Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Wrong.
Many (otherwise) reasonable people deny things that are obvious to the rest of us.
Of course it's a "choice".
Waffle waffle.
Elucidate.
Again, she said "Believing in something that exists is a choice." What are some examples?
I see your reading and comprehension skills are up to par again.
Post #1479.
How about the still-continuing controversy over global warming as well?
If it was as clear-cut as "if it exists people must believe in it" then how can there be deniers?
Of evolution or global warming?
Your point being...?
More inane nonsense.
A theory cannot be proven to be factual. Facts are data points, a theory is the explanation of the facts. Theories don't ever get proven to be factual, they simply acquire more corroborating evidence and support.
None of which has anything to do with the question at hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Interpretations can vary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verifiable
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrast
The FACT is there is a difference.
Once again,
Beleiving in something the EXISTS is NOT a choice. A rock exists, a car exists, a person exists. Believing in themm is NOT a choice unless the person is insane.
You cannot be serious.
Try this:
I have a theory the earth is round.
After all it had to be proven that the earth was round. otherwise it could very possibly have been theorized to be flat. Now if an early human looked out across the ocean he would never believe the earth to be round because how can water stay attached to a ball?
Last edited:
Science consists of falsifiable theories which interpret verifiable facts.
A hypothesis predicting that a phenomenon will be demonstrated with certain properties and called (for convenience) God may be disproven or falsified.
By contrast, the fact of God's existence can only be proven by observation.
Neither theory nor fact have any legitimate claim to being the more original, essential, or true process by which the understanding operates. Facts are expressed in terms whose meanings are clarified through theories; theories are formulated based on prior experience of factual events.
Atheism is totally justified, therefore, in denying the existence of God based on a lack of evidence. What confounds this, however, is the possibility of disagreement with respect to what exactly counts as evidence for the existence of God. What is God? We do not know from experience. With the exception of claims to divine revelation, God's nature has only been posited on a purely speculative basis. God is viewed as an entity without whose existence we would be unable to account for the appearance of any natural phenomena whatsoever. That is, to posit the existence of God is at the very least to posit the existence of a single entity whose nature harmonizes with all observable phenomena. Therefore there is no opportunity to verify God's existence as fact. For there ought to be no fact which would not count as evidence for the existence of God.
Furthermore, a God-hypothesis may yet be falsified on the basis of the discovery of a phenomenon inconsistent with God's posited nature. However, this does not preclude the formulation of a new God hypothesis consistent with the new data. Consider, for example, the Aristotelian notion of God, which was refuted by discoveries in physics, only to be reformulated in a manner consistent with these discoveries by Alfred North Whitehead in 1927, spawning a minor revolution in theology (but whose potential to broadly influence religious thought was prematurely killed by Vatican II). Most atheists have no opportunity to consider or respond to the Whiteheadian concept of God because they simply do not know about it. When one denies the existence of God, for which definitions of God does that denial hold? One is forced to demarcate.
No matter who I were or how deep my religious convictions, therefore, I would always make it clear, in the interest of intellectual honesty, that my own opinions regarding the existence of God must be understood on a contingent basis. Any amount of dogmatism simply unhinges the understanding from the requirements of brute fact. It is not a question of delusion, but simply a matter of how willing one is to have one's mind changed by experience.
A hypothesis predicting that a phenomenon will be demonstrated with certain properties and called (for convenience) God may be disproven or falsified.
By contrast, the fact of God's existence can only be proven by observation.
Neither theory nor fact have any legitimate claim to being the more original, essential, or true process by which the understanding operates. Facts are expressed in terms whose meanings are clarified through theories; theories are formulated based on prior experience of factual events.
Atheism is totally justified, therefore, in denying the existence of God based on a lack of evidence. What confounds this, however, is the possibility of disagreement with respect to what exactly counts as evidence for the existence of God. What is God? We do not know from experience. With the exception of claims to divine revelation, God's nature has only been posited on a purely speculative basis. God is viewed as an entity without whose existence we would be unable to account for the appearance of any natural phenomena whatsoever. That is, to posit the existence of God is at the very least to posit the existence of a single entity whose nature harmonizes with all observable phenomena. Therefore there is no opportunity to verify God's existence as fact. For there ought to be no fact which would not count as evidence for the existence of God.
Furthermore, a God-hypothesis may yet be falsified on the basis of the discovery of a phenomenon inconsistent with God's posited nature. However, this does not preclude the formulation of a new God hypothesis consistent with the new data. Consider, for example, the Aristotelian notion of God, which was refuted by discoveries in physics, only to be reformulated in a manner consistent with these discoveries by Alfred North Whitehead in 1927, spawning a minor revolution in theology (but whose potential to broadly influence religious thought was prematurely killed by Vatican II). Most atheists have no opportunity to consider or respond to the Whiteheadian concept of God because they simply do not know about it. When one denies the existence of God, for which definitions of God does that denial hold? One is forced to demarcate.
No matter who I were or how deep my religious convictions, therefore, I would always make it clear, in the interest of intellectual honesty, that my own opinions regarding the existence of God must be understood on a contingent basis. Any amount of dogmatism simply unhinges the understanding from the requirements of brute fact. It is not a question of delusion, but simply a matter of how willing one is to have one's mind changed by experience.
Which is what I said: a fact is a data point, a theory is the explanation that ties facts together.
Still wrong. Evolution exists. Some people don't believe it.
Wrong. I am.
You're misusing the word theory.
It's an observable fact that the Earth is round.
Refer to your own quote from Wiki.
Last edited:
Is this statement correct?
the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun and that the Sun is stationary and at the center of the universe.
No.
What is your point?
HUH?
What does empiricism operate by if not sense perception?
and experience is based on very specific issues of application
actually any justification atheism has is based on using the same models of application that are favored by empiricism ... whether empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims is something else entirely ....
the same thing as what constitutes as evidence for electrons ... namely the assertions of established professionals in the field
well, if everyone draws from the same experience pool as yourself, maybe
hence empiricism is not recommended
such as?
one could also cite heliocentricism as an example of the frailties of astronomy ... IOW just because someone somewhere is partially incorrect doesn't mean everyone in all time, places and circumstances is also
if you are simply dealing with theoretical issues that aren't accompanied by any issues of application, then you are certainly justified
which leaves us with the question how willing you are to acquire experiences that operate out of methodologies different to the one you favour ...
...
don't they claim logic is supposed to dictate what to believe in?
huh?
well at least you know what your talking about light..
you dont consider pastors/preachers/whatevers established professionals?
how bout the pope?
again huh? i didnt read it as a personal thing, more like an attempt to communicate something , just cause you dont understand it don't make it wrong..
those that believe in god, believe because of their own experiances, each experiance is differant from the other..
if there was evidence there would be no need for faith..faith requires trust..a commodity that some ppl will never have..
scientist have just discovered a way to measure a persons conscienceness, they have discovered that we are all connected to each other in a very weak way, some groups of ppl have been found gathering together and tapping into this 'shared' conscienceness to achieve unvarifiable results..these ppl can be found hanging out in tall pointy buildings often singing and in various states of meditation..
just kidding..but if they proved it, wouldn't that be an alternative explanation for god?
bingo..same goes with the bible...
i dont know about whitehead..sounds like something you pop..
funny..when you answer yourself light..
you are not willing to experiance god...isnt that outside your favour..you can't experiance something you don't believe in can you? (wouldn't that change the experiance?) (my head hurt on that one...)
don't they claim logic is supposed to dictate what to believe in?
huh?
well at least you know what your talking about light..
you dont consider pastors/preachers/whatevers established professionals?
how bout the pope?
again huh? i didnt read it as a personal thing, more like an attempt to communicate something , just cause you dont understand it don't make it wrong..
those that believe in god, believe because of their own experiances, each experiance is differant from the other..
if there was evidence there would be no need for faith..faith requires trust..a commodity that some ppl will never have..
scientist have just discovered a way to measure a persons conscienceness, they have discovered that we are all connected to each other in a very weak way, some groups of ppl have been found gathering together and tapping into this 'shared' conscienceness to achieve unvarifiable results..these ppl can be found hanging out in tall pointy buildings often singing and in various states of meditation..
just kidding..but if they proved it, wouldn't that be an alternative explanation for god?
bingo..same goes with the bible...
i dont know about whitehead..sounds like something you pop..
funny..when you answer yourself light..
you are not willing to experiance god...isnt that outside your favour..you can't experiance something you don't believe in can you? (wouldn't that change the experiance?) (my head hurt on that one...)
One's understanding of the universe is not a methodological pissing contest, first of all. Secondly, your polemic against empiricism is misplaced. You are clearly only responding to what you expected my post to contain.
You may want to read again and engage yourself in some actual philosophy before responding again.
who said it was?
empiricism works just fine for crossing the road
perfectly useless for dealing with issues of the macro/micro cosm however ...
Science consists of falsifiable theories which interpret verifiable facts.
Oh c'mon ... vienna circle eat your heart out
actually most of my post was directed at your inaccurate assessment of the means and ways of theism
sliced, diced and quartered back at ya pal
HUH?who said it was?
empiricism works just fine for crossing the road
perfectly useless for dealing with issues of the macro/micro cosm however ...
Science consists of falsifiable theories which interpret verifiable facts.
Oh c'mon ... vienna circle eat your heart out
The Vienna Circle consisted entirely of verificationists!
Karl Popper, who hated the Circle, was by contrast a pure falsificationist.
No one in early analytic philosophy was a believer in the necessity of speculative reason. When we differentiate between the natures of theories and facts, however, facts being discovered or verified due to their concreteness and theories being mere descriptive abstraction (and so never fully true), metaphysical speculation is exactly what we require.
At least give the courtesy of responding to a post in context rather than attacking certain key terms as related to a bunch of Wittgenstein-imitating buffoons and their hapless foil. The year is 2010. Or barring that, shut up!
Theism is not something that you just assess, buddy. It has no formal "means or ways." No one particular path. Haven't you ever studied ANY religious beliefs? The way theology evolves over time and interacts with historical events in novel and unpredictable ways? Belief doesn't precede personal experience, it tries to explain it. It's an act of creation.
Your argumentation has been corrupted by the rabid atheists on this board and now you're reduced essentially to shouting "nuh uh!" at anyone who even suggests that reality ultimately discloses a systematic or rational character. Pitiful! And no wonder you have never managed to convince anyone. You are just an obscurantist, you'll never concede anything. You'll never benefit from any amount of dialectic. I mean, really, what are you even doing on a DISCUSSION board in the first place? Let's be honest, you haven't encountered a sophisticated theological argument since you first logged on here. And you think you have it all figured out just because you can confuse some poor reductionist sap from time to time. You're not learning a damn thing here. Get out into the world. Read something challenging for once. Write and think in full paragraphs for fuck's sake. Don't be a pussy.
baum..i think light is a goat collector..don't let him get yours..
Jus pointing out to you that theories can be proven to be factual or just WRONG.