God Part N.... [Archive]

Quietus

01-08-2006, 00:04

...Continued from another thread.

If there`s ever something as futile as arguing against/for the existance of a God/Jesus/you-name-it, then someone better show it to me.
There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile. It might be a mighty force out there, or it might not, but frankly, I don`t care. People should not care about others faith/lack of fate, either, please!

With regards to God, there's no proof that a God exists, that's the proof.

If I accuse you of killing 10 people, what proof do I have? I have none, that's your proof you didn't kill anyone. You won't say "I may or may have killed people" because there's no proof on either side.

Nope, that`s a fact.

No, but no one knows whether there is a God or not, it`s a matter of belief, no matter if you are religious or an atheist.

The burden of proof lies upon the one that makes a claim, but that`s not the same as that the claim is false if there is no proof. Then you either believe in what that person said, or you don`t. It`s a matter of a faith, and faith only.

Where's the proof?

Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist? Yes? No? Or You can't make the determination?

Right, if you wipe the slate clean, there's no God, because there's no proof. You start from Zero. Claiming God means going right to 1. Claiming 1 is not true (no God doesn't mean going left to -1) you simply stay at Zero where the slate is clean.

Ok, it isn`t a fact, but it isn`t a proof either.

Maybe, maybe not. A such monster would be easily observable, I imagine, thus its existance is unlikely because of lack of observations. I do not know, however.

No. Then you have made a claim, and the burdon of proof is now upon you, too.
If I claim that I have made cold fusion and tell you how, you might claim that it isn`t possible. Then, you will have to prove that, if I refuse to prove anything. You cannot know if you don`t disprove it.
Same if I claim that I am a god. If you say that I am not, then you`ll have to prove it.

Leprechauns, Unicorns, Chupacabra, Loch Ness monster, Dragons, Yeti, Chimera, Gargoyles, Minotaurs, et al?

Ok. Start from Nothing (clean slate).

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

I say there's earth 2, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.
You say cold fusion, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Yes. If you make claim that there is a monster under my bed, then I can just go and have a look and see that it indeed isn`t.
Claim that Yeti exist, and I`ll go and have a look. Himalay is however huge, and to conclude that Yeti doesn`t exist is close to impossible. I could be be lucky and find him if he exist, so proving existance is easier than disproving. But the lack of real evidences when they should have been easily seen, makes their existance unlikely.
Dragons can be disproved by scientifically method, I believe.

No proof does not equal non-existant. If I claim that there is a black stone on the Moon without having a proof for it, it could still easily exist.

I don`t see where you are going.

In short, Yes or No? Or Maybe?

Or better yet, what's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

But you have some proof. The moon is a rock. A black rock is only a rock that absorbs all the visible spectrum, hence dark according to your eyes.

Secondly, black stones do exist. It's only a matter of probability.

What's your proof in god? God doesn't even have a physical property. God is metaphysical or Supernatural.

You're starting from a positive (1) not a neutral position (0). So, if you say God, that's already a positive. If I say Earth, that's a positive.

If I say Earth 2, that's a positive. What Earth 2? It doesn't exist.

Kaiser of Arabia

01-08-2006, 01:21

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

Kanamori

01-08-2006, 05:01

There`s nothing to discuss, it is no proof/disproof to either side, it`s all futile.

Because you know of none does not mean that there are none. I suspect it would be very difficult to prove that there are neither any proofs of God's existence nor that there are any disproofs of God's existence.

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Claim 1: I would like to see proof. Claim 2: I would like to see proof. If those two claims are granted, the conclusion is still erroneous.

It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof). Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea.

[W]hat's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection.

God doesn't even have a physical property.

The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.

Rodion Romanovich

01-08-2006, 13:49

Sorry problem with the post two steps above this one. This is the intended message (mods please delete the two posts above and let this one remain instead):

I used to argue over the existence or non-existence of God, but have realized that the debate actually isn't about existence or not, but about the consequences a proof of either existence or non-existence would have. It is further complicated by the fact that people define God differently. I think the debate is facilitated if it's split up into a few different parts:

- is there a being/force etc. that created everything? The answer is yes, no matter whether you're atheist or believe in God. The force is either God, Determinism or a controlled random process.
- will this force make sure good wins in the end, and punish bad? There exists a lot of scientifically shown causalities that often make sure the bad guys don't fare particularly well on earth, but there are exceptions where bad people could achieve much without getting punished (usually the ones people concentrate on rather than looking at the billions of examples where good is favored and bad punished).
- this good rewarded and bad punished thing, is it carried out by a system created by this great force, or is it continually a result of actions by this force? One can show many causalities in the very laws of nature which punishes bad guys and rewards good guys in most cases. However there are a few cases of "miracles" or unexpected events. Whether these are caused by a random process or by a God doesn't matter, it's too unusual to hope for and count on.
- does belief in the higher being increase your health, well-being and ability to defend yourself against threats on earth? Nothing implies so. But it can give comfort, but so can insight in the causalities and laws of nature.
- is science, research and philosophy good or evil things? They often result in bad things. Civilization has been a curse, but has also given us a few good technological advances.
- are humans superior to all other beings? this is a matter of definition - define being superior to another being.
- is it possible to change the very system of earth so that evilness pays off more, and death and destruction increases, without any force like a God having to interfere to give the punishment? Many causalities and laws of nature have shown that this is the case, and it has been confirmed after major disasters and similar. No lighting bolts are needed to destroy modern equivalents of Sodom and Gomorra, however there isn't full consistency in who gets punished by the wrath of nature/God.
- should humans accept poverty and oppression because there is a good God and he thinks this is the correct order of things? There is nothing that suggests any God would like poverty, and in this case the religion is used as a tool of oppression.
- are humans entitled to destroy nature or do whatever they like with it? Will they be punished if they do? Much suggests that it's in the very system of earth things that will strike back at us when we damage earth. Whether a God has created this system or not matters little. As miracles are statistically unlikely, they can be attributed either to the very system (created by God, Determinism or a controlled random process), or God or randomness interefering along the way. However, the interferences from our scientific models and common sense expectations are very few and nothing we can rely on largely. Destroying nature must, whether God exists or not, be considered a dangerous thing, probably also a sin which God could punish people for, but we can't know as nothing explicitly has been said about it (however killing humans is sinful, so the indirect deaths of humans caused by destruction of nature might indeed be a sin).
- if we screw up completely with earth, will a savior come and rescue us all? We can't know, and it's pretty foolish to try our luck at this. The bible messages about saviors are vague at best, and there are also insinuations about bad guys being punished when the savior comes. It's very likely that the destruction of earth could be considered a sin by this savior, so there's really nothing that suggests we should continue with it.
- is there a life after death? nobody has ever returned to tell us about it. There also seems to be conflicts about what sends you to paradise and what sends you to hell. Therefore, relying too much on the afterlife seems risky. If you want a good life it's best to try and make your life on earth good.

...and so on...

In any case if God's existence is to be proved or counter-proved, it's an essential first step to define God. If the definition is:
- allmighty
- can interfere with ANYTHING happening now
- good
then his definition in itself is a contradiction, which means he can't exist. But if it is:
- the creating force behind everything
- interferes little or nothing in the system once it has been created
- good
then he can exist. God could also be defined as:
- the truth itself
- the reality
- the very system and laws of nature and everything that is, and that carries out the punishing and rewarding
- prayers to God can comfort and make the praying person strength and insight to deal with the problem he prays for help against, without it actually affecting God's decision. God can still be a personal God and listen, and be attributed the response in the form of the insight the praying man/woman gets.
- God can be wisdom itself
...without the definition being a contradiction.

The bible definition of God is quite vague, but following the system of all other names in the bible, the very name of God might be a good description and definition of him as a character, just like Jakob = "he who pulls in the leg" or Israel = "he who fights with God" and so on. "I am" might suggest something along the lines mentioned above - he is "all that exists", "the truth", "the wisdom" and so on. And the truth of course exist, because that's the very definition of the truth - the truth is that that exists.

For the record, I'm an atheist, but reading the bible in an objective way I find it to be more of a praise of an atheistic-like, secularised wisdom and philosophy, than a dogmatic belief, and therefore I could title myself Christian as well, although I don't, as people might find it offensive.

Soulforged

01-08-2006, 17:11

Read the Bible again...

Regarding the subject: Quietus I think there's no point in trying to proove that God doesn't exists, you can't proove a negative, you can proove that he exists or what it's, but you can't proove a negative. That's because I've always tried to proove that "he" is no more than an idea.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-08-2006, 20:07

not nessisaryly, there was proof for newtons laws but then Einstein came along and showed that despite this proof the theory had flaws. Proof can only be considered temporary until the whole universe is understood.

how would you feel if god stopped every bad thing from happening, including things that you yourselves may not consider bad because he knew the harm it would cause you, you would rebel, you would want freedom wouldn't you, but now you come along and complain about that freedom!

the same can happen with parents if they over shelter their child and control them to much it stresses them as they have no freedom, how many of you when you were younger wanted to rebel against your parents?
Surely the ideal parent should love you what ever you do, and provide you with the guideance you need, and that is what i believe god does.

if you don't want to believe in god you don't have to, thats another freedom, but by trying to disprove god are you not trying to control the beliefs of others? what gives you that right?

I believe in god because of experiences that i have seen both first hand and second hand and because of the good that i have seen at work in the christian comunitites that i have seen.

Also simply because the message makes sense, and explains everything in a way that science can't when you get to the fundememtal question of why the bilions upon billions of facts required for my existance occured, why should the universe have stars? who decided? if there was no god then surely there is no particular reason that life should be possible, no more so then that the universe should consist of a giant cloud of Hydrogen, or a grand piano.

If you take everything peole have taught you and trust only what you see as many athists also claim to do all your left with is the question why is everything as it is, to me god is the only satisfiying anser, any other anser would have to rely on our natural laws existing for no reason!

Viking

01-08-2006, 20:39

In short, Yes or No? Or Maybe?

Maybe; as long as it cannot be disproved scientifically.

Or better yet, what's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?

They way they exist, if existant. But Leprechauns was invented, God might be.

But you have some proof. The moon is a rock. A black rock is only a rock that absorbs all the visible spectrum, hence dark according to your eyes.

Secondly, black stones do exist. It's only a matter of probability.

What's your proof in god? God doesn't even have a physical property. God is metaphysical or Supernatural.

But it pointed out that lack of proof does not equal non-existant, wich is true in all cases, no matter probability.

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

Not as I know; thus you might very well be it.

Because you know of none does not mean that there are none. I suspect it would be very difficult to prove that there are neither any proofs of God's existence nor that there are any disproofs of God's existence.

Correct, but logic tells me that such proofs simply cannot exist.

For the record, I'm an atheist, but reading the bible in an objective way I find it to be more of a praise of an atheistic-like, secularised wisdom and philosophy, than a dogmatic belief, and therefore I could title myself Christian as well, although I don't, as people might find it offensive.

I`m an agnostic, I am not willing to believe in something supernatural, nor believe in claims without proof.
If you are an atheist, you are claiming that there is no God, thus you are not a Christian. :juggle2:

Rodion Romanovich

01-08-2006, 20:58

Read the Bible again...

This is, as I've found out, a controversial subject, but certain parts of the bibel to me seem strange to interpret as holy, or commandements or examples of what to do, but rather has a function of being a chronicle. For example:
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

and it continues like that for quite some time. The parts of the old testament outside Mos 1-5 aren't part of the Torah and not considered as holy as the rest of the old testament, but are more of a chronicle. Most cruelties and stuff the bible is infamous for is located in these books, for instance the book of Kings 1:

18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

But of course the Bible is probably one of the most dangerous books that exist, because most who read them are told beforehand that all of it is God's words and holy, and they therefore don't see it as a chronicle. Often they even come with arguments like: "we can do that because it's in the bible", but not all characters in the bible are illustrations of good conduct. An obvious example is the population of Sodom and Gomorra. Another thing to note is that according to Genesis the world stopped being a paradise after the expulsion of Eden, which means one can't expect the chronicles about periods following upon that event to illustrate good conduct, but rather contain a lot of examples of what not to do. So, it's probably the most dangerous book that exists even though some logic and historical knowledge applied to it yields a quite beautiful, and for it's time insightful (some insights in it are even forgotten by the majority even today) message.

Soulforged

01-08-2006, 21:40

This is, as I've found out, a controversial subject, but certain parts of the bibel to me seem strange to interpret as holy, or commandements or examples of what to do, but rather has a function of being a chronicle.
There're actually many parts that are stated in the form of rules. But of course logic, though stimulated in other parts of social life, is absent in the religious life. So if logic tells you, the words of this man are the words of the eternal wisdom so it must be just, because either they're inspired by God or are the words of God (it must be just to be slave of God and follow his will in all circumstances it doesn't matter what your common sense might tell you), then logic will lead you to believe that you've to do such a thing no matter what it's, no matter the injustice. But logic, as said does not applies in this crazy world of religion, so what might seem just because of God's inspiration ends being the exact opposite because of personal agendas or simple common sense, and thanks God for that!

But in short that's the problem, rule-like statements that only have one way to be interpreted, and many of them were not corrected in the "second edition" of the Bible, the famous New Testament. So this people who take this mighty book in their hands and read it's cheap (though atractive) philosophy have two options, they take what appeals to them and has some sense, or they take every word, even the contradictory ones, because as we know God can contradict himself if he wants so.

We don't need moral rules, they're part of the common sense, of that empiristic phenomenum that happens everyday and that is infered from the social life. As a chronicle it might be that good, but as a philosophy book I prefer a thousand others before it.

Edit: Spelling and sintactical corrections.

Kanamori

01-08-2006, 21:54

Correct, but logic tells me that such proofs simply cannot exist.

Actually, I know of several convincing proofs of God's existence. They do not say much about the nature of God, i.e. which version of God it is according to scriptures though. In the end, they are only slightly comforting as they say very little.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-09-2006, 11:40

Sjakihata

01-09-2006, 11:58

like i said earlyer there is loads of proof, imagine the universe as a computer without the rules and laws of software it cannot function, it does nothing. There needs to be some sort of set of scietific rules which means there must have been something to create such rules ergo there must have been a creator

false, infinity does not demand a creator. then it is not infinite.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-09-2006, 17:32

false, infinity does not demand a creator. then it is not infinite.
Rules need a creator and our universe has many scientific rules.
the very reason that the rules of our universe demand a creator is that they are very specific, why should an ''accidental'' universe with no creator have scientific rules, how would they have been specified they cant just exist for no reason.

Goofball

01-09-2006, 18:39

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?

Yes, there is. The lack of clarity in your posts.

~D

Sorry my friend, I couldn't resist. You can't serve up a tater like that and not expect some smart-arse like me to take it downtown...

Viking

01-09-2006, 19:36

Rules need a creator and our universe has many scientific rules.

If humanity hadn`t existed, no rules would exist either.

the very reason that the rules of our universe demand a creator is that they are very specific, why should an ''accidental'' universe with no creator have scientific rules, how would they have been specified they cant just exist for no reason.

The rules are man-made. In the universe, things happen because they have to. It`s just the way it is.

Kanamori

01-09-2006, 20:07

If humanity hadn`t existed, no rules would exist either.

This is a very strong claim to have no evidence for...

I would tend to think that many of the rules here would exist even if we weren't here. Gravity would still effect the little critters and such; in fact we know of times before our existence, and the earth seemed to be relatively simalar or at least not as radically different as not having gravity or not having materiality.

Viking

01-09-2006, 20:15

This is a very strong claim to have no evidence for...

I would tend to think that many of the rules here would exist even if we weren't here. Gravity would still effect the little critters and such; in fact we know of times before our existence, and the earth seemed to be relatively simalar or at least not as radically different as not having gravity or not having materiality.

My point was that there is no such "rules". Things happen because it is the way it is. 'Rules' are mans attempt to explain why things happen.

Quietus

01-10-2006, 02:42

Claim 1: I would like to see proof. Claim 2: I would like to see proof. If those two claims are granted, the conclusion is still erroneous. Just like Viking, your reference point can't be 1 but 0. Start from zero, nothing.

If you say God, that's 1.
If I say no God, that's back to 0.

It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof). Nobody has described a horse before its discovery or without any proof. Are you going to describe the dinosaurs accurately without fossils or any evidence?

Of course, "seeing" is proof, given the person isn't lying, hallucinating or just imagining things.

Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea. There's still a proof there's a "yellow circle in the sky".

A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection. Ok. Do you believe both exist? Yes or No? Why, or why not?

The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.

1) God, if natural, will have "physical properties" (ie. follow the laws of physics).
2) If God created the universe then God must be bigger than the universe. Given IIRC, from last I read, that our Galaxy approximately contain 200 (or 300?) billion stars and the universe have approximately with 500 billion galaxies, where is the bigger God? Matter, Anti-matter or Energy, where is God?

Quietus

01-10-2006, 02:44

Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?Yes. Are your parents Mossad?

Quietus

01-10-2006, 02:46

Quietus

01-10-2006, 03:03

Maybe; as long as it cannot be disproved scientifically. Ok. All mythical creatures to you are a 'maybe'.

They way they exist, if existant. But Leprechauns was invented, God might be. If leprechauns were 'invented' then 'maybe' isn't the best answer to the last question.

How do you know God was not invented too?

But it pointed out that lack of proof does not equal non-existant, wich is true in all cases, no matter probability. If a cow doesn't not exist inside my head, that doesn't mean cows don't exist.

You're confusing 'non-existent in the moon' to 'non-existence in the universe'. The point is 'black stones' exists. The Moon exists as well. It's only a matter of probability the two coexisting.

Quietus

01-10-2006, 03:08

like i said earlyer there is loads of proof, imagine the universe as a computer without the rules and laws of software it cannot function, it does nothing. There needs to be some sort of set of scietific rules which means there must have been something to create such rules ergo there must have been a creator If there is a creator of the universe, who created the creator of the universe? Surely the creator cannot function without rules, as well.

Sartaq

01-10-2006, 03:09

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?
Does God perhaps exist as a physical entity in another dimension that, so far, is untraceable?
Why do humans need/want rules?
Why are humans aware of their own mortality?
Why are humans so tragically stupid?
Why do humans ask so many questions?

Roark

01-10-2006, 04:50

If there is a creator of the universe, who created the creator of the universe? Surely the creator cannot function without rules, as well.

As an omnipotent and omniscient being: Yes, he/she would certainly be able to function outside of the rules which govern us.

Kaiser of Arabia

01-10-2006, 05:00

Yes, there is. The lack of clarity in your posts.

~D

Sorry my friend, I couldn't resist. You can't serve up a tater like that and not expect some smart-arse like me to take it downtown...
Mmmm.....tater....bacon....I mean!

It's not like English is my first programmed langauge, it was Hebrew!

Yes. Are your parents Mossad?
You mean Windows and Linux? Maybe. Actually, they were both created to cause the American Goyims much distress. Muwahaha.

Soulforged

01-10-2006, 05:08

No proof is the proof, Soulforged. Think about it.What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.

Kaiser of Arabia

01-10-2006, 05:38

Quietus

01-10-2006, 06:59

What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.That's quite a muddy explanation. Why do you need three variables? Proof X proves Y. Proof X proves God (Y). Unfortunately, Y is only a guess at best. As well as X.

About that logical fallacy, X is not just one proof, it is any SET of proofs. That means, any proof. But there's none or no any set ever.

Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?

Stevie Wonder would never arrive at correctly saying the "Sky is Blue" without any proof. Because he doesn't know what Blue is.

Samurai Waki

01-10-2006, 09:46

as far as I can tell...there is still not enough proof to accept or deny the existance of god(s). In theory, the only thing mathematic equations have solved is that the process of using mathematics to show proof of the existance or non existance of god(s) is inheirantly flawed because of an unlimited number of variables.

I don't know if there is a god or gods, or not, I'd certainly like to think that there is something else in store for us after death, because it is mentally impossible for me to imagine non existance, and I also further believe that it is impossible for anyone to imagine non existance, because even imagining a blackness, or eternal sleep, or hanging out in a white limbo for eternity is indeed imagining something. We're talking about no thoughts, no feelings, absolutely nothing at all. That is an almost unnerving thought to me.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-10-2006, 17:45

the laws of phisics would exist with or without humans and they are the rules that i am talking about.

By the way most of modern physics is un proveable, supersting theory, dark matter etc.

Don Corleone

01-10-2006, 18:44

I tried to be a lurker in the Backroom for as long as I could. I suppose Soly is right, and to quote my favorite movie epic "Everytime I get out, they find a way to drag me back in". But, apologies in advance, this whole theory of Quietus' that he's been throwing around for months just offends my sense of reason.

First and foremost, Quietus, this isn't a Greek forum. Shouting the loudest and the most repetitiously, irrespective of the merits of your arguments, doesn't make you right.

Second, and much more importantly, lack of proof of existence is NOT proof of a lack of existence. You clearly have no idea how logical arguments work if you're going to continue to propagate this argument.

Until the 1920s, there was no proof of the existence of mountain gorillas. Does this mean they didn't exist prior to the 1920s? They suddenly winked into existence when the first corpse was brought to London? We still don't have irrefutable proof of planets in other solar systems, yet oddly enough nobody in the scientific community is taking that as proof positive that only 9 planets exist in all the cosmos.

Finally, let me conclude with the following: to the faithful and the faithless alike: the existence of God is an article of faith. It cannot be proven or disproven using empirical scientific methods. If it could, it would be knowledge, not faith. I don't 'believe' that hydrogen has one proton, and I don't 'know' that my father loves me. They are mutually exclusive spheres of human understanding. You guys really need to take a classical philosophy survey class before you come to play in this sandbox again.

Okay, back to obscurity and the frontroom (hopefully). Cheers, and thanks for the beer Ser Clegnane. ~:cheers:

Viking

01-10-2006, 20:28

Just like Viking, your reference point can't be 1 but 0. Start from zero, nothing.

If you say God, that's 1.
If I say no God, that's back to 0.

Actually not; because before any claim is made, you`re at zero. But when a claim is made, both positive and negative exists. If you say that God doesn`t exist, that`s a claim, because you don`t have any evidence. If you want to stay at zero when a claim is made, you must remain neutral and not make any counter claim.

Ok. All mythical creatures to you are a 'maybe'.

If leprechauns were 'invented' then 'maybe' isn't the best answer to the last question.

If they are invented, then they doesn`t need to be scientificall disproved. But it`s always a chance that they could exist on a far away planet for whatever we know.

How do you know God was not invented too?

I don`t know.

You're confusing 'non-existent in the moon' to 'non-existence in the universe'. The point is 'black stones' exists. The Moon exists as well. It's only a matter of probability the two coexisting.

Still, my point is valid.

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?

Nope.

Does God perhaps exist as a physical entity in another dimension that, so far, is untraceable?

Could be.

Why do humans need/want rules?
Why are humans aware of their own mortality?
Why are humans so tragically stupid?
Why do humans ask so many questions?

Because we have reached the stage where instincts barely controll us anymore; we think in creative ways.

Viking

01-10-2006, 20:32

By the way most of modern physics is un proveable, supersting theory, dark matter etc.

No, those are proveable by experiment and/or observations.

Don Corleone

01-10-2006, 20:49

I think we all need to get a handle on the terms 'proof' and 'provable'. In scientific or mathematical terms, something is considered 'proven' if and only if all other possible explanations have been disproven. In other words, it is not enough for it to be shown to be a sufficient explanation, it needs to be shown to be a necessary explanation.

Almost all scientific theories, modern and classical, are not proven, they are accepted or held. They are accepted or held because the preponderence of the available evidence makes them the most likely explanation. This is why evolution, as a theory, cannot be proven, and yet, despite what creation scientists say, it is NOT disproven. Evolution is still the most likely explanation for how life we can observe has come to be the way that we observe it now. It is not the only theory, and it has not disproven all competing explanations, but the vast majority of reviewable evidence points to it as the most likely explanation.

Viking

01-10-2006, 21:13

Don Corleone

01-10-2006, 21:29

Not exactly. The 'proof' of dark matter is "If dark matter exists, then this result will occur". When I see the result, I can then infer the existence of dark matter. But it would be almost impossible to design an experiment that would eliminate all other possible explanations for the result occurring.

Soulforged

01-11-2006, 02:02

That's quite a muddy explanation. Why do you need three variables? Proof X proves Y. Proof X proves God (Y). Unfortunately, Y is only a guess at best. As well as X. I gave three because I was going to make a different explanation. I'm not saying that the existence of God as a material object or an object of reality at all is fullfilled, but the problem is that you cannot proove his non-existence, you can assume always or state probabilities but not proof a non-existence. If I say that Leprechauns don't exist is not a rule, or something sure, a Leprechaun might appear in some given time.

About that logical fallacy, X is not just one proof, it is any SET of proofs. That means, any proof. But there's none or no any set ever.The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.

Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.

Soulforged

01-11-2006, 02:07

Soulforged

01-11-2006, 02:12

This is why evolution, as a theory, cannot be proven, and yet, despite what creation scientists say, it is NOT disproven. Evolution is still the most likely explanation for how life we can observe has come to be the way that we observe it now. It is not the only theory, and it has not disproven all competing explanations, but the vast majority of reviewable evidence points to it as the most likely explanation.
I didn't knew there was "Creation scientists".

Kanamori

01-11-2006, 02:20

It cannot be proven or disproven using empirical scientific methods. If it could, it would be knowledge, not faith.

Empirisicm is flawed when comes to finding true knowledge anyway. Faith is the beliefs of your religion.~;)

Descartes' Ontological argument is probably the shortest. Basically, in my mind the idea of God and the idea of His eternal existence go hand-in-hand just as the idea of a triangle and the idea that a triangle has three sides go hand-in-hand. Essentially, since existence, as a quality, is inherintly in the definition of God, and since I know of God, He must exist.

Of course, "seeing" is proof, given the person isn't lying, hallucinating or just imagining things.

Perhaps I explained poorly and referening your stevie wonder example will be useful.

Since stevie wonder has never seen blue, he cannot say that something is blue and know what it means. He is just using the word and an association. Blue as it actually is, is not represented in his mind. If your example is to be followed, blue does not exist at all, simply because he cannot see it. Just as in the sun1 example you can say, "oh boy, there's the sun," you are incorrect in saying that. Your idea of the sun, as it is represented purely through sight, lacks reality. What you are perceiving, the idea of the yellow thing in the sky, does not necessarily exist in reality, and is purely poven as an idea in your mind. When you say that the object was still there, it was only out of association. What you call the sun, sun1, does not exist, yet it is what you saw.

Things happen because it is the way it is. 'Rules' are mans attempt to explain why things happen.

Gravity is a rule. The are other rules which are the very basics of all of our statements and knowledge. Rules such as: "whatever is, is; and it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be." They are rules and they exist whether or not we do.

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?

Yes.

There is no physical proof that 1+1=2, and such a conclusion does not follow logically from anything physical, yet nobody w/ a mind will deny that 1+1=2.

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.

Which is also why people who argue for the existence of God also argue that there are innate ideas in us, and that God is one of those ideas. I'm sure you know, but that is where one of Descartes' other proofs starts.

Soulforged

01-11-2006, 02:30

Descartes' Ontological argument is probably the shortest. Basically, in my mind the idea of God and the idea of His eternal existence go hand-in-hand just as the idea of a triangle and the idea that a triangle has three sides go hand-in-hand. Essentially, since existence, as a quality, is inherintly in the definition of God, and since I know of God, He must exist.Yes Descartes was an illusionist. What's that of "Cogito ergo sum"? Please the thing exits before thinking, that little nonsense held the common sense for too long.
No X exists wheter you know that it exists or not, having an idea of something doesn't make that something true. If I think that the triangle has 4 sides the triangle will still have 3 sides.
God exists before you and without you, or "he" simply doesn't exists.

There is no physical proof that 1+1=2, and such a conclusion does not follow logically from anything physical, yet nobody w/ a mind will deny that 1+1=2.Yes, but making this analogy only prooves how much God's an idea, wich born in abstract form can be applied to reality in infinite ways, from the "Wrath tyran" to the "Benevolent father".

Which also why people who argue for the existence of God also argue that there are innate ideas in us, and that God is one of those ideas. I'm sure you know, but that is where one of Descartes' other proofs starts.Wich will be a problem, since the human wasn't always sapiens, unless of course that you say that this idea entered the mind sometime or it was sleeping until certain point and an stimulae awaked her.

Kanamori

01-11-2006, 02:33

Ah well, at least He isn't disproven.:juggle2: :laugh4:

I do not understand your attack on the cogito. The reason he chose thinking as the mode of himself is because it is part of his essence, as opposed to saying I am walking, therefore I am.

Soulforged

01-11-2006, 02:39

I do not understand your attack on the cogito. The reason he chose thinking as the mode of himself is because it is part of his essence, as opposed to saying I am walking, therefore I am.
Yes I know that. But it also means that you should give more importance to your ideas than to your existence or the conditions of your existence (the idea is first to the action, to living), that held the evolution of social science, retained in idealism, for centuries.

Kanamori

01-11-2006, 02:44

Wich will be a problem, since the human wasn't always sapiens, unless of course that you say that this idea entered the mind sometime or it was sleeping until certain point and an stimulae awaked her.

How can the first human have also been an ape?

Soulforged

01-11-2006, 02:51

How can the first human have also been an ape?
That's a good question actually. But speaking technically as far as I know (and without entering on philosophy or axioms) the first man (biologically speaking) couldn't think, it was like an animal, instictive.

Quietus

01-11-2006, 02:54

I tried to be a lurker in the Backroom for as long as I could. I suppose Soly is right, and to quote my favorite movie epic "Everytime I get out, they find a way to drag me back in". But, apologies in advance, this whole theory of Quietus' that he's been throwing around for months just offends my sense of reason.

First and foremost, Quietus, this isn't a Greek forum. Shouting the loudest and the most repetitiously, irrespective of the merits of your arguments, doesn't make you right. I never shouted....

Second, and much more importantly, lack of proof of existence is NOT proof of a lack of existence. You clearly have no idea how logical arguments work if you're going to continue to propagate this argument. Then, by all means, tell me why you think that. :)

Until the 1920s, there was no proof of the existence of mountain gorillas. Does this mean they didn't exist prior to the 1920s? They suddenly winked into existence when the first corpse was brought to London? If gorillas were known before 1920, then why not mountain gorillas?

As I have mentioned, Stevie Wonder will never arrive at any colors because he has no proof of colors.

We still don't have irrefutable proof of planets in other solar systems, yet oddly enough nobody in the scientific community is taking that as proof positive that only 9 planets exist in all the cosmos. No. The point is, planets exists. If a God exist then, you can say there may be other Gods.

Just because a diamond does not exist in my pocket doesn't mean diamonds does not exist.

Finally, let me conclude with the following: to the faithful and the faithless alike: the existence of God is an article of faith. It cannot be proven or disproven using empirical scientific methods. If it could, it would be knowledge, not faith. I don't 'believe' that hydrogen has one proton, and I don't 'know' that my father loves me. They are mutually exclusive spheres of human understanding. You guys really need to take a classical philosophy survey class before you come to play in this sandbox again. Seems like you are limiting God to your faith. God is an assumption, hence the definition of God is also an assumption. Anyone believing in God can make their own definition of God.

Ignoramus

01-11-2006, 02:54

If there is no God, then how did we get here? Of course, some people will say evolution, others Big Bang theory, but the point is look at the universe. The planet Earth is in precisely the correct spot for life. You can say it happened "by chance", but then again, anything could happen "by chance" This forum could have created itself by chance, your computer could have evolved from a piece of slime, for all we know. Even the Ancient civilizations, knew there had to be a Creator.

If you say there is no God, it is because you don't want to have anyone over your life, and you don't want to be accountable for all your actions.

If you believe in evolution, then basically you are saying that millions of years ago, out of a one celled organism, some other creatures evolved, but then, how did they learn to reproduce? Through trial and error? In which case, they would become extinct. Also, have a look at the world, mutations are always "Harmful". Also, have a look at the evolution evidence: all faked, even evolutionists have been forced to acknowledge that some of their "evidence" is just outright lies, and is fake.

Quietus

01-11-2006, 03:08

Actually not; because before any claim is made, you`re at zero. But when a claim is made, both positive and negative exists. If you say that God doesn`t exist, that`s a claim, because you don`t have any evidence. If you want to stay at zero when a claim is made, you must remain neutral and not make any counter claim. There is no negative. If a glass is empty, is that a negative?

If they are invented, then they doesn`t need to be scientificall disproved. But it`s always a chance that they could exist on a far away planet for whatever we know.

I don`t know. Stevie Wonder can never guess or know a color without any proof because he doesn't know what color is.

Still, my point is valid. If a car does not exist inside a pyramid. That doesn't mean cars do not exist. We're arguing about the existence of God.

Quietus

01-11-2006, 03:21

I gave three because I was going to make a different explanation. I'm not saying that the existence of God as a material object or an object of reality at all is fullfilled, but the problem is that you cannot proove his non-existence, you can assume always or state probabilities but not proof a non-existence. If I say that Leprechauns don't exist is not a rule, or something sure, a Leprechaun might appear in some given time. No way. As I have repeatedly said, a totally blind person does not have any concept of what color is.

Also, I understand what you meant with the proof.

Candy causes tooth decay
No Candy, No tooth decay - is a fallacy. Right? Because there are other causes of tooth decay.

The problem here is:
1) Candy is specific and ; Proof of God is not specific nor real.
2) Tooth decay is specific and real; God is an assumption.
3) The relationship of Candy and Tooth Decay is known.

The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.
Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea. Nobody will guess correctly anything without proof. See my blind guy/color analogy.

Sartaq

01-11-2006, 03:30

Perhaps god doesen't want to be found. After all, the "creator of the universe" should have no trouble hiding from us if that is his wish.

If god is indeed hiding, then ofcourse we don't have any proof. And I'm not trying to prove god exists by this. This is just a "for instance"

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-11-2006, 03:40

Quietus

01-11-2006, 03:44

Perhaps I explained poorly and referening your stevie wonder example will be useful.

Since stevie wonder has never seen blue, he cannot say that something is blue and know what it means. He is just using the word and an association. Blue as it actually is, is not represented in his mind. If your example is to be followed, blue does not exist at all, simply because he cannot see it. Just as in the sun1 example you can say, "oh boy, there's the sun," you are incorrect in saying that. Your idea of the sun, as it is represented purely through sight, lacks reality. What you are perceiving, the idea of the yellow thing in the sky, does not necessarily exist in reality, and is purely poven as an idea in your mind. When you say that the object was still there, it was only out of association. What you call the sun, sun1, does not exist, yet it is what you saw.
Wait a second. Do not mention Blue to Stevie Wonder. Do not mention any color or the concept of seeing and color itself.

Wait for Stevie Wonder to utter or imagine what 'color' is by himself. He'll never get it right ever without any proof. He'll never know yellow, green, red, or blue or even the very concept of color.

If Stevie Wonder can't surmise or describe "Blue" correctly on his own account without absolutely any help or proof from anyone,

then how can you do the same to "God" without any proof?

Stevie Wonder's imaginations (minus proof) will always be wrong, the same way everyone conception's of a "God" will always be wrong. Both due to the lack of proof.

Don Corleone

01-11-2006, 03:46

Quietus

01-11-2006, 03:56

Quietus - there was a time when Englishmen didn't know of coconuts. Did coconuts not exist until they were brought back to England? They had no concept of what a coconut was, and if you asked for a coconut at your local market, you would have gotten funny looks, and little else (except for shrubbery!). Ok. Prior to the discovery of coconuts. Has anyone described what a "coconut" is, correctly and in detail (of course without any proof or evidence)?

Then, can you describe something prior to its discovery without any proof or evidence of its existence?

In short: how can someone say "coconuts" exists or do not exist if a "coconut" is not even known yet and given there's no proof indicating that it exists!

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-11-2006, 03:59

But the people living in the Carribean know what a coconut is, at the time the Englishman knows naught of it!

(I'm not sure where I'm going with this, though :sweatdrop: )

Don Corleone

01-11-2006, 04:02

Well, honestly, I think I see where we are going. The fundamental problem here is that when it comes to epistemology, Quietus is a true relativist: if something does not exist in his sphere of knowledge, it does not exist, period. You and I are taking a more universalist view: we can extrapolate and allow that just because it is not known to us does not mean that it cannot be known.

To be honest, I'm not certain where you go from here. From what I know, this is Yankee/Red Sox territory... you're one or the other and there's no middle ground.

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-11-2006, 04:03

And we steal your players.

:2thumbsup:

AntiochusIII

01-11-2006, 04:05

Sorry, I hate (?) to do this and interrupt the debate but...

If there is no God, then how did we get here?We don't know. Is that tolerable?

Of course, some people will say evolution, others Big Bang theory,Theory. That's the key word. None of those plausible theories are proven, yet. These are attempts to explain where did we came from, based on factual evidence and abstract ideas.

but the point is look at the universe. The planet Earth is in precisely the correct spot for life. You can say it happened "by chance", but then again, anything could happen "by chance"Yeah...anything could happen by chance. However, there are talks in this thread that some forces react in formulaic ways -- "rules" as some call it -- in the universe, and therefore chances might be limited and unlimited in the same time. Limited in some angles, unlimited in others, like a ray, which goes on indefinitely but only on one side. Indeed, if the theories of early Earth holds true, then Earth was not quite the precisely correct spot for life for some periods of its existence.

This forum could have created itself by chance, your computer could have evolved from a piece of slime, for all we know.But we built it. Lack of proof might not be the disproof in itself, but the proof, in both two cases, are there that this forum is programmed into being by human actions, and your computer assembled together from pre-existing mass by human hands into your computer.

Even the Ancient civilizations, knew there had to be a Creator.Knew? I don't think so.

If you say there is no God, it is because you don't want to have anyone over your life, and you don't want to be accountable for all your actions.Am I? Prove it. Cannot? Then your statement is not proven, and cannot be held true. Why would I believe? There is no natural force that force me to believe in God!

If you believe in evolutionThen you are committing a logical fallacy and transform evolution into a religion, what it was never intended to be. It is a theory; not disproven, not proven.

then basically you are saying that millions of years ago, out of a one celled organism, some other creatures evolved, but then, how did they learn to reproduce? Through trial and error? In which case, they would become extinct.How would they become extinct? And why must I believe in this idea they called God who supposedly create us so it could have its own Sim City, or some completely unreachable reason, if it is reason? Again, there is no proof in that. That doesn't mean it does not exist, but neither does that mean it is confirmed exist.

Also, have a look at the world, mutations are always "Harmful".Sadly, no. Mutations saved countless bacteria, and might continue to save infinite number of bacteria as time goes on. And bacteria is just an easy-to-reach example.

Also, have a look at the evolution evidence: all faked, even evolutionists have been forced to acknowledge that some of their "evidence" is just outright lies, and is fake.Err...yeah...which website are you reading? Which newspaper? Which news channel? :no:

Byzantine Mercenary

01-11-2006, 14:52

superstring theory hasn't been proved, the very problem with it is that it makes no predictions it is just and explanitary theory

Viking

01-11-2006, 19:10

Gravity is a rule. The are other rules which are the very basics of all of our statements and knowledge. Rules such as: "whatever is, is; and it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be." They are rules and they exist whether or not we do.

If humanity hadn`t existed, no one would make rules. Byzantine Mercenary said that a God should be needed for making the necessary rules that allows life to exist. But you don`t need a God or a strike of good luck for that; simply because the "rules" couldn`t be different. They have to be the way they are, and thus allowing life. It`s quite simple.

That's a good question actually. But speaking technically as far as I know (and without entering on philosophy or axioms) the first man (biologically speaking) couldn't think, it was like an animal, instictive.

I believe that animals are able to think, and have opinions about things, and perhaps questions. The higher intelligence a specie has, the more it is aware of it`s existance. That means that the earliest 'thinkers' probably only had brief flashes we`re they were able to think creative or were aware of their existance. What defines intelligence, is the ability to think creative.

There is no negative.

If claiming leads to positive(1), then counter claiming must lead to negative(-1). Believing, or not believing in the first claim allows you to remain at neutral(0). Same for the counter claim. Believing is something else than claiming.

If a glass is empty, is that a negative?

Not a valid analogy. Glasses can only be full or empty; towards religion you can have either a positive, neutral or negative stance. Same for theories.

If a car does not exist inside a pyramid. That doesn't mean cars do not exist. We're arguing about the existence of God.

Correct, but still no proof doesn`t equall non-existant. C`mon. If you say that it is/isn`t a God\other dimensions\souls etc., you`re speeking beyond your knowledge.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-11-2006, 21:16

Quietus - there was a time when Englishmen didn't know of coconuts. Did coconuts not exist until they were brought back to England? They had no concept of what a coconut was, and if you asked for a coconut at your local market, you would have gotten funny looks, and little else (except for shrubbery!).

Right, since they didn't have any concept of coconuts, it would be silly to have a name for them, assume they were edible, and that they would be for sale at the market, regardless of whether they actually existed.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-11-2006, 21:27

If humanity hadn`t existed, no one would make rules. Byzantine Mercenary said that a God should be needed for making the necessary rules that allows life to exist. But you don`t need a God or a strike of good luck for that; simply because the "rules" couldn`t be different. They have to be the way they are, and thus allowing life. It`s quite simple.

Why couldn't they be different? what im talking about are not written the laws of science as much as the mechanics of the universe, everything fitting together in a way that perfectly allows us to exist by saying that that everything has to be the way it is your are closeing your mind to the possibility that everthing does not have to be the way that it is.
Without a creator the random universe that you would end up with would surely be simple, a cloud of gas or a giant mass of matter what is to say that the rules governing the mechanics of our universe did not need to be created?

This is why i used the example of a computer, a computer needs rules to work properlly, it needs software to tell it what to do. Why couldn't the mechanics of the universe work in the same way?

The idea that by some amazing luck the universe just happened to be very complex with a perfectly placed planet for intelligent life. This planet then producing a species that unlike any other living species on the planet creates an abstract idea that there is a creater almost as if religion is implanted in its very genome because lets face it, whenever you find humans you find religion.

Soulforged

01-12-2006, 00:53

No way. As I have repeatedly said, a totally blind person does not have any concept of what color is.So what you're saying is the same as I, God is just an assumption created from the nothing, from phenomena that is in fact related to natural science. I agree then.

The problem here is:
1) Candy is specific and ; Proof of God is not specific nor real.There comes the problem, people consider God to be real, and for instance they usually use the same proove that scientist use to proove that God exists, so they use real proove. How can you desmitify that? Well you can't because you should proove that God doesn't exist and that can be done, however I agree with you that there is several proof that tends to the confirmation of God being an idea, a fiction created by man, no more than any rule certainly.

2) Tooth decay is specific and real; God is an assumption.And I agree with you at that, but the problem is that that assumption might be real. The blind does not see things, but if he recovered the vision he might see things, while he's blind he makes assumptions on the form, much as the "Cave" allegory.

3) The relationship of Candy and Tooth Decay is known.Well a lot of people, like creationist "scientist" will state the same about the relationship of God and the opera of this Earth. Some of their allegations include stating that the Great Cannon in Colorado (right?) is so perfect that it cannot be made just by a random process of nature, God must be behind it. But of course this ridicolous assumptions are refuted by the works of "The Spaghetti Monster" followers.

Nobody will guess correctly anything without proof. See my blind guy/color analogy.Of course not, but wheter you guess correctly or not, it doesn't change reality.

It's a fundamental axiom of logic that a denial is an assertion in and of itself, you are asserting the opposite as a provable thesis. To do this, you have to prove the denial as opposed to proving the assertion. The opposite of a theist is not an atheist, they both have a belief structure. The opposite is the agnostic, who acknowledges that existence of God and the lack thereof are equally unprovable theories and therefore not worthy of further consideration.That's contradictory to common sense and terminology.

Quietus

01-12-2006, 02:31

Quietus,

You're right, you never shouted, and in re-reading my post, it comes off as a lot more harsh than I intended it. My point was simply that restating your thesis over and over, without offering supporting evidence or attempting to use axioms isn't gaining your thesis any ground.

I really wasn't trying to provoke a fight, and if it came off that way, I sincerely apologize. Believe it or not, I actually find 'believers' who claim scientific or logical proof for the existence of God even more frustrating.

Mountain gorillas were not known before the 1920's because their domain within Kenya, Rwanda and the Congo are mountainous and very difficult to traverse. For a long time, a 600 lb. gorilla was a figment of myth in European imagination. Europeans had seen lowland gorillas (about half the size), but until a specimen was actually brought to Europe, they were considered hunters's tall tales. That doesn't mean the mountain gorillas didn't exist. (Unless of course you are a dedicated relativist. Then in fact, in your reality, they didn't). But they are all gorillas. Much like they are all planets. If a gorilla exists, it's only a matter of probability a mountain gorilla exists.

It's just one example. There are a host of phenomenon that existed prior to proof of their existence was acknowledged at large. That doesn't mean prior to the proof being made available they didn't exist. How can you discuss it if you don't know the object in the first place.

Meaning if nobody knows what a "gorilla" is, then how can someone claim it exists or not exist?

It's a fundamental axiom of logic that a denial is an assertion in and of itself, you are asserting the opposite as a provable thesis. To do this, you have to prove the denial as opposed to proving the assertion. The opposite of a theist is not an atheist, they both have a belief structure. The opposite is the agnostic, who acknowledges that existence of God and the lack thereof are equally unprovable theories and therefore not worthy of further consideration. God is provable even if supernatural? The ball is really on the believer's court because the point of reference is zero (nothing).

So if someone says: Earth exists, there's earth (fine). But if it is not there then it doesn't exist because human knowledge is based on proof and evidence anyway. I've already mentioned it on my blind/color example.

Lastly if your point of reference is 1 (god exists) then, to move it back to zero (god doesn't exist), I have to prove my "negative" claim.

But the lack of proof itself is the proof because the point of reference must be 0 not 1. If anybody wants to move it to 1 then they have to prove the "positive" claim.

Quietus

01-12-2006, 02:38

But the people living in the Carribean know what a coconut is, at the time the Englishman knows naught of it! Ok, so what would the Englishman say?

Englishman: Lads, nobody has uttered the word "coconut" yet, we don't know what it is either. However, let's define what a "coconut" is and say it exist or does not exist.

1) A "coconut" is uh, we absolutely have no clue! :oops: :dizzy2:

The Englishman will always get the "coconut" wrong because there's no proof whatsover of a so-called "coconut" (whatever it is).

(I'm not sure where I'm going with this, though :sweatdrop: ) :laugh4:

Quietus

01-12-2006, 03:00

If claiming leads to positive(1), then counter claiming must lead to negative(-1). Believing, or not believing in the first claim allows you to remain at neutral(0). Same for the counter claim. Believing is something else than claiming. The problem here is your point of reference is 1.

One is your reference because you want me to prove a "negative". Well, 0 is negative if your reference point is 1 (-1 to the left of 1 = 0).

If zero is your reference point, and you want to prove a "positive", then 1 is positive to reference point 0 (1 to the right of 0).

The question here is: which reference point do you want? Zero!

Not a valid analogy. Glasses can only be full or empty; towards religion you can have either a positive, neutral or negative stance. Same for theories. What's your best analogy then for a 0 reference point? See above.

Correct, but still no proof doesn`t equall non-existant. C`mon. If you say that it is/isn`t a God\other dimensions\souls etc., you`re speeking beyond your knowledge. Non-existence where? The universe?

Black Stones exists and the Moon exists. Your question involved the probability of the two being close together. But they both exist. The use of 'existence' here is an equivocation: a logical fallacy because it has two meanings. The meaning of existence we are discussing involves existence in the universe.

I have already mentioned my blind guy analogy. I'll expand on it even further.

Two blind guys: Stevie Wonder and the late Ray Charles. Suppose if nobody said anything about "colors" to them, they would have no idea what it is.

Stevie and Ray can talk to each other as long as they live, but they will never ever describe any color or even the concept itself. They can imagine all sorts of things but they will never ever debate whether "color" exist or do not exist (as we seeing-people know it) because they are both blind.

They will never arrive at the concept of colors on their own because they have no proof. Much like we can never arrive at the true nature of the universe without any proof.

Quietus

01-12-2006, 03:09

So what you're saying is the same as I, God is just an assumption created from the nothing, from phenomena that is in fact related to natural science. I agree then. Ok.

There comes the problem, people consider God to be real, and for instance they usually use the same proove that scientist use to proove that God exists, so they use real proove. How can you desmitify that? Well you can't because you should proove that God doesn't exist and that can be done, however I agree with you that there is several proof that tends to the confirmation of God being an idea, a fiction created by man, no more than any rule certainly. No proof is the proof. Because people will never arrive at the truth just by pure guess. See my Stevie Wonder/ Ray Charles analogy.

And I agree with you at that, but the problem is that that assumption might be real. The blind does not see things, but if he recovered the vision he might see things, while he's blind he makes assumptions on the form, much as the "Cave" allegory But NOT color! :yes: A blind person will never guess the concept of color without any proof or other help from other 'seeing' people.

Well a lot of people, like creationist "scientist" will state the same about the relationship of God and the opera of this Earth. Some of their allegations include stating that the Great Cannon in Colorado (right?) is so perfect that it cannot be made just by a random process of nature, God must be behind it. But of course this ridicolous assumptions are refuted by the works of "The Spaghetti Monster" followers.
Of course not, but wheter you guess correctly or not, it doesn't change reality. A blind person will never guess the reality of colors nonetheless without any evidence.

Redleg

01-12-2006, 03:21

Prove intelligent life is in the universe on a planet outside of the Earth's Solar System.

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-12-2006, 03:27

Quietus - even though the English didn't know of coconuts, they existed, even before they graced the shores of England.

Quietus

01-12-2006, 03:53

Quietus - even though the English didn't know of coconuts, they existed, even before they graced the shores of England. Yes, coconuts existed.

But which Englisman claimed "coconuts" existed prior to discovery? (w/o proof).
Which Englishman claimed "coconuts" does not exist prior to discovery? (w/o proof).

The answer to both is noone. How can anyone debate the existence of "coconuts" if it wasn't even discovered yet? :)

Papewaio

01-12-2006, 03:56

Prove intelligent life is in the universe on a planet outside of the Earth's Solar System.

First prove that intelligent life is on Earth... and then try and explain the internet. :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Redleg

01-12-2006, 04:00

First prove that intelligent life is on Earth... and then try and explain the internet. :inquisitive: :laugh4:

I wonder how many others will understand the point.... :bow:

Quietus

01-12-2006, 04:02

Prove intelligent life is in the universe on a planet outside of the Earth's Solar System. Intelligent Life exists here on Earth. It's only a matter of probability, Intelligent Life exists outside the solar system. We are made of dead stars, so it's only a matter of probability.

Redleg

01-12-2006, 04:05

Intelligent Life exists here on Earth. It's only a matter of probability, Intelligent Life exists outside the solar system. We are made of dead stars, so it's only a matter of probability.

So you take it on belief that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?

Quietus

01-12-2006, 04:08

So you take it on belief that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system? If we are possible, it is possible.

Redleg

01-12-2006, 04:27

If we are possible, it is possible.

To use your arguement then.

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

If you say there is intelligence life, thats 1.
If you say there is no intelligence life, that's back to 0,

Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?

None currently exists that I am aware of, so without proof of the existance of intelligent life beyond the Earth's Solar System, I must conclude using the above samples provide under your logical arguement against God's existance, that intelligent life outside of the Earth's Solar System does not exist.

Your arguement against God seems to have a flaw in my opinon.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2006, 04:54

He only said it was possible.

Xiahou

01-12-2006, 05:01

He only said it was possible.
Then he should be saying that God is possible as well.

Redleg

01-12-2006, 05:08

He only said it was possible.

Read what was stated by both Quietus and then myself. And then see what my conclusion concerning his logic and arguement against the existance of God.

Your arguement against God seems to have a flaw in my opinon.

I am not shooting his arguement down, but there is an inconsistency in the arguement against existance when you remove God from the equation.

Soulforged

01-12-2006, 05:09

No proof is the proof. Because people will never arrive at the truth just by pure guess. See my Stevie Wonder/ Ray Charles analogy.No. The the lack of proof doesn't mean a denial of existence.

But NOT color! :yes: A blind person will never guess the concept of color without any proof or other help from other 'seeing' people.He'll never guess while he's blind.

A blind person will never guess the reality of colors nonetheless without any evidence.Yes, but what if he recovers the vission? What I mean is that the evidence cannot be seen now, but it can appear later. But remember always that I'm on your side, don't believe that by saying this I believe that God exists.

Quietus

01-12-2006, 05:42

To use your arguement then.

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

If you say there is intelligence life, thats 1.
If you say there is no intelligence life, that's back to 0,

Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?

None currently exists that I am aware of, so without proof of the existance of intelligent life beyond the Earth's Solar System, I must conclude using the above samples provide under your logical arguement against God's existance, that intelligent life outside of the Earth's Solar System does not exist.

Your arguement against God seems to have a flaw in my opinon.

1) We are proof that intelligent life is possible thus it probable outside the solar system.

This is just like Viking's argument which is equivocation:

'Exists' in your statement mean probability. "Exists" in my statement does not mean probability.

We are proof of intelligent life, hence your question is not of existence, but of probability of existence outside the solar system.

example: Where is the proof cars exists inside an egyptian pyramid?

Cars exists. Egyptian pyramids exists. What's the probability of a car being inside a pyramid?

example: What is the proof God exists in the universe?
The universe exists. There's no proof God exists. So it's not a probability question whether God is in our Universe.

Originally Posted by Quietus
Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of? Kanamori, that's not my statement, that's Sartaq's, hence it would be nice to edit post #40 of this thread. :)

Quietus

01-12-2006, 05:52

No. The the lack of proof doesn't mean a denial of existence. The lack of proof mean pure guessing which will never arrive at the truth.

He'll never guess while he's blind. So long as he's blind and uninformed (i.e. no proof, yes).

Yes, but what if he recovers the vission? What I mean is that the evidence cannot be seen now, but it can appear later. But remember always that I'm on your side, don't believe that by saying this I believe that God exists. If Stevie Wonder recovers the vision, then the proof will be revealed and the truth as well.

But as long as Stevie Wonder is blind, he'll never guess "color" on his own without any proof. And the truth will remain hidden

Quietus

01-12-2006, 05:56

Then he should be saying that God is possible as well.
Intelligent life exists on Earth, hence other Intelligent life is possible.

Equally, if God exists, then other Gods are also possible.

Xiahou

01-12-2006, 06:35

example: What is the proof God exists in the universe?
The universe exists. There's no proof God exists. So it's not a probability question whether God is in our Universe.That's some very tortured logic- it's also known as begging the question

We are proof of intelligent life, hence your question is not of existence, but of probability of existence outside the solar system.We are intelligent life on earth. That is in no way proof of life on planets other than earth. Therefore, by your reasoning, there is no intelligent life outside of earth as there is no proof of it. If you're going to start talking about possibilities of things without proof for it, then you've just destroyed your own argument.

Redleg

01-12-2006, 07:03

1) We are proof that intelligent life is possible thus it probable outside the solar system.

This is just like Viking's argument which is equivocation:

'Exists' in your statement mean probability. "Exists" in my statement does not mean probability.

The term exists in my statement meant exists - not probablity nor possiblity. You have committed an argumentive logic fallacy. Attempting to put a strawman inplace of what I actually stated.

We are proof of intelligent life, hence your question is not of existence, but of probability of existence outside the solar system.

....,

example: What is the proof God exists in the universe?
The universe exists. There's no proof God exists. So it's not a probability question whether God is in our Universe.

This is another fallacy of logic - as stated by Xiahou called begging the question.

Countering my arguement that your premise against the existance of God has a flaw, with two logical fallacies included does not show where my premise is incorrect.

However it does futher illustrate the logic you have applied against the existance of God is inconsistent when applied to other non-provable enties.

Crazed Rabbit

01-12-2006, 07:34

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

As it is, there is evidence for God; the creation of the universe and begining of life.

Crazed Rabbit

Kanamori

01-12-2006, 07:51

Kanamori, that's not my statement, that's Sartaq's, hence it would be nice to edit post #40 of this thread. :)

Sorry; it was a harmless mistake... especially since I quoted him correctly the first time and anyone can scroll up.:balloon2:

Byzantine Mercenary

01-12-2006, 14:11

you keep saying that there is not evidence for god, of course your gonna think that if you ignore all the exidence!
:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:

Rodion Romanovich

01-12-2006, 14:23

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

As it is, there is evidence for God; the creation of the universe and begining of life.

Crazed Rabbit

Then you need to prove that universe was created, and didn't exist from the beginning.

Also, you might want to think about what you just proved, if you could prove the creation of the universe. You haven't proved the exitence of the entire God concept, just that there was a creator. That creator wouldn't necessarily have to be a personal God, like the one in the 3 major Middle east religions. It could just as well have been a controlled random process or determinism. If universe didn't exist always, what exited before that? What is the universe? You can't say the universe at some point existed or didn't exist or was created unless you actually know how you define the universe. It's about as informative as saying "asdfasgfasfs was created sgagfd" to say "God created the universe". A statement without absolutely clear definitions of all the words it consists of says little or nothing.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-12-2006, 14:38

Then you need to prove that universe was created, and didn't exist from the beginning.

Also, you might want to think about what you just proved, if you could prove the creation of the universe. You haven't proved the exitence of the entire God concept, just that there was a creator. That creator wouldn't necessarily have to be a personal God, like the one in the 3 major Middle east religions. It could just as well have been a controlled random process or determinism. If universe didn't exist always, what exited before that? What is the universe? You can't say the universe at some point existed or didn't exist or was created unless you actually know how you define the universe. It's about as informative as saying "asdfasgfasfs was created sgagfd" to say "God created the universe". A statement without absolutely clear definitions of all the words it consists of says little or nothing.

there is one reason that the univers must have been created and that is that every star in the universe gives off heat this heat just ends up in space, eventually stars run out of 'fuel' and so cannot create more heat. The energy that they have given off is not replaced it just stays in space so eventually the universe as a whole will run out of hydrogen and helium to fuel star combustion. So, obviously we can tell that the universe must have been created as if it had existed for an infinate amount of time it would have run out of fuel already. Also through measureing the expansion of the universe, Scientists can tell that it began a certain amount of time ago by measureing the distance between galaxys moveing apart and their respective velocity.

Rodion Romanovich

01-12-2006, 16:54

Actually, the energy you're talking about is entrophy. Scientists have not yet found out if it's possible that just randomness will eventually create exergy in an isolated area. Theoretically it's possible that just randomness alone created a low entrophy scenario in a huge part of volume which we call the universe. Also, time is relative and not absolute according to Einstein's theories so theoretically the stars we see etc. maybe only exist in a single time period. Etc. The entire thing is too complex for human brains to understand, so we can't form any proofs about such high-level things that easily. Plus, finally, the proof doesn't prove the existence of the type of God you're probably trying to prove the existence of. Just because God created universe, assuming you could prove that, doesn't mean he is still alive today, for example. God's existence or non-existence is a matter of belief, and haven't been possible to prove despite centuries of philosophy and "science". It's probably because it can't be proved. But we can't prove that it's impossible to prove or not. :confused: It's all very complicated, and my approach is to think of why I'd really want to prove or disprove the existence. If you can answer that question honestly to yourself, then you often find there are other questions you really want answered. The existence or non-existence in itself changes little.

Viking

01-12-2006, 19:20

Why couldn't they be different? what im talking about are not written the laws of science as much as the mechanics of the universe, everything fitting together in a way that perfectly allows us to exist by saying that that everything has to be the way it is your are closeing your mind to the possibility that everthing does not have to be the way that it is.

They couldn`t be different. That would require another universe.

Without a creator the random universe that you would end up with would surely be simple, a cloud of gas or a giant mass of matter what is to say that the rules governing the mechanics of our universe did not need to be created?

If hydrogen gathers in huge amounts, it will collapse at a certain point, and a star is created.

This is why i used the example of a computer, a computer needs rules to work properlly, it needs software to tell it what to do. Why couldn't the mechanics of the universe work in the same way?

Well, in abstract, the rules exist, of course. But they`re just small pieces of the whole that makes up the universe, rather than separate rules.

The idea that by some amazing luck the universe just happened to be very complex with a perfectly placed planet for intelligent life.

It`s not 'perfect', but it obviously worked for life.

This planet then producing a species that unlike any other living species on the planet creates an abstract idea that there is a creater almost as if religion is implanted in its very genome because lets face it, whenever you find humans you find religion.

By that, you need evidences for that animals do not practice religion.
Religion is in fact planted in our DNA, but evolution can explain it. Humans are well aware of their existance and their death. Wouldn`t you feel better if you "knew" that an afterlife followed death? Religions make people feel more confortable with death, and gives them something to feel connected to each other with. Thus evolution promoted it.

The problem here is your point of reference is 1.

One is your reference because you want me to prove a "negative". Well, 0 is negative if your reference point is 1 (-1 to the left of 1 = 0).

If zero is your reference point, and you want to prove a "positive", then 1 is positive to reference point 0 (1 to the right of 0).

The question here is: which reference point do you want? Zero!

What's your best analogy then for a 0 reference point? See above.

Nevermind.

Non-existence where? The universe?

Existant at all.

We are intelligent life on earth. That is in no way proof of life on planets other than earth. Therefore, by your reasoning, there is no intelligent life outside of earth as there is no proof of it. If you're going to start talking about possibilities of things without proof for it, then you've just destroyed your own argument.

Your problem is that he didn`t say that extraterrestrial life actually does exist, but that its only matter of probability. He didn`t make any claim, thus he don`t need any evidence.

Xiahou

01-12-2006, 20:49

Your problem is that he didn`t say that extraterrestrial life actually does exist, but that its only matter of probability. He didn`t make any claim, thus he don`t need any evidence.But that's not his position. His position is that a lack of proof is proof of non-existence, this is clearly fallacious, but it's his position just the same. So, for him to acknowledge even the possibility of otherworldly intelligent life without proof directly contradicts his earlier statements.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 03:10

That's some very tortured logic- it's also known as begging the question Let me rephrase because I'm trying to make a point about the difference.

example: What is the proof God exists on Earth?
The Earth exists. There's no proof God exists in the Universe. Hence, not a probability question.

original question by Redleg: Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?
'Outside of the Solar system' exists. There's proof of intelligent life in the universe. Hence a probability question!

We are intelligent life on earth. That is in no way proof of life on planets other than earth. Therefore, by your reasoning, there is no intelligent life outside of earth as there is no proof of it. If you're going to start talking about possibilities of things without proof for it, then you've just destroyed your own argument. It's a probability question. We are possible, yes? Then why state intelligent is impossible!? :)

Redleg

01-13-2006, 03:16

Let me rephrase because I'm trying to make a point about the difference.

example: What is the proof God exists on Earth?
The Earth exists. There's no proof God exists in the Universe. Hence, not a probability question.

original question by Redleg: Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?
'Outside of the Solar system' exists. There's proof of intelligent life in the universe. Hence a probability question!

Your still begging the question, and establishing a strawman arguement concerning the orginal question.

It's a probability question. We are possible, yes? Then why state intelligent is impossible!? :)

Its a question of exist or does not exist.

The flaw in the logic you have presented is clear to all who wish to see it. It does not shoot your arguement down about the existance or non-existance of a supereme being, however it does show a fundmental flaw in the application of your logic.

To put it simply - using Wikipedia for a reference. There are better articles on it then this but its handy.

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."
Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.

Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist". Also, similar to the aliens in the above example, since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 03:36

The term exists in my statement meant exists - not probablity nor possiblity. You have committed an argumentive logic fallacy. Attempting to put a strawman inplace of what I actually stated.

But it is a probability question:

Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?

Intelligent life exists in the universe, yes? Meaning intelligent life is possible? Yes? Hence, a probability question.

If I remake your question:

Where is the proof that GOD exists outside of the earth's solar system?

God exists in the universe, no? Meaning God is possible? No? Hence not a probability question.

This is another fallacy of logic - as stated by Xiahou called begging the question. I addressed it in other post and look up: This statement was actually even better than the last one.

Countering my arguement that your premise against the existance of God has a flaw, with two logical fallacies included does not show where my premise is incorrect.

However it does futher illustrate the logic you have applied against the existance of God is inconsistent when applied to other non-provable enties. Flat-out equivocation: the "exists" in your question mean 'is it probabable'?

ex. What is the proof diamonds exists in John Doe's pocket?
Diamonds exists. John Doe's pocket exists. It's a probability question.

Are you asking if Diamonds exists in the universe?

You're asking a probability question.

ex: What is the proof John Doe is carrying diamonds in his pocket?

Even if John Doe is not carrying diamonds, it does not mean diamonds do not exist.

Suppose: there's no other intelligent life outside the solar system, does that mean intelligent life doesn't exist?

Redleg

01-13-2006, 03:40

But it is a probability question:

No, it was a logic trap that I used to illustrate the logical fallacy that was inherient in your arguement and to show the inconsistent application of your logic. Notice that the words I used were done in the exact same manner in which you were dicussing the existance of God.

Read the Wikipedia Quote that I placed in as an edit.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 03:45

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

As it is, there is evidence for God; the creation of the universe and begining of life.

Crazed RabbitThere's no proof of God and there's no proof either that the universe comes from this God.

As I've mentioned to Alexandertheprettygood (as per his example of coconuts),

If the coconuts were not discovered yet, then how can someone claim that it exists (without any proof?) and even define or describe it in detail.

You have no proof of God, yet you already have a definition.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 03:49

you keep saying that there is not evidence for god, of course your gonna think that if you ignore all the exidence!
:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: First, what's the proof of God? And secondly, define God as well.

Lastly, which came first, your 'proof of God' or your definition of God? :)

Quietus

01-13-2006, 04:14

No, it was a logic trap that I used to illustrate the logical fallacy that was inherient in your arguement and to show the inconsistent application of your logic. Notice that the words I used were done in the exact same manner in which you were dicussing the existance of God.

Read the Wikipedia Quote that I placed in as an edit. There's two meanings for "exists" there, hence equivocation. Yours is a probability question, mine is not.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."
Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.

Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist". Also, similar to the aliens in the above example, since no proof is available that this does not exist, it might exist, but this alone does not prove it to exist. "This exists because there no proof that it does not exist." That's quite very different from my statement.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 04:18

There's two meanings for "exists" there, hence equivocation. Yours is a probability question, mine is not.

"This exists because there no proof that it does not exist." That's quite very different from my statement.

Refusal to see the logical fallacy is a telling condition on your presentation and the logic as it is applied by yourself.

You might want to review the fallacy a little futher. It clearly states the converse is also true for this logical fallacy.

However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist".

Have a wonderful night - but my arguement here is done. Your arguement about the non-existance of a god is based upon a logical fallacy, which I don't find all that bad - in fact it made for an interesting discussion until you committed the second flaw of inconsistent application against something other then a supernatural being. :oops:

Edit to complete thought

Quietus

01-13-2006, 04:44

Refusal to see the logical fallacy is a telling condition on your presentation and the logic as it is applied by yourself.

You might want to review the fallacy a little futher. It clearly states the converse is also true for this logical fallacy. How is that illogical? If you don't have proof of an object, then you can't define what it is.

If you can't define it, then how can you claim that it exists?

Have a wonderful night - but my arguement here is done. Your arguement about the non-existance of a god is based upon a logical fallacy, which I don't find all that bad - in fact it made for an interesting discussion until you committed the second flaw of inconsistent application against something other then a supernatural being. :oops:

Edit to complete thought See my above statement.

Also, supernatural is beyond natural.

"God is supernatural hence there's no proof God exists in the natural world, but he exists nonetheless". How do you know God is supernatural if supernatural can't be proven? That's really the illogical statement.

ps: I know your answer: Faith. :)

Xiahou

01-13-2006, 04:49

But it is a probability question:

Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?

Intelligent life exists in the universe, yes? Meaning intelligent life is possible? Yes? Hence, a probability question.

If I remake your question:

Where is the proof that GOD exists outside of the earth's solar system?

God exists in the universe, no? Meaning God is possible? No? Hence not a probability question.It's still tortured logic- you've just changed the questions until you think they conform to your argument. Let's have a look....

Would you say there is the possibility of life in the Andromeda Galaxy? If you say yes, then you've again destroyed your original argument. If you say no, then assume that I ask you the exact same question specifically for every part of our universe outside of our solar system. Again, in each instance you would have to say "no" or contradict your argument, as there is absolutely no proof to support it.

To simplify my point, you can not use proof of something existing in one place as proof that it exists in a wholly different place. Proof of a walnut tree growing in your backyard is not proof of walnut trees growing at the bottom of the ocean. Proof of intelligent life on earth is not proof of intelligent life anywhere else but earth. Therefore, by your fallacious logic, there can not possibly be any intelligent life anywhere besides earth. Funny stuff though. :wink:

Redleg

01-13-2006, 05:09

How is that illogical? If you don't have proof of an object, then you can't define what it is.

I haven't attempt to define God now have I? Nor will I since I do not have a definition for whom he is.

If you can't define it, then how can you claim that it exists?

the converse is also true. If you can not define it, then how can you claim that it does not exist?

See my above statement.

Seen and your still applying the same logical fallacy. However you do recongize the fallacy in the arguement for God's existance - but your not seeing that you have committed the same type of fallacy in your arguement against. Which I would not have stepped into the conversation but your were (to use an anology) attempting to have your cake and take a slice of pie along with it.

Also, supernatural is beyond natural.

Well aware of that - God can be defined as beyond natural.

"God is supernatural hence there's no proof God exists in the natural world, but he exists nonetheless". How do you know God is supernatural if supernatural can't be proven? That's really the illogical statement.

ps: I know your answer: Faith. :)

Faith and personal philosophy when you have done some of the things I have done, seen some of the things I have done - you either have faith or reject it completely. However the premise of my arguement was not what my faith is or isn't but the arguement as present by yourself which contains the above mentioned logical fallacies and inconsistent application of the same standard across all arguements about existance and proof.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 05:10

It's still tortured logic- you've just changed the questions until you think they conform to your argument. Let's have a look.... ~:confused: I only replaced "intelligent life" (from Redleg's own question) and substituted God (hence both in bold) so you'll note the difference.

Would you say there is the possibility of life in the Andromeda Galaxy? If you say yes, then you've again destroyed your original argument. If you say no, then assume that I ask you the exact same question specifically for every part of our universe outside of our solar system. Again, in each instance you would have to say "no" or contradict your argument, as there is absolutely no proof to support it. What question are we trying to answer? 'Does God exist (nee' at all in the universe)?'

Now substitute Redleg's subject: Intelligent Life, therefore: Does Intelligent Life exist (at all in the universe)?

To simplify my point, you can not use proof of something existing in one place as proof that it exists in a wholly different place. The 'exists' here is the Equivocation. The "exists" in my statement mean (does it exist at all in the universe). Redleg's "exists" does not hold the same meaning.

Proof of a walnut tree growing in your backyard is not proof of walnut trees growing at the bottom of the ocean. Right. And I never said it was.

Proof of intelligent life on earth is not proof of intelligent life anywhere else but earth. Right. I never said that either.

Therefore, by your fallacious logic, there can not possibly be any intelligent life anywhere besides earth. Funny stuff though. :wink: I only explained Redleg's misplaced use of 'exists' as different from mine, hence the logical fallacy (equivocation). :)

Xiahou

01-13-2006, 05:18

Proof of intelligent life on earth is not proof of intelligent life anywhere else but earth.
Right. I never said that either.Ok, then (by your reasoning) there can be no intelligent life anywhere but on earth. What is this talk of possibilities without proof? Any of such talk runs contrary to your original claim.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 05:26

Ok, then (by your reasoning) there can be no intelligent life anywhere but on earth. What is this talk of possibilities without proof? Any of such talk runs contrary to your original claim.

Lets remind ourselves of the orginal claim

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

The logical fallacy of this statement has been shown by both the presentation of the arguement about the existence of intelligence life outside of the earth's solar system, and by quoting how the fallacy in question is developed and then applied.

We could go into the fallacies of the counters to this main premise of my arguement committed by Quietus in defense of his logical error, but that would be just getting away from the orginal premise of my arguement. You can not prove a negative by claiming the proof is in the lack of proof.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 05:27

I haven't attempt to define God now have I? Nor will I since I do not have a definition for whom he is. You have proof of God and you have no definition either, yet he exists!? That's really remarkable.

the converse is also true. If you can not define it, then how can you claim that it does not exist? Because you defined God (in your religion) without any proof of his existence, therefore "God" as everyone defines it also (in different ways) does not exist without any proof as well!

Earlier, Alexandertheprettygood mentioned coconuts unknown to the English but known in the Caribbean.

If the Englishman does not have proof of the "coconut", then how can he define "coconuts" and claim that it exists?

If Person X does not have proof of "God", then how can he define "God" and claim it exists?

Seen and your still applying the same logical fallacy. However you do recongize the fallacy in the arguement for God's existance - but your not seeing that you have committed the same type of fallacy in your arguement against. Which I would not have stepped into the conversation but your were (to use an anology) attempting to have your cake and take a slice of pie along with it. I don't understand what you mean here, Redleg. See above.

Well aware of that - God can be defined as beyond natural. If God is beyond natural, then how do you know for sure God exists?

Faith and personal philosophy when you have done some of the things I have done, seen some of the things I have done - you either have faith or reject it completely. However the premise of my arguement was not what my faith is or isn't but the arguement as present by yourself which contains the above mentioned logical fallacies and inconsistent application of the same standard across all arguements about existance and proof. Is Faith logical?

Redleg

01-13-2006, 05:35

You have proof of God and you have no definition either, yet he exists!? That's really remarkable.

Your committing whats called a Strawman arguement - I did not say I have proof of God's existance

Because you defined God (in your religion) without any proof of his existence, therefore "God" as everyone defines it also (in different ways) does not exist without any proof as well!

Earlier, Alexandertheprettygood mentioned coconuts unknown to the English but known in the Caribbean.

If the Englishman does not have proof of the "coconut", then how can he define "coconuts" and claim that it exists?

If Person X does not have proof of "God", then how can he define "God" and claim it exists?

Yes the fallacy exists in attempting to prove God's existance - however again your committing a Strawman arguement - I have not defined God's existance - nor have I attempted to prove his existance in this converstation.

I don't understand what you mean here, Redleg. See above.

That you are countering the belief in the existance of God correctly by arguing that faith does not prove he exists, but you fall for the same logical fallacy trap in attempt to prove his non-existance.

If God is beyond natural, then how do you know for sure God exists?

THe answer is faith

Is Faith logical?

Not always - as demonstrated everyday in real life. However arguing against the existance of God by stating the lack of proof is the proof is also illogical.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 05:38

Ok, then (by your reasoning) there can be no intelligent life anywhere but on earth. What is this talk of possibilities without proof? Any of such talk runs contrary to your original claim. It's a question of probability. Since Intelligent Life exists on Earth (nee' possible in the universe), then it's only a matter of probability.

Lets remind ourselves of the orginal claim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

The logical fallacy of this statement has been shown by both the presentation of the arguement about the existence of intelligence life outside of the earth's solar system, and by quoting how the fallacy in question. Both Earth and Moon are defined, yes? I claim the Earth and the Moon exists and there's proof they both exist. Now, that's logical, yes?

Go ahead define what is "God", claim "God" exists then show me the proof.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 05:47

It's a question of probability. Since Intelligent Life exists on Earth (nee' possible in the universe), then it's only a matter of probability.

Both Earth and Moon are defined, yes? I claim the Earth and the Moon exists and there's proof they both exist. Now, that's logical, yes?

Go ahead define what is "God", claim "God" exists then show me the proof.

Your demonstating the continuation of your orginal logical fallacy. I don't need to proof the existance of God - I have alreadly stated that it is a faith, nor is my claim that God exists in this arguement.

to repeat myself

That you are countering the belief in the existance of God correctly by arguing that faith does not prove he exists, but you fall for the same logical fallacy trap in attempt to prove his non-existance.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 06:00

Your committing whats called a Strawman arguement - I did not say I have proof of God's existance If you have no proof that God exists, how do you know God exists?

Yes the fallacy exists in attempting to prove God's existance - however again your committing a Strawman arguement - I have not defined God's existance - nor have I attempted to prove his existance in this converstation. See above.

That you are countering the belief in the existance of God correctly by arguing that faith does not prove he exists, but you fall for the same logical fallacy trap in attempt to prove his non-existance. I've already shown it to be logical.

THe answer is faith If the answer is Faith, then:

Redleg has Faith in God, therefore God exists. So:

If Person Y has Faith in Z, therefore Z exists? That's illogical.

Not always - as demonstrated everyday in real life. However arguing against the existance of God by stating the lack of proof is the proof is also illogical. I've already stated my logic. If Person X has no proof, then Person X can't define it and claim it exists.

The Englishman cannot define a "coconut" without any proof, hence, the Englishman cannot claim the "coconut" exists.

Soulforged

01-13-2006, 06:03

I think that christians should accept God for what it's: the idea of the super-man. Refer to he everytime you want counsel in a self-search, deep inside. But please keep him out of any natural or logical construction, such as the creator of the material world and things like that.

Also as said many times from to many people to remember it: if this discussion is still going on, it's because the faith is failing at some point.

If Person Y has Faith in Z, therefore Z exists? That's illogical.No Quietus it's not illogical, the construction is well done. But it sure is false because of the element faith in it.

Quietus

01-13-2006, 06:07

Your demonstating the continuation of your orginal logical fallacy. I don't need to proof the existance of God - I have alreadly stated that it is a faith, nor is my claim that God exists in this arguement.

to repeat myself

That you are countering the belief in the existance of God correctly by arguing that faith does not prove he exists, but you fall for the same logical fallacy trap in attempt to prove his non-existance. My statement is logical.

You are only calling it illogical (strawman) because your recent illogical statement makes a logical statement seem illogical.

You've already said Faith is illogical.

Crazed Rabbit

01-13-2006, 06:17

There's no proof of God and there's no proof either that the universe comes from this God.

As I've mentioned to Alexandertheprettygood (as per his example of coconuts),

If the coconuts were not discovered yet, then how can someone claim that it exists (without any proof?) and even define or describe it in detail.

You have no proof of God, yet you already have a definition.

Where did this universe come from if not God? Did it just decide to create itself one day?

Your whole argument seems to center on how, since there is no proof of God (says you) that means there is no God, a huge logical fallacy.

Here's another analogy: What about Europeans before 1000 AD, who thought there was a continent across the atlantic, but didn't know about it? They probably had stories of it, but hadn't discovered it. Does that mean it didn't exist?

Then you need to prove that universe was created, and didn't exist from the beginning.

The fact that the universe was created at some point is pretty much indisputable. As it is, its currently expanding, but it couldn't have been doing that forever. Thus, it had to have a begining. The most accepted (though not totally accepted) theory is the 'Big-Bang'.

Also, you might want to think about what you just proved, if you could prove the creation of the universe. You haven't proved the exitence of the entire God concept, just that there was a creator. That creator wouldn't necessarily have to be a personal God, like the one in the 3 major Middle east religions. It could just as well have been a controlled random process or determinism. If universe didn't exist always, what exited before that? What is the universe? You can't say the universe at some point existed or didn't exist or was created unless you actually know how you define the universe. It's about as informative as saying "asdfasgfasfs was created sgagfd" to say "God created the universe". A statement without absolutely clear definitions of all the words it consists of says little or nothing.

The definition of universe is pretty simple: it is the area containing the galaxies and stars in which we live. It is expanding, and has been since the big bang.

There's your definition. Hopefully, you will now be able to comprehend the idea of the universe when it is used in conversation from now on.

A definition of God is pretty clear too: He is the omnipotent creator of the universe.

Crazed Rabbit

Quietus

01-13-2006, 06:34

Where did this universe come from if not God? Did it just decide to create itself one day? We don't know.

Your whole argument seems to center on how, since there is no proof of God (says you) that means there is no God, a huge logical fallacy. Because you can't define God without any proof.

Here's another analogy: What about Europeans before 1000 AD, who thought there was a continent across the atlantic, but didn't know about it? They probably had stories of it, but hadn't discovered it. Does that mean it didn't exist? That's quite simple. A Continent exists. Then it's a matter of probability another continent exists.

ps. Crazed Rabbit, please edit the quotes that do not belong to me in your last post. :)

No Quietus it's not illogical, the construction is well done. But it sure is false because of the element faith in it. That makes any mythical creatures real as long as you have faith.

Soulforged

01-13-2006, 06:37

That makes any mythical creatures real as long as you have faith.
Not at all. Logical deduction is an abstract construction, it doesn't changes the real world, it could even be refered to fictions. What deduction asures is an statement of truth if their premises are truth. What you should proof is that one of the elements in the premises are false, to say that the conclusion is false, but if not falling in fallacy, the logic will still be there.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 06:43

My statement is logical.

You are only calling it illogical (strawman) because your recent illogical statement makes a logical statement seem illogical.

You've already said Faith is illogical.

Not at all Quietus I am calling your defense of your premise a strawman.

And I have demonstrated by arguement your logical fallacy in your initial premise.

Again for the editification of the audience, I will repeat myself one last time.

That you are countering the belief in the existance of God correctly by arguing that faith does not prove he exists, but you fall for the same logical fallacy trap in attempt to prove his non-existance.

I leave you with a picture to remember this discussion by.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail021.jpg

THe Part of King Arthur has been played by myself

While the part of the Black Knight in this arguement has been played by Quietus

Good night all...

Roark

01-13-2006, 06:47

Why should God be subject to human logic in the first place?

The tools are inappropriate for the subject matter.

Xiahou

01-13-2006, 07:37

It's a question of probability. Since Intelligent Life exists on Earth (nee' possible in the universe), then it's only a matter of probability.Allowing for the possibility of something without proof is directly in opposition to your original statements. End of story. :bow:

Byzantine Mercenary

01-13-2006, 09:59

First, what's the proof of God? And secondly, define God as well.

Lastly, which came first, your 'proof of God' or your definition of God? :)
Proof of God? well these are a few that i can come up with right now

The fact that the universe just magically happens to be perfect for human life.
The complexity of the mechanics of science, why should a randomly created universe be so complex?
The fact that all of the dominant modern religions are monotheistic.
The usefullness of Jesus's teachings, only god could come up with a single rule that if implemented creates a perfect society.
The miricles of Jesus.
The fact that Jesus was not the messiah that was expected, but was the messiah that was predicted.
The subsequant miricles performed in the name of god around the world.
Every time i have prayed my prayer has been ansered.
I have felt god helping me in real ways when i have encountered a problem even when i have not prayed about it.
The aura of love an supportiveness present in most christian communities.
The christians who have managed, against the odds, to change the world.
Near death experiences, i even know people who have experienced this.
The spontanious conversions of even commited athists such as CS Lewis.

And in anser to your question, i was raised as a christian, but the proof came first.

They couldn`t be different. That would require another universe[QUOTE=Viking]
you misundestand me what i mean is why are they the way they are why do we have this universe and not some other

[QUOTE=Viking]If hydrogen gathers in huge amounts, it will collapse at a certain point, and a star is created.[QUOTE=Viking]
firstly why should is collapse? what i was meaning is if the universe was random surely you would be moe likely to get a simple universe then a complex one

[QUOTE=Viking]Well, in abstract, the rules exist, of course. But they`re just small pieces of the whole that makes up the universe, rather than separate rules.

It`s not 'perfect', but it obviously worked for life.

By that, you need evidences for that animals do not practice religion.
Religion is in fact planted in our DNA, but evolution can explain it. Humans are well aware of their existance and their death. Wouldn`t you feel better if you "knew" that an afterlife followed death? Religions make people feel more confortable with death, and gives them something to feel connected to each other with. Thus evolution promoted it.

Religion incourages activities that are not in the best interests of natural selection such as celebacy it also represents a waste of resourses that you would not see if natural selection was the only variable controling evolution.

not perfect, almost every region on the earth can support life!

i wasn't talking about how seperate the rules were as much as how intracut they were

Ironside

01-13-2006, 12:53

Allowing for the possibility of something without proof is directly in opposition to your original statements. End of story. :bow:

Probility isn't proof.
The logic diffence between God and (intelligent) life that Quietus tries to show is that we know one planet with life (earth) and thus we know that the probility for life is higher than 0 because life exists somewere. We still haven't any idea how big that probility is, so it certainly can be so low that we're alone in the universe, but it's for certain higher than 0.
For God it's different, we're trying to prove the existance of gods and thus we have no idea how large the probability is and it still can be 0.
To put it simply, getting the arguments on the same probability level, it would require that we know that God exist and is speculating if there exists more gods than Jehova/Allah.

Quietus you're wrong about the defintion stuff though. All you need to do is to have a theory about a divine being, and try to prove that theory. Thus you can define something before you know the existance of it.

The fact that the universe just magically happens to be perfect for human life.
The complexity of the mechanics of science, why should a randomly created universe be so complex?
This depends on the existance of multiverses or not. If there exists more than one the question becomes a non-issue, because if you were created in a universe that didn't worked for human life, you couldn't ask yourself the question. For only one universe then the same issue applies, but that only one created universe would fit for human life does give hints about some divine intervation.

The fact that all of the dominant modern religions are monotheistic.
Hmm what about Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto? And taoism and confuciaism doesn't even have gods, while still working as lifeguides.
And Judaism, Christianity and Islam is mostly the same religion anyway (it's certainly the same god in them).

The usefullness of Jesus's teachings, only god could come up with a single rule that if implemented creates a perfect society.
~:confused: Love thy neighbour or what?

The miricles of Jesus.
Written in a book and only found in that book AFAIK. Not much of a proof.

The fact that Jesus was not the messiah that was expected, but was the messiah that was predicted.
Cannot really answer this one.

The subsequant miricles performed in the name of god around the world.
And here I seems to remember that God isn't the only god that have/had miracles performed in thier name around the world. Might prove God, but it aslo proves that in that case he's certainly not alone.

Every time i have prayed my prayer has been ansered.
I have felt god helping me in real ways when i have encountered a problem even when i have not prayed about it.
The aura of love an supportiveness present in most christian communities.
These personal experiences is far from universal. Would you still have them if you wasn't raised as a Christian?

The christians who have managed, against the odds, to change the world.
Near death experiences, i even know people who have experienced this.
The spontanious conversions of even commited athists such as CS Lewis.
The christians doesn't exactly have a monopoly of world-changing events.

The only thing I can say about near death experiences is that God seems to be very adapting to the personal views, when it comes to what those people see.

Thus people that loses faith is a proof of God not existing?

And a question about God and the afterlife. If a person have lived his whole life in the middle of nowere and never heard about Jesus, but still have lived a good life and never done any sins, does he end up in heaven of hell? And the same question for people who knew about Jesus but didn't became christians.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-13-2006, 13:48

This depends on the existance of multiverses or not. If there exists more than one the question becomes a non-issue, because if you were created in a universe that didn't worked for human life, you couldn't ask yourself the question. For only one universe then the same issue applies, but that only one created universe would fit for human life does give hints about some divine intervation. Yes, so therefore if there is only one universe then there is likely to be a god, so new question, what eveidense is there for multiverses?

Hmm what about Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto? And taoism and confuciaism doesn't even have gods, while still working as lifeguides.
And Judaism, Christianity and Islam is mostly the same religion anyway (it's certainly the same god in them).
Hinduism has one central god- Brahmin the other gods are said to be asbects of Bramin, Buddism is based on hinduism, i think that budists can even be atheists but the central point here is the fact that polytheistic religions do not survive exposure to monotheism and i may point out that you have compleatley ignored Sikism and Zoanastrianism they are also monotheistic!

~:confused: Love thy neighbour or what?
Exactly, two perfect rules

Written in a book and only found in that book AFAIK. Not much of a proof.
what are you expecting they happened 2000 years ago!

And here I seems to remember that God isn't the only god that have/had miracles performed in thier name around the world. Might prove God, but it aslo proves that in that case he's certainly not alone.
Realy who? when?

These personal experiences is far from universal. Would you still have them if you wasn't raised as a Christian?Maybee not but they are why i am so sure of god

The christians doesn't exactly have a monopoly of world-changing events.
Take away all the achievements of all of Islam christianity and Judaism and what are you left with? alexander the great? whos empire didn't even last his death? or Juleus ceaser? Killed by his own people? im not claiming that they have done everything but they have contributed a great deal and the greatest of historys contributers have done so believing that they are fulfilling the will of god i could not even list all the saints that have done good in the name of christianity and the sma goes for the other great religions.

The only thing I can say about near death experiences is that God seems to be very adapting to the personal views, when it comes to what those people see Realy ive always heard of a uniform vision light etc of course everyone will se it differently form their own point of view

Thus people that loses faith is a proof of God not existing?far less lose faith then gain it

And a question about God and the afterlife. If a person have lived his whole life in the middle of nowere and never heard about Jesus, but still have lived a good life and never done any sins, does he end up in heaven of hell? And the same question for people who knew about Jesus but didn't became christians.
Heaven, for both ansers, i will defer to what CS Lwesi wrote at the end of the Narnia books, the lion Aslan said that all those who did bad in his name will be punished as they realy did it in the devils name and all those who did good in anothers name realy did it in his name and so will be rewarded. That is the most satisfactory anser to the question that i have yet come accross

Ironside

01-13-2006, 15:09

Yes, so therefore if there is only one universe then there is likely to be a god, so new question, what eveidense is there for multiverses?
Roughly about the same amount as it is for God, although we do know about one universe. :book:

Hinduism has one central god- Brahmin the other gods are said to be asbects of Bramin, Buddism is based on hinduism, i think that budists can even be atheists but the central point here is the fact that polytheistic religions do not survive exposure to monotheism and i may point out that you have compleatley ignored Sikism and Zoanastrianism they are also monotheistic!

The Brahmin isn't a god, it's something else. It merely exist it doesn't act IIRC.
But anyway, basically according to you, proof of a single god is that monotheistic religions is spreading better than polytheistisc religions. This god is also supposed to have created the universe, earth, us and is still basically guiding us. Still monotheism is a "late" idea, it haven't really swept all over the world and the number of agnostics and atheists are rising. Consider his might, I've to say that I cannot really unerstand his plans.

Exactly, two perfect rules

I'm still waiting for the rule that only a divine being can come up with. Even a lowly human can come up with Love thy neighbour.

what are you expecting they happened 2000 years ago!

That more than one source would have noticed a guy that could cure the sick, walk on water, calm storms, create unlimited food and ressurect himself.

Realy who? when?

I distinctly remember an incident in the Byzantine Egypt were a pegan temple (I think it was to Isis but I'm not sure) was still popular because the wonders that happened there. So the Christian in charge found the bones of two saints that none ever heard of before and placed them in the temple. From no on all the wonders that happened was because of those "saints". Temple+unlikely happening= miracle of the gods.

[
Take away all the achievements of all of Islam christianity and Judaism and what are you left with? alexander the great? whos empire didn't even last his death? or Juleus ceaser? Killed by his own people? im not claiming that they have done everything but they have contributed a great deal and the greatest of historys contributers have done so believing that they are fulfilling the will of god i could not even list all the saints that have done good in the name of christianity and the sma goes for the other great religions.

China, Japan, the Egyptians, the Incas etc. Isn't this very simular to the argument with monotheism as superior?

Realy ive always heard of a uniform vision light etc of course everyone will se it differently form their own point of view
I was more thinking of the vision of the grim reaper. Drives a cab in NY for example.
As for the light, IIRC that have to do with some odd brainactivity right before your death (AKA your brain interpets the activity as your eyes seeing a bright light).

far less lose faith then gain it

Religion hardly seems to be growing these days. Not exactly proving your point.

Heaven, for both ansers, i will defer to what CS Lwesi wrote at the end of the Narnia books, the lion Aslan said that all those who did bad in his name will be punished as they realy did it in the devils name and all those who did good in anothers name realy did it in his name and so will be rewarded. That is the most satisfactory anser to the question that i have yet come accross
And the point of getting christian is then? Not the point of Jesus as I already know the answer from religious people for that question (otherwise all would go to hell by default).

Byzantine Mercenary

01-13-2006, 15:34

Roughly about the same amount as it is for God, although we do know about one universe. :book:
then i guess multiverses is another one of those things that we don't know enough about yet

The Brahmin isn't a god, it's something else. It merely exist it doesn't act IIRC.
i was under the impression that the various gods of hindusim were all part of bramin and that their actions were the actions of bramin

But anyway, basically according to you, proof of a single god is that monotheistic religions is spreading better than polytheistisc religions. This god is also supposed to have created the universe, earth, us and is still basically guiding us. Still monotheism is a "late" idea, it haven't really swept all over the world and the number of agnostics and atheists are rising. Consider his might, I've to say that I cannot really unerstand his plans.
well, revelation says that, that will happen, he doesn't want to controll us, if he wanted to, he wouldn't have given us free will i was trying to demonstrate how god had helped through great people.

I'm still waiting for the rule that only a divine being can come up with. Even a lowly human can come up with Love thy neighbour.
true, but to come up with it as a rule to live your life by, and i was mainly meaning to comment on its perfection as a rule to live your life by

That more than one source would have noticed a guy that could cure the sick, walk on water, calm storms, create unlimited food and ressurect himself.well there is Josepheus, and you do tend to find that the jews who were disputing christianity were saying that jesus was a sorceror and not saying that he couldn't perform miricles

I distinctly remember an incident in the Byzantine Egypt were a pegan temple (I think it was to Isis but I'm not sure) was still popular because the wonders that happened there. So the Christian in charge found the bones of two saints that none ever heard of before and placed them in the temple. From no on all the wonders that happened was because of those "saints". Temple+unlikely happening= miracle of the gods.
where is this temple? with such a deeply held belief as you may find for the egyption gods in egypt the placebo effect should not be ruled out

China, Japan, the Egyptians, the Incas etc. Isn't this very simular to the argument with monotheism as superior?
No, i have great respect for the empires you mention i am merely infering that i believe that god has worked through people to do many of the great events of history William Wilberforce for instance

I was more thinking of the vision of the grim reaper. Drives a cab in NY for example.
As for the light, IIRC that have to do with some odd brainactivity right before your death (AKA your brain interpets the activity as your eyes seeing a bright light).
many of these experiences have lasted a substantial amount of time

Religion hardly seems to be growing these days. Not exactly proving your point.

And the point of getting christian is then? Not the point of Jesus as I already know the answer from religious people for that question (otherwise all would go to hell by default).
the rules of christianity make this life better as well

Xiahou

01-13-2006, 17:36

Probility isn't proof. I know it isnt- that's what I've said here multiple times. Therefore, for Quietus to be consistent he must deny any possibility unless there is proof. He can't argue that 'no proof of God = no God', while saying 'no proof of extra terrestial life = a possibility of extra terrestial life'. That's a totally incoherent position. :dizzy2:

Obviously, the point here is that lack of proof for something is not at all the same as proof for the lack of something. Everyone seems to grasp that idea when it's something like ETs, but a double standard apparently applies for some when it comes to God. You can assume God doesnt exist if you choose to, but you can not know he doesn't exist.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 17:38

Byzantine Mercenary

If you want to prove the existance of God - it has to be done in a more logical approach. Most of what you have pointed to as evidence of God's existance is based upon personal belief, that does not consitute evidence of his existance. Even though I believe in the existance of a Supreme Being, I can not present my personal experience as sole proof of his existance. To convince others of the validity of your premise concerning his existance, a more detailed approach is called for. If you want to add weight to your arguement for his existance with personal experience, it supports your arguement, but like Quietus approach in attempting to prove the non-existance of God, one can not use the lack of evidence to support one's claim.

Because I am to lazy to type my own thesis on proving the existance of God, I will refer to this web site.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/

Proofs of the Existence of God
Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments—the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument.

Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority.

Each of the arguments, if successful, then, so supports a specific religion to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.

The Ontological Argument
The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.

The First Cause Argument
The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.

The Argument from Design
The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered.

The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.

The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.

The Moral Argument
The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws.

Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?

To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority.

The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.

Summary
Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.

It’s time to examine the arguments. The first is the ontological argument.

The site also contains arguements against the existance of God for those who want to see arguements from both sides.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-13-2006, 18:06

[QUOTE=Redleg]Byzantine Mercenary

If you want to prove the existance of God - it has to be done in a more logical approach. Most of what you have pointed to as evidence of God's existance is based upon personal belief, that does not consitute evidence of his existance. Even though I believe in the existance of a Supreme Being, I can not present my personal experience as sole proof of his existance. To convince others of the validity of your premise concerning his existance, a more detailed approach is called for. If you want to add weight to your arguement for his existance with personal experience, it supports your arguement, but like Quietus approach in attempting to prove the non-existance of God, one can not use the lack of evidence to support one's claim.
QUOTE]

Thanks for the link

your right that most of my proofs of gods existance are linked to my own experience thats the main reason why i as anindividual belive in god, but if you look back to my previous posts i started out trying to show that there must be a god due to the complexity of the universe, i was only meaning to use personal experience to back this up, perhaps i went a bit overboard...

Erebus1101

01-13-2006, 18:10

Although I often limit myself to be a lurker, I though that some of this statements demand a good answer and I will try my best to provide.

The fact that the universe just magically happens to be perfect for human life.
The complexity of the mechanics of science, why should a randomly created universe be so complex?

This is a affirmation that I heard countless of times and is basically the so called 'anthropic principle'.

I find the anthropic principle flawed because if a universe was created otherwise and other type of intelligent life existed, they would be also be asking why their universe has 10 dimensions and not 3. And they would also conclude that the universe was tailored for them, which is obviously false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antropic_principle (anthropic principle - Wikipedia)

Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing. As of 2004, however, these publications and the theories in them are still subject to scientific debate, and in the past, Hawking himself has asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?...Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Hawking, 1988).

It is also not hard to understand that complex patterns can come out of randomness. There are many studies on randomness in mathematics and chaos theory. One of the most interesting examples are fractals, which are used to generate computer models of terrain and other natural objects (rivers, erosion, structure of plants, etc...). ( someday I am planning to read that 3000 page book named 'Chaos Theory', and then I will probably be able to explain all this more properly.)

On a previous post you said that computers needed for someone to write a software for it to function, that is, however, not true. I also do not think that you can use a similar argument to proof the need of a higher being in the evolution or in the creation.

The fact that all of the dominant modern religions are monotheistic.

Confucionism is I think the prime counter-example. As for why is monotheism more dominant, that can also be explained by the fact that is more apealing. The same way that sweet is more apealing than sour. Also it must be remembered that chritianity went through many changes during its beginings just to be more apealing for mases, and that was mostly due to the historical situation. It went from being a stern and modest religion, like the judaism at those times, to be pompous and popular enough to be liked by the powerful and poor people of rome alike.

The miracles of Jesus.
The fact that Jesus was not the messiah that was expected, but was the messiah that was predicted.
The subsequant miricles performed in the name of god around the world.

I think that we can qualify the sources as at least unreliable regarding those things. I certainly would not consider doubious information as a proof.

The usefullness of Jesus's teachings, only god could come up with a single rule that if implemented creates a perfect society.
Every time i have prayed my prayer has been ansered.
I have felt god helping me in real ways when i have encountered a problem even when i have not prayed about it.
The aura of love an supportiveness present in most christian communities.
The christians who have managed, against the odds, to change the world.
Near death experiences, i even know people who have experienced this.
The spontanious conversions of even commited athists such as CS Lewis.

personal opinions are not proofs.

Redleg: I think is incorrect to state that u KNOW god exists because you have faith he does. Faith is a mere individual opinion, and thus you cannot know something because of your faith.
If it were so then if I had faith that the earth was flat, then I would know that the earth was flat. However I know that the earth is not flat (no matter how much faith I had in it). Thus the assumption is false.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 18:17

Redleg: I think is incorrect to state that u KNOW god exists because you have faith he does. Faith is a mere individual opinion, and thus you cannot know something because of your faith.
If it were so then if I had faith that the earth was flat, then I would know that the earth was flat. However I know that the earth is not flat (no matter how much faith I had in it). Thus the assumption is false.

As I stated before - its a logical fallacy because one can not prove faith.

And it seems you have taken something out of context.

Erebus1101

01-13-2006, 18:29

In fact I think faith can be prooved, but it depends on the concept one have faith on. As I see it faith equal to an strong opinion of existence, then such statement can be proven or disproved ( such as "I THINK that object x exists").

It has some similarities to the Ontological Argument. However one can see easily that this is flawed. For example if the object x is an abstract object like 'anger', then the Ontological Argument is trivial, since it is always true. But if it is not abstract then one can use the 'flat earth' argument I used before to prove that is false. Thus the Ontological Argument certainly doesnt hold true.

The First Cause Argument and the Argument from Design is simply the Antropic principle I described before, and I think it is acceptable to think that both are false since there is no need for a creator neither for the first cause nor the design.

I skip the moral argument since I am immoral. ;)

Viking

01-13-2006, 18:40

They couldn`t be different. That would require another universe

you misundestand me what i mean is why are they the way they are why do we have this universe and not some other

First, you`ll need to explain how a universe can exist with altered "rules".

If hydrogen gathers in huge amounts, it will collapse at a certain point, and a star is created.

firstly why should is collapse? what i was meaning is if the universe was random surely you would be moe likely to get a simple universe then a complex one

When huge amounts of hydrogen gathers, then the hydrogen would start a chain reaction that fuses hydrogen into helium, and thus, a star is born.

Religion incourages activities that are not in the best interests of natural selection such as celebacy it also represents a waste of resourses that you would not see if natural selection was the only variable controling evolution.

No, celebracy is not bad, nor does the waste of resources really matter that much. And remember; evolution is not perfect, several species have died out because of ridicolous designs.

not perfect, almost every region on the earth can support life!

If you call boiling geysirs with pH values so acid that they exceed the pH scale, perfect places for life, then sure.
Rather than the Earth being perfect for life, it proves the ability of life to adopt into harsh enviroments.

Redleg

01-13-2006, 19:00

In fact I think faith can be prooved, but it depends on the concept one have faith on. As I see it faith equal to an strong opinion of existence, then such statement can be proven or disproved ( such as "I THINK that object x exists").

the belief in something's existance does not make for a logical arguement. By attempting to prove the existance of God based upon Faith, the premise contains the logical fallacy already stated. Just as attempting to prove the non-existance of something based upon the lack of evidence is also the same type of logical fallacy. I have faith that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system - but I can not prove the existance of that life. Faith makes for a poor logical arguement for something.

Religion is a philosophy and a faith. If one choses to believe in God - one has faith in his existance, this faith in his existance is based upon a simple logical fallacy. If one decides that the lack of evidence of his existance means that God does not exist, they are making a similiar choice, based upon a similiar logical fallacy. Neither can prove nor disprove his existance since both conclusions are based upon simple logic fallacies.

Edit: this is why the arguement of religion and the existance of God is always an emotional appeal baised discussion. To many logical fallacies are commented by both sides of the issue to reach a conclusion on the existance of God or non-existance. To much is based upon faith to prove his existance. Lack of evidence also makes a poor logical arguement for his non-existance.

It has some similarities to the Ontological Argument. However one can see easily that this is flawed. For example if the object x is an abstract object like 'anger', then the Ontological Argument is trivial, since it is always true. But if it is not abstract then one can use the 'flat earth' argument I used before to prove that is false. Thus the Ontological Argument certainly doesnt hold true.

The First Cause Argument and the Argument from Design is simply the Antropic principle I described before, and I think it is acceptable to think that both are false since there is no need for a creator neither for the first cause nor the design.

Now I did't say the arguements presented on that site were conclusive - just that they were more logically based then the evidence that was being presented by a patron. If you look at the arguements agaisnt religion you will often see the same logical fallacies also applied.

I skip the moral argument since I am immoral. ;)

No such thing as an immoral individual. All people live with a code of morals and ethics be it from a religous base or a secular base. To be immoral you would have to want to live completely outside of society.

Erebus1101

01-13-2006, 20:26

I wanted to show that faith is not only a poor logical argument, but that any statement like: 'i have faith in' => 'I know x exists' OR 'x is true'; is simply false. From faith you cannot deduce anything.

this is why the arguement of religion and the existance of God is always an emotional appeal baised discussion. To many logical fallacies are commented by both sides of the issue to reach a conclusion on the existance of God or non-existance. To much is based upon faith to prove his existance. Lack of evidence also makes a poor logical arguement for his non-existance.

true. Now I see that you were saying more or less the same I was going to say.

I agree that the question wether god exists or not cannot be decided, with simple arguments. To disprove the existence of god one should see that for every object x, x is not god. However that task is impossible to acomplish at lest now (and I doub it will be ever be done).
On the other hand there are other methods, to gain knowledge. In science one constructs models describing the universe, so if god exists he should appear in those models at some point. Nonetheless those models so far are incomplete and who knows if they will be complete someday, so what we have so far are mere aproximations. Since so far god didnt appear we can assume he doesnt exists. That is because by assuming otherwise we gain nothing. The same way we can assume santa doesnt exists, or allah , or the spaghetti monster. they are all in the same sack.
What I think is that it is more rational to assume its not existance because of what I say before. The same doesnt apply to the existence of other intelligent life in the universe, since our models indicate that it is probable that they exist. I think that is the difference between religions, gods, fantasies and the real world.

No such thing as an immoral individual. All people live with a code of morals and ethics be it from a religous base or a secular base. To be immoral you would have to want to live completely outside of society.

I never gave really a deep though to that question. I think I do as I wish, which for me means that I do what my reasons tells me is the most appropiate thing. I dont follow rules to decide that, since every decision I make is based on the situation. That is at least what I think I do.

littlelostboy

01-14-2006, 00:41

There is this website where you can ask any question about God, humanity, Jesus, the Bible and anything that is related to God. www.gotquestion.org

Quietus

01-14-2006, 03:37

Not at all Quietus I am calling your defense of your premise a strawman.

And I have demonstrated by arguement your logical fallacy in your initial premise.

Again for the editification of the audience, I will repeat myself one last time.

That you are countering the belief in the existance of God correctly by arguing that faith does not prove he exists, but you fall for the same logical fallacy trap in attempt to prove his non-existance. My statement is logical. As I've said:

If you have no proof, you can't define an object. And if you can't correctly define an object without absolutely no proof, how can you correctly claim it exists?

You apply it to the illogical faith, it seems illogical. It's not my fault faith is illogical.

I leave you with a picture to remember this discussion by.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail021.jpg

THe Part of King Arthur has been played by myself

While the part of the Black Knight in this arguement has been played by Quietus

Good night all... You are linking the picture unauthorized, directly from an external website. :laugh4:

Quietus

01-14-2006, 03:41

Allowing for the possibility of something without proof is directly in opposition to your original statements. End of story. :bow: Your argument is the artifact of Redleg's wrongful Equivocation. There's proof that life is possible here on Earth, hence also possible in the universe. As I said, 'exists' mean 'exist at all in the universe'.

Quietus

01-14-2006, 03:45

Proof of God? well these are a few that i can come up with right now

The fact that the universe just magically happens to be perfect for human life.
The complexity of the mechanics of science, why should a randomly created universe be so complex?
The fact that all of the dominant modern religions are monotheistic.
The usefullness of Jesus's teachings, only god could come up with a single rule that if implemented creates a perfect society.
The miricles of Jesus.
The fact that Jesus was not the messiah that was expected, but was the messiah that was predicted.
The subsequant miricles performed in the name of god around the world.
Every time i have prayed my prayer has been ansered.
I have felt god helping me in real ways when i have encountered a problem even when i have not prayed about it.
The aura of love an supportiveness present in most christian communities.
The christians who have managed, against the odds, to change the world.
Near death experiences, i even know people who have experienced this.
The spontanious conversions of even commited athists such as CS Lewis.

And in anser to your question, i was raised as a christian, but the proof came first. What was your first ever 'proof'?

Quietus

01-14-2006, 04:01

Probility isn't proof.
The logic diffence between God and (intelligent) life that Quietus tries to show is that we know one planet with life (earth) and thus we know that the probility for life is higher than 0 because life exists somewere. We still haven't any idea how big that probility is, so it certainly can be so low that we're alone in the universe, but it's for certain higher than 0. Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. :)

For God it's different, we're trying to prove the existance of gods and thus we have no idea how large the probability is and it still can be 0.
To put it simply, getting the arguments on the same probability level, it would require that we know that God exist and is speculating if there exists more gods than Jehova/Allah

Quietus you're wrong about the defintion stuff though. All you need to do is to have a theory about a divine being, and try to prove that theory. Thus you can define something before you know the existance of it. It's all pure guess though. I idea of God itself is just a guess. How can a God be defined without absolutely no proof.

A blind guy would never guess the concept of color without any proof at all. A totally blind guy will never arrive at defining "blue", "red", "green", "orange", "yellow", "brown", etc. or the concept of color itself.

Quietus

01-14-2006, 04:13

I know it isnt- that's what I've said here multiple times. Therefore, for Quietus to be consistent he must deny any possibility unless there is proof. He can't argue that 'no proof of God = no God', while saying 'no proof of extra terrestial life = a possibility of extra terrestial life'. That's a totally incoherent position. :dizzy2: You skipped Redleg's logical fallacy of Equivocation by using a different meaning of "exists" aside from mine.

Redleg's question:

--Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?--

Intelligent life exists in the universe, yes? Meaning intelligent life is possible? Yes? Hence, a probability question.

Using Redleg's question and substituting God:

--Where is the proof that GOD exists outside of the earth's solar system?---

God exists in the universe, no? Meaning God is possible? No? Hence not a probability question.

My original use of "exists" mean (exists at all in the universe). In his question "exists" doesn't mean (exists at all in the universe).

Obviously, the point here is that lack of proof for something is not at all the same as proof for the lack of something. Everyone seems to grasp that idea when it's something like ETs, but a double standard apparently applies for some when it comes to God. You can assume God doesnt exist if you choose to, but you can not know he doesn't exist.

If you have no proof of X, how do you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, how can you claim X exists?

Redleg

01-14-2006, 04:16

My statement is logical. As I've said:

Incorrect - your arguement is what is called a logical fallacy primarily one of appeal to ignorance, which is a Burdern of Proof fallacy. You can not logically argue that non-existance is proven by lack of evidence.

If you have no proof, you can't define an object. And if you can't correctly define an object without absolutely no proof, how can you correctly claim it exists?

Again incorrect - if you have no proof - you can theorize that something exists. You accept this possiblity for Intelligent life outside of the Earth's Solar System, but reject it for the existance of God. This shows an inconsistent application of your arguement of the lack of evidence demonstrates that the enity does not exist. It also futher demonstrates the fallacy of your initial premise, the appeal to ignorance.

You can not argue logically that existance based upon the lack of evidence - nor can you argue against the existance for the same lack of evidence.

You apply it to the illogical faith, it seems illogical. It's not my fault faith is illogical.

No but it is your premise that contains a logic fallacy, namely the one already stated several times.

You are linking the picture unauthorized, directly from an external website. :laugh4:

And the moderators can remove it if they feel it is in violation of a copyright law. There call not mine.

The point of the picture is to show in a humorous way is that while your arguement against God's existance seems logical in the aspects of using logic in an arguement it is not. No matter how it has been described to you by both those who believe in God's existance and even those who support your arguement that God does not exist - you continue to claim that its perfect logic. The Black Knight refused to ackownledge defeat - even though it was evident that he had lost.

I normally don't mind the appeal to ignorance arguement for something - but when one does not apply it consistently in their arguement - it deserves to be pointed out for what it is.

God's existance or non-existance can not be proven by man at this time, to many unkowns still exist in the Universe. So its a simple matter of belief or non-belief.

Quietus

01-14-2006, 04:36

Incorrect - your arguement is what is called a logical fallacy primarily one of appeal to ignorance, which is a Burdern of Proof fallacy. You can not logically argue that non-existance is proven by lack of evidence. Well, I've shown my logic. Your Wiki-link was apparently wrong. :)

Again incorrect - if you have no proof - you can theorize that something exists. You accept this possiblity for Intelligent life outside of the Earth's Solar System, but reject it for the existance of God. This shows an inconsistent application of your arguement of the lack of evidence demonstrates that the enity does not exist. It also futher demonstrates the fallacy of your initial premise, the appeal to ignorance. If you are totally blind, can you define color without proof?

You can not argue logically that existance based upon the lack of evidence - nor can you argue against the existance for the same lack of evidence. I've already laid out my logic, I don't see any argument against it. Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

No but it is your premise that contains a logic fallacy, namely the one already stated several times. See above. It is logical.

And the moderators can remove it if they feel it is in violation of a copyright law. There call not mine. That's not the point, I'm only helping you out. You're using other people's bandwidth. Use Imageshack (www.imageshack.us)

The point of the picture is to show in a humorous way is that while your arguement against God's existance seems logical in the aspects of using logic in an arguement it is not. No matter how it has been described to you by both those who believe in God's existance and even those who support your arguement that God does not exist - you continue to claim that its perfect logic. The Black Knight refused to ackownledge defeat - even though it was evident that he had lost.

I normally don't mind the appeal to ignorance arguement for something - but when one does not apply it consistently in their arguement - it deserves to be pointed out for what it is.

God's existance or non-existance can not be proven by man at this time, to many unkowns still exist in the Universe. So its a simple matter of belief or non-belief. I've shown the logic repeatedly. And I just did again.

Redleg

01-14-2006, 05:03

Well, I've shown my logic. Your Wiki-link was apparently wrong. :)

Not at all - your logic in attempting to prove God's non-existance contains the fallacies mentioned in the link from wikipedia.

If you are totally blind, can you define color without proof?

I've already laid out my logic, I don't see any argument against it. Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

Care to guess how many scientific theories are based upon finding an answer to the unknown. With no initial proof, no correct definition, no knowledge what so ever. One can not logically prove or disprove anything based upon the lack of evidence. Its a logically fallacy no matter which way you try it.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/741.html

Again there is no need to show an arguement against your premise because it contains a logical fallacy in its very premise. Any attempt to prove the existance of God based upon your same logic method fails for the exact same reason why your premise fails. One can not prove or disprove X based upon the lack of evidence.

Many scientific discoveries are based upon an attempt to discover if X is possible. The discovery of nuclear weapons was one such scientific method. So to say If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists? is not a correct.

See above. It is logical.

See above - it contains the above mentioned fallacy.

That's not the point, I'm only helping you out. You're using other people's bandwidth. Use Imageshack (www.imageshack.us)

Once again the moderators can remove if they so desire.

I've shown the logic repeatedly. And I just did again.

Again using the same logical fallacy. Once again you accept the fallacy when one attempts to prove God based upon the lack of evidence, but your having a terrible time understanding that you are also using the same fallacy to prove his non-existance.

Kanamori

01-14-2006, 09:15

Quietus, I understand your model that you are trying to use, and it is neat (I've never thought of using such a method), but it only shows that someone would have no reason to beleive in God, not that God does not exist.

Besides, as I said earlier, many who contend that God exists, and beleive they can prove it, also beleive that our basic concept of God is innate. Thus, why we know of God w/o actually seeing, or recognizing, him.

Ironside

01-14-2006, 13:52

i was under the impression that the various gods of hindusim were all part of bramin and that their actions were the actions of bramin

Never heard about the second part of that statement. But I'm not that red in on hindiusm. You're aware that part of also means like the way we're part of the universe. Does the universe guide us? No, it only exist.

where is this temple? with such a deeply held belief as you may find for the egyption gods in egypt the placebo effect should not be ruled out

Ohh, the irony in this statement. :laugh4:

the rules of christianity make this life better as well
But that still doesn't require me to be Christian. I can still apply those rules in my normal life.

If you are totally blind, can you define color without proof?

You can define them through the heat they're emitting. :idea2:

The point is that you can define something that is more of a concept than an exact desciption, and then search for this concept. To take a few examples of flawed definitions:
The first defintion of an atom said that it would be undividable, but it still is dividable. Doesn't atoms exist then?
The original defintion of a meter is that it's 1/40.000.000 (I think, don't remember exactly how many 0:s it should be there) of the distance between the north-pole and the equator. It isn't, it's close but it still got an error. As the meter wasn't difined correctly, does the meter exist?

Byzantine Mercenary

01-14-2006, 14:41

Never heard about the second part of that statement. But I'm not that red in on hindiusm. You're aware that part of also means like the way we're part of the universe. Does the universe guide us? No, it only exist.
well its only what i was taught in RE many years ago,

Ohh, the irony in this statement. :laugh4:
I know whenever a miricle hapens you can say its the placebo effect but when the source is not christian you say it is proof of other gods, (oh, and perhaps the placebo effect is the method god uses to heal people, jesus himself said that it was peoples faith that healed them)

But that still doesn't require me to be Christian. I can still apply those rules in my normal life.
yes the only thing you maylose out on is fellowship with other christians

Back on what i was saying earlyer what proof do you have that the universe can't function with different principles? the central question i am asking is why should a universe have rules? why should it have as much matter as it does, why should it be as big as it is, explain everything and you may have the required premise to suggest the absence of a creator.

Erebus1101''I think is incorrect to state that u KNOW god exists because you have faith he does. Faith is a mere individual opinion, and thus you cannot know something because of your faith.
If it were so then if I had faith that the earth was flat, then I would know that the earth was flat. However I know that the earth is not flat (no matter how much faith I had in it). Thus the assumption is false.''

what is known at any time is subject to change an ancient greek might say that he knows that there are only 4 elements, we can only dissagree now because we know now that he is wrong , but when you are talking about something that has not been disproven you can't

Quietus

01-14-2006, 19:03

Not at all - your logic in attempting to prove God's non-existance contains the fallacies mentioned in the link from wikipedia. Not if I've repeatedly shown the logic behind it.

Care to guess how many scientific theories are based upon finding an answer to the unknown. With no initial proof, no correct definition, no knowledge what so ever. One can not logically prove or disprove anything based upon the lack of evidence. Its a logically fallacy no matter which way you try it.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/741.html Nobody made a claim without proof or BEFORE the proof.

1) Theory is not pure guessing (nee' without proof).
2) Theory of God cannot be proven anyway because of your definition that he is supernatural (beyond natural).
3) Faith does not require proof, hence I don't know why you are submitting to a supposed "Theory of God".

Again there is no need to show an arguement against your premise because it contains a logical fallacy in its very premise. Any attempt to prove the existance of God based upon your same logic method fails for the exact same reason why your premise fails. One can not prove or disprove X based upon the lack of evidence. Gosh. I laid out my logic, making your Wiki-claim invalid. Here it is again for your reference: :)

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

Many scientific discoveries are based upon an attempt to discover if X is possible. The discovery of nuclear weapons was one such scientific method. So to say If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists? is not a correct.
See above - it contains the above mentioned fallacy. see above.

Once again the moderators can remove if they so desire. IIRC, it is against forum rules.

Again using the same logical fallacy. Once again you accept the fallacy when one attempts to prove God based upon the lack of evidence, but your having a terrible time understanding that you are also using the same fallacy to prove his non-existance. I laid out my logic above.

Quietus

01-14-2006, 19:06

Quietus, I understand your model that you are trying to use, and it is neat (I've never thought of using such a method), but it only shows that someone would have no reason to beleive in God, not that God does not exist. Ah, but define "God" in your sentence. I'm not making the claim God exists, you are. :)

Besides, as I said earlier, many who contend that God exists, and beleive they can prove it, also beleive that our basic concept of God is innate. Thus, why we know of God w/o actually seeing, or recognizing, him. What do you mean by innate, explain.

Quietus

01-14-2006, 19:15

You can define them through the heat they're emitting. :idea2: I said no proof.

The point is that you can define something that is more of a concept than an exact desciption, and then search for this concept. To take a few examples of flawed definitions:
The first defintion of an atom said that it would be undividable, but it still is dividable. Doesn't atoms exist then? The Atoms then was not the Atom now. IIRC it comes from how much can object be divided (such as an apple) until it is indivisible.

The original defintion of a meter is that it's 1/40.000.000 (I think, don't remember exactly how many 0:s it should be there) of the distance between the north-pole and the equator. It isn't, it's close but it still got an error. As the meter wasn't difined correctly, does the meter exist? This is new trivia to me :). Answer is yes, because the meter then was different from the meter now.

Redleg

01-14-2006, 21:47

Not if I've repeatedly shown the logic behind it.

Nobody made a claim without proof or BEFORE the proof.

1) Theory is not pure guessing (nee' without proof).
2) Theory of God cannot be proven anyway because of your definition that he is supernatural (beyond natural).
3) Faith does not require proof, hence I don't know why you are submitting to a supposed "Theory of God".

Gosh. I laid out my logic, making your Wiki-claim invalid. Here it is again for your reference: :)

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

see above.

IIRC, it is against forum rules.

I laid out my logic above.

And your logic continues to have the same fallacy in it.

One can not disprove existance by lack of evidence - neither can one prove existance by lack of negative. Coupled with the inconsistent application of the logic equates to a false conclusion of your premise.

By the way you might want to go re-read the statements I have made in this thread - I have made no claim on the existance of God having proof. But nice attempt at continuing to build your strawman arguement.

Quietus

01-15-2006, 06:01

And your logic continues to have the same fallacy in it.

One can not disprove existance by lack of evidence - neither can one prove existance by lack of negative. Coupled with the inconsistent application of the logic equates to a false conclusion of your premise.

By the way you might want to go re-read the statements I have made in this thread - I have made no claim on the existance of God having proof. But nice attempt at continuing to build your strawman arguement. That's because faith is not logical.

You are my are applying my logic to an illogical faith. That's not my fault Faith is not logical, since my statement is logical in the first place.

Your claim: God exists on Faith alone with no necessity for proof.

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

Redleg

01-15-2006, 14:55

That's because faith is not logical.

Faith does not mean one has to apply a logical arguement to belief thier faith is correct. If I wanted to agrue that my belief in God is based upon more then faith, but personal evidence. That also does not provide a logical base to the discussion because personal evidence that is not verifable by duplication from others establishes a logical fallacy in itself.

The evidence that my son is 100% healthy after being born 7 week premature, after 5 days of labor that my wife went through is enough personal evidence to confirm my belief in God. But that evidence is personal and is not duplicate by anyone.

There is other personal evidence but again its personal evidence, nothing that is duplicated for others.

You are my are applying my logic to an illogical faith. That's not my fault Faith is not logical, since my statement is logical in the first place.

Again your statement contains the above mentioned fallacy. One can not prove non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Your claim: God exists on Faith alone with no necessity for proof.

Nice try - what I have said is that, belief in God is a faith.

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

Again your continuing with the same logical fallacy - one can not prove or disprove anything based soley upon the lack of evidence. Notice very carefully what I have written in this thread - I am not attempting to provide a logical arguement for or against the existance of God. What I am simply stating is that one can not disprove or prove the existance of X based soley upon the lack of evidence of its existance. To claim that its a logical approach is false, the statement contains a logical fallacy, which has been stated numerous times. I would of ignored it execpt for your inconsistent application of the standard that you stated as being a logical.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-15-2006, 16:14

That's because faith is not logical.

You are my are applying my logic to an illogical faith. That's not my fault Faith is not logical, since my statement is logical in the first place.

Your claim: God exists on Faith alone with no necessity for proof.

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

could the proof not be the very existance of the universe, whatches cannot build themselves, neither can a bacterium create itself. I would call dissmissing the possiblity of a creator for a construct as complicated as the universe illogical. To be an Atheist you would need faith that god does not exist (seeing as there is not proof).

Erebus1101

01-15-2006, 18:00

what is known at any time is subject to change an ancient greek might say that he knows that there are only 4 elements, we can only dissagree now because we know now that he is wrong , but when you are talking about something that has not been disproven you can't

What we know is subject to change, that is certainly true. But refering to what I was talking about, to be convinced of something (faith), does not make that something true, as one would expect naturally. Statements like 'santa exists', 'the spaghetti monster exists', 'fairies exists' that are not disproven cannot said to be false as you say, but those statements are not true either. One could say that their state is 'undefined'.

However, I think we could agree that is rational and acceptable to assume that they are false (until shown otherwise, but lets face it, it is doubful that will ever happen). That is I think the posture of most atheists, myself included. Then again everyone should be free to do as they wish, even if they are irrational.

could the proof not be the very existance of the universe, whatches cannot build themselves, neither can a bacterium create itself. I would call dissmissing the possiblity of a creator for a construct as complicated as the universe illogical. To be an Atheist you would need faith that god does not exist (seeing as there is not proof).

I posted before a finding by Hanking showing that our universe is quite common. 98% of probability a universe created from a big bang would end up as ours. As I also said before, mathematics can show that using simple rules and enough iterations applying those rules one can get a structure as complicated as you want. The universe certainly had enough time for that.

I concede that the probability of a watch building itself is too low, but from where you take the convincement that life cannot? We know that at the beginning there were no atoms. From energy we had elemental particles and then atoms, and it is surprising the complexity of their properties and mechanics, that it will probably take a few centuries to figure them out. Yet you find it strange that carbon string could be formed is such way to create a working organism.

Quietus

01-16-2006, 02:42

Faith does not mean one has to apply a logical arguement to belief thier faith is correct. If I wanted to agrue that my belief in God is based upon more then faith, but personal evidence. That also does not provide a logical base to the discussion because personal evidence that is not verifable by duplication from others establishes a logical fallacy in itself.
1) When you use the word: "God", what is your definition.
2) Does "God" according to your definition?

The evidence that my son is 100% healthy after being born 7 week premature, after 5 days of labor that my wife went through is enough personal evidence to confirm my belief in God. But that evidence is personal and is not duplicate by anyone.

There is other personal evidence but again its personal evidence, nothing that is duplicated for others. Personal evidence that "God" (whatever your definition is) exists?

Again your statement contains the above mentioned fallacy. One can not prove non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance. Have you read my logic?

Clue: Who used the word "God" first? Not me. If the word is used, what is the definition? Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

Nice try - what I have said is that, belief in God is a faith. Define "God", as you use it.

Again your continuing with the same logical fallacy - one can not prove or disprove anything based soley upon the lack of evidence. Notice very carefully what I have written in this thread - I am not attempting to provide a logical arguement for or against the existance of God. What I am simply stating is that one can not disprove or prove the existance of X based soley upon the lack of evidence of its existance. To claim that its a logical approach is false, the statement contains a logical fallacy, which has been stated numerous times. I would of ignored it execpt for your inconsistent application of the standard that you stated as being a logical. LOL. Who's using the word "God"? That's just a three-letter word. If you use it, you have a definition for it.

You're evading the logic of my argument.

Quietus

01-16-2006, 02:58

could the proof not be the very existance of the universe, whatches cannot build themselves, neither can a bacterium create itself. How can you tie the universe to a "God" (your definition), without any proof?

I would call dissmissing the possiblity of a creator for a construct as complicated as the universe illogical. The 'origin' of the universe is unknown. How do you know there is a creator?

Secondly, let's suppose there is a "God" (your definition). If you believe that the 'complicated' universe must have a creator, then the much more complex "God" must have a creator also. Then, who created God, so on and so forth?

Conversely, if you believe that something as complex as a "God" could exist on its own, then can the Universe which is less complicated, could exist on its own as well?

To be an Atheist you would need faith that god does not exist (seeing as there is not proof). You're starting from a positive point-of-view that "God" already exists and you're shifting the burden of proof without having any proof of "God" in the first place.

I have no definition for "God".

Redleg

01-16-2006, 06:03

1) When you use the word: "God", what is your definition.
2) Does "God" according to your definition?

Why don't you tell me your definition of God

Personal evidence that "God" (whatever your definition is) exists?

Personal evidence is ancedentol - it does not support a logical arguement - therefore I am not using it.

Have you read my logic?

Yes, and it contains the above mentioned fallacy. One can not prove or disprove existance by lack of evidence.

Clue: Who used the word "God" first? Not me. If the word is used, what is the definition? Again:

Neither was it me - but your premise used the word God - and your premise is what contains the fallacy.

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

Continuing to repeat the fallacy in your arguement does not make it a stronger arguement.

Define "God", as you use it.

No need - its your premise that I am discussing.

LOL. Who's using the word "God"? That's just a three-letter word. If you use it, you have a definition for it.

Again pay attention to your own premise - which is using the logical fallacy.

You're evading the logic of my argument.

your using a strawman again.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-16-2006, 13:14

What we know is subject to change, that is certainly true. But refering to what I was talking about, to be convinced of something (faith), does not make that something true, as one would expect naturally. Statements like 'santa exists', 'the spaghetti monster exists', 'fairies exists' that are not disproven cannot said to be false as you say, but those statements are not true either. One could say that their state is 'undefined'.

i never said that god exised because i was convinced of his existance
merely that as you have agreed, what we ''know'' is subject to change as our understanding of the universe also changes. My belief may seem ilogical from you point of view but you are only relying on what we ''know'' about the universe which in turn requires you to have faith in our current scientists theories.

However, I think we could agree that is rational and acceptable to assume that they are false (until shown otherwise, but lets face it, it is doubful that will ever happen). That is I think the posture of most atheists, myself included. Then again everyone should be free to do as they wish, even if they are irrational.
Not believing in god is no more rational than believing in god because you are closign your ming to the possiblity of the existance of god.

I posted before a finding by Hanking showing that our universe is quite common. 98% of probability a universe created from a big bang would end up as ours. As I also said before, mathematics can show that using simple rules and enough iterations applying those rules one can get a structure as complicated as you want. The universe certainly had enough time for that.

I concede that the probability of a watch building itself is too low, but from where you take the convincement that life cannot? We know that at the beginning there were no atoms. From energy we had elemental particles and then atoms, and it is surprising the complexity of their properties and mechanics, that it will probably take a few centuries to figure them out. Yet you find it strange that carbon string could be formed is such way to create a working organism.

Your faith in scientists is illogical, lots of the science in ancient greece was wrong, lots of the science in the middle ages was wrong, lots of the science in the 18th century was wrong and lots of the science that we now follow will also turn out to be wrong. I do not know how Hanking arrived at his finding but il bet it relys on a lot of modern science some of which could be wrong. (for a start the big bang theory is still just that a theory)

Erebus1101

01-16-2006, 21:23

i never said that god exised because i was convinced of his existance
merely that as you have agreed, what we ''know'' is subject to change as our understanding of the universe also changes. My belief may seem ilogical from you point of view but you are only relying on what we ''know'' about the universe which in turn requires you to have faith in our current scientists theories.

What you call 'our knowledge' is however the most reliable source of information we have, upon that we can certainly agree. Most of the current theories work (meaning that their predictions are correct), you don't need to have faith on them. There are also some teories which we don't know whether they work or not. Nevertheless everyone of them can be verified, and (if they were done correctly) are consistent with what we know to be true.

The things I said that 'we know to be true' may end up being false, of course. Maybe the atoms don't really exists, may be the earth is really flat and there are elephants and/or turtles holding it. The only thing we can say is that with reasonable probability what we know is true. And so far it worked quite well.

Not believing in god is no more rational than believing in god because you are closign your ming to the possiblity of the existance of god.

I do think that the oposite is true, assuming the nonexistance of god is being more openminded. As I said in a previous post, if god exists our scientific models should at some point indicate its existence. Assuming now that it exists would be a restriction upon those models. The same way that is more rational to assume there are not invisible turtles and elephants holding the earth, it is more rational to assume that god doesnt exists.

Your faith in scientists is illogical,

If you are talking about me, then you may be right. Im am not a astrophysicist or not even a physicist to be able to understand their findings, however as I said before, if those findings are testable, are consistent, and quite a lot of them end up being applied, then how can one doubt them?

lots of the science in ancient greece was wrong, lots of the science in the middle ages was wrong, lots of the science in the 18th century was wrong and lots of the science that we now follow will also turn out to be wrong. I do not know how Hanking arrived at his finding but il bet it relys on a lot of modern science some of which could be wrong. (for a start the big bang theory is still just that a theory)

In the ancient greece and the middle ages, there was not much science as we know it now. However in mathematics and logic they did great advances.
In the 18th century taking into account their technical limitations, I find it surprising that they were able to do what they did. I wouldnt say the they were wrong. Given their limitations, they found good approximations.
From then on one could say that our knowledge is incremental. The general theory of relativity didn't invalidated Newton's law of gravitation, they made it more precise. Every new knowledge we gain is consistent with previous knowledge. The laws of gravity wasn't wrong, it just was not general enough.

As I said I am no physicist, but I study what one could call a scientific branch, and from mine and other's experience I can tell you that scientists don't have 'faith' on modern science. You surely must know that they spend quite a few years studying a field. One must understand everything from basic to complex stuff to be able later to use them to come up with new findings. Every relevant theorem with its respective proof must be understood. Stephen Hawking (you must forgive me for the misspelling earlier) surely didn't came up with that result guessing around, for that is not a theory and certainly is not science.

Quietus

01-17-2006, 04:45

Why don't you tell me your definition of God I have none. What's your definition of God?

Is "God" the creator of the universe?
What is "God"'s relationship to Jesus?
What is "God"'s relationship to the Holy Spirit?

Lest my memory fails me from older threads.

Personal evidence is ancedentol - it does not support a logical arguement - therefore I am not using it. Then why did you mentioned it, since you use logical fallacy as an argument.

Yes, and it contains the above mentioned fallacy. One can not prove or disprove existance by lack of evidence. Not if you use the word first. Where did you first get the word "God"?

Neither was it me - but your premise used the word God - and your premise is what contains the fallacy. Look up the first post in this thread. Secondly, you've used the word "God" before in older threads, I recall.

Continuing to repeat the fallacy in your arguement does not make it a stronger arguement. My logic is there. Your illogical Faith is also present. Combine the two and someone is wrong.

No need - its your premise that I am discussing. Well, the premise uses not my definition but other people's definition.

IE. the Bible.

Again pay attention to your own premise - which is using the logical fallacy. "God" did not originally come from me.

your using a strawman again. Logic vs illogical faith. Use it on "color" or "coconut", the logic works as well.

Papewaio

01-17-2006, 04:58

Your faith in scientists is illogical, lots of the science in ancient greece was wrong, lots of the science in the middle ages was wrong, lots of the science in the 18th century was wrong and lots of the science that we now follow will also turn out to be wrong. I do not know how Hanking arrived at his finding but il bet it relys on a lot of modern science some of which could be wrong. (for a start the big bang theory is still just that a theory)

What science isn't theories?

Redleg

01-17-2006, 05:05

I have none. What's your definition of God?

Which futher illustrates that your premise is full of logical fallacies. One can not prove existance or lack of existance by using the lack of evidence as the arguement.

Is "God" the creator of the universe?
What is "God"'s relationship to Jesus?
What is "God"'s relationship to the Holy Spirit?

Good questions, try defining them next time in your premise. It will provide a better logical base then you have so far demonstrated.

Lest my memory fails me from older threads.

Older threads is not what is being discussed here. Your Premise and its fallacy is.

Then why did you mentioned it, since you use logical fallacy as an argument.

To demonstrate the point that ancedentol evidence is just that, which makes it a logical fallacy.

Not if you use the word first. Where did you first get the word "God"?

From your use in the premise of your arguement. Remember I did not enter into this discussion until after your use of the arguement we are discussing.

Look up the first post in this thread. Secondly, you've used the word "God" before in older threads, I recall.

Older threads are not being discussed. We are discussing the logical fallacy in your premise and the inconsistent application of that logic.

My logic is there. Your illogical Faith is also present. Combine the two and someone is wrong.

Nice strawman - the topic is your logical fallacy of attempting to prove non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Well, the premise uses not my definition but other people's definition.

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence.

"God" did not originally come from me.

Logic vs illogical faith. Use it on "color" or "coconut", the logic works as well.

that is why we are having this discussion. You apply your logic to dispove the existance of God, but you allow it to prove the existance of other things.

Once again inconsistent application of the arguement and the premise contains the above mentioned logical fallacy.

Quietus

01-17-2006, 06:47

Which futher illustrates that your premise is full of logical fallacies. One can not prove existance or lack of existance by using the lack of evidence as the arguement. I didn't define "God". The Bible did as well as other people.

Good questions, try defining them next time in your premise. It will provide a better logical base then you have so far demonstrated.
If you have no definition of "God", then I see no reason for you to be concerned. :)

Older threads is not what is being discussed here. Your Premise and its fallacy is. The older threads talk of the same "God".

Meaning, the "God" from the Bible is the same as your "God". At least that what it seemed. Hence, same definition.

To demonstrate the point that ancedentol evidence is just that, which makes it a logical fallacy. The Bible's definition of "God" exists?

From your use in the premise of your arguement. Remember I did not enter into this discussion until after your use of the arguement we are discussing. I've already stated my reasoning and logic.

Older threads are not being discussed. We are discussing the logical fallacy in your premise and the inconsistent application of that logic. We are discussing the same "God". Unless your "God" is different from the Bible's.

Nice strawman - the topic is your logical fallacy of attempting to prove non-existance based upon the lack of evidence. I've already stated my logic.

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence. Well, look at the first post. It implies Biblical "God" which has a definition.

Since you're insinuating your "God" is different from the Bible's "God", then it is different.

that is why we are having this discussion. You apply your logic to dispove the existance of God, but you allow it to prove the existance of other things. "God" there was not my definition, hence my logic.

Once again inconsistent application of the arguement and the premise contains the above mentioned logical fallacy. I don't see any argument against my logic.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-17-2006, 12:26

What you call 'our knowledge' is however the most reliable source of information we have, upon that we can certainly agree. Most of the current theories work (meaning that their predictions are correct), you don't need to have faith on them. There are also some teories which we don't know whether they work or not. Nevertheless everyone of them can be verified, and (if they were done correctly) are consistent with what we know to be true.

but what we know is itself not consistent without a grand unified theory

The things I said that 'we know to be true' may end up being false, of course. Maybe the atoms don't really exists, may be the earth is really flat and there are elephants and/or turtles holding it. The only thing we can say is that with reasonable probability what we know is true. And so far it worked quite well.

people have said that in the past, the greeks model of the universe worked pretty well too back then

I do think that the oposite is true, assuming the nonexistance of god is being more openminded. As I said in a previous post, if god exists our scientific models should at some point indicate its existence. Assuming now that it exists would be a restriction upon those models. The same way that is more rational to assume there are not invisible turtles and elephants holding the earth, it is more rational to assume that god doesnt exists.

does that mean that i should assume that there is no grand unified theory and so stop scientific reasearch into this?

your scientific models are flawed as they are self reliant, all you need it for one tiny aspect of a theory to be wrong or different and the whole model of the universe changes

do you not remember the academic who made up results? even mendel altered his results. Im not claiming that scientistcs are decieving us just that many of the more complicated experiments have not been extensively verified which was demonstrated when a renegade scientist made amazing claims for his own experiments and was not discovered for a long time he would have got away compleatly if he hadn't slipped up with his claims.

[QUOTE=Erebus1101]In the ancient greece and the middle ages, there was not much science as we know it now. However in mathematics and logic they did great advances.
In the 18th century taking into account their technical limitations, I find it surprising that they were able to do what they did. I wouldnt say the they were wrong. Given their limitations, they found good approximations.
From then on one could say that our knowledge is incremental. The general theory of relativity didn't invalidated Newton's law of gravitation, they made it more precise. Every new knowledge we gain is consistent with previous knowledge. The laws of gravity wasn't wrong, it just was not general enough.

naturally, and maybee someone in the future will be surprised at our developments given our limitations

As I said I am no physicist, but I study what one could call a scientific branch, and from mine and other's experience I can tell you that scientists don't have 'faith' on modern science. You surely must know that they spend quite a few years studying a field. One must understand everything from basic to complex stuff to be able later to use them to come up with new findings. Every relevant theorem with its respective proof must be understood. Stephen Hawking (you must forgive me for the misspelling earlier) surely didn't came up with that result guessing around, for that is not a theory and certainly is not science.
I am also studying science, what i am saying is that our knowledge is imcompleate and perhaps always will be and to make such a extensive statement as to rule out the existance of god you would need evidense of his non existance of which there is non on the contrary there is plenty of evidence for his existance.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-17-2006, 12:34

What science isn't theories?
allow me to clarify my statement,

what i ment was that the big bang theory is a comparatively new theory that has seemed to achieved compleate dominance very quickly, personnally i like the theory as it fits in with my beliefs very well but i am always cautous of a theory that is presented as the only anser and then used in subsequant theorys as if it is a certainty, it makes all the subsequant theory very vunerable as they in themselves are relying on another theory. Of course i know that all of science is theorys but there is not huge amounts of evidence for the big bang yet.

Redleg

01-17-2006, 14:36

I didn't define "God". The Bible did as well as other people.

Then why are you arguing against his existance? Your position her futher illustrates your inconsistent application of your logic and premise. You ask others to define but you refuse to define "God" yourself.

If you have no definition of "God", then I see no reason for you to be concerned. :)

Nice try - but doesn't work in answering the question. In fact you have opened your arguement to futher problems. The issue being discussed his your premise and its fallacy.

The older threads talk of the same "God".

Again we are talking about your premise and the logicial fallacy inherient in your arguement. Older threads are irrevelant to that discussion.

Meaning, the "God" from the Bible is the same as your "God". At least that what it seemed. Hence, same definition.

Which makes it your defintion in this discussion. And you still can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.

The Bible's definition of "God" exists?

As a religious book that definition falls within the concept of religion

I've already stated my reasoning and logic.

And as shown numerous times the logic contains a fallacy and the reasoning has an inconsistent application.

We are discussing the same "God". Unless your "God" is different from the Bible's.

No we are discussing the fallacy in your logic and the inconsistency in your application of that logic. We are discussing that one can not prove the existance or non-existance based soley upon the lack of evidence. This is what you have done.

I've already stated my logic.

And that logic contains the alreadly mentioned fallacy

Well, look at the first post. It implies Biblical "God" which has a definition.

Since you're insinuating your "God" is different from the Bible's "God", then it is different.

Nice strawman - but that is not what was stated - to refresh your memory again

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence.

"God" there was not my definition, hence my logic.

Which futher demonstrates the logical fallacy you are committing. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence

I don't see any argument against my logic.

The fallacy in your logic has been demonstrated, and you continue to demonstrate the same fallacy. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence.

Erebus1101

01-17-2006, 19:29

but what we know is itself not consistent without a grand unified theory

I think you are missing the meaning of consistent. For instance, did the general theory of relativity told us that things must fall towards the sky? As you surely know, it is not so. It is consistent with Newton's law and with our popular knowledge. Things tend to fall down.

people have said that in the past, the greeks model of the universe worked pretty well too back then

If you say so I will believe it. However modern science is significantly different to what the ancient greeks did. Also I dont remember what models the greek had, and I doubt they used them too extensively.

On the other hand, currently our industries apply most of the scientific theories. And as you might know they work. You would be surprised by the amount of theories that were applied for your computer to work. Even if someday we find that they were not completly correct, your computer would still work; because even that new finding must be consistent with the previous findings.

does that mean that i should assume that there is no grand unified theory and so stop scientific reasearch into this?

The sentence 'the Grand Unified Theory exists' is evaluated to 0 (undefined). The same way as the sentence 'God exists'. Today not even scientists are sure if such a theory exists, but it would be nice if it did. We are inclined that it does exists, mainly because most of the models discovered during the past century were mergend into a few so it is rational to think that the remaining ones could also merge. Nevertheless as I said before, not even the top scientists are sure whether it exists, some even say that such a think doesn't.

Well then, you might ask what is the difference between searching god or the GUT? the answer is quite simple. If we find the GUT we would gain enourmous knowlegde (and the one who finds it, enourmous sums of money), and it certainly will have effects on our current knowledge and lives (and then we might even be able to tell wether god exists o not).
However we gain nothing finding god, since he doesn't have known effects to the real world.

your scientific models are flawed as they are self reliant, all you need it for one tiny aspect of a theory to be wrong or different and the whole model of the universe changes

self reliant? Scientific models are descriptions of what we observe, if that is being self reliant, then yes it is, and is better that way. Scientific models are not castles in the clouds, you cannot supponse nothing (unless it is a hypothesis). On the second part I think you are wrong. Good scientific models are robust, so new finding rarely invalidates a previous models, they add more knowledge incrementally.

do you not remember the academic who made up results? even mendel altered his results. Im not claiming that scientistcs are decieving us just that many of the more complicated experiments have not been extensively verified which was demonstrated when a renegade scientist made amazing claims for his own experiments and was not discovered for a long time he would have got away compleatly if he hadn't slipped up with his claims.

However when a scientist is wrong that proof of its falsehood is in the same paper where he made his claims. Everyone can verify it, and since the industry is interested in most scientific discoveries, they would have found out then that is was wrong (and prevent millions of dollars to dissapear from their balance books).

naturally, and maybee someone in the future will be surprised at our developments given our limitations

sure that they will. But they wont be able to come up with contradictory discoveries (unless the universe changed or our instruments were useless)

I am also studying science, what i am saying is that our knowledge is imcompleate and perhaps always will be and to make such a extensive statement as to rule out the existance of god you would need evidense of his non existance of which there is non on the contrary there is plenty of evidence for his existance.

I agree with the first thing you say but I certainly dont know how can you say that there is plenty of evidence of his existence. As far as I know there is no evidence of his existence, he doesnt affect in any known way the real world and there is a high probability that he was invented by men. So assuming its existence is not rational (and would be restrictive to our knowledge), so better assume it doesnt exist and if we later find a evidence of his existence the we may rethink our posture. And I pray you to tell me what definite evidences of his existence are you talking about.

what i ment was that the big bang theory is a comparatively new theory that has seemed to achieved compleate dominance very quickly, personnally i like the theory as it fits in with my beliefs very well but i am always cautous of a theory that is presented as the only anser and then used in subsequant theorys as if it is a certainty, it makes all the subsequant theory very vunerable as they in themselves are relying on another theory. Of course i know that all of science is theorys but there is not huge amounts of evidence for the big bang yet.

Well if someone find a theory that explains in a satisfactory way the background radiation, the expansion of the universe and the distribution of matter, then he is more than welcomed and should receive a nobel prize. There were other theories, but they were discarded since the observations we had didn't support them, then it is certainly not our fault that it is this the only left. Also I am not sure of which subsequent theories you are talking about, are you sure that those are not merely basing themself on or trying to be consistent with the data that support the big bang theory?

Quietus

01-18-2006, 02:38

Then why are you arguing against his existance? Your position her futher illustrates your inconsistent application of your logic and premise. You ask others to define but you refuse to define "God" yourself. It's true, "God" was defined by the Bible not me.

Nice try - but doesn't work in answering the question. In fact you have opened your arguement to futher problems. The issue being discussed his your premise and its fallacy. What's your problem with the Biblical definition of the Bible?

Again we are talking about your premise and the logicial fallacy inherient in your arguement. Older threads are irrevelant to that discussion. Yeah, because you didn't read the first post of thread. Act blind and you will look blind.

Which makes it your defintion in this discussion. And you still can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence. Read the first post. There's your biblical "God".

As a religious book that definition falls within the concept of religion And? The definition stands. The definition of "God" is also the same as your definition (in older threads).

And as shown numerous times the logic contains a fallacy and the reasoning has an inconsistent application. My logic stands as well.

No we are discussing the fallacy in your logic and the inconsistency in your application of that logic. We are discussing that one can not prove the existance or non-existance based soley upon the lack of evidence. This is what you have done. I have stated my logic behind it. I see no argument against it.

And that logic contains the alreadly mentioned fallacy Not my fault Faith is not logical.

Nice strawman - but that is not what was stated - to refresh your memory again

Then it makes it your definition since your attempting to disprove that definition. Again one can not disprove existance by lack of evidence, nor can one prove existance by lack of evidence. Read the first post. It was not I who mentioned "God" first.

Which futher demonstrates the logical fallacy you are committing. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence You have no demonstration, neither any argument. All you have is Wikipedia and Google.

The fallacy in your logic has been demonstrated, and you continue to demonstrate the same fallacy. Again one can not prove existance or lack of existance based upon lack of evidence. Read my logic.

Redleg

01-18-2006, 03:06

It's true, "God" was defined by the Bible not me.

Then its back to your initial premise and the application of a logical fallacy by yourself. One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.

What's your problem with the Biblical definition of the Bible?

Again nice try - but what is being discussed is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.

Yeah, because you didn't read the first post of thread. Act blind and you will look blind.

The pot calling the kettle black - again the topic being discussed between you and I is that your application of your logic is inconsistent and your premise contains a logical fallacy. One can not prove existance or disprove with lack of evidence.

Read the first post. There's your biblical "God".

Again no need - the topic being discussed by you and I is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.

And? The definition stands. The definition of "God" is also the same as your definition (in older threads).

A strawman it seems.

My logic stands as well.

So you do agree that you have been inconsistent with your application and that your logic does indeed contain the above mentioned fallacy?

I have stated my logic behind it. I see no argument against it.

Done with the intelligent life outside of the Earth's solar system examble. Again one can not prove existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence.

Not my fault Faith is not logical.

Reaching for the Red Herring again I see.

Read the first post. It was not I who mentioned "God" first.

Again irrevelant to the discussion - you first accused me of using it first and now your claiming you did not use it first. Interesting.

You have no demonstration, neither any argument. All you have is Wikipedia and Google.

Does not bode well for you does it. The definitions of the fallacies in your arguement were the only reason the references were used. Oh by the way the second time was not a google search. It is a reference site I use to verify my logical arguements.

It seems you have a problem in understanding logic and the fallacies inherient is logical arguements.

Read my logic.

done and done - the logic in this tread as demonstrated by yourself contains the already mentioned fallacies.

Speaking of the first post. Where do you think I got this little gem of a logical fallacy from.

Originally Posted by Quietus
I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's God, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Now I wonder if you truely understand logic in the argumentive form, or do you only pretend to understand logic when it suits your arguement?

Now quoting myself

I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.

Your inconsistent application of your logic is what is your down fall. I won't go into your attempts at strawman arguements to counter this statement, because while they were amusing - they are irrevelant, and were seen as the strawman arguements that they were.

Both statements contain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Quietus

01-18-2006, 03:16

Then its back to your initial premise and the application of a logical fallacy by yourself. One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence.

Again nice try - but what is being discussed is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.

The pot calling the kettle black - again the topic being discussed between you and I is that your application of your logic is inconsistent and your premise contains a logical fallacy. One can not prove existance or disprove with lack of evidence.

Again no need - the topic being discussed by you and I is your inconsistent application of your stated logic and the logical fallacy that it contains.

A strawman it seems.

So you do agree that you have been inconsistent with your application and that your logic does indeed contain the above mentioned fallacy?

Done with the intelligent life outside of the Earth's solar system examble. Again one can not prove existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence.

Reaching for the Red Herring again I see.

Again irrevelant to the discussion - you first accused me of using it first and now your claiming you did not use it first. Interesting.

Does not bode well for you does it. The definitions of the fallacies in your arguement were the only reason the references were used. Oh by the way the second time was not a google search. It is a reference site I use to verify my logical arguements.

It seems you have a problem in understanding logic and the fallacies inherient is logical arguements.

done and done - the logic in this tread as demonstrated by yourself contains the already mentioned fallacies.

Speaking of the first post. Where do you think I got this little gem of a logical fallacy from.

Now I wonder if you truely understand logic in the argumentive form, or do you only pretend to understand logic when it suits your arguement?

Now quoting myself

Your inconsistent application of your logic is what is your down fall. I won't go into your attempts at strawman arguements to counter this statement, because while they were amusing - they are irrevelant, and were seen as the strawman arguements that they were.

Both statements contain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance.
Read the first post. Viking first used "God/Jesus", hence Biblical (yes, the same "God" you defined to me in older threads; yet now you claim you have definition for "God").

Here's the logic again:

If the word is used, what is the definition? Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists?

I see not counterargument against this at all.

Redleg

01-18-2006, 03:32

Read the first post. Viking first used "God/Jesus", hence Biblical (yes, the same "God" you defined to me in older threads; yet now you claim you have definition for "God").

Definition of God is irrevelant in the discussion we are having, which is consistent with what I have stated. Attempts at telling someone to read the first post - where they initially got the premise of your arguement shows a lack of understanding on your part. I developed the premise that your arguement contains the logical fallacy from the initial post and follow-on posts in this thread.

This logical fallacy does exist in your arguement. One can not prove existance nor non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Here's the logic again:

If the word is used, what is the definition? Again:

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists?

One can not claim nor prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance or non-existance.

I see not counterargument against this at all.

That is because the fallacy in the arguement is its own refutation. One can not claim existance or non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

A blind man can define color, he can claim it exists, and he would be correct - but that is besides the point now isn't. Your arguement contains the above mentioned fallacy and that fallacy is the refutation of your premise, regardless of how many strawman and red herring arguements, you present to counter the pointing out of the fallacy in your premise..

Redleg

01-18-2006, 04:13

Just because it demonstrates again the fallacy in your premise, using your other claim - which by the way is the exact same premise that has been quoted over and over again in explaining the logical fallacy in your arguement.

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists.

If you have no proof of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, how can you correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system? If you can't correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, then how can you claim intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists?

And we both know that you alreadly claim that the probablity of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists.

Again one can not proof or disproof existance based upon the lack of evidence of existance.

Quietus

01-18-2006, 06:45

Definition of God is irrevelant in the discussion we are having, which is consistent with what I have stated. Attempts at telling someone to read the first post - where they initially got the premise of your arguement shows a lack of understanding on your part. I developed the premise that your arguement contains the logical fallacy from the initial post and follow-on posts in this thread.

This logical fallacy does exist in your arguement. One can not prove existance nor non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

One can not claim nor prove existance or non-existance by the lack of evidence of existance or non-existance.

That is because the fallacy in the arguement is its own refutation. One can not claim existance or non-existance based upon the lack of evidence.

A blind man can define color, he can claim it exists, and he would be correct - but that is besides the point now isn't. Your arguement contains the above mentioned fallacy and that fallacy is the refutation of your premise, regardless of how many strawman and red herring arguements, you present to counter the pointing out of the fallacy in your premise.. I've already answered all the arguments and non-arguments fairly and clearly and many times, repeatedly.

Quietus

01-18-2006, 06:50

Just because it demonstrates again the fallacy in your premise, using your other claim - which by the way is the exact same premise that has been quoted over and over again in explaining the logical fallacy in your arguement.

If you have no proof of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, how can you correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system? If you can't correctly define intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, then how can you claim intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists?

And we both know that you alreadly claim that the probablity of intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system exists.

Again one can not proof or disproof existance based upon the lack of evidence of existance. I didn't define "intelligent life" outside, I said it was a probability because we are "intelligent life" by your own definition (yes?), therefore it's a probability question. I've already addressed this definitively a couple pages back.

Redleg

01-18-2006, 06:58

I didn't define "intelligent life" outside, I said it was a probability because we are "intelligent life" by your own definition (yes?), therefore it's a probability question. I've already addressed this definitively a couple pages back.

The statement made is in the same manner in which you stated your premise. Neither was a probablity question, you chose to argue that it was a probability question - hence you have committed the same strawman arguement fallacy.

One can not prove or disprove existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Your Premise contains the logical fallacy mentioned and therefor it is its' own refutation.

Redleg

01-18-2006, 07:00

I've already answered all the arguments and non-arguments fairly and clearly and many times, repeatedly.

And you still maintain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove or disprove existance by the lack of evidence of existance.

Soulforged

01-19-2006, 04:34

And you still maintain the same logical fallacy.

One can not prove or disprove existance by the lack of evidence of existance.
Just a bystander's observation: Red I think that what he's trying to say is that you define your idea of God and from that idea you create God, because you can't actually see "him" on the real world. I think that the point is not to proove his inexistence or existence, the point is that you can't define God as a real object because you've not proof of it, thus all you've to define "him" are ideas and assumptions at best. God might exist, but you don't actually know what he's, I think that that's the point (more or less the mundane point about existence of divinities).

Redleg

01-19-2006, 05:43

Just a bystander's observation: Red I think that what he's trying to say is that you define your idea of God and from that idea you create God, because you can't actually see "him" on the real world. I think that the point is not to proove his inexistence or existence, the point is that you can't define God as a real object because you've not proof of it, thus all you've to define "him" are ideas and assumptions at best. God might exist, but you don't actually know what he's, I think that that's the point (more or less the mundane point about existence of divinities).

Defining "God" does not make him exist or not exist. The definition issue is a mote point since the fallacy still applies, regardless of how its attempt. For examble.

Defining God only provides a premise for one to prove or disprove. If you can not provide evidence to counter the definition nor evidence to support the definition - you can still not prove or disprove a definition by lack of evidence. All you can show is that the definition provided is unconclusive.

Soulforged

01-20-2006, 00:56

Defining "God" does not make him exist or not exist. The definition issue is a mote point since the fallacy still applies, regardless of how its attempt. For examble.

Defining God only provides a premise for one to prove or disprove. If you can not provide evidence to counter the definition nor evidence to support the definition - you can still not prove or disprove a definition by lack of evidence. All you can show is that the definition provided is unconclusive.
I only tried to clearify the point of Quietus. I'll not argue against the existence of God, I consider it pointless.

Redleg

01-20-2006, 03:12

I only tried to clearify the point of Quietus. I'll not argue against the existence of God, I consider it pointless.

I understand - I am maintaining the same postion - a definition does not consitute an arguement for or against God - especially when one is attempting to establish the proof by the lack of evidence.

The fallacy in his point remains the same.

Quietus

01-23-2006, 01:44

Just a bystander's observation: Red I think that what he's trying to say is that you define your idea of God and from that idea you create God, because you can't actually see "him" on the real world. I think that the point is not to proove his inexistence or existence, the point is that you can't define God as a real object because you've not proof of it, thus all you've to define "him" are ideas and assumptions at best. God might exist, but you don't actually know what he's, I think that that's the point (more or less the mundane point about existence of divinities). God is just a word, exactly. If it is defined as 'the nearest star', then God exists.

A blind guy cannot cannot define "color" on his own as well. You need proof, before you can define "color" is.

Imagine a totally blind guy, (minus any physical aberrations allowing the person to "see"), will suddenly remark:

"I tilt my head up, and the sky is "blue" and the clouds are "white", while the trees are "green".

Unless someone informs the blind guy of the concept of color, but that would be giving the proof. :)

Xiahou

01-23-2006, 20:02

I cant believe this is still going... :laugh:

You're starting from a positive point-of-view that "God" already exists and you're shifting the burden of proof without having any proof of "God" in the first place.

I have no definition for "God".Notice how his original argument has totally fallen apart. No longer is he talking about a lack of proof being proof of lack, he's now tried to shift the burden of proof to Redleg and attempted to make him prove God does exist- which was never his argument. No one here set out to prove in this thread that God does exist. If Quietus is asserting that God does not exist, the burden of proof is totally on him to show it. He has not, he can not (it's not possible). I think we're done here- funny stuff though. :wink:

Redleg

01-23-2006, 20:38

I cant believe this is still going... :laugh:Notice how his original argument has totally fallen apart. No longer is he talking about a lack of proof being proof of lack, he's now tried to shift the burden of proof to Redleg and attempted to make him proove God does exist- which was never his argument. No one here set out to proove in this thread that God does exist. If Quietus is asserting that God does not exist, the burden of proof is totally on him to show it. He has not, he can not (it's not possible). I think we're done here- funny stuff though. :wink:

Yes indeed I have been rather amused by the whole discussion. :2thumbsup:

Quietus

01-26-2006, 06:03

I cant believe this is still going... :laugh: You don't need faith to believe this one, just your eyes.

Notice how his original argument has totally fallen apart. No longer is he talking about a lack of proof being proof of lack, he's now tried to shift the burden of proof to Redleg and attempted to make him prove God does exist- which was never his argument. No one here set out to prove in this thread that God does exist. If Quietus is asserting that God does not exist, the burden of proof is totally on him to show it. He has not, he can not (it's not possible). I think we're done here- funny stuff though. :wink: Here is the reasoning again (noone has ever answered):

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Redleg

01-26-2006, 14:34

You don't need faith to believe this one, just your eyes.

Here is the reasoning again (noone has ever answered):

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)
[/quote]

Actually it has been answered. You just don't like the answer because it show the flaw in your arguement against God.

One can not prove anything based upon the lack of evidence of its existance or non-existance.

By the way a blind man can define color - one does not need to see color to define color correctly. The anology there is flawed. :oops:

Same goes with God. A correct definition does not prove something exists or does not exist. :wall:

SwordsMaster

01-27-2006, 00:24

Ok, It's been a slow day and I'm feeling like arguing pointlessly about something quite irrelevant. The proof of existance of God seems to meet the requirements.

I just read a book a few days ago, called God's Debris, which I recommend just as a bit of mental gymnastics I can't remember the author (Scott Adams or Adams Scotts or something along those lines).

Basically the argument the author is putting forward is that God does exist as the world as it is is far too complex to be explained by pure chance, but that nor God neither us have free will as such thing wouldn't exist becasue a truly omnipotent God would know the future both his, and ours too, therefore it is predetermined.

Obviously this is not the main point of the book (I wouldn't want to spoil everything for you :2thumbsup: ) but I quite like it although my own beliefs might not exactly match it.

As of defining stuff that you can't "feel". How about the concept of infinity? It does exist and it is not defined either mathematically or philosophically, or any other abstract concept, human rights, for instance... (heh I might be trying to stick my fingers into too many holes here :laugh4:)

Anyway, my urge for debate is still there. Give me your best answer.

Redleg

01-27-2006, 01:02

Ok, It's been a slow day and I'm feeling like arguing pointlessly about something quite irrelevant. The proof of existance of God seems to meet the requirements.

Yes indeed - and its rather amusing don't you agree? But to make the arguement about something pointlessly, you should take the opposite side of that statement. :laugh4:

I just read a book a few days ago, called God's Debris, which I recommend just as a bit of mental gymnastics I can't remember the author (Scott Adams or Adams Scotts or something along those lines).

Basically the argument the author is putting forward is that God does exist as the world as it is is far too complex to be explained by pure chance, but that nor God neither us have free will as such thing wouldn't exist becasue a truly omnipotent God would know the future both his, and ours too, therefore it is predetermined.

Haven't read that one. Might have to pick it up, the bottom line is, was the book worth the money it takes to purchase it and the time required to read it?

Obviously this is not the main point of the book (I wouldn't want to spoil everything for you :2thumbsup: ) but I quite like it although my own beliefs might not exactly match it.

Darn there I go arguing about something pointless and you had it in the next sentence. :oops: :laugh4:

As of defining stuff that you can't "feel". How about the concept of infinity? It does exist and it is not defined either mathematically or philosophically, or any other abstract concept, human rights, for instance... (heh I might be trying to stick my fingers into too many holes here :laugh4:)

Let me quote Quietus for like the 1000th time.

If you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Now to have a little fun at someone's arguement expense
Now how can you know infinity exists if you can not adequately define it? You must be able to correctly define infinity or how can you claim infinity exists...

Damnit Swordmaster give me a definition of Infinity. If you do not have proof that inifinity exists, how can you accurately define inifinity. It can not exist without a known definition. But you can not have a known definition because you have no proof that inifinity exists. My goodness if infinity does not exist then god must exist. Because if you can not proof infinity then everything is finite, then God must exist because he did make everything.

Or would you like to argue pointlessly about human rights.

Anyway, my urge for debate is still there. Give me your best answer.

No give me your best answer... :2thumbsup:

SwordsMaster

01-27-2006, 01:50

Wowowowow!! You asked for it...

Haven't read that one. Might have to pick it up, the bottom line is, was the book worth the money it takes to purchase it and the time required to read it?

Its only about 150 pages f pretty big print, it took me some 2 hours to read the whole thing.

Now how can you know infinity exists if you can not adequately define it? You must be able to correctly define infinity or how can you claim infinity exists...

Damnit Swordmaster give me a definition of Infinity. If you do not have proof that inifinity exists, how can you accurately define inifinity. It can not exist without a known definition. But you can not have a known definition because you have no proof that inifinity exists. My goodness if infinity does not exist then god must exist. Because if you can not proof infinity then everything is finite, then God must exist because he did make everything.

Mwhaha! Here is where you are wrong! Because then God doesn't exist either because why would you need to give it a name if it doesn't exist and therefore doesn't need one? It ain't nothing til you call it.

But if God created infinity and he himself is finite then he is exceeding his jurisdiction, and if he is infinite then the Bing Bang theory states that he is in expansion with the universe due to the dimensional curvatures of the time-space plane.:sweatdrop:
(Give me a shout if you manage to understand what i just said. I mean, I'd like to understand it too...)

Or would you like to argue pointlessly about human rights.

Hit me!:knight:

PS: Gah! Look at the time! I'm off to bed. Argue you tomorrow

Redleg

01-27-2006, 03:00

Mwhaha! Here is where you are wrong! Because then God doesn't exist either because why would you need to give it a name if it doesn't exist and therefore doesn't need one? It ain't nothing til you call it.

So if a hole in the ground is there, but I am blind and can not see it, because I can not see the hole, I can not know that the hole exists, If I can not provide proof of the existance of said hole because I can not understand the nature of the hole, and therefor I can not define the hole correctly, the hole can not exist.

So when the blind man walks into the hole - does he fall for infinity since he can not adequately define that the hole exists?

But if God created infinity and he himself is finite then he is exceeding his jurisdiction, and if he is infinite then the Bing Bang theory states that he is in expansion with the universe due to the dimensional curvatures of the time-space plane.:sweatdrop:
(Give me a shout if you manage to understand what i just said. I mean, I'd like to understand it too...)

It made my brain hurt. But it implies that you do not exist and are only a figment of my computer's imagnation. Since I can not correctly define what you have just stated, which in turns means I can not correctly define who you are, therefor you do not exist.

Hit me!:knight:

PS: Gah! Look at the time! I'm off to bed. Argue you tomorrow

Hopefully that will give you a smack to the eyes, therefor blinding you, which means you can no longer correctly define what you have read or written, and because of your inablity to correctly define your existance - you will no longer exist.

:laugh4:

SwordsMaster

01-27-2006, 11:00

So if a hole in the ground is there, but I am blind and can not see it, because I can not see the hole, I can not know that the hole exists, If I can not provide proof of the existance of said hole because I can not understand the nature of the hole, and therefor I can not define the hole correctly, the hole can not exist.

But you are blind and cannot see it you can still use the language and read a definition for hole in the dictionary :laugh4: It is not every day that new concepts are invented!

So when the blind man walks into the hole - does he fall for infinity since he can not adequately define that the hole exists?

He can't define it, but he already knows what it means which doesnt stop him from falling into infinity. Which explains the absence of blind people in places with holes... (go on, try to prove me wrong on this one :inquisitive: )

So when the blind man walks into the hole - does he fall for infinity since he can not adequately define that the hole exists?

Since I don't exist, you can't argue with me, and therefore you are arguing with infinity which is God.

Hopefully that will give you a smack to the eyes, therefor blinding you, which means you can no longer correctly define what you have read or written, and because of your inablity to correctly define your existance - you will no longer exist.

I will always exist. Like.....Spiderman

Redleg

01-27-2006, 14:07

But you are blind and cannot see it you can still use the language and read a definition for hole in the dictionary :laugh4: It is not every day that new concepts are invented!

Ah but the blind can not read.

He can't define it, but he already knows what it means which doesnt stop him from falling into infinity. Which explains the absence of blind people in places with holes... (go on, try to prove me wrong on this one :inquisitive: )

There is a barrier placed by people who can see to prevent the blind from walking into the hole. However the blind can not see the barrier so they end up with bloodly noses from smacking into the barrier with their face. (see it wasn't that hard to prove :juggle2: )

Since I don't exist, you can't argue with me, and therefore you are arguing with infinity which is God.

So if infinity exists - an undefined and unprobable definition - ergo God exists. Hmm. Your debate skills are amazing. :book:

I will always exist. Like.....Spiderman

Well since I can not define Spiderman correctly, because I can not prove Spiderman exists ...... :laugh4:

Byzantine Mercenary

01-27-2006, 18:00

i haven't posted on this subject in a while because the whole argument was getting a bit conviluted (as attested by the large post sizes! :laugh4:), and ive been very bust lately...

I think you are missing the meaning of consistent. For instance, did the general theory of relativity told us that things must fall towards the sky? As you surely know, it is not so. It is consistent with Newton's law and with our popular knowledge. Things tend to fall down.

If you say so I will believe it. However modern science is significantly different to what the ancient greeks did. Also I dont remember what models the greek had, and I doubt they used them too extensively.

On the other hand, currently our industries apply most of the scientific theories. And as you might know they work. You would be surprised by the amount of theories that were applied for your computer to work. Even if someday we find that they were not completly correct, your computer would still work; because even that new finding must be consistent with the previous findings.

i don't doubt this but scientific knoledge is still imcompleate and can never disprove god.

The sentence 'the Grand Unified Theory exists' is evaluated to 0 (undefined). The same way as the sentence 'God exists'. Today not even scientists are sure if such a theory exists, but it would be nice if it did. We are inclined that it does exists, mainly because most of the models discovered during the past century were mergend into a few so it is rational to think that the remaining ones could also merge. Nevertheless as I said before, not even the top scientists are sure whether it exists, some even say that such a think doesn't.

Well then, you might ask what is the difference between searching god or the GUT? the answer is quite simple. If we find the GUT we would gain enourmous knowlegde (and the one who finds it, enourmous sums of money), and it certainly will have effects on our current knowledge and lives (and then we might even be able to tell wether god exists o not).
However we gain nothing finding god, since he doesn't have known effects to the real world.

not for you maybee, or is it that you don't see him acting in the world? there is wind even for those who do not believe in air

Well if someone find a theory that explains in a satisfactory way the background radiation, the expansion of the universe and the distribution of matter, then he is more than welcomed and should receive a nobel prize. There were other theories, but they were discarded since the observations we had didn't support them, then it is certainly not our fault that it is this the only left. Also I am not sure of which subsequent theories you are talking about, are you sure that those are not merely basing themself on or trying to be consistent with the data that support the big bang theory?

That assumes that you can explain the universe, eveyone has a personal vision of their universe a way they visualise it working, god fits the model i have and the model falls to peices without him. I test my faith regularly in this way, may i suggest that you test yours? meet with a paster or a vicor someone more qualifyed on these matters then me, and ask them why they believe.

I would also like to introduce a new aspect to my argument, the witnesses, when you have a crime it is considered that a few good witnesses to the events can decide a conviction, usually the extent to which a court deems to test them is a lengthy cross examineation. now take the witnesses of jesus and what they did, Jesus himself suffered one of the worst deaths imagineable, first he was flogged, roman flogging was harsh often tearing strips of flesh from the victims back, exposeing the spineal cord and sometimes the guts. then he dragged the cross to the hill and was put on the cross, now the nails of the cross went into his hands, almost certainly cutting a majour nerve in the arm and causeing one of the most intense pains a human can experience. He then hung by these, unable to breathe and haveing to force himself upwards when he wanted to breathe the ususla death was when the vistime was so exhausted that even the gag reflex couldn't bring them back up. If Jesus was a liar surely he would have admmitted it to stop this horendous process, but even if you say that he was
lieing what about his diciples, for a very short while Peter tried to deny Jesus but he didn't say that he was a liar, just that he didn't know him!

All bar one of the diciples died terrible deaths and not one of them went back on what they said, even though it could have lessoned their suffering if they even slightly doubted jesus surely they would have spoken out?

Quietus

02-01-2006, 03:00

Actually it has been answered. You just don't like the answer because it show the flaw in your arguement against God.

One can not prove anything based upon the lack of evidence of its existance or non-existance. That's my answer to that argument.

I said "A"
You said but "B"
I said because of "C"
You said but "B" (again).

Make an argument.

By the way a blind man can define color - one does not need to see color to define color correctly. The anology there is flawed. :oops:

Same goes with God. A correct definition does not prove something exists or does not exist. :wall: Yeah, but a blind man would need/require proof would he?

Do not tell a blind man about the concept of color and any color and the blind man will be totally oblivious to the concept on his own. The stipulation here is no proof isn't it?

Quietus

02-01-2006, 03:10

Ok, It's been a slow day and I'm feeling like arguing pointlessly about something quite irrelevant. The proof of existance of God seems to meet the requirements.

I just read a book a few days ago, called God's Debris, which I recommend just as a bit of mental gymnastics I can't remember the author (Scott Adams or Adams Scotts or something along those lines).

Basically the argument the author is putting forward is that God does exist as the world as it is is far too complex to be explained by pure chance, but that nor God neither us have free will as such thing wouldn't exist becasue a truly omnipotent God would know the future both his, and ours too, therefore it is predetermined. If we came for a "God" where did God come from?

If you believe that we a complex entity has a creator, then that creator would be much more complex, hence you should also believe that creator also has a creator. Where do you stop?

Obviously this is not the main point of the book (I wouldn't want to spoil everything for you :2thumbsup: ) but I quite like it although my own beliefs might not exactly match it.

As of defining stuff that you can't "feel". How about the concept of infinity? It does exist and it is not defined either mathematically or philosophically, or any other abstract concept, human rights, for instance... (heh I might be trying to stick my fingers into too many holes here :laugh4:)

Anyway, my urge for debate is still there. Give me your best answer. Of course Infinity is defined mathematically. It depends what you mean by infinity itself? What's your definition when you used the word infinity?

Also, I didn't say anything about "feeling". I said proof. :)

Redleg

02-01-2006, 04:09

That's my answer to that argument.

I said "A"
You said but "B"
I said because of "C"
You said but "B" (again).

Make an argument.

I have - the problem is that you have not.

One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence of existance.

Yeah, but a blind man would need/require proof would he?

Not at all.

Do not tell a blind man about the concept of color and any color and the blind man will be totally oblivious to the concept on his own. The stipulation here is no proof isn't it?

Again incorrect.

Quietus

02-01-2006, 04:16

I have - the problem is that you have not.

One can not prove non-existance by lack of evidence of existance. Same argument B.

Not at all. Huh? How?

Again incorrect. Incorrect how?

For example, if you tell a blind guy: "green", "blue" and tell them they are "colors", you're just coaching the person and essentially giving the guy proof.

And if a blind guy "reads" braille where "colors" are mentioned, that's giving them proof.

Redleg

02-01-2006, 04:24

Same argument B.

That is because it answers your arguement of A. One can not prove existance or nonexistance by the lack of evidence.

Huh? How?

One does not need proof to define colors. One does not need proof to have a definition of something.

Incorrect how?

Go ask a blind man.

For example, if you tell a blind guy: "green", "blue" and tell them they are "colors", you're just coaching the person and essentially giving the guy proof.

Try explaining the color blue to someone who is color blind. They know color exists but not the shade that everyone else see's it. They don't need proof that its the color blue because they understand that colors have a definition. Same concept.

And if a blind guy "reads" braille where "colors" are mentioned, that's giving them proof.

One can not prove existance or lack of existance by the lack of evidence.

A blind man can understand the concept of color without being able to prove color. A blind man can understand the definition of color without ever having to prove that color exists.

Again your arguement against the existance of God is nothing but fallacy based upon fallacy, which is inconsistently applied in your own arguement.

.

Quietus

02-02-2006, 04:29

That is because it answers your arguement of A. One can not prove existance or nonexistance by the lack of evidence. I've already answered this arguments. You haven't answered that argument. See above.

One does not need proof to define colors. One does not need proof to have a definition of something. Of course you do. A blind guy will never figure out color totally on his own.

You leave a blind baby in a jungle without any human contact. Raised by apes and all of the sudden, the grown person can define colors?

Go ask a blind man. A blind man who has proof of color accesible or given to them?

We're talking about a blind guy without any proof of color.

Try explaining the color blue to someone who is color blind. They know color exists but not the shade that everyone else see's it. They don't need proof that its the color blue because they understand that colors have a definition. Same concept. By explaining blue to a blind person, you're giving that person the proof that blue exists.

Has God, an Angel or a supernatural being ever talked to you and explained their existence and given you proof they exist?

One can not prove existance or lack of existance by the lack of evidence.Here it is again:

f you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

A blind man can understand the concept of color without being able to prove color. A blind man can understand the definition of color without ever having to prove that color exists. By explaining color, you're giving the blind guy the proof. The argument is no proof.

Someone explained color to the blind guy.
Who explained God to you?

Again your arguement against the existance of God is nothing but fallacy based upon fallacy, which is inconsistently applied in your own arguement.

. I've given my reasoning many, many times. I see no argument against it.

Redleg

02-02-2006, 05:21

I've already answered this arguments. You haven't answered that argument. See above.

And as pointed out numerous times before and I will continue to do so. Your arguement against God contains a fallacy and is inconsistent in its application. One can not prove or disprove existance based upon the lack of evidence.

Of course you do. A blind guy will never figure out color totally on his own.

Of course you don't. Again one can define something without having prove of its existance. One can understand that definition without being able to see it.

You leave a blind baby in a jungle without any human contact. Raised by apes and all of the sudden, the grown person can define colors?

In the same terms as the apes that raised him. A bad anology on your part.

A blind man who has proof of color accesible or given to them?

One does not have to see color to be able to understand the definition of color. Again your arguement is a fallacy. The blind man can understand the logic behind color without knowing of its existance.

We're talking about a blind guy without any proof of color.

Again go ask him. A individual that is blind does not need to have proof of colors existance to understand the concept of color.

The blind man can not prove the existance nor the non-existance of color because he has no ability to prove it either way. One can not prove existance or non-existance based upon lack of evidence.

Hence the fallacy in your logic remains.

By explaining blue to a blind person, you're giving that person the proof that blue exists.

Not at all your giving him a definition of what the color blue is. He can not see blue, but because he understands that color exists therefor the color blue must also exist. He does not have proof of this existance but he has a definition of it. Again one can not proof existance or non-existance by lack of evidence. And you mis-read the statement. I stated clearly a color-blind person.

Has God, an Angel or a supernatural being ever talked to you and explained their existence and given you proof they exist?

I talk to God all the time. Rarely does he answer however. However notice what you are saying here.

The beings mentioned all have definitions. The definitions provide the individual with a concept of the description of the being. It does not provide proof of its existance nor does the definition have to provide proof. It provides a concept.

One does not require proof to understand definitions and concepts.

Here it is again:

f you have no proof of X, how can you correctly define X? If you can't correctly define X, then how can you claim X exists?

If you have no proof of God, how can you correctly define God? If can't correctly define God, then how can you claim God exists?

If you have no proof of color, how can you correctly define color? If you can't define color, then how can you claim color exists? :)

Your continuing with the same logical fallacy. One can not prove existance or non-existance by lack of evidence.

By explaining color, you're giving the blind guy the proof. The argument is no proof.

Again your logic is inconsistent. If I explain color to a blind man - I am not providing him proof of color. I am providing him a definition of what color is.

Someone explained color to the blind guy.
Who explained God to you?

I am beginning to wonder who explained logic to you.

The question is not within the scope of the discussion of your logical fallacy and how your arguement is false because of that. One can not prove existance or lack of existance by lack of evidence.

Color exists even though the blind man can not see color. The blind man does not have proof of its existance, but he does not have proof that it does not exist. However he can understand the concept of color and he can understand the definition of color.

The existance of God falls within the same concept. We can not prove nor can disprove his existance because we do not see his being.

I've given my reasoning many, many times. I see no argument against it.

LOL you refuse to see that your reasoning contains the logical fallacy. Just because you refuse to ackownledge it, does not mean the that reasoning has not been shown to have a logical fallacy which makes your reasoning false.

One can not prove nor can one disprove existance by lack of evidence.

Erebus1101

02-03-2006, 20:29

i haven't posted on this subject in a while because the whole argument was getting a bit conviluted (as attested by the large post sizes! :laugh4:), and ive been very bust lately...

I will do my best to keep this short then...

i don't doubt this but scientific knoledge is still imcompleate [...]
Certainly true.

[...]and can never disprove god.
And that is because you say so?

not for you maybee, or is it that you don't see him acting in the world? there is wind even for those who do not believe in air
It is not a matter of opinion. There is simply no fundaments to think that he exists. Bring up an empirical observation of him acting in the world and I might reconsider.

That assumes that you can explain the universe, eveyone has a personal vision of their universe a way they visualise it working, god fits the model i have and the model falls to peices without him. I test my faith regularly in this way, may i suggest that you test yours? meet with a paster or a vicor someone more qualifyed on these matters then me, and ask them why they believe.
Well the current scientific model can describe quite accurately the mechanics that govern our universe. In particular, it was proven that the general theory of relativity implies the that the universe began in similar fashion to the Big Bang. So even if the current Big Bang is not completly accurate, it would only need a few changes. The other option is to disprove the Gen. T. of Relativity, but given that it is quite robust and is being currently applied, it seems improbable.
Of course everyone can invent a personal model about how the universe works, but I doubt that those are reliable. In your case if god is inside your model, then he should do something doesn't he? something of the sort 'god => x'. If you want to test such a model god should be the sufficient and necessary explanation for 'x'. However in most cases that is not true since we have a scientific model without god that would explain x (of couse depending on what is 'x'). You will find then, that there is very little place for a god.
If I want to test the veracity of scientific model I certainly wouldn't go to meet a pastor or such useless individuals. Besides, scientific models are under constant testing.

I would also like to introduce a new aspect to my argument, the witnesses, when you have a crime it is considered that a few good witnesses to the events can decide a conviction, usually the extent to which a court deems to test them is a lengthy cross examineation. now take the witnesses of jesus and what they did, Jesus himself suffered one of the worst deaths imagineable, first he was flogged, roman flogging was harsh often tearing strips of flesh from the victims back, exposeing the spineal cord and sometimes the guts. then he dragged the cross to the hill and was put on the cross, now the nails of the cross went into his hands, almost certainly cutting a majour nerve in the arm and causeing one of the most intense pains a human can experience. He then hung by these, unable to breathe and haveing to force himself upwards when he wanted to breathe the ususla death was when the vistime was so exhausted that even the gag reflex couldn't bring them back up. If Jesus was a liar surely he would have admmitted it to stop this horendous process, but even if you say that he was
lieing what about his diciples, for a very short while Peter tried to deny Jesus but he didn't say that he was a liar, just that he didn't know him!

All bar one of the diciples died terrible deaths and not one of them went back on what they said, even though it could have lessoned their suffering if they even slightly doubted jesus surely they would have spoken out?

Jesus was a judean rebel and rome disposed of him as such. Being a rebel was a great crime and criminal would not expect mercy, aside of being a heretic to the jews (i think...). Besides the few sources of those events (I can think only of the bible right now - judean rebels at those times were quite a few so none would pay attention to one more loony) may have omitted (for their own convenience) event that may have tarnished the image of their prophet, but I would rather not speculate.
I am really not surprised that religious fanatics would go to such lenghts. Everyone known that fanatism make people do irrational things.

Edit:
For the other people who were discussing infinity, ... it is actually a defined mathematical concept.

Redleg

02-03-2006, 21:20

For the other people who were discussing infinity, ... it is actually a defined mathematical concept.

Yes indeed it is a defined mathematical concept - I see you understand the point of the discussion.

Having a definition for a concept does not require that one have absolute proof of it, for the definition to be accepted.

Erebus1101

02-03-2006, 22:23

are you implying that there is no proof for infinity?:inquisitive:
I guess someone noticed that the cardinality (the number of elements) of the set of the Natural numbers was a number that none could express was a proof of the existence of an special number. It was then the definition of infinity (now this is not a formal definition).
Providing the definition first before the observation is what one would call 'inventing'.

Redleg

02-03-2006, 23:49

are you implying that there is no proof for infinity?:inquisitive:

In the context of Quietus's arguement, I am showing how ridiculous the claim that in order to have a definition one must have proof of existance.

Has anyone seen the end of infinity? That would be in the same context of Quietus arguement against the existance of God.

I guess someone noticed that the cardinality (the number of elements) of the set of the Natural numbers was a number that none could express was a proof of the existence of an special number. It was then the definition of infinity (now this is not a formal definition).
Providing the definition first before the observation is what one would call 'inventing'.

Bingo - you do seem to understand my point. A definition of something does not necessary require postive hard proof of its existance in order to have a logical definition of what it could be.

The numberical value of pi can not be calculated - hence it is often termed as an infinite numberical equation. (Edit: That is the absolute numberical value of pi can not be calculated.)

Pindar

02-05-2006, 07:45

God does not exist.

You can trust me. http://www.baristanet.com/photos/uncategorized/devil.jpg I'm your friend.

Ohh, and "Rap Music" doesn't kill brain cells either

Byzantine Mercenary

02-07-2006, 12:33

And that is because you say so?
No, it is because you cannot come up with a fact that disproves god, surely you know this, that is what this argument concerns!, the problem is more can I prove god?

I know what you will probably say, maybe an argument similar to what Richard Dawkins has said, but I do find that most critics of Christianity (including him) have an ignorance of even its message. This is the reason I suggested speaking to a pastor or a vicar, you have obviously never met one if you think them all ignorant and useless and you cannot argue against something that you do not understand, can you?.

It is not a matter of opinion. There is simply no fundaments to think that he exists. Bring up an empirical observation of him acting in the world and I might reconsider.
Isn’t that the whole point of this thread to do this?
Every action in the world was caused by him, there is no reason for anything, don't you see, you know nothing because there is no reason for anything

Why should man exist? Why should stars form? I can put this forward as the intricate plan of an omnipotent presence, what is your explanation? chance? That laws of science and physics just exist why is that more logical then there being a different set of rules or even more likely in a randomly created universe no laws governing anything?
A computer does not write its own programs, what is to say that the laws of our universe require a creator

Well the current scientific model can describe quite accurately the mechanics that govern our universe. In particular, it was proven that the general theory of relativity implies the that the universe began in similar fashion to the Big Bang. So even if the current Big Bang is not completly accurate, it would only need a few changes. The other option is to disprove the Gen. T. of Relativity, but given that it is quite robust and is being currently applied, it seems improbable.
Of course everyone can invent a personal model about how the universe works, but I doubt that those are reliable. In your case if god is inside your model, then he should do something doesn't he? something of the sort 'god => x'. If you want to test such a model god should be the sufficient and necessary explanation for 'x'. However in most cases that is not true since we have a scientific model without god that would explain x (of couse depending on what is 'x'). You will find then, that there is very little place for a god.
If I want to test the veracity of scientific model I certainly wouldn't go to meet a pastor or such useless individuals. Besides, scientific models are under constant testing.

Yes and the wonderful theory of relativity does not fit with Quantum mechanics, why is that? :inquisitive:
I have already shown what god does; your problem is that you have explained almost everything except the fundamental question why does the universe exist? And why it is the way it is? All science does is describe what should happen not why these rules exist in the first place.

Jesus was a judean rebel and rome disposed of him as such. Being a rebel was a great crime and criminal would not expect mercy, aside of being a heretic to the jews (i think...). Besides the few sources of those events (I can think only of the bible right now - judean rebels at those times were quite a few so none would pay attention to one more loony) may have omitted (for their own convenience) event that may have tarnished the image of their prophet, but I would rather not speculate.
I am really not surprised that religious fanatics would go to such lenghts. Everyone known that fanatism make people do irrational things.

Edit:
For the other people who were discussing infinity, ... it is actually a defined mathematical concept.

I am not talking about later Christians i am talking about the ones who met Jesus heard his teaching and then died not only supporting those teachings but also the version that is accepted as his teachings. So stop making up things about the origins of Christianity, I may as well say that actually all scientists are lying and have made up all of science instead using the magic of the umpa lumpas.

With what you have said about the entire priesthood and many other religious people, that they will die for no reason etc, you appear to be assuming that you are a faultless observer, the fact is if they are so faulted, as a fellow human so must you and your views be and so surely I should no more listen to you then a religious fanatic?

Posts just get longer and longer don't they! :oops:

Erebus1101

02-10-2006, 01:33

No, it is because you cannot come up with a fact that disproves god, surely you know this, that is what this argument concerns!, the problem is more can I prove god?
From the way you put it is seemed that you affirm that scientific knowledge can never disprove god. That is however not true, since there is no way that you know the entire scientific knowledge (including the knowledge that still has not been discovered).

I know what you will probably say, maybe an argument similar to what Richard Dawkins has said, but I do find that most critics of Christianity (including him) have an ignorance of even its message. This is the reason I suggested speaking to a pastor or a vicar, you have obviously never met one if you think them all ignorant and useless and you cannot argue against something that you do not understand, can you?.

Of what use is his message to me? it is merely an opinion, it may be a lofty and noble opinion, but is still an opinion. I may agree or disagree with him but that is a question of philosophy not of reality.

Isn’t that the whole point of this thread to do this?
Every action in the world was caused by him, there is no reason for anything, don't you see, you know nothing because there is no reason for anything

I will have go go by parts here:
"Every action in the world was caused by him..." : that would require a proof
"...there is no reason for anything" : this contradicts the previous phrase stating that he is the reason for everything
"you know nothing..." : probably true, but I would rather think that there is something I must know
"...because there is no reason for anything" : again a simple statement without anything to back it up. That aside the implication doesn't give sense to me, maybe you coud explain it.

Why should man exist? Why should stars form? I can put this forward as the intricate plan of an omnipotent presence, what is your explanation? chance? That laws of science and physics just exist why is that more logical then there being a different set of rules or even more likely in a randomly created universe no laws governing anything?
A computer does not write its own programs, what is to say that the laws of our universe require a creator

An argument that looks exactly like the "whatches don't build themselves" argument. There is again nothing that indicates that such entity exists (even less that he made those laws), you just wish to believe it exists and that is irrational. Nevertheless you say that this is more logical than a more scientific aproach, wich is tightly related to mathematics logic.

The laws of the universe are intrinsic to the matter. At the moment of the Big Bang, acording to Hawking, there was a 98% probability that this matter would have the properties we now see. Why you think is illogical to think that they were created randomly when with the knowledge we have now it seems that that is exactly what ocurred? Reandomness, acording to the quantic theory, seems to be intrinsec to the universe. Such things as the Cassimir effect, or the Hawking radiation seems to confirm it.

Probably you should look into complexity and chaos theory to undersand why randomness can explain complex systems including us.

Regarding the computer. Although you can make a program that generates code, matter didnt generated its laws. Those were probably created randomly along with it. So a better simil would de to feed a computer a random generaded code and let it compute itself over and over. Guess what, the odds ar that it will never stop computing (basically because it would be a program that computes nothing), exactly the same what is happening to the universe, it will never cease to expand. If someone created the laws of universe, he was pretty incompetent.

Yes and the wonderful theory of relativity does not fit with Quantum mechanics, why is that? :inquisitive:

It seems to me that you are a bit confused. The general Theory of Relativity explains events on a macroscale (gravity), quantum mechanics concers with events on microscale (subatomic). They do not contradict themselves because they are quite unrelated. Thats why an Unified theory it so hard to come up with.

I have already shown what god does; your problem is that you have explained almost everything except the fundamental question why does the universe exist? And why it is the way it is? All science does is describe what should happen not why these rules exist in the first place.

You havent so far shown any evidence that god does actually something. The existence of the universe is so far outside science , because at the moment of the Big Bang, the singularity in which all mater was concentrted was (like a black hole) inside a horizont of event (simply put, it was inside the black hole). An the current theories doesnt apply to it. That doesnt mean that there is no way of knowing what actually happened inside (some scientist actually think that there may be some way), however this situation may change in the future.

Nevertheless randomness seems a good explanation and certainly more rational that accepting supernatural notions. The question about why it is the way it is now, is also a question of probability, it could have been different. But then there probably would also be intellingent being and they would also ask why is it the way is it, and like you some of them would think that it was taylored by some supernatural being.

I am not talking about later Christians i am talking about the ones who met Jesus heard his teaching and then died not only supporting those teachings but also the version that is accepted as his teachings. So stop making up things about the origins of Christianity, I may as well say that actually all scientists are lying and have made up all of science instead using the magic of the umpa lumpas.

Firstly I wasn't talking about later christians either. Secondly I was trying to say that the sources you rely on (the bible I pressume) are at most not quite reliable, at those times people didn't have any sense for historical accuracy, and even less if those who people were religious fanatics. Nevertheless it is a historical fact that quite long before the time of Jesus and after him, judea was quite rebellious. And it ended when Octavious send his legions to raze judea (after some loonies though that they could defeat rome).

With what you have said about the entire priesthood and many other religious people, that they will die for no reason etc, you appear to be assuming that you are a faultless observer, the fact is if they are so faulted, as a fellow human so must you and your views be and so surely I should no more listen to you then a religious fanatic?

did I said that they will die for no reason? well personally think that everyone has his own reason for existing (even if it just the basic instinct). Well other persons irrational opinions are just of no use to me, if you have some use for them, then good for you.

Byzantine Mercenary

02-11-2006, 23:42

''I will have go go by parts here:
"Every action in the world was caused by him..." : that would require a proof
"...there is no reason for anything" : this contradicts the previous phrase stating that he is the reason for everything
"you know nothing..." : probably true, but I would rather think that there is something I must know
"...because there is no reason for anything" : again a simple statement without anything to back it up. That aside the implication doesn't give sense to me, maybe you coud explain it''

Ok il try and explain what i mean.

Firstly you present the universe as the result if randomness, and say that the laws of science were created randomly.

If this were true the end result could be gravity more powerful so that all you get is one area of a large mass concentrated, or weaker so that you get a sea of gas, this would have been randomly decided? why is it just right for planets?

Lets assume that you were lucky and get the right strength for gravity, every other law would need to be similarly balanced to create a complex universe rather then a simple non functioning one. A man asked to make a whatch might suceed and might fail, but if he works entirely randomly he is very likely to fail! :laugh4:

This is the backbone of what i am saying, you have no explanation as to why things are the way they are because you can't tell me why we didn't get other scientific rules.

The computer analogy would be a computer that writes its own software that works perfectly despite choseing every line of code randomly and being unable to change the code once written, there would be no evolution just one writing that is permanent.

You have faith in scientists who tell you about things you don't understand, about things that are very complex (as you yourself said noone can know the reason for everything and so would have to take some facts on faith) and yet you automatically discount the disiples as fanatics, they were there, they didn't say these things, Jesus did, and they stood by what was said to have happened, they died for what was said to have happened! if it had been a hoax they would have seen that it was and said so when placed in a tight spot, they doubted like anyone else would, heck peter even denied knowing Jesus when he thought it would help him, but in the end they stood by chrisitianity and died for it, i trust that and the strength i see in christians, strength that goes beyond understanding.

I am not (wholey :laugh4: ) ignorant, i test my faith, but no matter what there is something inside me and always has been that knows that there is a god. this is my central proof and it is a pity that i can not demonstrate it, this is not something that has been imprinted into me, i have had total freedom throughout my life to come to what beliefs i wan't and i can assure you that every christian i know believes something a little bit different from each other and we argue a lot about this, we do not just sit down and agree, we are not some ignorant brianwashed religion.