Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 4 Post By pavlos
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Is it true that the only legitimacy of God-religions is the ask for the proof of non-existence?

  1. #1 Is it true that the only legitimacy of God-religions is the ask for the proof of non-existence? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    And you know, asking for the proof of non-existence is nonsensical.

    Well, is that the only legit basis where a religion can stand on?
    Aren't there any others?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Define "legitimacy".
    Zero proof of non-existence is hardly "legitimacy" in any sense of the word.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    I'll redefine the question: Is it true that the only secure thing that God-religions can use to invalidate their religion to be is false is by asking for the proof of non-existence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    As I pointed out in the thread that prompted this one:
    Lack of evidence when there should be evidence counts against the existence of god.
    As does weight of probability.

    As an argument in support of "god" it is absolutely worthless.
    Pavlos' post mentioning leprechauns etc. should have made you aware of that.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    I'll redefine the question: Is it true that the only secure thing that God-religions can use to invalidate their religion to be is false is by asking for the proof of non-existence?
    There is that. However, you also have to account for the fact that they attribute everything which we cannot understand to a God. Even when there are just gaps to be filled in. For instance, evolution is a theory. Therefore, it is open to ridicule and the insertion of God into the points which cannot be "proven". God is in the details, as they say.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    God's legitimacy? Nah, I like to think he's a bastard.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Lack of evidence when there should be evidence counts against the existence of god.
    Not finding a cause yet does not confirm the universe to be non-deterministic.
    We may find a cause for radioactive decay someday, and we might find its deterministic someday.
    Its just that we could assume that it happens non-deterministically now, and also, we cant confirm that the world is not deterministic.
    although we might not have found the cause yet. for e.g, radioactive decay/quanflux.

    if we can apply it to quantum physics, why not on religions?


    If we cant rule out that universal determinism may some day be found to be true, why should we rule out that God exists?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    If we cant rule out that universal determinism may some day be found to be true, why should we rule out that God exists?
    It would help if you managed to realise that there are two separate arguments:
    1) Ruling out god's existence - lack of evidence DESPITE the fact that there should be some (i.e. no evidence for god).
    2) Acausal physics - everything we do confirms it (i.e. evidence against causality).
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    And you know, asking for the proof of non-existence is nonsensical.

    Well, is that the only legit basis where a religion can stand on?
    Aren't there any others?

    Unfortunately this isn't a good guide or despriction or even any sort of measure for that matter of religion. Many cults that arn't afforded any religious status can stand on the same basis. I mean how many of us could tell the difference between a cult claiming a divine connection and inspiration and a small previously unheard of religion? The only real defining factor for a religion is the public perception. If you as part of the public accept something as a religion then to you it is, of course this is much easier for large organised religions such as Catholicism or Sikhism etc...
    RamenNoodles likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    If we cant rule out that universal determinism may some day be found to be true, why should we rule out that God exists?
    It would help if you managed to realise that there are two separate arguments:
    1) Ruling out god's existence - lack of evidence DESPITE the fact that there should be some (i.e. no evidence for god).
    2) Acausal physics - everything we do confirms it (i.e. evidence against causality).
    Well, Christians use "God made his scriptures known throughout all lands. All over the word, and that the bible is the most read book on earth. God did these." and the use this as proof.

    Well, what evidence are there against causality?
    And how is it used to be evidence against causality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Well, Christians use "God made his scriptures known throughout all lands. All over the word, and that the bible is the most read book on earth. God did these." and the use this as proof.
    Unsupported claims are NOT proof.
    (Unless, of course, you're of some religious faith or or other).

    Well, what evidence are there against causality?
    And how is it used to be evidence against causality?
    For crying out loud!
    How many threads DO you want on acausality?
    You're having enough difficulty understanding the answers you've been given in those other threads (or you're simply ignoring the answers and just repeating the question for the sake of it) without starting that in this one.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Well, Christians use "God made his scriptures known throughout all lands. All over the word, and that the bible is the most read book on earth. God did these." and the use this as proof.
    Most religions start with an assumption of a god/gods existence (Note that: an assumption) thus they start from a false premise, it is not for anybody else to prove their assumption wrong, they alone have that burden. So anything that is said or written, etc directly from that assumption is bogus, it is that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Well, what evidence are there against causality?
    We are back to who has the burden, remember it is nonsensical to ask these sort of questions when you haven't established a causer. And also when asking such questions regarding a causer, you put yourself on a never ending spiral.
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    And how is it used to be evidence against causality?
    We live in a deterministic universe, we live our lifes under an illusion of free will. Becuase we are controlled by our enviroment. But that does not make the universe causal. Did a mountain grow from the shifting of the earths tectonic plates, or did something put it there. What is more logical. Random events occur we are one such random event.

    This by Dr Robert Stovold will help explain random uncaused things happening.
    Sandwiched between a plagiarized biography and biased references are several canards from the Creationist canon, such as (and I paraphrase) “evolution is simply a matter of chance”, and “the complexity of living things requires a designer”. I’ve refuted both lies with an analogy that I’ve used for years, which I’ll share with Freethinker readers in the form of an amusing conversation I once had with a Creationist:

    Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!

    Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?

    Creationist: Yes.

    Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes tend to settle at the base of the box? Do you think it’s because God put them there?

    Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.

    Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well? Why do the small flakes fall further?

    Creationist: I don’t know.

    Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.

    Creationist: There must be more to it than that? There must be! There has to be!

    [Walks away scratching his head....]

    A more detailed refutation of Comfort’s nonsense is beyond the scope of this blog, but will appear in a future print edition of The Freethinker.
    On the Origin of Specious Arguments
    Dr Robert Stovold
    Strange, MrMojo1, Neverfly and 1 others like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    I'll redefine the question: Is it true that the only secure thing that God-religions can use to invalidate their religion to be is false is by asking for the proof of non-existence?
    I honestly can't tell what you're asking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Religion is a matter of belief, proof is irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Although descriptions of god are very varied, a common theme amongst modern theologians is to describe god like so: God is not composed of matter or energy. God transcends reality. God does not exist within the universe OR outside of the universe. God transcends the universe. God can interact physically with the world. God is - or, is the source of - love, truth, morality and happiness.
    hmm. those guys who dont understand what im asking, this would be simpler, thanks zwirko

    They say: he exists, but he cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched, tasted, observed, proven, detected + rejecting all other means we try to prove he does not exist via-using evidence








    And why would it be paradoxically wrong? at post #4
    Lack of evidence when there should be evidence counts against the existence of god.
    NOTE HERE: they say he exists, but they tell you (he is not composed of matter or energy.... refer up there) that there would be no evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Religion is a matter of belief, proof is irrelevant.
    Exactly....anyone that asks you for proof their gods do not exist are using that old escape clause because they are still under the spell of religious indoctrination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    then what if they say: god is not composed of matter/energy.

    therefore not requiring to give evidence if they are asked to prove their god exists?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    then what if they say: god is not composed of matter/energy.

    therefore not requiring to give evidence if they are asked to prove their god exists?
    A belief in gods is free, wide open, believe it or not protected by 1st amendment, and requires no proof. An American citizen can have at it, any god one would like. * There are so many gods I guess one or two could be "not composed", or put another way "One's imagination is not limited to matter/energy levels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    But atheism also asks that you believe there is no God without offering any proof. Surely since there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist the most logical and sensible position is to keep an open mind on the issue.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But atheism also asks that you believe there is no God without offering any proof.
    Not true.
    Atheism varies from "no belief in god" to "absolutely believing god does not exist".

    Surely since there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist the most logical and sensible position is to keep an open mind on the issue.
    And regardless, lack of evidence when there should be evidence is an indicator that in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence (weight of probabilities).

    I'd also suggest that, should any actual evidence come to light those who say "god does not exist" would change their minds - or a significant number would.
    shlunka likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But atheism also asks that you believe there is no God without offering any proof.
    Atheism has never asked me that. It has never asked me anything.

    Surely since there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist the most logical and sensible position is to keep an open mind on the issue.
    Do you think we should keep a similarly open mind on the flying spaghetti monster, Hogwarts, invisible pink unicorns, spronklettes, and the infinite number of other things that we have no evidence for or against?

    On the other hand, we could say that if there is no evidence for something, we just forget about it until some evidence comes along.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But atheism also asks that you believe there is no God without offering any proof.
    Atheism has never asked me that. It has never asked me anything.

    Surely since there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist the most logical and sensible position is to keep an open mind on the issue.
    Do you think we should keep a similarly open mind on the flying spaghetti monster, Hogwarts, invisible pink unicorns, spronklettes, and the infinite number of other things that we have no evidence for or against?
    You have a point with spaghetti monster, but in fairness half the worlds population don't actually believe in the spaghetti monster, God on the other hand is a different issue. So with so many people believing and no evidence to prove non existence I still think it might be at the very least a little naive to just the dismiss the notion of a God without first giving it very serious consideration.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    You have a point with spaghetti monster, but in fairness half the worlds population don't actually believe in the spaghetti monster
    Give it 2,000 years and then check!

    God on the other hand is a different issue.
    How so?
    Because it hasn't (yet) been politically expedient to push Pastafarianism as an agenda?

    So with so many people believing and no evidence to prove non existence I still think it might be at the very least a little naive to just the dismiss the notion of a God without first giving it very serious consideration.
    Argumentum ad populum?
    Pfft, another way of saying "Well, everyone else seems to be gullible so I think I'll be as well".
    pavlos and Ascended like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Because it hasn't (yet) been politically expedient to push Pastafarianism as an agenda?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    You have a point with spaghetti monster, but in fairness half the worlds population don't actually believe in the spaghetti monster, God on the other hand is a different issue. So with so many people believing and no evidence to prove non existence I still think it might be at the very least a little naive to just the dismiss the notion of a God without first giving it very serious consideration.
    I'm not sure why the number of people who believe in it matters. But if we allow that, does it mean we should keep an equally open mind about Thor and the others, and Zeus and his crowd? Or do only living believers count? Do we have to keep an open mind about all of the world's many faiths, gods, demons and angels? Or is there some threshold? If more than N million believe, then we should keep an open mind?
    pavlos likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    How many Hollywood celebrities believe in Xenu?
    Surely, if they've got all that money they must be smart?
    That means there's gotta be something to scientology, right?

    I tried asking cats, but all they said was that they believe it's time for a nap.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But atheism also asks that you believe there is no God without offering any proof. Surely since there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist the most logical and sensible position is to keep an open mind on the issue.
    Atheism ask what? .....what Atheism really ask is that you know the difference between a belief and reality, and not confuse the two. To the Atheist, gods or supernaturals are beliefs and have always existed thru the history of mankind, and even before our species, however they exist only in our imagination, and not in the real world. Your last sentence is an agnostic hope, however it is illogical, for the same reasons just mentioned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But atheism also asks that you believe there is no God without offering any proof.
    I could go on about atheism not having any doctrines or prophets, and therefore asking nothing of anyone, but I suspect what you're trying to say is that belief in atheism requires that one believes in something without evidence. You're still wrong, of course, so let me explain why.

    Atheism is not simply a belief based on an absence of evidence (why aren't prayers answered, why is the order to the universe entirely random and arbitrary) but also a belief based on actual evidence. Heaps and mounds of it, actually. One doesn't have to go to heaven's door to answer the question of, say, Yahweh's existence. We can look at the archaeological record and see that many of the biblical stories are based on myths belonging to earlier civilizations. Even Yahweh himself was borrowed from the Canaanite pantheon. This is why there is so much talk in the Old Testament of other gods. Yahweh demanding primacy ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me") makes no sense if he was believed to be the only god in existence. When you put all of these pieces of evidence together, you're left with a picture that suggests the gods we worship today--and the ones that were worshiped before--are creations of mankind rather than real entities. So atheism is the only logical conclusion if your decision is to be influenced at all by evidence.

    Surely since there is no proof that God does or doesn't exist the most logical and sensible position is to keep an open mind on the issue.
    One can be an atheist and keep an open mind to the existence of a god or gods. The definition of the word is a bit murky--some say it's an evidence-based belief, others say it's a lack of belief--but in practice, atheism is a position taken not on the grand question of where we came from, but on the issue of whether or not these gods we know of are real or not. Most atheists will readily admit that they don't know if the universe was created. And since atheism is an evidence- and reason-based position, it is by nature one that is open to new evidence and new conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Proving the non-existence of god?
    By Zwirko in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: October 20th, 2012, 08:54 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2010, 12:41 AM
  3. Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose
    By andersbranderud in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 4th, 2009, 02:29 PM
  4. SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE
    By marcobiagini in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 10th, 2009, 04:11 AM
  5. Here is the Proof of God's Existence
    By zon3d in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: October 31st, 2008, 07:18 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •