Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

Exactly; you're the one claiming that god exists, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence. Yet you're saying that's impossible.

I know the thread is long, but if you are going to contribute you have no choice but to read it through.
Come back when you are up to scratch.

 

[Herzblut]

So using God to explain the creation of the universe and the world, that's not thinking and has no interest in "knowledge of our world"...?

Please cite me correctly.

No, declaring that a God has created the world is not thinking but believing. And no, it is not geared towards progressing our knowledge. It obviously doesn't provide any route to further investigation. Contrarily, it even blocks knowledge gain. Knowledge gain is not a core competence of religion, you know? Funny, I need to explain this to you.

Astrology - a classical pseudoscience - was the kicker of our knowledge about the Universe, NOT verses of the bible. My dear, not even the Pope in 15th century would come up with such a weird notion YOU try to sell here! Centuries ago, the RCC trained up some highly qualified guys. They studied astrology - NOT the frikkin verses of the bible - and gained just outright amazing progress in understanding our Universe. Amongst them were some well known bloody geniuses I can only bow humbly for - Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler.

To summarize the answer to your question: no, you're totally wrong.

(the Vatican is big on prayer, just see Dawkin's Root of all Evil for an example),

Hey! There's a Vatican prayer saying "Dawkin is Root of all Evil"? This is great! I'm not a keen prayer - to say the least - but I need to have that one!

Thus, your posts have throughout this thread have been meaningless.

Meaning might follow studying - for some of us. Why don't you try and start to RTFM?

Sincerely

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[Lonewulf]

Please cite me correctly.

No, declaring that a God has created the world is not thinking but believing. And no, it is not geared towards progressing our knowledge. It obviously doesn't provide any route to further investigation. Contrarily, it even blocks knowledge gain. Knowledge gain is not a core competence of religion. Funny, I need to explain this to you.

So, you're claiming that God was never used to try to explain the universe? To explain where the universe even came from? This is your claim, right?

Astrology was the kicker of our knowledge about the Universe, not verses of the bible. My dear, not even the Pope in 15th century would come up with such weird notion YOU try to sell here!

Okay. So there is not a hypothesis that states that God created the universe, and that there existed a person called Adam, and a person called Eve, nor a whole line of thought or quests for scholarly inquests of the aforementioned.

Well, there goes Paradise Lost...

So, the RCC had some highly qualified guys that studied astrology - NOT verses of the bible - to gain amazing progress in understanding our Universe. Amongst them bloody geniuses I can only bow humbly for - Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler. To come back to the question: no, you're totally wrong.

Uh huh. And your only comeback is astrology, while ignoring almost all other religious teachings, or philosophy, or all the rest.

So there were no biblical scholars? At all?

Hey! There's a Vatican prayer saying "Dawkin is Root of all Evil"? Great! I'm not a keen prayer - to say the least - but I need to have that one!

Ah. So you not only bash Dawkins, but you demonstrate your incredible (lack of) reading comprehension.

I can see that further discussion with you will be fruitless at this rate.

You have created strawmen, claiming that I have said things that I did not say.

You have been nothing but condescending throughout the whole thing.

Then you bash a great man like Richard Dawkins, assumedly because you do not agree with him, naturally.

It's sad, really. I've seen better out of the fundie trolls here.

 

[Herzblut]

So, you're claiming that God was never used to try to explain the universe?

With due respect, but what the hell does that mean now - "to explain the Universe"? Is it related to "religious thinking"?

Look, we are trapped in a loop. I restate my notion once again, finally:

1. Thinking is a research method for human beings to gain knowledge about our natural environment. Actually, it is the only one. Magical thinking is the archetype of human thinking, in the development of each individual as well as along the social evolution of mankind. Magical thinking provided substancial benefit for the survival of the human species.

2. Nowadays, in the community of professional thinkers (scientists) magical thinking has often been replaced by scientific thinking. Astrology became Astronomy.

3. There is nevertheless still a very strong inclination towards magical thinking, in everyday live as well as - predominantly - in pseudosciences.

4. Faith is not a research method, thus unrelated to magical thinking per se. Of course, in belief systems (religions) you find examples of magical thinking. Anything else would be extremely confusing. But - again - believing is not thinking, it is not a research method.

Does that make sense? Very fine. I will not explain again.

Ah. So you not only bash Dawkins, but you demonstrate your incredible (lack of) reading comprehension.

It demonstrates your rigid thinking which made you loose your humour. Don't touch my Dawkins Shrine! Don't even come close to it by a humorous remark! Go away, you are evil!

What a pity.

Then you bash a great man like Richard Dawkins, assumedly because you do not agree with him, naturally.

I don't dis-/agree to human beings as such, but to their arguments. You should too.

So, I "bashed a great man", you think? Who means alot to you, right? Who gave you direction, a set of beliefs you deeply agree to? Perceiving a "bashing of this great man" makes you angry?

Look, THIS IS HOW IT FEELS to religious people if they read your posts. Just much stronger.

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

Some food for thought

To help explain why we can (and in fact, should) apply Occam's razor to a situation such as this, imagine the following scenario: Someone is explaining alpha-particle decay to you, and they provide you with an explanation that is scientifically correct. However, on top of that explanation, they provide you with an additional piece of information: That alpha-particle decay only occurs because inside every atom there is an 'atom-fairy', and the 'atom-fairies' decide when decay is to occur. Not only that, but the 'atom-fairies' are completely undetectable - no test you could run would ever detect the presence of an 'atom-fairy'.

And guess what?
There is a atom-faerie and it is called quantum tunnelling.

You can run at a solid brick wall as hard as you want, you can repeat this every second for a trillion years but you will never appear on the other side with the wall intact. Or so you think. Quantum particles do it all the time. And, if you could live long enough and try often enough, one day by chance it could happen to you as well. Who would have thought?

I think you should do yourself a favour and stay away from quantum physics in support of your claim that "There is no god".




Back later.

 

[Lonewulf]

With due respect, but what the hell does that mean now - "to explain the Universe"? Is it related to "religious thinking"?

Look, we are trapped in a loop. I restate my notion once again, finally:

1. Thinking is a research method for human beings to gain knowledge about our natural environment. Actually, it is the only one. Magical thinking is the archetype of human thinking, in the development of each individual as well as along the social evolution of mankind. Magical thinking provided substancial benefit for the survival of the human species.

2. Nowadays, in the community of professional thinkers (scientists) magical thinking has often been replaced by scientific thinking. Astrology became Astronomy.

3. There is nevertheless still a very strong inclination towards magical thinking, in everyday live as well as - predominantly - in pseudosciences.

4. Faith is not a research method, thus unrelated to magical thinking per se. Of course, in belief systems (religions) you find examples of magical thinking. Anything else would be extremely confusing. But - again - believing is not thinking, it is not a research method.

Belief is not a research method, it is not a method that has anything to do with knowledge, nor does it have any ideas involving the universe. "Belief that God made the universe, sent down his son to be killed, and then was resurrected" is far less magical than saying, "Aether is real".

'Kay.

Does that make sense? Very fine. I will not explain again.

Please... don't bother to ever explain it again. Because it still doesn't make sense.

It demonstrates your rigid thinking which made you loose your humour. Don't touch my Dawkins Shrine! Don't even come close to it by a humorous remark! Go away, you are evil!

Ah, the mockery.

I don't have a shrine, thank you very much. But I'm sure love your dishonesty about as much as you love your lack of reading comprehension.

Your "humorous remark" wasn't very humorous. Perhaps if you tried harder and maybe read a book or two on humor? RTFM.

What a pity.

Indeed, what a pity that you would waste your time typing such a useless remark. In that space of time, you could have cooked a great meal, wrote a poem, started on the next great american novel...

But nah, you had to be "humorous".

I don't dis-/agree to human beings as such, but to their arguments. You should too.

Your assumption being that I do not, of course. In which, you would be gravely mistaken.

However, I can still have respect for humans that are more intelligent, more capable, more courageous, or more brave for myself. I can celebrate a fireman for rescuing a life, Dawkins for his contributions to evolutionary science, as well as his explaining of evolutionary science to the common person. Perhaps respect is something that you could learn from time to time. You have shown none of it.

However, this entire discussion has shown much of the assumptions you do so love to make.

So, I "bashed a great man", you think? Who means alot to you, right? Who gave you direction, a set of beliefs you deeply agree to?

I already had direction and a set of beliefs. Dawkins reaffirmed what I felt and explained them in deep ways, however.

Perceiving a "bashing of this great man" makes you angry?

That and your aggressive notes of condescension in general, yes.

Look, THIS IS HOW IT FEELS to religious people if they read your posts. Just much stronger.

Except...

I did not personally attack you (until you came on with the heavy condescension). I had been cordial and polite up until the point you grew condescending. I actually did have respect for you based on other threads we were participating in, and I had worked to remain polite.

However, you have done nothing but aggressively attack me, so I bite back. No, I don't like you insulting Dawkins, nor do I like you insulting me. I'm sure that you contend that you did not do so, but anyone that reads your posts can see them for what they are.

I question beliefs, and I am open to the beliefs I question. An individual and his ideas are not inseperable, and ludicrous ideas should be explained to be ludicrous; one can do that in such a way that does not involve a personal attack. Religion is a ludicrous idea all throughout, and I will not be threatened into submission because I might hurt someone's feelings by speaking my mind about what I view as the truth. I reserve personal attacks for creationists, psychics, and Dustin. Okay, and several other members of this forum that I have lost my temper at, but that's a problem I have to try to fix.

As I do not think that cordial conversation is any longer possible, I remove myself from the thread.

 

[Mobyseven]

And guess what?
There is a atom-faerie and it is called quantum tunnelling.

You can run at a solid brick wall as hard as you want, you can repeat this every second for a trillion years but you will never appear on the other side with the wall intact. Or so you think. Quantum particles do it all the time. And, if you could live long enough and try often enough, one day by chance it could happen to you as well. Who would have thought?

I think you should do yourself a favour and stay away from quantum physics in support of your claim that "There is no god".

That's just about the most inane thing I've ever heard.

No, there is no atom-fairy. And the atom-fairy is NOT called quantum tunnelling. There are two separate concepts, seeing as how the atom-fairy was defined as being unobservable by any means. Quantum tunnelling IS observable. Ergo, quantum tunnelling is not the same thing as the atom-fairy. It's pretty clear that the entire point of that Occam's razor discussion went clear over your head.

I think you should do yourself a favour and stay away from ridiculous equivocations, as all it does is demonstrate your inability to grasp simple concepts such as Occam's razor.

 

[BillyJoe]

That's just about the most inane thing I've ever heard.

What part do you dispute and why?

No, there is no atom-fairy. And the atom-fairy is NOT called quantum tunnelling. There are two separate concepts, seeing as how the atom-fairy was defined as being unobservable by any means. Quantum tunnelling IS observable. Ergo, quantum tunnelling is not the same thing as the atom-fairy. It's pretty clear that the entire point of that Occam's razor discussion went clear over your head.

Well I'm sorry then, the name of your atom-faery is "Quantum Uncertainty".

I think you should do yourself a favour and stay away from ridiculous equivocations, as all it does is demonstrate your inability to grasp simple concepts such as Occam's razor.

Ockham's Razor?
You are joking aren't you?
One thing I know about Ockham's Razor is that you cannot use it to prove or disprove anything.
Specifically, you cannot use Ockham's Razor to prove god does not exist.


Here is the Mighty Mobyseven:
He is going to slit god's throat with Ockham's Razor.


Ockham's Razor is simply a heuristic that advises on selection of scientific theories.

 

[Mobyseven]

What part do you dispute and why?

I dispute that the atom-fairy and quantum tunneling are the same thing. I have every right to dispute this, as I created the atom-fairy as an explanatory device and specifically defined it to NOT be anything that already exists in the particle model of physics. I also defined it to be unobservable by any means. As quantum tunneling and quantum uncertainty are well established phenomena, they cannot, by definition, be the atom-fairy.

Well I'm sorry then, the name of your atom-faery is "Quantum Uncertainty".

No, it is not. See above for an explanation. Are you being deliberately patronising, or do you really have no clue?

Ockham's Razor?
You are joking aren't you?
One thing I know about Ockham's Razor is that you cannot use it to prove or disprove anything.
Specifically, you cannot use Ockham's Razor to prove god does not exist.

*Mobyseven's head asplodes.*​

Of COURSE you can't use Occam's razor to prove god does not exist! You can't use ANYTHING to prove that ANYTHING does not exist. YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE! Have your eyes been shut while reading my explanations? Has nothing, NOTHING that I have spent my time explaining to you sunk in? The whole point of the exercise above was to show you a valid use of Occam's razor: That is, to eliminate entities from a theory that have no explanatory power - in other words, unnecessary entities. Fairies have no explanatory power and there is no evidence for their existence - therefore we can safely presume they do not exist. The same goes for the Yeti, Santa Claus, bunyips and gods! So stop talking about proving a negative!

Ockham's Razor is simply a heuristic that advises on selection of scientific theories.

Yes, specifically it is used as a tool to eliminate unnecessary elements of a theory. It is not used to 'disprove' god, it is used to demonstrate that an entity (in this particular case, god) is an unnecessary postulate and therefore should not be included in the theory. It is worth noting that any explanation of a phenomenon that boils down to, "God did it," is by definition NOT heuristic, as it stifles further investigation into the topic.

Since there is no evidence for god, and since god is an unnecessary hypothesis, there is no reason one cannot say, "There is no god."

 

[BillyJoe]

I dispute that the atom-fairy and quantum tunneling are the same thing. I have every right to dispute this, as I created the atom-fairy as an explanatory device and specifically defined it to NOT be anything that already exists in the particle model of physics. I also defined it to be unobservable by any means. As quantum tunneling and quantum uncertainty are well established phenomena, they cannot, by definition, be the atom-fairy.

So why bother about the atom-faery.
You do not seem to have it doing anything.
(At least believers in god have him creating the universe - something out of nothing - about which science has nothing to say)

No, it is not. See above for an explanation. Are you being deliberately patronising, or do you really have no clue?

Your atom-faery is then like santa claus, the tooth faery and the easter bunny. Why should I bother about them if you don't actually have them doing anything?

Of COURSE you can't use Occam's razor to prove god does not exist! You can't use ANYTHING to prove that ANYTHING does not exist.

In the other post you said:
"The do-nothing exist-nowhere god is the easiest to dismiss first using Occam's razor"
If by "dismiss" you don't mean "prove", then excuse me if I dismiss Ockham's Razor as the last word about whether or not god exists.

So stop talking about proving a negative!

If I say "you cannot prove there is no god", and you say "you cannot prove a negative", do you not see that you are saying exactly the same as I am. Yet you insist in saying "There is no god". And when I ask you to prove it, you say "you can't prove a negative". But, if you cannot possibly prove a negative, how can you say "there is no god"
So I ask you, who has the problem here?

Since there is no evidence for god, and since god is an unnecessary hypothesis, there is no reason one cannot say, "There is no god."

Well, I have given a reason above.

And you have used Ockham's Razor to say "there is no god".
This is an illegitimate use of Ockham's razor.
For the purposes of doing science and in the light of our present knowledge, you may use Ockham's Razor to presume there is no god, but you cannot say "there is no god".

 

[D'rok]

If I say "you cannot prove there is no god", and you say "you cannot prove a negative", do you not see that you are saying exactly the same as I am. Yet you insist in saying "There is no god". And when I ask you to prove it, you say "you can't prove a negative". But, if you cannot possibly prove a negative, how can you say "there is no god"
So I ask you, who has the problem here?

I consider this passage to be conclusive evidence for one of the following two claims:

1. You have not read Mobyseven's posts
2. You have read but failed to understand Mobyseven's posts

I consider claim 2 to be the most likely.

 

[edge]

Wow Dustin when you really believe you really believe.

There is no need to keep us apprised of your opinions on religion or philosophy during this several-year period.

He is witnessing to you, so in here there is a need.

This statement sums it up perfectly.

Dustin says,

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

So very true!

Lone wolf says,

Belief is not a research method, it is not a method that has anything to do with knowledge, nor does it have any ideas involving the universe.

Knowledge that God exists comes from belief. Once you have belief you have that knowledge.

 

[D'rok]

Knowledge that God exists comes from belief. Once you have belief you have that knowledge.

Belief that god exists comes from faith. Once you have that belief you have warm fuzzies, not knowledge.

 

[volatile]

If I say "you cannot prove there is no god", and you say "you cannot prove a negative", do you not see that you are saying exactly the same as I am.

That's exactly what we've been trying to explain - with formal logic, with analogy and with discussions of falsifiability. We all know that we can't prove or disprove God, and indeed that's entirely at the basis of what M7 and I have been going over in post after post. You're so nearly there. Yes, we are saying the same thing - that God can't be proven or disproven.

Where we differ is on what conclusions we can draw from this imprecision - and if you'd just re-read anything MobySeven or I have said in this thread, you'd see that its precisely the nature of the doubt which must, logically, lead us to conclude more strongly towards the "not exist" than "exist" position.

 

[JoeEllison]

Wow, this looks like a fun thread to jump right into...

 

[edge]

Belief that god exists comes from faith. Once you have that belief you have warm fuzzies, not knowledge.

If you were an atheist how would you know, how could you know?

 

[JoeEllison]

If you were an atheist how would you know, how could you know?

Two ways:

You theists never shut up about it?

Someone could have formerly been a theist, and wised up?

That seemed pretty obvious.

 

[D'rok]

If you were an atheist how would you know, how could you know?

Knowledge comes from observation and experimentation, not belief. If belief produced knowledge, then Behe and his ilk would be able to produce results in their labs.

You "know" that god exists. This is belief born of faith. Knowledge is understanding of things as they really are, not how we want them to be.

 

[my_wan]

If you were an atheist how would you know, how could you know?

I can't speak for other but I can know because I have experienced the awesome intensity that can come from belief in a grand unifying truth. The fundamental fact remains however that this experience is not dependent on the precise nature or elements of the beliefs that produced the experience. It does seem to depend somewhat on how the belief unifies our perception of all things.