If you are trying to argue that an Atheist is wrong (meaning your religion is correct), you do not understand faith DaveMatrix.

two characters

Ahhh... I was going to post something along those lines, but you said it better than I could have.

One thing I will note: Lack of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence. Science is based on induction and can only observe what is known rather than what is unknown. To state that God doesn't exist because he can't be observed through scientific means is just faulty, faulty, faulty, faulty, faulty. Therefore, I'll take any atheistic claims made of the basis of science with a grain of salt until the day that science proves, definitively, that God doesn't exist. A belief in the unknown (God) in inherently no different than a concrete statement of the unknown (That God doesn't exist).

two characters

*Clears his throat*

Well... Physics usually point to six universal constants (The force that binds atomic nuclei together, the binding strength of forces that hold atoms together divided by gravitational attraction, the density of matter in the universe, the strength of the cosmic antigravity that controls the expansion of the universe, the size of the ripples in the expanding universe and the number of dimensions in our space) which make life possible. If, say, gravitational attraction was off by 1/1,000,000,000,000 then life wouldn't exist. You can either believe that 1.) things happened by chance or 2.) that there are various multi-verses and that our universe is simply part of that chain or 3.) that there is a Divine Creator. Occam's razor states that in the event of three conflicting theories that you should pick the simplest and most straight-forward method.

So you have a choice of things simply falling into place, multi-verses or a Divine Creator. Nothing happens "By accident", so we can rule out number 1. That leaves us with either there being various multi-verses or a Divine creator. Personally, I lean towards a Divine Creator as the odds of there being various multiverses which we can't observe is much, much lower than the existence of an omnipotent being (Plus, the more multiverses which exist the smaller the chance of there being life in each one). Then again, there could be a fourth option which is bigger and more incomprehensible than we could imagine (Though, I'd call that God, but that's just me).

Slightly off-topic, but I can't help but think of the movie MIB, where the entire universe turns out to be nothing more than a marble created by a higher being.

My favorite of all non-arguments. "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore you're all wrong." You cannot prove a negative, so the burden of proof is in theist's court.

I'll tell you what, assemble a panel of the most distinguished thinkers of all time from every field of expertise. I'll make a claim that I can turn an empty coke bottle into a star with nothing more than my remote control for my tv. They have to disprove it. Guess what? That's what you're asking of us.

What people that make this non-argument don't understand is that logic actually works this way: You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. All you need is a complete lack of proof for something.

God is the most complicated and unlikely answer of all because he/she/it is said, in religious texts and ancient stories, to work outside of the laws of nature. According to Occam's Razor, god is the least likely possibility in any possibility imaginable.

It doesn't tell you anything about the Easter Bunny or unicorns nor should it. Science only delves into the known. It's senseless bringing up unknowns as science can't dispute their validity. If someone says that there are llamas in your living room, then you can easily form a hypothesis and test it. Simply walk into your living room and check to see if there are any llamas walking about. If there aren't, then you can safely conclude that there are no llamas in your living room as, through induction, llamas have been observed to be visible and a lack of visible llamas would be equated to a lack of any llama in your living room.

Now, if I tell you that God is in your living room I'd love to see you dispute it. You can't, as induction (The basis of science) is useless. We can't observe God and, thusly, can make no rationalizations about his being. Remember, science can't test the unknown; Only the known.

Now, if that were my argument I would have said "Science can't disprove God there he must exist!" which, as I'm sure you're well aware, I didn't. I hate repeating myself, but sometimes I feel I must. The aim of science isn't to prove, but rather to disprove. Science follows statistical logic. You have a hypothesis and you have a null hypothesis. To accept the hypothesis you must reject the null hypothesis. If you can't reject the null hypothesis then either one of two things is correct:

1.) Your hypothesis is wrong or
2.) You're unable to form a conclusion with the given data.

There are only two possible hypotheses (God exists and God doesn't exist), neither of which is disprovable. Therefore, science simply states that God might exist but there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim. Therefore, it's inherently faulty to claim that God doesn't exist because you can't prove him.

(I know this will be ignored.)

I'm pretty sure they could disprove that (Hell, I could disprove that) as it'd be easily observable that the coke bottle would do nothing/go nowhere ;)

Ummm... No. You would be laughed at if you walked into a scientific convention and said "<Insert name of object here> doesn't exist because I can't prove it!". A lack of proof doesn't equal non-existance. Disproof of existance, however, equals non-existence :)

Not really. The existence of God has a higher statistical probability than dose that of various multiverses, one of which is able to sustain life. What most atheists assert, however, is that there is a fourth option that we don't know yet which is more likely than God.

Why don't you folks have this discussion of proof in a thread that isn't about how unsuitable any one standard of proof is when one attempts to apply it to everything?

When it comes down to it, we're all empiricists(in the general sense), so all this nonsense about proof is a colossal waste of time and effort. The need to prove the existence of a deity implies a certain insecurity of faith, likewise, the need to disprove the existence of a deity implies a lack of understanding about the different ways experience informs knowledge.

I'm not a spiritual person, but i do believe that i've experienced things that are implausible and whose significance is unprovable. The fact that i can't prove the significance of these things makes them no less significant. For this very reason, in my mind, a blind commitment to only believing in things that are provable or probable isn't prudent. I am very certain that the ratio of phenomena to explanation in this here existence is rather large.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that my experiences suggest to me the existence of a deity in the standard christian sense, but i could understand how someone else, having different experiences, might come to the conclusion that there might actually be something to this whole god business.

I don't think trying to objectively justify a belief such as that is necessarily a good way to waste time, but i don't happen to enjoy the experience of futility (aside from my occasional participation in the politics forum).

You aren't reading what I'm writing. Atheists say god doesn't exist. The theist argument against that is that atheists can't disprove god's existence, therefore they are wrong to say that god doesn't exist. Don't strawman.
No, it's both. It's equally about proving what's right and disproving what is wrong.
There is no given data outside outdated religious texts and word of mouth. If there is zero proof of something, then the suggestion that it is not real is more reasonable than the suggestion that it is. That's where most atheists, myself included, stand.
I'm glad you responded to this. What if I said that god was going to use my remote to turn the coke can into the sun?
No evidence exists, and no one can offer any reason to believe in the existence of god. It's incorrect to make the argument that a complete lack of evidence for something doesn't suggest it's non-existence.
Some theoretical evidence exists to suggest that the multi-verse is real. No evidence exists to suggest god exists. There's your razor.


They're making a movie about Darwin right now, but I expect it to be eaten by a faster, stronger, and smarter movie.

It wasn't a straw man. You come up with the same scientifically-based, illogical arguments over and over and over again (Which are nothing more than pseudo-science, at best). Following a purely scientific reasoning, if you can't disprove God's existence then you can't say that He doesn't exist. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's just plain old normal science.

To accept B you must reject A. If you can't reject A then you can't accept B.

It's really that simple.

No, it's not. Science isn't what you want to make it. I'm not going to re-state what I just wrote out a few minutes prior as you can look up a couple of posts and re-read what I wrote.

The proof which you require is not the proof a theist requires. My beliefs only require a proof of faith. That is, God exists because the Bible, which is God's Word, states that He exists. You, by your own admission, seek scientific proof. The only way for you to definitively state that God doesn't exist is for science to definitively disprove His existence-- Something which science is unable to do. Arguing that God doesn't exist based on scientific reasoning when science reasoning clearly states that God might exist is-- For the umpteenth time-- A logical fallacy.

It's impossible to disprove, as God can't be measured nor can He be qualified by science as, once again, science only deals with the known and not the unknown.

Once again, no it's not. For as long as you argue based on science, then I'm going to continue to hold you to the rules of scientific reasoning/proof. In science a lack of evidence does not equal non-existence. The only way to prove something non-existent is to disprove it's existence.

I just responded to this. The statistical probability of God creating the universe is higher than that of the statistical probability of there being millions upon millions of multiverses, one of which being able to sustain life. Rather than admit that there could be an omnipotent and all-power Divine Creator, most atheists (Including Dawkins) argue that there is some other option which humans either haven't discovered or will be incapable of understanding (Which is just a fancy term for "God", but to each his own).

Hehe... Sorry. I'm done now anyway >_<

It's okay, i know how easy it is to get caught up in these types of things.

Yeah, I feel badly now. There are so many atheism threads, it's hard to keep them straight. This one is more about the idea of proof than it is about atheism or theism. Sorry, filth.

IL, you're welcome to make your points in the other atheism threads.

I forgive you my child, now go forth and spread my good word. Or something. ;)

I wish you would have said take root and multiply. That's a philosophy I can get behind. :thumbsup:

Huh??? Where did this come from??? I dont belong to, nor do I belive in any organized religion. I personally feel that people should keep their religion in their heart and not in a building made of wood or stone (or steel:) ). I also dont want to belong to any group that feels their beliefs are correct and anyone who doesnt believe as they do is wrong. Silly me...:rolleyes: 'But' if I do believe in something, God for example, then let me believe it. I'm not harming you by believing this. If it gives my life direction and purpose, then all the better. If you think I'm delusional, along with 90% of the worlds population, then so be it. Thats your right.

This has been stated before, but I'll repeat it again. I dont care what you believe, or dont believe, just dont try to force your beliefs, or lack of beliefs on me. Peace to All.

I wasn't critisizing you, DaveMatrix. You will forgive me; I occasionally make a statement, such as the one you responded to, in order to incite a desired answer, or give me an idea on where you stand. In this case, it accomplished both.

actually filthy, this is kind of interesting, in terms of proof and standards of proof. 1. il is using some sort of quasi-science to try to infer the presence of God. i would think that there could be a discussion about the validity of this approach, as it seems pretty much at the heart of your thread here 2. this may also be an interesting place to flesh out this discussion concerning the easter bunny analogy / complete lack of proof of existence strongly implies probability of non-existence. will / politico and il seem to talking right past each other on this point. roachboy loves to point this situation out. it seem to me that if we talk about the conversation that was occurring above in the thread, then that pretty much brings it back on topic, no?

I would just like to point out, IMO, that I dont really see believers going around trying to "prove" God exists....thats the atheist's mantra "prove it to me and I'll believe". Believers are the ones saying..."we have faith, we dont need scientfic proof"

two characters

Non-sequitur time - this is my all-time favorite St. Augustine quote, from City of God:

Changed my life.

I think it's interesting, if left to their own devices, their argument would play out in a thread which, to a certain extent, concerns incompatible methods of proof. It might be interesting if they kept arguing and we just critiqued them, if that's what you're suggesting; I imagine they might become a bit self conscious, though.

Funny, I do the same thing.:)

To tie this back in, and respond a bit, what do you mean by "purely scientific reasoning"?

filthy
well, not so much observe and critique, as i'm sure that wouldn't play out well at all. but i find the use of this universal constants evidence to be somewhat...interesting. I'm reading through the scientific literature now as to what I can find on this type of interpretation of the so-called anthropic principle; but I'm getting the feeling its a long way from a settled interpretation that the anthropic principle implies a necessary creator. Regardless, it appears to be an attempt to back God out of the scientific complexity of the Universe. I'd really like to be able to download the following article from Nature, The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world 605 B. J. Carr & M. J. Rees , but I'm blocked access. This is essentially the proof from complexity argument, and so would seem to be in direct contradiction that you can't prove the spiritual with the physical and vice versa; or at least a different perspective. I think its very interesting, but in the end doesn't prove "God" at all.

The bit on the Easter Bunny business just seemed interesting to me as everyone was talking about the same points, using some inverted language, and everyone thought they were redudantly making "points" for their side of the argument.

The exchange going on between Infinite_Loser and willravel is an interesting illustration of precisely the problem that the OP was trying to resolve. I'm inclined to agree with RB that these arguments go around and around with nothing being said; the positions taken by the posts say far more about their authors than about the thing that is being discussed.

The disagreement seems to me to be about how to 'know' (scientifically) when there is no means to know scientifically (i.e. no evidence), a question whose answer can only be absurd and cannot say very much.

For my own part I'm inclined to come down with willravel on this, not least beacuse I find Infinite_Loser's formulation ('Since your standard is evidence and mine only faith, we can evaluate our respective claims by different standards') fairly incoherent.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

Your argument makes some dubious assumptions. For instance, I don't like quoting Einstein but I do like this quote: "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" You're assuming that those physical constants can vary; that they could have been anything but we don't know that.

As a mild aside, I write software. When people run the software that I write, they often say things like my software "tries" to do this or it "wants" to do that. I find this funny 'cause, obviously, it's just a turing machine. It doesn't try or want to do anything any more than a ball tries or wants to roll down a hill... It's an example of how much people project themselves onto things they observe...

Another assumption that this argument makes is that there's something special about its current state to attribute to God. Obviously, we're partial to life, as we know it, but that's just us being egocentric. Oh my God, look at us! We're so special that the entire Universe must have contrived itself to make us possible! Therefore, there is a god...

I don't understand why you think "nothing happens by accident." Unless you believe in fate, a lot of things happen by accident...

Your characterization of the multiverse is also strange. Why would the chances of life happening in a multiverse universe (for lack of a better term) diminish as the number of universes increase? That makes no sense. Are you assuming some sort of conservation of life probability across the various universes?

*whew*
thanks politicophile for the list of all the proofs of god. after reading the page and researching each one, their counterarguments, author's related works, and contemporary criticisms, i stumbled upon (using my Stumble! button, a must have program that led me to these forums) the actual truth about god, the universe, and everything.

it turns out the argument by design and everyone's appeals to nature, their children, and whatnot is correct. all of that is rock hard insurmountable undisputable truth that god created the universe. the problem of evil tried to counter all of this, but was quickly vanquished using a complicated string of secondary goods, secondary evils, tertiary goods and evils etc and free will.
Here's the kicker though: free will, being created by god, who knew all, was by definition determined on some level. and not free. oh nos! the resulting paradox destroyed god in an event now termed as "the big bang", moments prior to god endowing every element in the universe with the truth about creation.

true story. read it on wikipedia or something.

Yes, I know what I false dichotomy is which is why I included option #4.

Science makes hundreds of assumptions, few of which I see you question. Say what you will, but I don't assume God exists; I know he exists. Getting slightly off-topic, but I personally believe that everyone knows God exists. However, I think it's easier for people to believe that there's a logical explanation for everything as we like the known for fear the unknown.

If I ask you what created the universe if God didn't, you'll readily admit to not knowing but adamantly claim that it's not God. You'll argue that there isn't a God based on the assumption that tomorrow we might know more than we know today. I believe God to not only be the creator of the universe but unexplainable. The fact that you can't rationalize the creation of the universe only serves to strengthen my belief.

Oh, and Occam's Razor. Most of the explanations regarding the creation of the universe are much, much, much, much more complex and implausible than the existence of a divine creator.

Let's look at the odds of life occurring in this universe. The probability of such an occurrence happening "By accident" is something like one over a million to the millionth power. Things only happen "By accident" when you deny the existence of God :thumbsup:

I suppose that wasn't worded as well as I wanted it to be. This is taken from Wiki:

The emphasis is mine. This thread is old so I'm not sure I'm following it correctly but is this the list you're referring to? Where's option number 4?


Good God, where do I start?

Science, by definition, is a set of assumptions. The assurance of science is that these assumptions allow us to do things. The important part of your assumptions is that they're dubious. They're based on nothing but personal whims.

Oh, you know there's a god. I'm reassured, then! ...'cause, if you know something, it must be true!

Some of us assume there's a logical explanation for everything 'cause this assumption allows us to control everything. More seriously, we look at the world and deduce cause and effect so that we may contrive causes to produce wanted effects. It's worked brilliantly, by the way. The fact that we're communicating at all is a good example of some of our efforts...

I don't think "fear of the unknown" is a good characterization for wanting explanations. Do we do cancer research because we're afraid of not knowing what causes cancer? Only in that we wish to stop cancer from killing us and understand cancer is the only way of stopping it...


Just for fun, here's a well done video for you to watch:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/80nhqGfN6t8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/80nhqGfN6t8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


First, I wouldn't argue this. You're probably thinking of willravell and I'm insulted you'd conflate the two of us. Do you really think that "we don't know" is not a more honest answer to the question of the creation of the universe than "my god did it?"

Secondly, you clearly don't understand parsimony. It's not that the most simple answer is the preferable one or we'd all stop researching these complex scientific theories and subscribe to the mindlessly simple theory that "God did it." You didn't give this much thought, did you? Considering your blind belief in God, this shouldn't surprise me...


Again, I'm going to trust your calculations 'cause you sure... know.. a... lot...

Besides, I'm not entirely sure what a low chance of life is supposed to prove. You must attribute some metaphysical significance to life for its probability to be relevant. Any number of unlikely things could have happened. Instead, this has happened. So what? Self replicating proteins exist, therefore, it must have been the work of a great protein maker in the sky...

Ha! That's a good video.

The Godzilla Delusion!