Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[Vintij]

There is no quest. God has already been debunked, and resides on the same scrap heap as phlogiston, the flat Earth, geocentrism, sympathetic magic, unicorns, and the virgin birth. It is merely a matter of demonstration. Sadly, it is a demonstration which still needs to be made, even in certain educated circles.

The fact that intellectual theists are not even prepared to define God is simply one tiny bit of evidence in the conclusive case against the God hypothesis.

Lets not confuse me with a thiest, I am apathetic agnostic. Inbetween strong and weak agnosticism.

 

[slingblade]

Thats great for you, and I agree with your moral code. But why do we have gun control, albiet lousy gun controll, but why is it there? To at least slow down idiots from getting any weapon and shooting anyone. Ofcourse the gun lobby will argue that it is a constitutional right, but without the government stepping in, 300 million plus guns would be in circulation which equals more violence.

I can't honestly say I care. I can't see how it matters to me. I can't control any of it, except my part in it. And most times, that's not really in my control, either. I don't own a gun. I'm not likely to own a gun, unless someone just gives me one. It just isn't something I worry about.

I have other problems.

So what IM saying is, if there are 300 million people in this country, your going to expect some of them to be either stupid, or hatefull. If you give 300 million a god that is proven to not exist, thats 300 million more idiots that have the capability to do something stupid, rather than most of them being "saved" by jesus. No matter how weird they are, they are generally on the right path to not hurting anyone, while keeping busy at church and staying out of my way in class.

Oh yeah. Those harmless, benevolent Christians. I assume those are the ones you mean, since you specify "church." Yeah. Them.

I'm not like a lot of the atheists on this forum. I've been abused by religion. I have issues with religious people and their religiosity. I often get asked if I'm angry at god, and I find that a stupid question. I'm mad at very real, very human people. Not at their imaginary friend.

At this point, I stay in my house almost all the time. I don't go out, except to therapy. See, I'm pretty much terrified of other people now, after the most recent "incident." It's a long story. And yes, it does involve a religious person and her religiosity.

So my theory is, that science and religion need eachother to counter act with. Negative and a posative, no matter which side you are on......without the other side, it would be far to easy to take control, dont you like a challenge?

No. I don't like challenges. Not anymore.

So. Was that your attempt to try to scare me? Make me afraid of the possibility of cruel, mean, hurtful people in the world?

Try to understand: there is no way I can be any more afraid of people in general. Especially the religious. They really terrify me. My doctors think taking a pill and talking for one hour every two weeks can help.

I'd laugh, but really.....is there anything funny about it?

 

[BillyJoe]

slingblade,

In the past, when someone has opened up a can of worms and I've reached inside, I've been roundly criticised by other posters. But I'm not sure why anyone would want to open the door just a little to give a hint of what's inside and not want others to fling the door wide open. On the other hand, maybe it's already been done on the forum and I missed it.

Also, I note that you've suffered a broadside from Penn Jillette. I have to tell you I once watched one of their shows with my son and was thoroughly embarrassed. I watched another one on my own but turned it off before the end. If they are sceptics, I'm a billygoat. And the comedy is not an excuse. But that's another story.

BillyJoe

 

[slingblade]

BillyJoe, your hand is safe at the end of your arm, no worries.

The recent story to which I refer (or at least most of it) is here. The part where her religious beliefs, and my lack of them, contributed to the whole fiasco may not be covered very well in that thread--I can't remember if I knew about it at the time, or found out later. I found out so much, later, after it was all over.

As for Penn, I asked him about his show, Identity, and how it reinforces stereotyping. His full remark was "Cantankerous bitch, is that your identity?" It was actually pretty cool. Then he kind of explained, but frankly, I don't really remember what he said.

My issues with religion go way back, however. I've never had the kind of joyous experience with religion or the religious of which they often speak. It's always been a guilt-fest sung to the tune of "Wow, you sure aren't good enough to live!" My ex-husband was also religious and abusive, so....

 

[The Atheist]

The first step is to apply SOME characteristic to God. This must be done, because if there is no definition to the term, then we're just speaking nonsense.

QED

 

[The Atheist]

Rational inquiry can disprove God.

God is not like that. God is like phlogiston. It is an idea which once made sense based on our limited knowledge and our assumptions. But now, all of the assumptions which led to the idea have been debunked, and new understandings have filled in the gaps.

We live in a post-God world, just as we live in a post-phlogiston world.

It doesn't matter how many people still believe in God. God is a false notion nonetheless.

I am prepared to disprove God on any and all grounds.

In short, I'm prepared to disprove God.

Mate, I'm pleased to see that the holiday has rejuvenated you, but I have to let you in to a secret: that stuff above is pure bollocks! I don't know how many threads we need to have on proof, standards of proof, atheism and levels of atheism, but I think you'll find that every mind which has ever dwelt on the subject, from Einstein, Russell and Dawkins to mere minds like mine will tell you - it can't be done.

Not even close.

I doubt we'll ever be able to "disprove" god to anyone's complete satisfaction, although I think we'll come close as neuro-science develops. (With a rider that one of the world's leading lights in the field is a christian!)

I don't necessarily agree with everything you write, but I have considerable respect for your opinion. In this instance, you're just wrong. You're demeaning yourself by saying it.

So what IM saying is, if there are 300 million people in this country, your going to expect some of them to be either stupid, or hatefull. If you give 300 million a god that is proven to not exist, thats 300 million more idiots that have the capability to do something stupid, rather than most of them being "saved" by jesus. No matter how weird they are, they are generally on the right path to not hurting anyone, while keeping busy at church and staying out of my way in class.

So my theory is, that science and religion need eachother to counter act with. Negative and a posative, no matter which side you are on......without the other side, it would be far to easy to take control, dont you like a challenge?

This is a valid point and it's one which bothers me.

In fact, I'd class it as the central question to the entire athiesm/religion debate.

I'll repeat a position I've used elsewhere:

Imagine that all cops died tonight - every single one of them. (and any militia who could be called upon to come in) All authority figures have overnight deserted the rest of humankind and we are on our collective tods.

Hands up everyone who thinks that would be a really, really bad idea?

Lemme count 'em up...

Goodness me, unanimous!

Yes, all the pieces of #### (I just typed the actual word then, LOL!) would take it as an invitation to rape, murder, steal and do whatever the hell they like. Ever seen what happens in a mere black-out? Now imagine all the buddies of the scumbags being let out prison as well and see how they get on.

God is a fair bit bigger cop than the cops - after all a cop can only bang you up for life, the big sky-fairy can get the guys with red-hot pokers on the case for all eternity. I doubt anyone can quantify what might happen if religion was removed overnight, but I am certain that the threat of hellfire and damnation holds some psychopaths in check.

Maybe this is one of those times where we need more information. It'd be a really bad one to get completely wrong! When large sects of christianity (Jesus Camp, anyone?) see things in the way they do, what kind of angst and anger might be released and what the targets for such anger might be would be well worth knowing.

There is no quest. God has already been debunked, and resides on the same scrap heap as phlogiston, the flat Earth, geocentrism, sympathetic magic, unicorns, and the virgin birth. It is merely a matter of demonstration. Sadly, it is a demonstration which still needs to be made, even in certain educated circles.

The fact that intellectual theists are not even prepared to define God is simply one tiny bit of evidence in the conclusive case against the God hypothesis.

Again, I suspect you're speaking hyperbolically. And remember, I am The Atheist, here, not some apologist bloke.

There are actually quite a few extremely smart christians and I personally know several who would carve you into little pieces on the basis of the statements above. You cannot debunk god. You can certainly debunk lots of impressions of god which various people hold, but you cannot debunk him/her/it.

If you want a list of people to debate against who are able to define god, let me know and I'll get myself a spectator seat, because while I know you're a very smart bloke, some of these christians just might surprise you. None of them are American, by the way.

Lets not confuse me with a thiest, I am apathetic agnostic.

Smart fella - probably the safest option. Like my wife - don't know, don't care.

 

[CapelDodger]

God is not like that. God is like phlogiston. It is an idea which once made sense based on our limited knowledge and our assumptions. But now, all of the assumptions which led to the idea have been debunked, and new understandings have filled in the gaps.

Excellent analogy.

 

[Piggy]

Mate, I'm pleased to see that the holiday has rejuvenated you, but I have to let you in to a secret: that stuff above is pure bollocks! I don't know how many threads we need to have on proof, standards of proof, atheism and levels of atheism, but I think you'll find that every mind which has ever dwelt on the subject, from Einstein, Russell and Dawkins to mere minds like mine will tell you - it can't be done.

Not even close.

I doubt we'll ever be able to "disprove" god to anyone's complete satisfaction, although I think we'll come close as neuro-science develops. (With a rider that one of the world's leading lights in the field is a christian!)

I don't necessarily agree with everything you write, but I have considerable respect for your opinion. In this instance, you're just wrong. You're demeaning yourself by saying it.

No, I'm not demeaning myself by saying it, and I'm not wrong. I stand by it, and I'm willing to pony up.

I'm not saying that the theists will agree. But they've already proven that they're willing to buy into patent nonsense anyway.

In 2007, we can indeed disprove God and dispense with the notion.

As for scientists who have commented on the subject, they generally are very conscious of their roles as spokespersons for the field of science in general, and they tend to preface their comments with hedges such as "As a scientist...."

But I'm coming from the broader field of rational inquiry. Rationally, we can dispense with God, period, end of story, given what we now know.

And like I say, I'm perfectly willing to show the money on that point.

 

[Piggy]

Again, I suspect you're speaking hyperbolically. And remember, I am The Atheist, here, not some apologist bloke.

There are actually quite a few extremely smart christians and I personally know several who would carve you into little pieces on the basis of the statements above. You cannot debunk god. You can certainly debunk lots of impressions of god which various people hold, but you cannot debunk him/her/it.

If you want a list of people to debate against who are able to define god, let me know and I'll get myself a spectator seat, because while I know you're a very smart bloke, some of these christians just might surprise you. None of them are American, by the way.

By all means, send them on. I have no fear of being carved up.

I, too, know intelligent Christians. Some of them are my kin, in fact.

I also know intelligent Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists.

But the theists are wrong about God. Demonstrably so.

I am not engaging in hyperbole. God can be disproven.

 

[The Atheist]

In 2007, we can indeed disprove God and dispense with the notion.

As for scientists who have commented on the subject, they generally are very conscious of their roles as spokespersons for the field of science in general, and they tend to preface their comments with hedges such as "As a scientist...."

But I'm coming from the broader field of rational inquiry. Rationally, we can dispense with God, period, end of story, given what we now know.

And like I say, I'm perfectly willing to show the money on that point.

Be my guest...

If you're that confident, you ought to be able to convince an atheist that you can disprove god, so bring it on!

 

[CapelDodger]

Smart fella - probably the safest option. Like my wife - don't know, don't care.

Vintij cares enough to post here. What he cares about is, as yet, uncertain.

 

[Piggy]

Be my guest...

If you're that confident, you ought to be able to convince an atheist that you can disprove god, so bring it on!

I'm more than happy to.

So far, of course, we've seen that the theists are unwilling to define God at all, so at this point, there's nothing at all to disprove.

No coherent claim for God has yet been made. And in fact, none can be made.

If anyone feels that a coherent claim for God can be made, I invite them to make it.

Barring that, I recommend that we explore the question -- in the abstract, necessarily, in that case -- of whether any meaningful claim for the reality of God is possible.

I submit that it is not. Given the state of our knowledge in 2007, all claims for God will necessarily be empty, contrary to fact, nonsensical, redundant (i.e., no different from a non-God/material claim), or mere Humpty Dumptyism.

But of course, this will take some time to hash out, and I'm interested to see if any serious claims for the existence of God are going to be made from the theist camp, or if the self-proclaimed undefeatable team will persist in its strategy of never taking the field in order to protect its record.

If, as I suspect, no serious claims for God's reality are to be had, then by all means, let's proceed with the argument that no serious claims are possible.

But now it's bedtime.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm more than happy to.

So far, of course, we've seen that the theists are unwilling to define God at all, so at this point, there's nothing at all to disprove.

No coherent claim for God has yet been made. And in fact, none can be made.

If anyone feels that a coherent claim for God can be made, I invite them to make it.

Well, sicne the demise of Huntster, I doubt there are many who'd try. Myriad's probably the best bet, but I'll just put up a few bits for you to start on.

God exists outside of time and space.
He managed to create a foetus inside Mary.
The issue, Jesus, died on the cross and was ressurrected.
Jesus appeared to people after his death.
Accordingly, god can suspend normal physical laws at will.

Have a crack at debunking any of those.

Good luck.

 

[Kahalachan]

By placing their god outside of the laws of physics, they've just made their god unfalsifiable.

Exactly.

You can't really fight metaphysics with physics. Math is metaphysical, so you can kinda use mathematical ideas or principles to say god is less probable than something else.

The idea that X consists of all possible things that could exist outside of the universe and is responsible for the universe is more likely than a god, which is X with specificly added attributes. Naturally, god would be like a subset of X and has lower cardinality than X. The Christian god is far more specific than the general idea of god, which is more likely since an infinite amount of gods is possible within the spectrum of god while Yahweh dismisses other possibilities.

Of course ~X (not X) is also possible where the universe is self contained and didn't need an external factor.

You can't really logically prove a negative but you can suggest why the negative is more likely.

If I said there is no purple hippo with robotic feat which lives in another galaxy, people wouldn't tell me "You can't prove a negative". If I made this assertion, generally people would assume there is no burden of proof on me for stating something so specific and never seen without evidence. It seems obvious to people this is the case.

If I stated there is no gold in China (as Cameron used) then the burden of proof is on me because we know there is a likelihood that gold exists somewhere in China.

So it's all a matter of stating that there is good reason not to believe in a god.

 

[BillyJoe]

The recent story to which I refer (or at least most of it) is here. The part where her religious beliefs, and my lack of them, contributed to the whole fiasco may not be covered very well in that thread--I can't remember if I knew about it at the time, or found out later. I found out so much, later, after it was all over.....

Thanks - big thread though!

As for Penn, I asked him about his show, Identity, and how it reinforces stereotyping. His full remark was "Cantankerous bitch, is that your identity?" It was actually pretty cool. Then he kind of explained, but frankly, I don't really remember what he said.....

Well, a little different scenario from what I imagined.
Personally, I think they should decide whether they are comedians or sceptics.

My issues with religion go way back, however. I've never had the kind of joyous experience with religion or the religious of which they often speak. It's always been a guilt-fest sung to the tune of "Wow, you sure aren't good enough to live!" My ex-husband was also religious and abusive, so....

Mine is the reverse. I enjoyed daily (yes, daily) mass followed by breakfast at my friend's place throughout my primary school years. Religion for me was roses. But it turned slowly when the logic failed. By the end of secondary school I was a non-believer. Strangely enough - because it is often a reason religious people give to believe in God - it was the thought of eternity that pushed me firmly across - which was actually an emotional rather than a logical reason. But, fortunately I have never suffered at the hands of religion. Sorry to hear you had the opposite experience.

 

[Piggy]

God exists outside of time and space.

What exists outside of time and space?

He managed to create a foetus inside Mary.

We know where babies come from now. We also know that mythology is rife with virgin birth stories. The Christian claim for a virgin birth is mere fantasy, utterly unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and does not deserve serious consideration, as it is contrary to the known facts of the world, yet is perfectly consistent with literary apotheosis. It deserves as much serious consideration as my claim that an undetectable dog moves my glasses. It is evidence of nothing, and does not require refutation.

The issue, Jesus, died on the cross and was ressurrected.

Same as the virgin birth. A fantasy story completely in line with literary apotheosis, completely opposed to what is known about the real world. It is evidence of nothing and does not need to be refuted, any more than the undectable dog hypothesis needs refuting.

Jesus appeared to people after his death.

My favorite analogy for this claim was in a debunking of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". Imagine that someone came up to you and said that in World War II, a soldier was killed in battle and buried in a field in France. 3 days later, his grave was found empty, and he was seen walking around and chatting with his friends, and then ascended bodily into the sky. The person who tells you this says there is evidence, and as evidence he hands you a half dozen anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980s. These tracts disagree among themselves on such matters as the dates on which the events happened, what was said, what was done and where, and who was present. Would you consider the evidence for this extraordinary claim to be valid? Of course not. Ditto for stories of Jesus' appearance post-mortem.

Accordingly, god can suspend normal physical laws at will.

Who can suspend the laws of physics?

A couple of principles to bear in mind:

First, as has been pointed out before on this thread, statements about God are meaningless when God remains undefined.

Second, claims for God do not get a free pass. If someone were to claim that they had evidence that the world is flat rather than round, and then offered as evidence (1) ancient scripture, (2) a Tarot card reading, and (3) a vision they had in a dream, we would not be obliged to take their claim seriously.

By the same token, when religious claims are made which violate the known facts of this world, if no valid evidence is offered, no one is obliged to take the claims seriously.

There is no need to refute fantasy, regardless of how many people choose to believe in it.

So far, we've seen the claim "God is real" fail at every turn. Either God is undefined, rendering the statement meaningless, or "real" is defined in terms which make it undistinguishable from "not real", or we are offered "evidence" which has no evidentiary value whatsoever.

Next....

 

[BillyJoe]

No doubt Atheist will reply in due course but, in the mean time:

A couple of principles to bear in mind:

First, as has been pointed out before on this thread, statements about God are meaningless when God remains undefined.

Atheist agrees with you.
(See the post where he agrees with EGarrett; "The first step is to apply SOME characteristic to God. This must be done, because if there is no definition to the term, then we're just speaking nonsense.")

Second, claims for God do not get a free pass...when religious claims are made which violate the known facts of this world, if no valid evidence is offered, no one is obliged to take the claims seriously.....

I think Atheist's reply would be somewhere along the lines of "I agree that no one is obliged to take the claims seriously but, by the same token, no one has actually refuted the claim either, which is what you claim to be able to do".

Sorry, over to Atheist...

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Piggy, I’m still a little bit unsure about the whole indefinable business here, especially when talking about apofatic faiths.

How does one describe the experience of seeing if non-seeing is the default state of being for the rest of all conscious beings? I mean, there wouldn’t even have been the notion of ‘seeing’, or ‘colours’, until some arbitrary name like ‘seeing’ and ‘red’ would have been invented by that single person, in order to explain his experience. Of course everyone else would still think he’s nuts. In this scenario we would have to conclude that the one “seeing” person, when being unsuccessful in his attempt to explain his experience, is simply talking nonsense.

What would constitute an acceptable definition for ‘seeing’ in this scenario? Could he ever be successful in his attempt to fully explain “seeing” until he actually manages to make someone else experience “seeing”?

Surely, if that would happen, they would then experience seeing a little bit differently, especially if looking at different objects, but they would probably still agree to use the term “seeing” when talking about the whole experience. For the rest of the population… well, they would probably think there are now two nutcases walking among them. One would just talk about “seeing” a little bit differently that the other.

 

[Dumbledore]

Religon and science

The trouble we run into is trying to define god. God by definition is beyond human comprehension this does not mean that god does not exist, but rather we are unable understand what god truly is. Science which is built off of human comprehension which can never prove nor disprove god, the belief in god is a matter of faith. I ask you is science and human comprehension so encompassing that we can define everything about the universe. Are we so all knowing now that we know everything. It is our understanding that is limited, I prefer to think of the universe as a place of wonder and discovery that our science no matter how advanced will ever truly completely define. Faith and religion will always have a place in human society, just as scientific understanding will always be limited.

 

[slingblade]

The trouble we run into is trying to define god.

Maybe you do. The problem I ran into was being smacked in the head with a Bible while being yelled at to "submit!"

God by definition is beyond human comprehension this does not mean that god does not exist, but rather we are unable understand what god truly is.

No sale. I'm not buying it. You can't have an unfathomable being who writes books full of instructions on what foods you can eat and how to best kill your daughter if she has sex.

Science which is built off of human comprehension which can never prove nor disprove god, the belief in god is a matter of faith.

Okay, not exactly a sentence, but I'll manage. Faith is built off human incomprehension. Faith isn't for understanding; it's for denial. All I have to do is look at all the things science can explain, and the few piddly things faith can't explain and doesn't intend to try explaining, and I can tell which one is worth my time. Hint: it isn't faith.

I ask you is science and human comprehension so encompassing that we can define everything about the universe. Are we so all knowing now that we know everything.

Questions need question marks at the end. Hyperbole is childish. I don't need to know everything. Science has never claimed to know everything. But science is the best way to find out. Much better than looking at the clouds and wishing for answers from an invisible old man who's supposedly hiding up there, teasing us.

It is our understanding that is limited, I prefer to think of the universe as a place of wonder and discovery that our science no matter how advanced will ever truly completely define. Faith and religion will always have a place in human society, just as scientific understanding will always be limited.

Faith and religion have as much place in my life as rape and murder. To me, they are equivalent, and my experience confirms this over and over and over again.

Put it this way: when a scientist wants to tell me something, she tells me, using logic and reason.

When God wants to tell me something, a man slaps me on the forehead and shoves me to the ground, while yelling at a room full of people.

Yeah. I'll take science.