannot create a brain, because it is far too complex. The brain had to organically evolve.

The wind blows sand through the dessert - who can know the places and movements of all the countless sand corns ? It is far too complex. Yet over time dunes form, and they are highly ordered. Order emerges from chaos, always, naturally and organically. No creator is needed.

Originally Posted by FAS

I was also not trying to force my belief on others; I mentioned some information that explains why I believe what I believe.

In that case you might be in the wrong place, because this is a science forum. We do not deal with beliefs here, only empirical data. Do you have evidence that the universe had to have a creator ? I think not.
But since we are already at it - I do not believe that a creator is needed. I think order can spontaneously emerge from chaos, without any intervention, and I could give you many an example in nature.
However, just because there is no creator does not mean there is no God. These two concepts are not necessarily the same, you know.

Originally Posted by FAS

Here are my replies, Strange. Again, I will mention the quote and then reply after a dash.

It would help if you used the "quote" function to show this ...

I mentioned God as a creator; I did not talk about other attributes of God. So here is the reason to believe in God but not the gem or unicorns: There are indications that the universe has a creator, and I mentioned some of these indications.

But that is a different argument. We should try and keep each argument as straightforward as possible. On that basis, you argument he is simply that one cannot disprove the existence of God any more than one can disprove your invented gem or unicorns. I don't disagree with that.

It is an leap of logic, a non sequitur, to go from there to the idea that this proves God exists.

However, as you bring up the idea of a creator, I have to ask why does that make any difference: you cannot disprove unicorns and you cannot disprove a creator. Neither of these prove that the unicorn or the creator exist.

You should really take an introductory course in philosophy and learn the basics of logic. Maybe your local college runs one.

-It is indeed a logical argument. Yes, I mentioned cars, houses, etc. There are some things that are much more complex than houses and cars. Therefore, applying logic and mathematics, it makes absolute sense that these more complex things were created by someone--someone who's ability exceeds that of the makers of houses and cars. If you do not agree to this, we can just leave it at that.

No we cannot leave it at that. You are attempting to present a logical argument (rather than just a matter of belief - if that were the case, I would have nothing to say). I feel the need to point out where your logic fails - mainly so you can learn.

You are indulging in one of two logical fallacies (I'm not exactly sure which, because your explanation is not completely clear). Either an illogical extrapolation or assuming the premise (begging the question).

On the one hand, you could be saying, "there are some complex things that are designed and therefore everything complex must be designed". I'm not sure what the formal name for this fallacy is, but it is not a logical deduction. As several people have pointed out, there are things that we see happen due to natural process which produce things that look "designed" - even though we know there is no designer.

Actually, thinking about it, I think this is just a poorly disguised example of Begging the Question. You say everything is designed therefore there must be a designer. But you put the conclusion into the premise therefore you have not deduced anything, simply restated your initial point.

I further believe that physics and mathematics are good tools for explaining the existence of God.

If they are (which I doubt) you are clearly not the person to attempt to do it. You lack a knowledge of physics and you lack reasoning skills.

I obviously believe that God created the universe and what it contains.

You are, of course, free to believe that. However, if he did, he created a universe where evolution takes place and produced all the variety of species and interdependent ecosystems around us. He also created the laws of physics that apparently allowed the universe to develop as we see it. (Or possibly he created everything 5 minutes ago and made it look like it had evolved over billions of years - but that is a silly argument.)

If someone says that there is no good evidence for the existence of a creator, then he should have no reason to believe there is good evidence for evolution.

That makes no sense. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who believe in God. And evidence isn't something you can choose you believe in or not. Does the fact you believe in a creator mean you deny the existence of DNA or fossils or domesticated plants and animals or drug-resistant bacteria or ...

And I am not claiming to have good knowledge of biology necessarily.

And that is part of the problem. You are basing your arguments on almost complete ignorance of the world around you. I think God would be very disappointed in someone who used ignorance as an argument. Much early scientific work was driven by peoples desire to understand God's creation.

I believe that the universe has a creator, and I have put forth evidences to support my belief.

You have put forward no evidence to support that belief. You have just demonstrated that you know little science and less logic.

If there are people that disagree with me, we can just leave it at that.

No, we can't. If you want to say you believe in God but there is no proof he exists, then we can leave it.

Originally Posted by FAS

I was referring to God as a creator, and I did not talk about God in general. Although I believe that God is the creator, the main point of my original post was to suggest that the universe was created by someone. I hope this gives some clarification.

I was also not trying to force my belief on others; I mentioned some information that explains why I believe what I believe.

But your only "evidence" for God as creator is that "complicated things look designed". That is an argument from ignorance and incredulity. Those of us who know even a little science understand the natural process that bring about complex structures. I think you should study and learn something about the awesome world about you.

i think god would be very disappointed in someone who used ignorance as an argument.

I think that God would be very disappointed in someone who tries to challenge his existence, while there is no evidence of this nonexistence. Therefore, it would be a much wiser option to refrain from such comments. If you are not arguing for the existence nor the nonexistence of God, then do not take the stance of the latter.

You have put forward no evidence to support that belief. You have just demonstrated that you know little science and less logic.

I still say that my evidences were highly logical, and that they are being brushed aside.

If there are people that disagree with me, we can just leave it at that.

No, we can't. If you want to say you believe in God but there is no proof he exists, then we can leave it.

I will never say that there is no proof of God's existence. I gave very good reasoning to support my belief. Further yet, there seem to be some indications that the information I posted has placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of those who challenge the existence of God. You might want to 'read between the lines', and see some 'unusual' reactions to that information I put here.

That being said, it seems that neither of us is willing to give up his stance. What is the best option here? Should we continue, or should we stop? I am by no means backing out of the argument. I can definitely go on, and I am not lacking any ideas to support my claim. But what is the best option here? Perhaps we should consult the opinion of Markus Hanke. What would you say is the best option, Mr. Hanke?

Originally Posted by FAS

I think that God would be very disappointed in someone who tries to challenge his existence, while there is no evidence of this nonexistence.

I am not challenging His existence. I am simply challenging your logic (and, apparently, reading comprehension skills).

Therefore, it would be a much wiser option to refrain from such comments. If you are not arguing for the existence nor the nonexistence of God, then do not take the stance of the latter.

I took no such stance. I have deliberately expressed no opinion on the existence, or otherwise, of God because I did not want to distract from the discussion of your poor arguments and logical fallacies.

I still say that my evidences were highly logical, and that they are being brushed aside.

As you are incapable of understanding the basic principles of logical argument, this is clearly pointless. I really, really recommend you take an introductory course in philosophy or logic. You are really just making a fool of yourself here. Which is a shame.

You are really just making a fool of yourself here. Which is a shame.

But not really that unusual.

It seems that this discussion has matured very quickly, and that it reached an unusual height in a relatively short time. Now here is something to think about. Is it wise to continue this discussion, or is it better to bring it to an end?

Well there is at least one discouraging factor regarding continuing: one person might build his point on a base that is completely rejected by his opponent, and vice versa. So what is to be achieved here? If one person builds a set of information, and he bases it on a certain idea or theory that is rejected by his opponent, then that constitutes time-wasting—as the opponent will not be affected by the body of information presented by the other person.

And this scenario seems to be present in this discussion on both sides of the argument. Yes, people generally have a right to reject concepts and theories. And some types of disagreements could be very impeding to the advancement of the discussion.

We know that it certainly would not be wise to get into an argument where one person says ‘yes it is’ and the other person replies by saying ‘no it’s not’. If the discussion continues as it has been going, then we might be looking at getting into that type of argument just mentioned—although not in that simple format.

If there is a disagreement at the level of the tools used to reach the final answer, then what benefit will it bring for either party to use its tools? Several replies and counter-replies have taken place so far, and it does not seem that there is an agreement on what is good or logical evidence and what is not. Therefore, it might be better to just end the discussion. And I think I will withdraw from the discussion for the reasons mentioned above.

Now do I believe that I can continue with this discussion? Do I think I can handle replying to various pieces of information that go against my opinion in this thread? The answer for both questions is yes. And I am not talking about just countering replies by any method just to make it seem as I have a reply; I mean actually addressing the points being made. As indicated earlier, I am not sure if any progress will result from that.

And Strange, you seem to suggest that my arguments are very baseless and that they are absolutely worthless. However, it is most probable that there are people on your side of the argument…who think otherwise of this matter. I am not trying to say that they agree with me, but it does not seem that they see it being that clear-cut. They might think that I came with fair arguments, while believing that these arguments are not enough to prove my opinion. Actually, I would not be surprised if some of them have come to believe that it is hopeless to extinguish my arguments.

I want to mention that this discussion seems to be different from the average discussion that would take place in a similar argument regarding the existence of a creator of the universe. I can feel that the magnitude is beyond the normal level of other arguments of this type. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, there seem to be some unusual reactions to the information I posted. Reactions of that type would not be expected in a discussion forum.

How do I explain these unusual reactions? Well, it is not possible for me to reach a definite conclusion regarding this matter. But what might very well be the case is that the original post of this thread has threatened the theory of atheists and agnostics--at least in the minds of some readers. And by reading this thread and the other similar thread mentioned in the beginning of this topic (found in the Scientific Study of Religion forum), readers might be able to identify what I am talking about.
(Edit: Link to the other thread: The Misery of Those Who Claim That God Does Not Exist)

I have remained objective in my statements, I explained my ideas in an ordered manner, and I refrained from making personal attacks against my opponents. However, I am not trying to imply that my opinion is correct because I upheld these principles.

Well, a discussion has taken place. And it seems that it reached a point which is not wise to go past. Surely I can go on, and I believe that to be apparent—at least to some of the readers. But since a progress is not expected, I think it is better to terminate the argument at this point. I have really enjoyed this experience, and I am not joking when saying this, whether readers can believe it or not.

Originally Posted by FAS

Perhaps we should consult the opinion of Markus Hanke. What would you say is the best option, Mr. Hanke?

I think we are all wasting our time here.
Despite your repeated assertions, there is no evidence that a creator exists, nor is there any principle that forbids the existence of God. Scientifically speaking the existence of a creator is unknowable. That is why I was saying that it is a matter of personal belief.
So far as physics is concerned, a creator is not required, but also not specifically ruled out. That's all there is to it.
This issue has been debated on for centuries, and will continue for centuries, without any one side winning over.

Further yet, there seem to be some indications that the information I posted has placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of those who challenge the existence of God.

If you really believe that then you are seriously deluding yourself.
You think no one here has ever thought about this subject matter before you came along ? It's an age-old topic.

Originally Posted by FAS

How do I explain these unusual reactions? Well, it is not possible for me to reach a definite conclusion regarding this matter. But what might very well be the case is that the original post of this thread has threatened the theory of atheists and agnostics--at least in the minds of some readers. And by reading this thread and the other similar thread mentioned in the beginning of this topic (found in the Scientific Study of Religion forum), readers might be able to identify what I am talking about.

Well, it is not really different from any of the large number of similar discussions like this we have had here before. As usual, we have one person making arguments from incredulity and a host of other logical falacies, while displaying a poor understand of the science in question; and on the other side we have someone valiantly trying for the umpteenth time to explain basic logic and scientific principles to this person with almost no result.

You may think your argument is special, but it really is not. We have seen it all before. We have gotten used to those unable to string a logical arguments together not being able to understand the errors in their reasoning. I am pretty sure there was almost no expectation of you suddenly understanding where they have made mistakes. The very flawed nature of your reasoning itself implies your inability to understand these flawes. I can assure you, your arguments are neither new, nor compelling in the least.

So, why do we keep to it? So casual readers might come along, read what is written and make up their own minds. Leaving posts like your opening post unanswered benefits nobody but the person making the irrational claims.

So while you might insist on wanting to "leave it at that", this remains a science discussion forum, not a soap box for you to preach on. You are free to bow out at any time of course though. We won't miss anything.

Interesting how new people come to the discussion after I have chosen to stop discussing it. Not that surprising.

Originally Posted by FAS

Interesting how new people come to the discussion after I have chosen to stop discussing it. Not that surprising.

If you have stopped discussing, why are you still making posts ?

I stopped discussing the main idea of the thread, and I believe I still have not touched it since I stopped discussing it. Now why was I asked a question that calls for me to make a post?

Originally Posted by FAS

Interesting how new people come to the discussion after I have chosen to stop discussing it. Not that surprising.

Huh?

I think he's seen a logical argument in the past, and he knows what it looks like. He just doesn't quite understand how to make one

edit: referring to thread starter, not god.

Originally Posted by FAS

Saying that God does not exist is a poor claim. Here are some reasons for this poverty:

1. The difficulty of proving that something does not exist.

2. Going against commonly established knowledge and principles. In common human sense and knowledge, we know everything to have a maker. But we have some people who claim that this world has no Maker or Creator, and that it was the result of coincidence.

3. Inconsistency. Could it be that the wind threw a group of rocks and other elements, and these parts somehow ended up building a house—just by coincidence?
Well then, how can it be that a relatively simple structure like a house…cannot be created by mere coincidence, but that a much more complex structure (the universe) is the result of coincidence? This is a logical and mathematical inconsistency.

Before claiming that something does not exist a definition of what it is that does not exist must be given.

Lets say that god is the creator of existence. Then there isnt such a god since he first must exist in order to create existence. Likewise with the other qualities god is supposed to have. If you choose qualities that are not self inconsistent then there is no need for a "god" having the qualities...Reality itself can have them.

As to points two and three...they are essentially the same point... So...Then ...
You claim that there is a God and he is not the result of coincidence?
What other explanation for his existence could there be?
Was he created by the Devil?

(sorry to bump a somewhat dated post)

I have to agree with the original poster's first point only.

I think that it is fallacious to make any assertion without evidence or proof. The burden of a proof falls upon the person who makes an assertion; that is, if I were to claim that the oceans do not contain any mammals, I would need to support that claim. The support for this claim is absolutely unreasonable (you would need to check every square meter of the ocean), therefore negatives are rarely made as claims. I would be incorrect to make this claim because as we know, there are in fact mammals that exist in the ocean. What if there was no evidence for this when I made the claim? Would it then be correct to say that my claim is true? I hope not.

I dislike the "common sense" approach dictating that if a claim is unsupported, then automatically its inverse is true. This is absolutely a logical fallacy.


1. If there exists indisputable evidence that a god exists, then a god exists.
2. There does not exist indisputable evidence that a god exists.
C. Therefore, a god does not exist.

This is a logical fallacy, "denying the antecedent."

Instead of making the claim that mammals do not exist in the ocean, it is correct to simply say that there is no evidence to support the claim that mammals do exist in the ocean, "probably not," or "it is unlikely." In these cases, I am not making an assertion.

Obviously you cannot disprove Santa Claus, the Boogey Man, Bigfoot, or even "God"; that does not mean that Santa or a god actually do exist. It does not mean that they do not exist either. If there is no evidence for the existence of something, it means just that -- there is no evidence to believe that something exists. It says absolutely nothing about the actual existence of such a thing.

Any thoughts on my line of reasoning?

That is a good first post, ccoale427. Welcome to the forum.

I agree with your reasoning and so do most of us I would imagine. Just because there is no unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god, does not automatically mean he does not exist. Thing is, and I know people love to invoke it, but you have to consider Occam's Razor. While absence of evidence does not automatically mean non-existence, when you put the for and against evidence on a scale, the against side slams into the table, as it does with invisible dragons, unicorns, fairies and Santa Claus. There is a very low probability of existence, so it is not unreasonable to take a strong stance in the negative. In the end, there is very little scientifically valid reason to believe in the existence of a god as defined in the major religions. Also, since we are born with no knowledge, the onus on the proof of a god is on the claimants of his existence, the onus is not on deniers to disprove his existence.

Athiesm begins to seem a religion with so many proselytizing for it's beliefs. Evangelical athiests of the world unite, in union there is strength. So, you guys gonna build a clubhouse, and call it a church for the tax dodge?

Athiesm begins to seem a religion with so many proselytizing for it's beliefs

What beliefs? That there is no god? That's the only 'belief'. And who proselytizes?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

That is a good first post, ccoale427. Welcome to the forum.

I agree with your reasoning and so do most of us I would imagine. Just because there is no unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god, does not automatically mean he does not exist. Thing is, and I know people love to invoke it, but you have to consider Occam's Razor. While absence of evidence does not automatically mean non-existence, when you put the for and against evidence on a scale, the against side slams into the table, as it does with invisible dragons, unicorns, fairies and Santa Claus. There is a very low probability of existence, so it is not unreasonable to take a strong stance in the negative. In the end, there is very little scientifically valid reason to believe in the existence of a god as defined in the major religions. Also, since we are born with no knowledge, the onus on the proof of a god is on the claimants of his existence, the onus is not on deniers to disprove his existence.

Thanks for the response.

I agree entirely. It is just that it irks me when a person makes an unsubstantiated claim in any direction. Whenever I see an atheist arguing with a theist, it is inevitable that you hear "god does not exist" come from the atheist as if it is a fact. Likewise, "god exists" comes from the theist. Neither of the claims are substantiated. As an atheist, I too am guilty of saying "god does not exist" simply because it is easier than trying to make a theist understand what you mean by "I do not believe that a god exists because there is no evidence to believe as such." They hear the word "believe" and jump on that.

I guess what I am wondering is where do we draw the line between "likely to be true" and true, and "likely to be false" and false? As far as I can tell, no matter what, the existence of god will always simply "likely to be false" (as opposed to actually being false). Occam's Razor simply guides you to which of two claims is more likely to be true.

So, when we claim something to be true, does that simply mean that we think it is extremely likely to be true? For example:

1. Humans exist.

Does that claim mean "based on the observed evidence, it is extremely likely that humans actually do exist" or does it mean "without a doubt, it is absolutely true that humans exist"?

I understand what you mean. For me, when something is extremely unlikely to be true, it isn't. Such is the case with fairies and invisible dragons in my garage. I do generally acknowledge that this might be a leap of faith in itself though, which is why I completely understand the position of some agnostics who would not feel comfortable with taking that final leap.

I suppose it is a matter of what the individual atheist believes, i.e. some would claim 100% surity, which I can't do scientifically, but do philosophically. There are also a bunch of different definitions and varieties of atheist and agnostic floating around. I would identify as a strong atheist (in regards to the most commonly accepted definitions of a god) and an ignostic (the specific god concept first has to be defined before I can comment on it). I suppose I would be agnostic in terms of a technologically advanced alien that some would still consider a god (sufficiently advanced technology = magic).

Yet, something is unlikely to be true has been said to a scenario similar to radical claims such as there may be a specie that lives without oxygen, black swan, so-called existing animals... The only conclusion that is to be supported is the nihilistic stance of no conclusion in scenario of complete lack of data.

Side note, does anyone here questions the usage of null hypothesis? Been looking for folks that actually questions the usage of it and prefers to take on the approach of using authentication of validity test. The authentication of validity test considers all of the data and whether the data suggests it is true. There's more, but I'll start a thread on that later on. Another thing that the authentication of validity test would take on is to check whether the conclusion is actually testable. There's more... Yes I made up authentication of validity test, but you should get a idea of what I'm thinking.

Originally Posted by FAS

1. The difficulty of proving that something does not exist. Someone can easily prove that something really exists. For example, someone can prove the existence of a certain type of plant or so by having a sample of it. Therefore, this item exists.

It depends on what you're trying to claim doesn't exist. I can say with complete certainty that there are no unicorns in my backyard. I looked. They're not there. There are many gods that I can be completely certain do exist, there are plenty of primitive tribes that worship real rocks or trees or mountains and I can test to see if those things are real. I can be absolutely positive that the Japanese god Amaterasu is real, I can look up and see the sun. Of course, any claims about what these supposed gods can do is still open to evaluation. However, you're specifically talking about a particular God, so let's examine that, shall we? First off, there isn't a shred of objective evidence that said deity is real. As rational beings, we do not believe in things because we cannot prove them false, we believe in things because we can produce evidence that they are real. You, yourself, follow that rule, otherwise you'd believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The fact that you do not proves conclusively that you don't buy your own argument.

Further, the history of God-belief reveals an ever-changing definition of what God is. As soon as man closes in on God, God has to change into something else to avoid being disproven. This is the God of the ever-shrinking gaps. There was a time when God supposedly walked with man, interacted with man directly, performed visible and unmistakable miracles, etc. Then man realized that those things weren't real, so God got smaller. God kept slithering into ever-shrinking gaps where man's knowledge didn't extend. Christians eventually had to redefine God entirely out of the realm of possible evaluation. When you invent your God, define him outside of possible evaluation, then declare victory when no one can evaluate your claims, that's not victory.

Point 1 - FAIL

2. Going against commonly established knowledge and principles. In common human sense and knowledge, we know everything to have a maker. This applies to different things like houses, cars, tools in general and so on. But we have some people who claim that this world has no Maker or Creator, and that it was the result of coincidence.

Something tells me you need to take a look at quantum mechanics, where particles pop into and out of existence without a maker all the time. Actually, based on what you say here, something tells me you need a very basic science education because you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Besides, if everything needs a maker, what made God? You don't get to declare exceptions to your rules because it makes you feel good. If God needs no creator, then the universe needs no creator. Further, there's nothing that says that a creator, if it exists, needs to be alive, intelligent or still existing. You're just blowing smoke.

Point 2 - FAIL

3. Inconsistency. Let us take a look at an example. Assume that some ancient structure was found in an uninhabited place somewhere in the world, and that this structure bears the signs of being a house or dwelling used for that purpose—it has a door, rooms, windows, etc. Of course, people will believe that this structure was built by someone for some purpose.

You honestly cannot still be using Hoyle's Fallacy, can you? Seriously? That was laughable in the 70s. There's quite a difference between a house, which we have direct experience with and understand that they are made by people, and a star, which we have no experience being made by anyone. You're just declaring something that you don't understand as created, without a shred of evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Point 3 - FAIL

Seriously, these are children's book apologetics. Come up with something much, much better.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Athiesm begins to seem a religion with so many proselytizing for it's beliefs. Evangelical athiests of the world unite, in union there is strength. So, you guys gonna build a clubhouse, and call it a church for the tax dodge?

Atheism has no beliefs, no tenets, no positions, no dogma. It has no churches, no prayer books and no holy texts. It is the lack of belief in god(s). Full stop.

Originally Posted by Cephus

1. The difficulty of proving that something does not exist. Someone can easily prove that something really exists. For example, someone can prove the existence of a certain type of plant or so by having a sample of it. Therefore, this item exists. Further, the history of God-belief reveals an ever-changing definition of what God is. As soon as man closes in on God, God has to change into something else to avoid being disproven. This is the God of the ever-shrinking gaps. There was a time when God supposedly walked with man, interacted with man directly, performed visible and unmistakable miracles, etc. Then man realized that those things weren't real, so God got smaller. God kept slithering into ever-shrinking gaps where man's knowledge didn't extend. Christians eventually had to redefine God entirely out of the realm of possible evaluation. When you invent your God, define him outside of possible evaluation, then declare victory when no one can evaluate your claims, that's not victory.

Are you aware of the natural pantheistic viewpoint and other radical ideas of god has existed since ancient time and yet remains valid in modern time? You would probably be in the mindset of a person that believes god is relative to each individuals as there are discrepancies between valid interpretations of certain concepts. This is why there are people out there who don't necessarily agree with the interpretations of the majority (of said certain concepts).

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by sculptor

Athiesm begins to seem a religion with so many proselytizing for it's beliefs. Evangelical athiests of the world unite, in union there is strength. So, you guys gonna build a clubhouse, and call it a church for the tax dodge?

Atheism has no beliefs, no tenets, no positions, no dogma. It has no churches, no prayer books and no holy texts. It is the lack of belief in god(s). Full stop.

Again, even belief is relative as atheism, agnosticism, and even theism is all relative to each individuals as there are discrepancies between valid interpretations of certain concepts.

be·lief/biˈlēf/
Noun:
1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2.Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

You don't have to accept something as existing in order to have a belief in it.


Some supports the more liberal version of the isms while other supports the strict isms have a 4th concept which is apatheism which is a separate stance that's called the nihilistic stance of no conclusion which is different than saying I don't think it's valid because there is lack of evidence. As an apatheist under the branch-disregard with the subbranch-billigerant, I see no reason to assert that the theists, agnostics, and even atheists have a justified position.

Arguing logically for the existence of God doesn't fare as well as arguing against the existence of God. Just sort of is. I don't get particularly hung up on it.

Use of the scientific method as the only means of gaining knowledge of reality is a popular and notorious idea in the US. There are people adhere to the idea quite strongly, and those who are absolutely against it. And those in the middle. I've noticed that folks in the general public who are critical of the idea don't always know how to articulate what they think, even though questioning science as the only means of knowledge is valid.

Pragmatism isn't the most useful stance for me due to my line of work (Counseling). I like the scientific method - my husband enjoys the herbicide that minimizes the weeds on our lawn, and it does result in a paycheck. But proving causation when dealing with mental health? Doesn't happen. If I'm lucky, I get a "X has a strong negative correlation with X" so I know not to do it. There is a lot of guessing and fumbling and tweaking. Seeing as that we do not have a machine akin to what's in Minority Report, I don't see myself having the ability to quantify the sorts of behaviors I need to know about.

So there is those bits of reality that I don't know about - I don't know what a person is thinking or how they will behave. And honestly, though I absolutely believe people should try to keep away from bias in reality-seeking situations, I don't think they do. And I'm not sure if they can completely.

So I'm alright with the possibility of beings which do not interact with me and I can't seem to fathom, provided I'm not particularly distressed about them and am able fulfill obligations with minimal issue.

What I recently told a priest: "Can't we all just channel some Kierkegaard and get along?"

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by sculptor

Athiesm begins to seem a religion with so many proselytizing for it's beliefs. Evangelical athiests of the world unite, in union there is strength. So, you guys gonna build a clubhouse, and call it a church for the tax dodge?

Atheism has no beliefs, no tenets, no positions, no dogma. It has no churches, no prayer books and no holy texts. It is the lack of belief in god(s). Full stop.

(A) Believing that "lack of belief in god(s)" is no belief is a religious belief!

To lack the belief in x, is to believe that not x... Its that simple. The reason why A is a religious belief should be obvious: To believe in something false (or wrong) is a necessary requirement for a religious belief, so by all means let us forget about other "sufficient requirements" in the question of what a religious belief really is.

I mean that ugly things like: tenets,positions,dogmas,churches,prayer books and holy texts are not necessary for something to be a religion. That it should be so is nothing but dogma!

Religion is basically an attitude... you trust in something and defend it without questioning whether it really is right or wrong to do so, in its extreme cases you will obey orders to kill... even your family or yourself!

(B) That said, lets adress the question whether there is a god or not:

First "god" must be defined... let "god" mean the cause of existence, and let everything have a cause... then:

1 If there is no god then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a god!

Existence itself is god if no other gods happen to be involved...
I believe some atheists rather will deny the existence of existence than believe in a god...ha ha!

Originally Posted by Cephus

Further, the history of God-belief reveals an ever-changing definition of what God is. As soon as man closes in on God, God has to change into something else to avoid being disproven. This is the God of the ever-shrinking gaps. There was a time when God supposedly walked with man, interacted with man directly, performed visible and unmistakable miracles, etc. Then man realized that those things weren't real, so God got smaller. God kept slithering into ever-shrinking gaps where man's knowledge didn't extend. Christians eventually had to redefine God entirely out of the realm of possible evaluation. When you invent your God, define him outside of possible evaluation, then declare victory when no one can evaluate your claims, that's not victory.



You honestly cannot still be using Hoyle's Fallacy, can you? Seriously? That was laughable in the 70s. There's quite a difference between a house, which we have direct experience with and understand that they are made by people, and a star, which we have no experience being made by anyone. You're just declaring something that you don't understand as created, without a shred of evidence whatsoever to back it up.

I dont think its possible for christians to "redefine God entirely out of the realm of possible evaluation."

Not as long as it is said that Jesus is the son of God... Then either Jesus is an adopted son, or God has an y-chromosome in His genome! Nah... christians have painted themselves in a corner

PS What is:Hoyle's Fallacy?

Originally Posted by sigurdW

First "god" must be defined... let "god" mean the cause of existence, and let everything have a cause...

This is a fallacy known as begging the question. You are assuming (a) that god is the cause of existence and (b) that everything has a cause. Then, not surprisingly, you use these assumptions to prove that god is the cause of everything. If either of your assumptions are false, then so is your conclusion.

If, for example, not everything has a cause then your argument proves that god doesn't exist. Can you prove that everything has a cause?

Let unicorn mean the pet of a mythical princess, and let all princesses have a pet. Therefore unicorns exist. (Not a great example, but some of us actually find it quite hard to come up with logical fallacies.)

Originally Posted by sigurdW

PS What is:Hoyle's Fallacy?

His argument that: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Which just goes to show that astrophysicists who know nothing about biology shouldn't comment on biology (and vice versa).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdW

First "god" must be defined... let "god" mean the cause of existence, and let everything have a cause...

This is a fallacy known as begging the question. You are assuming (a) that god is the cause of existence and (b) that everything has a cause. Then, not surprisingly, you use these assumptions to prove that god is the cause of everything. If either of your assumptions are false, then so is your conclusion.

If, for example, not everything has a cause then your argument proves that god doesn't exist. Can you prove that everything has a cause?

Let unicorn mean the pet of a mythical princess, and let all princesses have a pet. Therefore unicorns exist. (Not a great example, but some of us actually find it quite hard to come up with logical fallacies.)

No fallacy is done on my part!

IF everything has a cause and IF we define "god" as the cause of existence THEN god exists...

Lets strenghten my argument a little:

Its not logically impossible that in some sense of "causation" some things have no cause...
Let them things then be their own causes and then everything has a cause! Right?

I think that to be the cause of existence really is the job god was selected for,
so the definition captures our basic intuition of god:

Since everything has a cause and the definition of god is correct, then god exists.

In short: Existence is and it has a cause, therefore there is a god.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdW

PS What is:Hoyle's Fallacy?

His argument that: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Which just goes to show that astrophysicists who know nothing about biology shouldn't comment on biology (and vice versa).

Hmmm... I do have some respect for Hoyle...
I wonder what exactly was meant by " emerged in this way "?
The story of Life is yet not fully known.

Originally Posted by sigurdW

Hmmm... I do have some respect for Hoyle...

As an astrophysicist, I hope.

I wonder what exactly was meant by " emerged in this way "?

Sorry, I lost the context: evolution by natural selection. He was a proponent of panspermia. Which doesn't actually solve anything. But then again he liked writing science fiction.

Originally Posted by sigurdW

Its not logically impossible that in some sense of "causation" some things have no cause...
Let them things then be their own causes and then everything has a cause! Right?

So you have just invented a special case for those things which don't have a cause. Great. So if, based on this (ahem) "logic", the universe is its own cause then the universe is god. Right...

Or maybe Hawking's speculations are correct and the universe is an inevitable result of (caused by) the laws of physics. So the laws of physics are "god"?

Neither of these sound like a definition of god many people would be happy with. Except, perhaps, pantheism and other shamanistic beliefs.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdW

Hmmm... I do have some respect for Hoyle...

As an astrophysicist, I hope.

I wonder what exactly was meant by " emerged in this way "?

Sorry, I lost the context: evolution by natural selection. He was a proponent of panspermia. Which doesn't actually solve anything. But then again he liked writing science fiction.

The panspermia idea as proposed by Svante Arrhenius had an unconscious error in it:
It was assumed life originally emerged on a planet!
And that only moves the question to how life arose on that planet...

What I like about Hoyle is his tendency to think in new ways...
Did he really miss to claim that life perhaps emerged in free fall?
There are big differences between planetary water and water in space!
I suspect Hoyle found the time difference between the formation of the earth
and the appearance of life on earth to be too short for evolution to work!
I will not rule out the possibility that Hoyle was correct in this matter!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdW

Its not logically impossible that in some sense of "causation" some things have no cause...
Let them things then be their own causes and then everything has a cause! Right?

So you have just invented a special case for those things which don't have a cause. Great. So if, based on this (ahem) "logic", the universe is its own cause then the universe is god. Right...

Or maybe Hawking's speculations are correct and the universe is an inevitable result of (caused by) the laws of physics. So the laws of physics are "god"?

Neither of these sound like a definition of god many people would be happy with. Except, perhaps, pantheism and other shamanistic beliefs.

Nah.. you didnt get it quite right... its the EXISTENCE that is god...
Universes are probably only tiny reflections of god
But you are on to a basic fact:
The only way to get knowledge about god is by studying logic and reality!

And... theres nothing wrong with my logic...
I only wish to tell how things really are,
and false logic would be counter productive.

So what things ,if any, have themselves as their cause? Are they in majority? Making a mockery of causation?
Isnt it so that there are enough things having outside causes to make it possible to use causation as a concept?

Whats wrong with making causation universal by postulating that so called "uncaused" objects to be their own causes? Its just a definition...it doesnt effect them in any way!
Such stretching of definitions are customary in...say... Mathemathics.
I simply use it to show there is at least one non contradictory god! Nobody will thank me for it.

As you perhaps noticed, not many ppl likes the truth!

Like ancient cartographers they faithfully copy the old maps including all them dragons and unicorns...

Originally Posted by sigurdW

The only way to get knowledge about god is by studying logic and reality!

Quite the reverse, I would have thought.

And... theres nothing wrong with my logic...

That's what people (like the OP) always say when their classic logical fallacies are pointed out. The trouble is that people who try to prove the existence of God are so convinced He exists they can't see that they are building the assumption into their argument.

Whats wrong with making causation universal

Because it is an ad-hoc assumption that you are making simply because it makes you argument work.

Originally Posted by sigurdW

(B) That said, lets adress the question whether there is a god or not:

First "god" must be defined... let "god" mean the cause of existence, and let everything have a cause... then:

1 If there is no god then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a god!

Existence itself is god if no other gods happen to be involved...
I believe some atheists rather will deny the existence of existence than believe in a god...ha ha!

You used a meaningless definition of god.

1. If there is no cause for existence, then there is no existence.
2. There is existence.
3. Therefore there is a cause for existence.

The first issue here is that you need to support your first proposition. How is it that you know there needed to be a cause for existence? How do you know that existence hasn't simply been infinite?

Second, you come to the conclusion that there must be a cause for existence if there is existence -- that's it. You didn't prove that the common understanding of a god exists! For the purposes of your argument, "god" can simply be a physical phenomena that can be explained scientifically.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, so please excuse my ignorance if you were. :|

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdW

The only way to get knowledge about god is by studying logic and reality!

Quite the reverse, I would have thought.

And... theres nothing wrong with my logic...

That's what people (like the OP) always say when their classic logical fallacies are pointed out. The trouble is that people who try to prove the existence of God are so convinced He exists they can't see that they are building the assumption into their argument.

Whats wrong with making causation universal

Because it is an ad-hoc assumption that you are making simply because it makes you argument work.

Aha! So you admit the argument is correct and all you can do is to resist simplifying the concept of causality!

Is your only reason for resisting universal causation that you dont like to accept a sane concept of god?
Is there any scientific or logical reason that prevents you from extending the ordinary concept of causality?

Isnt it proper, when you have two independent definitions of the same concept, to follow them up both: as in the case of euclidian and non-euclidian geometry? Isnt it more in line of scientific thinking to tentatively adopt my definition to see where it leads?

I think you have not realised that im not religious in any ordinary sense.
That my concept of god rather is SCIENTIFIC.

That explains why you get surprised when I claim that:
The only way to get knowledge about god is by studying logic and reality!

So, dear opponent, you have included me in the wrong cathegory.
And that may prevent you from understanding what Im saying and why Im saying it.

Perhaps understanding comes easier if you look upon it as a philosophical instead of a religious view?

In the spirit of Descartes we cant deny existence, but existence in itself remains a mystery:
How can non existence cause existence? So he introduces "god" as an explanation of existence.

All I do is putting it on a safe foundation by defining god in a "scientific manner".
Its just luck that they dont burn my kind anymore...

Originally Posted by sigurdW

So you admit the argument is correct

No. It may be well formed but it is not valid. As you seem to enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing, I'm out.

Originally Posted by ccoale427

Originally Posted by sigurdW

(B) That said, lets adress the question whether there is a god or not:

First "god" must be defined... let "god" mean the cause of existence, and let everything have a cause... then:

1 If there is no god then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a god!

Existence itself is god if no other gods happen to be involved...
I believe some atheists rather will deny the existence of existence than believe in a god...ha ha!

You used a meaningless definition of god.

1. If there is no cause for existence, then there is no existence.
2. There is existence.
3. Therefore there is a cause for existence.

The first issue here is that you need to support your first proposition. How is it that you know there needed to be a cause for existence? How do you know that existence hasn't simply been infinite?

Second, you come to the conclusion that there must be a cause for existence if there is existence -- that's it. You didn't prove that the common understanding of a god exists! For the purposes of your argument, "god" can simply be a physical phenomena that can be explained scientifically.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, so please excuse my ignorance if you were. :|

Hi ccoale427 !

You show logical ability by substititing definiendum for definiens.

Good work! (And Im not sarcastic on that point since the simplest things can be the hardest to come to think of.)

The idea behind causation is that only if there is a cause for x then x!

Is there a common understanding of god? I try to define the necessary minimum god:

God being the cause of existence!

Then IF we understand existence and causation THEN we get our first understanding of god.

These are difficult matters and if you know anyone who has thought this through I would be happy to be informed

PS I answered part of your question already, but your question is good and I will later attend to it:
How is it that you know there needed to be a cause for existence? How do you know that existence hasn't simply been infinite?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by sigurdW

So you admit the argument is correct

No. It may be well formed but it is not valid. As you seem to enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing, I'm out.

Again youre mistaken, im trying to get at the truth! And a truth is that I will miss you.

[/QUOTE] The trouble is that people who try to prove the existence of God are so convinced He exists they can't see that they are building the assumption into their argument.
QUOTE]


I don't think thats fair to say strange. I try to proove or work out if a God exists or not, but i'm not already convinced about it, if i were convinced I wouldn't need to proove it to myself, im still looking for the truths.
Science can't disproove God and the philosophies say God cannot be comprehended by the intellect.

I try to be impartial when it comes to things above my ability to understand. I just want to add some weird stuff i read recently:
God is said to be the absolute source of creation. As such 'He' is supposed to be Omnipresent (as in everything is manifestations of God, God is in all things), Omnipotent (all power/energy/force is of God, and Omniscient (all knowledge and intelligence is and emanation or manifestation of God).

God aka the absolute source of creation is said to be beyond our comprehension but the three eminations of God are 'mind' or intellingence, energy/force and matter all three are supposed to be present in everything, everywhere, in each atom, forming all materials in the known Universe and beyond.

This idea of God is completely different from the idea of God as a man like being. What I liked is the idea about the mind>energy>matter trinity being in everything everywhere from a sub atomic level. I mean there must be some form of 'intelligence' or code or subconscious sense that causes atoms to react to stimuli such as heat and cold, that dictacts the frequencies of energy which manifests sub atomic particals and 'manifests' subatomic particles into atoms?
When water is heated it senses and reacts to the heat and seperates itself, evaporates into vapour, when you reduce the tempreture it forms into a solid, the same as lead etc. so those particals are reacting to tempreture which means they must somehow sense, and that sensation of the tempreture is a form of intelligence which acts on the energy which acts on the physichal material.

This stuff comes from ancient languages, a lot is lost in translation probabaly before i mangle it up even more. I didn't explain it very well sorry. It's pretty cool how quantum physics has confirmed a lot of what the ancient eastern philosophies from thousands of years ago said.

Some of you will see this as a load of psychobabble and to you I can only appologize. I just wanted to share this with the scientific comunity and see if anybody has any thought on any of it?

Originally Posted by question for you

I try to proove or work out if a God exists or not

Why would anyone do that? Either you believe in God or you don't. Do you think either the Pope or Dawkins are going to change their minds because you come up with some sort of "proof"?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I try to proove or work out if a God exists or not

Why would anyone do that? Either you believe in God or you don't. Do you think either the Pope or Dawkins are going to change their minds because you come up with some sort of "proof"?

I do it becuase it is a mystery to me, it interests me... I never considered if it would change anybodies opinion...

Originally Posted by question for you

When water is heated it senses and reacts to the heat and seperates itself, evaporates into vapour, when you reduce the tempreture it forms into a solid, the same as lead etc. so those particals are reacting to tempreture which means they must somehow sense, and that sensation of the tempreture is a form of intelligence which acts on the energy which acts on the physichal material.

Here's a crazy idea: instead of making up nonsensical stories like this, why not learn some high school physics!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

When water is heated it senses and reacts to the heat and seperates itself, evaporates into vapour, when you reduce the tempreture it forms into a solid, the same as lead etc. so those particals are reacting to tempreture which means they must somehow sense, and that sensation of the tempreture is a form of intelligence which acts on the energy which acts on the physichal material.

Here's a crazy idea: instead of making up nonsensical stories like this, why not learn some high school physics!

Now your just being an idiot. Didn't anybody ever tell you sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? I told you It wasnt me who made that up. What exactly is the problem with it? explain...

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I try to proove or work out if a God exists or not

Why would anyone do that? Either you believe in God or you don't. Do you think either the Pope or Dawkins are going to change their minds because you come up with some sort of "proof"?

I do it becuase it is a mystery to me, it interests me... I never considered if it would change anybodies opinion...

Yes... life is a mystery. We dont have all the answers. The Ancients were not stupid but lots of their thinking is lost. I accept god as cause, but this "omni" business is at best nothing but speculation.

Then theres the incomprehensibility of god ... heres a real problem: If god creates existence....then he is non existent before existence is created. How can that be understood? Isnt it a contradiction?

And lastly there seems to be better explanations than that: water "wants" to expand when its heated... the natural laws of the mind still waits to be discovered...I advice against trying to put mind into atoms

Originally Posted by question for you

I told you It wasnt me who made that up.

Oh, did you? Sorry, I missed that.

What exactly is the problem with it? explain..

Where do I begin Basically the idea that water molecules "sense" the heat and that this is some form of "intelligence". Theydon't decide to move faster because "it's getting hot in here".

Heat is energy; this is converted to kinetic energy (speed) of the molecules. At some point this kinetic energy is sufficient to break the bonds between the water molecules and it turns into a gas. When you cool it down, the energy is reduced, which allows different bonds to form between the molecules and it turns into a solid. All very mechanical.

Temperature is just a measure of the average energy of the molecules. (Which is why the same amount of heat will raise the temperature of different materials by different amounts.)

Originally Posted by sigurdW

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I try to proove or work out if a God exists or not

Why would anyone do that? Either you believe in God or you don't. Do you think either the Pope or Dawkins are going to change their minds because you come up with some sort of "proof"?

I do it becuase it is a mystery to me, it interests me... I never considered if it would change anybodies opinion...

Yes... life is a mystery. We dont have all the answers. The Ancients were not stupid but lots of their thinking is lost. I accept god as cause, but this "omni" business is at best nothing but speculation.

Omni scient is just another word for all knowing, all powerful all mighty ever present etc

Then theres the incomprehensibility of god ... heres a real problem: If god creates existence....then he is non existent before existence is created. How can that be understood? Isnt it a contradiction?

they say god created our existence, not existence itself. there must be a source... a source without a cause?


And lastly there seems to be better explanations than that: water "wants" to expand when its heated... the natural laws of the mind still waits to be discovered...I advice against trying to put mind into atoms

They do put mind into matter, they even say a conscious thought is contained in a vortex of very fine matter.

It's all a bit far out man if you ask me,

I havent mastered the quotation tool

Originally Posted by question for you

I havent mastered the quotation tool

Neither have I...its late here...see you tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I told you It wasnt me who made that up.

Oh, did you? Sorry, I missed that.

What exactly is the problem with it? explain..

Where do I begin Basically the idea that water molecules "sense" the heat and that this is some form of "intelligence". Theydon't decide to move faster because "it's getting hot in here".

Heat is energy; this is converted to kinetic energy (speed) of the molecules. At some point this kinetic energy is sufficient to break the bonds between the water molecules and it turns into a gas. When you cool it down, the energy is reduced, which allows different bonds to form between the molecules and it turns into a solid. All very mechanical.

Temperature is just a measure of the average energy of the molecules. (Which is why the same amount of heat will raise the temperature of different materials by different amounts.)

heat is energy/fine particals vibrating. Radiation contains matter, a boson is a partical, a pion, photon, chaon, quark and neutrino are all a combination of energy and mass. Since heat itself is vibration then it is already a form of kinetic energy, all energy is really kinetic (in motion) isn't it?.
The vibrational energy of the surroundings causes these atoms which are like little universes, to change frequency of vibration to such an extent that they vary between gases liquids and solids. The mechanics may involve a certain amount of intelligence to cause the vibrational frequencies to change and interact with external influences. Intelligence isnt the right word, mind substance, code, program... I don't know. Remember im just trying to get across this stuff i read i've never had the priviledge of seeing first hand any evidence of the nature of subatomic particals of matter or its interactions with energy and 'mind substance'/intelligence.

Isn't this like what they are looking for at the moment with the 'God partical' the Higgs boson partical and feild? isn't it possible that at some minute level the could be something that dictates what kind of atoms will be formed out of the 'subatomic' material?

Im sorry, i'm going mad.

Originally Posted by sigurdW

I dont think its possible for christians to "redefine God entirely out of the realm of possible evaluation."

Yet they do exactly that. God is defined as being outside of time and space, entirely beyond any form of rational or objective examination. There cannot be any empirical evidence that God actually exists, it must be accepted on faith and nothing but. This is a relatively recent development, God was typically defined as having direct, demonstrable contact with humanity, right up until man had the ability to see through those claims.

Not as long as it is said that Jesus is the son of God... Then either Jesus is an adopted son, or God has an y-chromosome in His genome! Nah... christians have painted themselves in a corner

Jesus is supposedly an earthly incarnation of God, generated by a miracle. It's magic!

PS What is:Hoyle's Fallacy?

Google is your friend.

Originally Posted by sigurdW

(A) Believing that "lack of belief in god(s)" is no belief is a religious belief!

To lack the belief in x, is to believe that not x... Its that simple. The reason why A is a religious belief should be obvious: To believe in something false (or wrong) is a necessary requirement for a religious belief, so by all means let us forget about other "sufficient requirements" in the question of what a religious belief really is.

Not having a belief is no more a belief than not having a car means you have a car. You are creating a false dichotomy. Atheism is the rejection of claims made by theists based on an utter lack of evidence to support the claim. Theists have not met their burden of proof regarding their claims about God.

(B) That said, lets adress the question whether there is a god or not:

First "god" must be defined... let "god" mean the cause of existence, and let everything have a cause... then:

1 If there is no god then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a god!

Existence itself is god if no other gods happen to be involved...
I believe some atheists rather will deny the existence of existence than believe in a god...ha ha!

#1 is an unjustified, unsubstantiated claim, presented without a shred of evidence. Because it is logically invalid, the entire argument fails because it's premises are faulty.

Try again.

There is not really a burden of proof, nobody has to proove anything to anybody else. athiesm is as much a theory as theism, I havent seen proof of either.

Originally Posted by question for you

There is not really a burden of proof, nobody has to proove anything to anybody else. athiesm is as much a theory as theism, I havent seen proof of either.

I think you have misunderstood what an atheist is. An atheist is not a person who claims that god does not exist (though he can, but that isn't what atheism is) therefore the atheist has no burden of proof until he claims as such.

There is a difference between "god does not exist" and "there is insufficient evidence to believe a god exists."

Originally Posted by ccoale427

Originally Posted by question for you

There is not really a burden of proof, nobody has to proove anything to anybody else. athiesm is as much a theory as theism, I havent seen proof of either.

I think you have misunderstood what an atheist is. An atheist is not a person who claims that god does not exist (though he can, but that isn't what atheism is) therefore the atheist has no burden of proof until he claims as such.

There is a difference between "god does not exist" and "there is insufficient evidence to believe a god exists."

I think you might be confusing atheism with agnosticism, god does not exist is atheist, there is insufficient evidence to beleive in god = agnostic. In my mind an atheist is the exact equal and opposite of a theist as i made clear before, you've said nothing to change my mind on that.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by ccoale427

Originally Posted by question for you

There is not really a burden of proof, nobody has to proove anything to anybody else. athiesm is as much a theory as theism, I havent seen proof of either.

I think you have misunderstood what an atheist is. An atheist is not a person who claims that god does not exist (though he can, but that isn't what atheism is) therefore the atheist has no burden of proof until he claims as such.

There is a difference between "god does not exist" and "there is insufficient evidence to believe a god exists."

I think you might be confusing atheism with agnosticism, god does not exist is atheist, there is insufficient evidence to beleive in god = agnostic. In my mind an atheist is the exact equal and opposite of a theist as i made clear before, you've said nothing to change my mind on that.

Gnosticism has to do with the understanding of knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist. Atheist on its own, however is solely the rejection of the theistic claim that a god exists. Atheist does not mean "anti-theist" as many people think. It means "a-theist" or "not-theist".

There are atheists that happen to make the claim that god does not exist, but it is not atheism that makes that claim. Again, atheism (as all atheists will tell you and already have told you) is simply rejection of the theist's claim that a god (the common understanding of god) exists (usually on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence).

Well thats an interesting way of looking at it. So whats the name for some body who beleives there is no god? an anti theist u say? indeed most people think it's a atheist.
so if a-theist means not theist. why does it not follow that a-gnostic means not truth???

"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century"

Originally Posted by question for you

There is not really a burden of proof, nobody has to proove anything to anybody else. athiesm is as much a theory as theism, I havent seen proof of either.

Wrong. There is always a burden of proof on the positive claimant if they expect anyone listening to them to take them seriously. I don't care if theists want to fantasize about imaginary friends in the sky all day long but the second they talk to me and expect me to believe it, I am going to demand evidence that their claims are actually true.

Failure to produce that evidence results in the rejection of their claims as unfounded and unsupported. The failure is entirely theirs.

Originally Posted by question for you

I think you might be confusing atheism with agnosticism, god does not exist is atheist, there is insufficient evidence to beleive in god = agnostic. In my mind an atheist is the exact equal and opposite of a theist as i made clear before, you've said nothing to change my mind on that.

You are the one that is confused. Agnosticism is not a mid-point between atheism and theism, it is an entirely separate question altogether. Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with the availability of knowledge. If someone asks you if you're an atheist or theist and you answer agnostic, that's like someone asking you what your favorite color is and you answering banana.

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by question for you

There is not really a burden of proof, nobody has to proove anything to anybody else. athiesm is as much a theory as theism, I havent seen proof of either.

Wrong. There is always a burden of proof on the positive claimant if they expect anyone listening to them to take them seriously. I don't care if theists want to fantasize about imaginary friends in the sky all day long but the second they talk to me and expect me to believe it, I am going to demand evidence that their claims are actually true.

Failure to produce that evidence results in the rejection of their claims as unfounded and unsupported. The failure is entirely theirs.

Some theist might imagine friends in the sky and others might imagine a completely different concept. Also I see plenty of theorists on here who see no need to burden themselves with prooving what they say. Proof is hard to come by.

Other than that fair enough. Thanks for your comment

Originally Posted by question for you

Well thats an interesting way of looking at it. So whats the name for some body who beleives there is no god? an anti theist u say? indeed most people think it's a atheist.
so if a-theist means not theist. why does it not follow that a-gnostic means not truth???

"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century"

I think this will sum it up for you (this was taken from another forum), but it sums it up pretty well:

1. Gnostic Atheist - Claims to know there is no god.
2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief in god, but does not claim they know there is no god with anything resembling certainty.
3. Gnostic Theist - Claims to know there is a god.
4. Agnostic Theist - Believes in god, but does not claim they know god exists with anything resembling certainty.

Hopefully it helps.

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by question for you

I think you might be confusing atheism with agnosticism, god does not exist is atheist, there is insufficient evidence to beleive in god = agnostic. In my mind an atheist is the exact equal and opposite of a theist as i made clear before, you've said nothing to change my mind on that.

You are the one that is confused. Agnosticism is not a mid-point between atheism and theism, it is an entirely separate question altogether. Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with the availability of knowledge. If someone asks you if you're an atheist or theist and you answer agnostic, that's like someone asking you what your favorite color is and you answering banana.

Cocale explained it all pretty clearly but after reading your post i certainly am confused! latin gno derives from sanskit gna or jna meaning know, agnostic means not know/knowledge, gnostic means know/knowledge.

Favorite colour and banana is nothing to do with it, and isn't amusing or smart.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by question for you

I think you might be confusing atheism with agnosticism, god does not exist is atheist, there is insufficient evidence to beleive in god = agnostic. In my mind an atheist is the exact equal and opposite of a theist as i made clear before, you've said nothing to change my mind on that.

You are the one that is confused. Agnosticism is not a mid-point between atheism and theism, it is an entirely separate question altogether. Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with the availability of knowledge. If someone asks you if you're an atheist or theist and you answer agnostic, that's like someone asking you what your favorite color is and you answering banana.

Cocale explained it all pretty clearly but after reading your post i certainly am confused! latin gno derives from sanskit gna or jna meaning know, agnostic means not know/knowledge, gnostic means know/knowledge.

Favorite colour and banana is nothing to do with it, and isn't amusing or smart.

Don't be confused -- he said exactly what I said. Theism and Gnosticism are separate subjects (but related in their purpose).

1. If you are gnostic you are claiming knowledge.
2. If you are agnostic you are not claiming knowledge.

1. If you are theist you are claiming belief in god.
2. If you are atheist you are not claiming belief in god.


You can be any combination of those two groups: gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

Originally Posted by question for you

Some theist might imagine friends in the sky and others might imagine a completely different concept. Also I see plenty of theorists on here who see no need to burden themselves with prooving what they say. Proof is hard to come by.

It doesn't matter what they imagine, it only matters what is actually true. Proof is not hard to come by for things that actually exist. The fact that no evidence exists is a pretty damning reason to think these things aren't real and that rational people ought not believe in them.

Originally Posted by question for you

heat is energy/fine particals vibrating

Heat is energy. Temperature is a measure of particle motion.

Radiation contains matter

What do you mean by "radiation"? It has different meanings in different contexts.

all energy is really kinetic (in motion) isn't it?.

No.

atoms which are like little universes

Atoms are not like little universes.

The mechanics may involve a certain amount of intelligence

No, it doesn't. If I push you, how much intelligence does it need to fall over.

Intelligence isnt the right word

How about "physics".

i've never had the priviledge of seeing first hand any evidence of the nature of subatomic particals of matter or its interactions with energy

Then you should study physics.

and 'mind substance'/intelligence.

What is that then? How do you detect and measure it?

Isn't this like what they are looking for at the moment with the 'God partical' the Higgs boson partical and feild?

No.

isn't it possible that at some minute level the could be something that dictates what kind of atoms will be formed out of the 'subatomic' material?

Yes. Physics.

Originally Posted by ccoale427

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by question for you

I think you might be confusing atheism with agnosticism, god does not exist is atheist, there is insufficient evidence to beleive in god = agnostic. In my mind an atheist is the exact equal and opposite of a theist as i made clear before, you've said nothing to change my mind on that.

You are the one that is confused. Agnosticism is not a mid-point between atheism and theism, it is an entirely separate question altogether. Atheism and theism deal with belief. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with the availability of knowledge. If someone asks you if you're an atheist or theist and you answer agnostic, that's like someone asking you what your favorite color is and you answering banana.

Cocale explained it all pretty clearly but after reading your post i certainly am confused! latin gno derives from sanskit gna or jna meaning know, agnostic means not know/knowledge, gnostic means know/knowledge.

Favorite colour and banana is nothing to do with it, and isn't amusing or smart.

Don't be confused -- he said exactly what I said. Theism and Gnosticism are separate subjects (but related in their purpose).

1. If you are gnostic you are claiming knowledge.
2. If you are agnostic you are not claiming knowledge.

1. If you are theist you are claiming belief in god.
2. If you are atheist you are not claiming belief in god.


You can be any combination of those two groups: gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

Your all so argumentative.... I was confused by the banana and colour comment... don't be confused, that's not what you said!

How about if:

1. fine
2. if you are agnostic you are claiming no knowledge... rather than not claiming knowledge

1. fine
2. if you are atheist you are claiming no belief in god. Rather than 'not claiming beleif'

The difference may only be in the use of english... yet there is a subtle difference.

You can indeed flit from one lable to another as many do in there search for understanding... others simply have little or no interest in defining there own beleif or opinion in order to conform to a lable such as gnostic or atheist.

hope this helps clear up your misunderstandings

Originally Posted by Cephus

Originally Posted by question for you

Some theist might imagine friends in the sky and others might imagine a completely different concept. Also I see plenty of theorists on here who see no need to burden themselves with prooving what they say. Proof is hard to come by.

It doesn't matter what they imagine, it only matters what is actually true. Proof is not hard to come by for things that actually exist. The fact that no evidence exists is a pretty damning reason to think these things aren't real and that rational people ought not believe in them.

Is that true? is proof also easy to come by when something is true? Thats a pretty wild statement. You saying murderers never get off scot free? you saying top class solicitors can't get you off the hook for most things? If you find the truth so easy to proove, maybe you should be working for the courts?

Did einstein say some stuff about whatever i can percieve i can achieve... which means that imagination though not yet real, can create reality. Einstein said lots of stuff of a simila ilk. Who are you to say it doesn't matter? I bet it matters to the people who imagine it matters.

Is proof always* easy to come by...^

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

heat is energy/fine particals vibrating

Heat is energy. Temperature is a measure of particle motion.

Heat is tempreture. Partical motion is a measurement of energy..... we could go on all day claiming things and useing slightly different ways of saying them

Radiation contains matter

What do you mean by "radiation"? It has different meanings in different contexts. I used radiation as it is a fine substance than emanates away from a source, like light, like heat... all these things that radiate outwards from a central source.

all energy is really kinetic (in motion) isn't it?.

No.

Why not? It is in motion. if you can't explain it then i will go on with my current opinion until i know better. Kinetic energy... if something is in perpetual motion then can kinetic energy exist within that thing? it's just one of those pretentious science words isnt it?

atoms which are like little universes

Atoms are not like little universes.

In a sense that they are vast spaces with much smaller particals of matter flying around under the direction of forces... yes they are 'like' little universes. not little universes, but in a sense, like.

The mechanics may involve a certain amount of intelligence

No, it doesn't. If I push you, how much intelligence does it need to fall over.

Your analogies are rubbish. P.S to fall over and minimise the risk of hurting myself takes some intelligence, i would know how to measure it. Seeing you coming, and setting my balance so that you are unable to push me takes a certain amount of inttelligence, so does using the force of your push against you to unbalance you.

Intelligence isnt the right word

How about "physics".

Nope, it doesn't even begin to substitute the idea of 'mind'.

i've never had the priviledge of seeing first hand any evidence of the nature of subatomic particals of matter or its interactions with energy

Then you should study physics.

If I studied the literature... that would not be first hand evidence. Even primary literature isn't first hand witnessing of evidence.

and 'mind substance'/intelligence.

What is that then? How do you detect and measure it?

Well it is 'inttelligence' in all degrees and forms from subconscious sensations to fully conscious awareness of all things. How do we measure our own minds? it isnt a tangible things so far is it? We know that cells in a body act and react in an intelligent way without any conscious imput from our minds. We know that atoms react to stimulus consistently as previously stated in when i tried to comunicate the idea originally.

Isn't this like what they are looking for at the moment with the 'God partical' the Higgs boson partical and feild?

No.

Or maybe you have no clue what i said or what they are researching at CERN?

isn't it possible that at some minute level the could be something that dictates what kind of atoms will be formed out of the 'subatomic' material?

Yes. Physics.

Physics is the study of the physical. Why would you interpret it to be a mysterious 'thing' that builds matter?

I know your more intelligent than that strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I used radiation as it is a fine substance than emanates away from a source, like light, like heat... all these things that radiate outwards from a central source.

Light does not contain matter. Most forms of radiation do not contain matter. Alpha and beta radiation contain matter.

How about "physics".

Nope, it doesn't even begin to substitute the idea of 'mind'.

It wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to be a better word for the process you are describing. Which is purely physical. Atoms don't have little minds of their own.

If I studied the literature... that would not be first hand evidence. Even primary literature isn't first hand witnessing of evidence.

I didn't say study books. I meant study the subject, including practical lab work. You would see first-hand evidence for the existence of particles.

Or maybe you have no clue what i said or what they are researching at CERN?

You are right about the first part and wrong about the second.

Physics is the study of the physical. Why would you interpret it to be a mysterious 'thing' that builds matter?

Physics is the thing that "dictates what kind of atoms will be formed out of the 'subatomic' material" and builds matter.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I used radiation as it is a fine substance than emanates away from a source, like light, like heat... all these things that radiate outwards from a central source.

Light does not contain matter. Most forms of radiation do not contain matter. Alpha and beta radiation contain matter.

So a photon is not matter? has no matter? How do we know this?

How about "physics".

Nope, it doesn't even begin to substitute the idea of 'mind'.

It wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to be a better word for the process you are describing. Which is purely physical. Atoms don't have little minds of their own.

isn't everything purely physical? what is not physical? example? everything is physical thats why physics is about everything isn't it? intelligence or 'mind' is physical aswell isn't it? But i consider physics to be the study of the physical rather than a physical thing itself... if you get my gist?

if atoms have minds then why not agree with my original comment rather than argue that atoms don't have minds, they have physics! which is confusing the issue and not necesary.

If I studied the literature... that would not be first hand evidence. Even primary literature isn't first hand witnessing of evidence.

I didn't say study books. I meant study the subject, including practical lab work. You would see first-hand evidence for the existence of particles.

That's why i said i've never been privaledged enough to witness or participate in practical lab work... though I'd love it.

Or maybe you have no clue what i said or what they are researching at CERN?

You are right about the first part and wrong about the second.

hmmm. if you have no clue you should ask for an explanation before you try to give an explaination.

Physics is the study of the physical. Why would you interpret it to be a mysterious 'thing' that builds matter?

Physics is the thing that "dictates what kind of atoms will be formed out of the 'subatomic' material" and builds matter.

Thats your interpretation or beleif. I beleives physics is the scientific branch that studies the physical.
You said atoms have minds, so why not 'sub atomic atoms' having mind to? rather than 'physics'?

Lets not get too caught up in one upanship or arguing when we agree on something... i've been enjoying your comments strange.

whats up with this multi quote tool? somebody explain how to multi quote please :-)

P.S... I thought you said atoms DO have minds... my mistake

Photons are not matter, they don't have mass. Have you noticed how little it hurts when sunlight falls on you.

Originally Posted by Strange

Have you noticed how little it hurts when sunlight falls on you.

Are you serious? have you ever tried exposing your skin to levles of sunlight that we regularly recieve all this way back here on earth? fall asleep in the hot sun then ask me if i've noticed how much it hurts...

It would hurt even more if the sun was closer. is that your 'evidence' that photons don't have mass? becuase the sun doesnt hurt???

That's a cracking strangism! :-)

Originally Posted by question for you

It would hurt even more if the sun was closer. is that your 'evidence' that photons don't have mass? becuase the sun doesnt hurt???

No, it was a joke. As this thread has just got even sillier and pointless than the OP.

Ok... er... So phtons do have mass? lol

A neutrino is the smallest thing we know about isnt it? and neutrinos have mass, im sure thats what it said in the anti matter book I read.

Originally Posted by Strange

Photons are not matter, they don't have mass. Have you noticed how little it hurts when sunlight falls on you.

i think this link tells us that a photon does have mass: What is the mass of a photon?

Photons do not have mass. OK, they do not have rest mass, which is what the word mass means in physics. They couldn't travel at the speed of light if they had mass.

Neutrinos do have mass, but it is really, really small (it hasn't been accurately measured yet). They couldn't oscillate between neutrino flavours if they didn't have mass. This also means they always travel slower than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by question for you;342554}i think this link tells us that a photon does have mass: [URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html"

What is the mass of a photon?[/URL]

No, it doesn't. It states that there is an experimentally determined upper limit on what a photons mass could be if a photon had mass. And that limit gets lower with each refinement of the experimental measurement.

Originally Posted by Strange

Photons do not have mass. OK, they do not have rest mass, which is what the word mass means in physics. They couldn't travel at the speed of light if they had mass.

Neutrinos do have mass, but it is really, really small (it hasn't been accurately measured yet). They couldn't oscillate between neutrino flavours if they didn't have mass. This also means they always travel slower than the speed of light.

Recent experiments have some scientist pretty confident that neutrinos travel faster than light.

You're contradicting yourself... mass or no mass which is it?

"Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity."

I interpret that as saying photns are said to be massless but thats just a figure of speech.

Originally Posted by question for you

Recent experiments have some scientist pretty confident that neutrinos travel faster than light.

And those experiments have, more recently, been found to be flawed. Do keep up!

You're contradicting yourself... mass or no mass which is it?

Where? Photons do not have mass. Neutrinos do.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by question for you;342554}i think this link tells us that a photon does have mass: [URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html"

What is the mass of a photon?[/URL]

"Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity."


No, it doesn't. It states that there is an experimentally determined upper limit on what a photons mass could be if a photon had mass. And that limit gets lower with each refinement of the experimental measurement.

"When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" m_rest. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. For example, all protons, electrons, and neutrons have the same rest mass; it's something that can be looked up in a table. As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit."

Its says that its relativistic mass increases without limit. how is that an experimentally determined upper limit?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

Recent experiments have some scientist pretty confident that neutrinos travel faster than light.

And those experiments have, more recently, been found to be flawed. Do keep up!

what was the flaw?

You're contradicting yourself... mass or no mass which is it?

Where? Photons do not have mass. Neutrinos do.

Photons do not have mass. OK, they do not have rest mass, which is what the word mass means in physics. They couldn't travel at the speed of light if they had mass.

^thats where u contradicted yourself

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by question for you;342554}i think this link tells us that a photon does have mass: [URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html"

What is the mass of a photon?[/URL]

"Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity."


No, it doesn't. It states that there is an experimentally determined upper limit on what a photons mass could be if a photon had mass. And that limit gets lower with each refinement of the experimental measurement.

"When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" m_rest. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. For example, all protons, electrons, and neutrons have the same rest mass; it's something that can be looked up in a table. As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit."

Its says that its relativistic mass increases without limit. how is that an experimentally determined upper limit?

Relativistic mass is a somewhat obsolete term, and a misleading one. It's actually a measure of energy. Rest mass is what we're talking about when we use the word mass, and photons have no rest mass. Protons, electrons and neutrons have mass, photons don't. The upper limit exists because the experiment has a certain degree of accuracy, and with that degree of accuracy photons are measured to have no mass.

what was the flaw?

A faulty data cable connection resulted in a 60 nanosecond delay, which was the amount of time that the neutrinos appeared to be early by.