To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

The same way that a seminar on ghost-hunting is part of a method on how to condition yourself to discriminate between real ghosts and mere illusions.

It is an education on how to condition yourself to discriminate between reality and illusion. If that’s what you’re analogy amounts to then yes.

But to answer your question, I will know because I will be able to justify the position to myself, and to others, using logic and other tools available to me, such as critical thinking.

That doesn’t explain how and why you will know.

How will you know it’s God?

Why would you be correct in that knowledge?

It was explained with "no one has said it makes the person". Since you argued against what no one actually said, it is a strawman.

I didn’t say that anyone said it. I’m the one saying it because you keep hiding behind your ball park title.

As far as I can read into what you’re saying, you are a strong atheist, yet you keep shouting agnostic atheist.

A rather odd statement to make, as you seem to be implying that the label somehow causes the reason why the label is applicable.

You’re an atheist because you don’t believe in God, and the primary reason must be God doesn’t exist.

These are specifically absurd to highlight that if you believe in God when there is no evidence, the same logic might lead you to believe in absurd things.

Then you are saying belief in God is absurd, there’s no getting around it.

What is your assumption that there is no evidence based on?

Because firstly it is not a statement that matches the position the analogy is for!

What about ‘’I don’t have any evidence of God’s existence?

I don't feel any absurdity. On the whole I don't find belief in the existence of God to be absurd at all but rather understandable.

Then give up using Russell’s mockery as analogies, because it assumes belief in God absurd by conflating Him with silly characters. Find an objection that actually, intelligently characterises your position.

There are evidences out there, you yourself commented that Anthony Flew crumbled under the evidence of God’s existence. But at present you deny all of them. Your denial does not make you right, so you cannot truly say there is no evidence of God.

Your fallacy here is in thinking that we are saying that anything for which there is no evidence is therefore absurd.

There is nothing fallacious in what I’m saying.

Certainly there are absurd notions that have no evidence for their existence, but there are also rather mundane notions for which there is also no evidence, the same logic might lead you to believe in absurd things.

Why assume there is no evidence for God, in the first place?

I admit that God does not exist for me, in that I live my practical life as though God does not exist - or more accurately I do not live my life as though He does. But I do not know that God does not exist. That is the distinction.

So why deny every explanation that thoughtful theists give, outright, if you don’t know whether or not God exists?

Secondly I do not express my understanding of God through absurdity, this is just your ongoing misunderstanding, which hopefully has been addressed above.

You claim that there IS no evidence of God’s existence, and write off every explanation, of theists claims of evidence. Therefore you believe that theists cannot have evidence of God’s existence, but they still believe. The same sentiment is expressed through the absurd explanation. How can you not believe that belief in God is absurd?

That said, I've more evidence for the nature of Daffy's existence than God's.

What evidences would that be?

Okay, so now you're landing on the side of there being no ridicule... yet you have complained incessantly about it being ridicule.

You really gonna keep on with this?

If people already equate God with Daffy Duck then there is no ridicule there either.

People who are offended by it must equate God with silly things, otherwise there is no reason to be offended. Theist’s don’t equate God with silly things, therefore cannot be offended by it.


As I said the struggle comes in discussions with atheists who just rely on that nonsense. Once or even twice maybe, but upon comprehension that it is not relevant to the discussion, they still maintain it. Systematic uses of this nonsense are attacks. That much is obvious.


Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

If God exists, then He is your God too, but your denial of Him, despite not believing He even exists, is noteworthy.

Denying God implies that you believe that God exists, but that you refuse to acknowledge him. If you don't believe that God exists, then what? Is that automatically denial because you, Jan, know that God does exist? Therefore anybody who says they don't believe is in denial?

Perhaps you think I've denied God because I referred to him as "this God of yours"? I used that term because there isn't general agreement on the attributes of God or gods, or even how many gods there are. You believe in a particular concept of God. Follows of Yaruba, to take one example at random, have quite a different concept of gods than you do. I am merely allowing for the fact that people don't, in general, agree about their gods. And I was addressing you in terms of your God, as I understand him/her/it.

If God exists, I would have thought everything we perceive to be a clear demonstration of His power. . Wouldn’t you. What is it that atheists doubt exactly?

Atheists don't start with the assumption that God exists. For them, there is no evidence that is a clear demonstration of supernatural power.

Regarding messing with the laws of nature, are you telling me that anything that occurs within nature wouldn't be deemed natural by God deniers? Would we still not be in the same argumentative position?

Come back with something that can only be caused by God.

This is a subtle point. It really depends on what kind of God you want to have. If you think that God's only job in the universe is to set up the natural order and then sit back and watch as things unfold according to his pre-determined plan, then there's no practical way to distinguish between the natural world as described by science and the same world watched over by an entity that takes no effective part in it beyond starting it off. You can probably safely have that kind of god if you like. But in that world, scientifically speaking, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. He isn't actually needed to explain anything.

On the other hand, most religious people want a God who can and does intervene in human events in ways that defy the natural order. To put it another way, these religious people say that God can and does make miracles happen. A miracle, by definition, is something that is supernatural.

It doesn't take much imagination to trawl through the usual list of miracles for things that can only be caused by God. You know the kind of thing: dead people coming back to life, men walking on water, turning water into wine, causing the Earth to stop moving (or the Sun or whatever). You may argue that all of these things can be faked, and you'd be right. But I'm assuming that we have experts who can take (often simple) precautions to preclude fakery and to investigate the legitimacy of any claimed miracles. Again, you may argue that skeptics can find ways to explain away any real miracle, but I think that's a stretch. There are only so many ways to fake things, and they are known.

It's the same with people who think space aliens are visiting Earth. If they were able to do that, why hide and reveal themselves to backwoods hicks and nuts? Why not land their starships on the lawn of the White House?

Maybe they want the mainstream humans to remain ignorant so that they have a better chance of totally controlling them.

That kind of argument is known as special pleading. It looks like what it is: ad hoc desperation. The same kind of faulty reasoning is often seen with conspiracy theorists. They have an answer for every sensible objection raised against their elaborate fantasies. But it's an answer that is cobbled together specifically to address the objection, and not something that follows naturally from the initial premise.

So, why doesn't God show us a clear miracle and remove all doubt of his existence? Because he works in mysterious ways? Because he requires us to have faith? Just because? I don't find those answers convincing. Do you?

 

[James R]

(continued)

I’m still left wondering why you choose FSM’s, and celestial crockery.

It just seems weird. But if I was looking for magical singing and dancing knives and forks, I would need to see them, or hear about them from people who have seen them, but there doesn’t seem to be much instruction on how to find them.
Fortunately the situation is completely different with regards to God. Although we cannot see Him with our mundane senses, we have enough intelligence, and the ability to understand who and what He is.

Forget the magic for a moment. If you wanted to check whether a teapot was orbiting the Sun, you could, in principle, do it. There's no doubt about the procedure required. It's just an ordinary search (although over a wide volume of space). But would you invest the billions of dollars required to look for the teapot, on the basis that a group of people (perhaps millions of people) honestly believe that such a thing exists, and on the basis that some guys got together and wrote some scripture 2000 years ago that mentions the orbiting teapot? More to the point, what would convince you before the search that the teapot actually exists? Would all that testimony be sufficient in itself?

Now put in the magic. I agree with you that in that case there's a lot of doubt about where to start looking for those dancing knives and forks. If they are magic, who knows what they can do or where they might hide? All bets are off. If they appear and dance in front of an international press conference, then we might well think that there's something to all those anecdotes and testimony after all. But if we're told that we can't see the dancing forks with our mundane senses but trust us, they're really there and you just have to look in the motes of dust with your head tilted at the right angle (though even then not everybody will see them), then forgive me if I remain skeptical.

Theists don’t struggle with the wording of that explanation, because the wording is silly and childish. Even you know that even though you won’t admit it.

As others have already explained in this thread, these examples are deliberately silly and childish. The argument illustrates the illogicality of believing in things (whatever they are) for which there is no good evidence. Admittedly, for some smug atheists, there is also the implication that believing in invisible gods is also silly and childish. I personally don't agree with that, because I know quite a bit about why people believe in gods and the supernatural, and it isn't usually for silly and childish reasons. But it is for reasons that have very little to do with objective evidence.

I can't see radio waves, yet I know they exist. It is simplistic to suppose that because something is invisible to ordinary human sense that therefore it doesn't exist. Existence can be inferred from all kinds of evidence.

So what’s your problem?

I thought I'd already made that clear. My problem is that your God is is not only invisible to ordinary human senses, but also to all of the augmented senses available to us via technology. In other words, there's no objective evidence that God exists, as far as I can see. And I've already explained why I think objective evidence is important in establishing the existence of something.

The atheist argument does not have a good criteria for knowing what would be good evidence. The only thing they can come up with is something purposely done in nature that wouldn’t normally occur.

The gods of every major religion are supernatural beings who perform miracles (indeed, gods by their very nature are miraculous beings). The only possible evidence for gods is evidence of the supernatural. I don't see what's wrong with that criterion. What criterion would you suggest instead?

I mean, I know that tossing out the requirement for evidence is an option that many people are quite comfortable with. They just choose to believe without evidence. But if you want to claim that evidence for God is there, then you ought to be able to suggest some criterion of evidence yourself. The atheists have one. Do you?

But as I said before, you will just explain it away, or order everyone to put it in the - 'I don’t know box', until you come up with an explanation that satisfies your atheist palette. That's what you guys do.

Scientists are smart people, but there are limits to just "explaining away" stuff. Because the stuff that needs explaining at any given time must be explained in the context of everything that is already known to be true (or else we have to change our ideas about some of what is true).

What normally happens prior to a major scientific breakthrough is a gradual accumulation of "anomalous" evidence - evidence that can't be explained through known theory, that keeps mounting up and mounting up until there's too much to ignore and something has to give. It's a poor scientist indeed who at that point sweeps the evidence under the rug and says "I don't know. Let's not worry about that. Let's just forget about it." That's not in the DNA of a scientist. Scientists plug away at problems - sometimes for decades.

The fact is, scientists do look at claims of the supernatural, and have been doing so since science was invented. And there has never been enough evidence of miracles to require a non-natural theory.

 

[James R]

(continued)

If thousands, hundreds, even tens of peoples testimony have similar explanations, I would be more inclined to believe them than the skeptics who reduce everything to ‘’tricks of the mind’’. At least vary your oppression.

Religious belief, as I'm sure you're aware, is a lot more complicated than mere "tricks of the mind", and intelligent skeptics are well aware of that, I assure you. People most likely believe in God due to a complex set of contributing factors involving the way our brains work and the way we are socialised. You don't have to be stupid to believe in God. I would never personally claim that all believers are stupid, or anything like that, though I am aware that certain overconfident (and often young) atheists think that.

Once you accept that magic can happen, you're open to believing all kinds of things for which there is no good evidence.

Why? One can accept the concept of something without believing in it. Do you agree?

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between believing in the concept of magic and believing in magic. If you merely mean that one can accept the definition of the term "magic" and not believe that magic actually happens, then I agree with you, but I'm not sure why the point is relevant.

How does one voluntarily believe IN something? Do they say: Hm! I think I’ll believe that aliens visit earth’’?

I'm wary of attempting an answer to that, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you use the term "believe in". Previously I think you distinguished that from something like "believing in the existence of". I would use those terms interchangeably, and I think that would be common usage.

I'm also not sure why you're asking how one "voluntarily" believes in something. If you're not open to believing in something, you won't believe in it. So believing in anything is "voluntary" in that you have to be open to accepting the new belief (for you) as a true belief. That doesn't mean that you make a conscious choice at any one point in time, like "I think I'll now start believing that aliens visit Earth." What I'm saying is that if you start from the position "It's impossible that aliens could be visiting Earth" then it will take a literally mind-altering experience for you to come to believe that aliens actually are visiting Earth. On the other hand, if you start with "It's possible that aliens could visit Earth, but I don't see any evidence of that", then you're open to becoming convinced as evidence accumulates.

Again, there's the caveat here that this all assumes that people are logical, and a lot of the time they aren't. I might believe that I'm due for a win on the next spin of the roulette wheel, but there's no rationally defensible way I could arrive at such a belief.

If you believe in magic, then you can believe that ghosts can exist inside solid walls and can talk to real people outside. You can believe that in spite of the laws of physics and all of your ordinary experience of the world, because it's magic, and with magic anything is possible.

What is it about ‘’magic’’ that leads one to believe in ghosts? Does it follow that if you don’t believe in ‘’magic’’, you can’t believe in ghosts? And what does ‘’laws of physics’’ have to do with ghosts?

This comment of yours had me quite taken aback. Since the connections are so obvious to me, I guess I assumed that an intelligent person like yourself would also find them obvious. Therefore, if there's one thing I'd particularly like to convey to you in this post it is an answer to these questions. Let's tackle them in reverse order.

What does "laws of physics" have to do with ghosts? Answer: ghosts are supernatural entities. They behave in ways that are counter to our scientific understanding of the world. Take one example: ghosts can walk through solid objects. Everyday experience tell us that ordinary solid objects do not interpenetrate one another and remain unscathed by the experience. The laws of physics explain why solid objects do not interpenetrate, in literally microscopic detail. The laws of physics are a consistent and developed body of understanding about how the natural world operates.

The properties of ghosts are inconsistent with the properties of matter and energy as we understand them through science. Science describes nature. Therefore, ghosts are supernatural. Anything that can break the laws of physics (natural laws) is, by definition, magic. Therefore, ghosts are magical things. Therefore, if you don't believe in magic and you understand something about the laws of nature then you can't believe in ghosts.

What is it about believing in magic that leads one to believe in ghosts? Answer: if you believe in magic, then you believe in the supernatural. That is, you believe that things in the world don't always operate according to natural processes or laws. Now, perhaps one might also believe in some "laws of magic" that limit what kinds of supernatural things can happen, but there seems to be no general agreement on any such set of laws. Therefore, all kinds of supernatural occurrences become live possibilities for the believer in magic. Therefore, believers in magic are much more likely to believe in ghosts than non-believers (who are not at all likely to believe in ghosts if they accept that ghosts are magical things).

There's also a slightly wider sense in which I have been using the term "magic" - the sense of "magical thinking". That is the general idea that anything is possible in the world - that the universe is essentially unconstrained in terms of the kinds of things that can exist or coexist in it. Magical thinkers either don't believe in natural laws, or else they think that natural laws can be broken under certain conditions, or else they think that natural laws are only a small part of what is needed to properly describe the universe, or all of the above.

Believers in the traditional kind of God - one that meddles in human affairs, answers prayers, causes miracles to happen in the world, etc. - are all magical thinkers. You, Jan, are a magical thinker.

 

[James R]

(continued)

Obviously this is your own perspective, so I will try and address from that pov. If it’s evolutionary, it’s natural, then ghosts exist because humans see ghosts, and humans are purely natural products. In that case everything humans do is absolutely correct as it all exists purely within and by, nature.

I think you're confusing things here.

To say that "ghosts exist because humans see ghosts" can have two meanings, and I think you're (deliberately?) blurring the two. One meaning is that the concept of ghosts exists because some humans came up with it (e.g. by "seeing" ghosts). The other meaning is that ghosts actually exist as real things in the world because (some) humans (think they) see them.

I have no argument with the fact that the concept of God or gods exists, obviously. But I have in no sense argued that God or gods actually exist as real things because (some) humans perceive him/her/it/them (for whatever reason).

In other words, what I have argued is that it is "natural" that human beings have concepts of God/gods. That's the first meaning, and uncontroversial. What I question is whether God/gods actually exist. That is a matter of the evidence. And I mean evidence of actual existence, not evidence of the existence of the concept.

Again, I thought that was clear, but apparently not.

If you start with your conclusion, of course you'll see that all evidence points towards the conclusion. You've already eliminated all other explanations of the evidence, before you start.

I call that, the answers at the back of the book. I suppose from a religious perspective that could be seen as the mercy of God. Ultimately everyone can be liberated, regardless of ther condition.

Suppose your position is "I just believe in God, and that's it. It's a gut feeling I have that just lets me know that God is real." Then I say good for you, but don't expect me to believe just because you do. You haven't provided me with any reason to believe.

If you go on to say "Look at the wonder of this universe we live in! God can be seen everywhere - in the glimmer of a star, the wings of a butterfly and the gut of the tape worm that bores into your eye!" then again there's no reason for me to agree with you. Of course you see God everywhere. You assumed that he is everywhere from the start, so everything is indeed evidence for you of God. But it isn't going to convince anybody else.

Then you say "Oh, but if only you saw the world like I do. Then God would be as obvious as the nose on your face! You're looking at the world all wrong by not starting from the assumption that he exists!" But that's begging the question. You're not going to convince me that God exists by starting from the assumption that he exists. Not on any logical grounds. You can always hope that I'll give up on rationality at some point and just believe like you did, but that's the best you can do.

This kind of circularity doesn't impress me as a reason to believe, Jan. It's probably because I'm just too hung up on the whole rationality thing. I'm too needy. I need reasons. I need some evidence before I just believe in something.

God is essential, because only through Him can we liberate ourselves from the bondage of material existence.

What if material existence is all there is? There seems to be no good reason to believe otherwise.

How do you know He isn’t your God too?

I'll start worrying about whether he's my God too once we've established that he exists at all. And yes, I know that if I just started believing then he'd be my God and I'd be convinced. But there are those pesky reasons rearing their ugly heads again!

 

[Sarkus]

It is an education on how to condition yourself to discriminate between reality and illusion. If that’s what you’re analogy amounts to then yes.

It alludes to being part of the cycle of believing to believe.

That doesn’t explain how and why you will know.

How will you know it’s God?

Why would you be correct in that knowledge?

As said before, I can't say because I don't know, other than with the answers I have given you. If they do not suffice, move on.

As far as I can read into what you’re saying, you are a strong atheist, yet you keep shouting agnostic atheist.

Where have I ever said "I believe that God does not exist"?
Oh, that's right, I never have.
Do I live as though God does not exist? Yes. I live as though the sport of Bo-taoshi doesn't exist as well.
Do I think I know God? No. Do I think god is unknowable? I'm actually agnostic on that matter as well.
But given your (lack of) understanding of what an atheist is, I don't hold much stock in what you think in this regard.

You’re an atheist because you don’t believe in God, and the primary reason must be God doesn’t exist.

No. The primary reason is because I don't know whether God exists or not. I have no evidence that god exists that I can rationally attribute to His existence. I can not believe in something for which I have no evidence. Thus I do not believe. Thus I can be labelled an atheist.
Why do you struggle so with understanding this?

Then you are saying belief in God is absurd, there’s no getting around it.

No, I am saying belief in God is not absurd (at least not in principle). Nor is the concept of God absurd. But since there are absurd things that I have as much evidence for as I do for God, why would I choose to believe in the non-absurd things and not the absurd things as well, when from an evidentiary point of view they have as much going for them.

What is your assumption that there is no evidence based on?

My current lack of evidence that I can rationally and unambiguously attribute to the concept of God. I.e. It is not an assumption but a statement of current situation.

What about ‘’I don’t have any evidence of God’s existence?

Yep, that describes my agnosticism which fuels my atheism.

Then give up using Russell’s mockery as analogies, because it assumes belief in God absurd by conflating Him with silly characters. Find an objection that actually, intelligently characterises your position.

But it already does that: I don't believe in the existence of God because the notion has as much evidence for it as [insert here anything for which there is no evidence].

There are evidences out there, you yourself commented that Anthony Flew crumbled under the evidence of God’s existence. But at present you deny all of them. Your denial does not make you right, so you cannot truly say there is no evidence of God.

To clarify: "evidence" is merely what is presented... it is the observation. What is important is how that evidence is interpreted, and whether it can rationally be attributed to one theory over another. If not then it is neutral evidence.
Flew considered his observations to be evidence of God. That does not make it evidence of God. It is merely evidence that he interpreted to be evidence that rationally led him to conclude "God".
So when I say there is no evidence, that is short for "there is no evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads me to conclude God."
If Flew saw the complexity of life as evidence for God, the evidence is that life is indeed complex. He attributed this evidence to God. I try not to appeal to complexity as an argument, and so that complexity is not evidence of God. It is, like (almost if not actually) everything presented as evidence, neutral.

So why deny every explanation that thoughtful theists give, outright, if you don’t know whether or not God exists?

Because they have presented no evidence (that I can rationally and unambiguously...)
No evidence, no belief. That's how my rationality works.

You claim that there IS no evidence of God’s existence, and write off every explanation, of theists claims of evidence.

More accurately I claim I do not have any evidence. I am somewhat agnostic about whether or not evidence/knowledge is possible. And every bit of what theists have claimed as evidence that they attribute to God, I have found lacking in that regard, in that I find their reasoning based on a fallacy, or is simply neutral with the regard the concept of God.

Therefore you believe that theists cannot have evidence of God’s existence, but they still believe. The same sentiment is expressed through the absurd explanation. How can you not believe that belief in God is absurd?

I don't think the theists I have met have any evidence for God, at least none that they are able to share or that has any meaning outside of themselves.
And I don't think belief in God is absurd because I don't think the notion is particularly absurd. It would be great if I could and did believe in God. But I don't. It would be great if I could believe in the existence of a drug that cured cancers instantly. It is not an absurd notion, I don't think. But I don't believe in it. And somebody who does believe in it, in the absence of evidence, is not absurd, nor is their belief, they are just guilty of wishful thinking in this regard.

What evidences would that be?

Evidence of his existence as a fictitious animated anthropomorphic duck.

You really gonna keep on with this?

Only while you continue to be contradictory in your posts.

People who are offended by it must equate God with silly things, otherwise there is no reason to be offended. Theist’s don’t equate God with silly things, therefore cannot be offended by it.

So it's not offending theists. And if someone already equates God with silly things, how can equating God with what you deem a silly and childish thing be offensive to them? Does it offend them to equate God with a different silly thing than they are used to?

As I said the struggle comes in discussions with atheists who just rely on that nonsense. Once or even twice maybe, but upon comprehension that it is not relevant to the discussion, they still maintain it. Systematic uses of this nonsense are attacks. That much is obvious.

Rely on it for what? This thread is about using it to prove God not existing, and no one has done that, and I am not aware that anyone has ever used it for that. Although I may be wrong.
If they use it as a be-all and end-all of (their) atheist thinking then I'd be right with you in criticising.
But let's not tar every use with such, and let's not lose sight of what it sets out to do. Criticise, by all means, when and how often it is incorrectly used, but don't use that to divert from what it is and it's correct usage.
We can all criticise how a kitchen knife can be used as a weapon, but that doesn't provide a meaningful insight into its use as a kitchen knife.

 

[Pachomius]

Thanks everyone for your posts.


Spidergoat says:

Post 130

Stating that God is the creator doesn't prove anything. We know how complex things can come about without a creator.

I like to dialog with you, Spidergoat.

You say: "We know how complex things can come about without a creator."

Would you care to elaborate how complex things can and I presume you mean also, and do come about without a creator?

Is that a tall order?

Suppose, let you and me agree that you mean complex things can effect their own existence without a cause; then we both do not have to be weighed down with the work of describing how, we just have to examine whether complex things can bring themselves about, from your part; while from my part I still say that everything with a beginning needs a cause to bring it to existence.

I will look for your post tomorrow when I visit this forum again.

So, here is the question we are going to talk about, and we both will prepare for it:

From your part, complex things can bring themselves to existence.

From my part, everything with a beginning needs a cause to bring it to existence.

Suppose you mention in your post tomorrow an example of a complex thing that brought itself to existence.

From my part, I will right now present an example of a thing with a beginning that needs a cause to bring it to existence, for example,

the nose in our face.​

See you and the rest of you guys again tomorrow.



Annex

From Pachomius:

So that readers and the owners and operators of this forum will not suspect that I am just into dilly-dallying here, I will now present again the order of my argument for the existence of God, this procedure can also be used by atheists to prove God does not exist.


Discussion phase

Step 1 -- For the sake of argument theists and atheists concur that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Step 2 -- Theists concur among themselves that the universe has a beginning.

Step 3 -- Atheists concur among themselves that the universe has always existed.


Expedition phase

Step 4 -- Theists invite atheists to join them to proceed on an expedition in the universe to search for God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, by looking for all instances of existence with a beginning and/or all instances of existence to have always existed.

Step 5 -- Atheists invite theists to join them to proceed on an expedition in the universe to search for God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, by looking for all instances of existence to have always existed and/or all instances of existence to not have a beginning at all.

Step 6 -- Will theists find all instances of existence in the universe and also the universe as a whole to have a beginning, and cannot find any instance at all in the universe to have always existed: and conclude God exists as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning?

Step 7 -- Will atheists find all instances of existence in the universe to have always existed, in particular the universe as a whole has always existed, and cannot find any instance of existence that has not always existed: and conclude that God as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning is not needed at all?


Take the nose in our face, it is a part of the universe, does it have a beginning or it has always existed?

Starting from the nose in our face all will proceed farther and on to the deepest depths of sub-atomic space and to the most distant stars at the nth distant fringes of the universe.

That is the way of expedition, while the way of discussion is the preliminary work in our minds to concur for the sake of argument on the concept of God and the ideas of universe with a beginning or universe has always existed.

With critical comments from everyone here, we will revise my proposed argument system accordingly, so that when the conclusion is reached it will be accepted by everyone be he a theist or an atheist.


Atheists, if you care to avail yourselves of a template for your argument against God existing, you are welcome to freely employ the order of argument above, you can adapt it for proving the non-existence of God.

For example, you can start with Step 1 and continue successively with 3 and 5 and 7.

For myself, I will also start with Step 1 and continue successively with 2 and 4 and 6.

Of course we must work together to come to concur on Step 1, that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

If you don’t accept my concept of God for the purpose of our exchange, then you propose your concept to God and I will see whether we can at all exchange views on the existence of God according to your concept.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Denying God implies that you believe that God exists, but that you refuse to acknowledge him. If you don't believe that God exists, then what? Is that automatically denial because you, Jan,know that God does exist? Therefore anybody who says they don't believe is in denial?

One can deny God because by convincing them self He doesn't exists.
Which is why believing in the existence of God. makes no sense.

But for you I’m not sure whether or not you believe He exists, because you take such heavy measures to deny He exists. I find that dubious. Odd, I know, but i'm telling you how it is.

Perhaps you think I've denied God because I referred to him as "this God of yours"? I used that term because there isn't general agreement on the attributes of God or gods, or even how many gods there are.

Wrong. God is known universally as the Supreme Being, the Origin of Everything. The only confusion lies in the word itself, ‘God’. Outside of that everyone including yourself comprehends that definition. God, is different from ‘’gods’’. I know you know that because I’ve explained it to you enough times, and given links.

You believe in a particular concept of God. Follows of Yaruba, to take one example at random, have quite a different concept of gods than you do. I am merely allowing for the fact that people don't, in general, agree about their gods. And I was addressing you in terms of your God, as I understand him/her/it.

Wrong. I have exactly the same concept as followers of Yaruba…


‘’According to Kola Abimbola, the Yorùbá have evolved a robust cosmology.[1]In brief, it holds that all human beings possess what is known as "Àyànmô"[4](destiny, fate) and are expected to eventually become one in spirit with Olódùmarè (Olòrún, the divine creator and source of all energy). Furthermore, the thoughts and actions of each person in Ayé (the physical realm) interact with all other living things, including the Earth itself.[’'
Wiki..

Atheists don't start with the assumption that God exists. For them, there is no evidence that is a clear demonstration of supernatural power.

Would creation of universes, worlds, and living bodies be a good demonstration of a Supreme Being from whom everything comes into being?

This is a subtle point. It really depends on what kind of God you want to have.

Quit stalling James, know what ‘’kind of God’’ I’m talking about.

So, why doesn't God show us a clear miracle and remove all doubt of his existence? Because he works in mysterious ways? Because he requires us to have faith? Just because? I don't find those answers convincing. Do you?

What if He already has by creating universes , worlds, and living bodies?

If we deny that, then what else can He do to prove He exists, that nature cannot do for itself?...

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Forget the magic for a moment. If you wanted to check whether a teapot was orbiting the Sun, you could, in principle, do it.

No. Let’s forget the teapot, nobody is interested in talking teapots orbiting the Sun, it is completely silly.

But would you invest the billions of dollars required to look for the teapot…

No. I have nothing to say about dancing teapots. Let’s talk about adult thngs.

More to the point, what would convince youbefore the search that the teapot actually exists?

Gee! I’ve never really thought about it, and am hardly likely to.

As others have already explained in this thread, these examples aredeliberately silly and childish.

I assume you are a grown man, that said you should really give up these silly ideas. You’re only kidding yourself if you think they explain anything about God, or evidence of belief in God.

The argument illustrates the illogicality of believing in things (whatever they are) for which there is no good evidence.

Who say’s there is no good evidence for God? Don’t you mean you don’t accept evidence for God?

How do you or Bertrand Russell know there is no good evidence for God?

I thought I'd already made that clear. My problem is that your God is is not only invisible to ordinary human senses, but also to all of the augmented senses available to us via technology.

So what? Does that mean He doesn’t exist? Why not try another method?

The gods of every major religion are supernatural beings who perform miracles (indeed, gods by their very nature are miraculous beings). The only possible evidence for gods is evidence of the supernatural. I don't see what's wrong with that criterion. What criterion would you suggest instead?

Holograms would have been deemed supernatural years ago, now they’re not. Just because we deem things supernatural, out of ignorance, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. When we are faced with these things we realise they aren’t supernatural, but phenomenon we don’t understand.

I don’t suggest any argument. I just know that the arguments used do not cut the cheese.

I mean, I know that tossing out the requirement for evidence is an option that many people are quite comfortable with.

They just choose to believe without evidence.

.

What evidence are you talking about, precisely?


]quote]But if you want to claim that evidence for God is there, then you ought to be able to suggest some criterion of evidence yourself.[/quote]


Already have done mate, with regards to universes, worlds, and husks.

Scientists are smart people, but there are limits to just "explaining away" stuff. Because the stuff that needs explaining at any given time must be explained in the context of everything that is already known to be true (or else we have to change our ideas about some of what is true).

Fine. Science is not the way to comprehending or understanding God.

Why insist on (smart) scientific evidence, knowing it’s never going to materialise?

The fact is, scientists do look at claims of the supernatural, and have been doing so since science was invented. And there has never been enough evidence of miracles to require a non-natural theory.

Those are mainstream scientists, they wouldn't say even if they did find anything supernatural, or God . They have bills to pay, and a lifestyle to maintain.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

James,

Religious belief, as I'm sure you're aware, is a lot more complicated than mere "tricks of the mind", and intelligent skeptics are well aware of that, I assure you.

Religious belief, and belief in God, aren’t necessarily the same thing, so if it’s alright with you let’s just stick with the latter to avoid confusion.

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between believing in the concept of magic and believing in magic. If you merely mean that one can accept the definition of the term "magic" and not believe that magic actually happens, then I agree with you, but I'm not sure why the point is relevant.

I’m saying I can accept claims without believing or not believing them, because tobelieve something isn’t as simple a process, as yo woul have us believe. There has to be some kind of evidence that allows someone to actually believe something.

Even something mundane like someone saying ‘’I really had a great time at the party last night’’, I neither believe nor not believe them. I accept that they had a great time.

I'm also not sure why you're asking how one "voluntarily" believes in something. If you're not open to believing in something, you won't believe in it.

Being open to believing in something is not believing in it, it is merely being open to it.

So believing in anything is "voluntary" in that you have to be open to accepting the new belief (for you) as a true belief.

As I said, merely being open to belief in something is not belief in something. To believe it, it has resonate with you on an experience level, then you naturally come to believe it.

What I'm saying is that if you start from the position "It's impossible that aliens could be visiting Earth" then it will take a literally mind-altering experience for you to come to believe that aliens actually are visiting Earth.

It becomes believable if 100 people testify to seeing aliens on earth, and all the testimonies follow a certain pattern of events. Even if one still does not believe, it would have a profound effect on an open mind. Enough to investigate more, not just lock it down and say these people are delusional.

What does "laws of physics" have to do with ghosts? Answer: ghosts are supernatural entities. They behave in ways that are counter to our scientific understanding of the world. Take one example: ghosts can walk through solid objects. Everyday experience tell us that ordinary solid objects do not interpenetrate one another and remain unscathed by the experience. The laws of physics explain why solid objects do not interpenetrate, in literally microscopic detail. The laws of physics are a consistent and developed body of understanding about how the natural world operates.

Are the currently known law of physics (mainstream), the be all and end all of knowledge of the physics of the universe? No they’re not. Are there more things to discover, or has physicists hung up there white coats?

So ghosts may well exist beyond the current knowledge of the laws of physics. Enough people have experienced ghosts, so that should tell you there may be something in their experience, regardless of belief or not.

What is it about believing in magic that leads one to believe in ghosts? Answer: if you believe in magic, then you believe in the supernatural. That is, you believe that things in the world don't always operate according to natural processes or laws.

Do you know everything there is to know about nature?

Or do you know anybody who knows every there is to know about nature?

Therefore, all kinds of supernatural occurrences become live possibilities for the believer in magic. Therefore, believers in magic are much more likely to believe in ghosts than non-believers (who are not at all likely to believe in ghosts if they accept that ghosts are magical things).

Believing in ghosts is one thing, but experiencing a ghost, is another. People experience ghosts, period. What say you about that? Are they all delusional?

Believers in the traditional kind of God - one that meddles in human affairs, answers prayers, causes miracles to happen in the world, etc. - are all magical thinkers. You, Jan, are a magical thinker.

I’m a natural flesh and blood human being, is wot oi yam.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

I think you're confusing things here.

To say that "ghosts exist because humans see ghosts" can have two meanings, and I think you're (deliberately?) blurring the two. One meaning is that theconcept of ghosts exists because some humans came up with it (e.g. by "seeing" ghosts). The other meaning is that ghosts actually exist as real things in the world because (some) humans (think they) see them.

We can rule out that ghosts do not exist, unless you have any evidence that which says what they encounter as ghosts, aren't, in fact ghosts.
A very difficult, time consuming, and expensive task to accomplish.

So what is the evolutionary explanation that accounts for millions of people from time immemorials experience of ghosts?

I have no argument with the fact that theconcept of God or gods exists, obviously. But I have in no sense argued that God or gods actually exist as real things because (some) humans perceive him/her/it/them (for whatever reason).

You don’t have see God to understand that God exists. If you examine a lot of theists experience with God, you will notice that they didn’t start out by first proving God exists, then proceed on to believe in Him.

It’s like you’re deliberately convincing yourself that God doesn’t exist, hence the non related arguments, wrong explanations, and doggedly sticking to physical evidence.

In other words, what I have argued is that it is "natural" that human beings have concepts of God/gods. That's the first meaning, and uncontroversial. What I question is whether God/gods actually exist. That is a matter of the evidence. And I mean evidence of actual existence, not evidence of the existence of the concept.

Again, I thought that was clear, but apparently not.

What isn’t clear is what you would regard as evidence of God’s existence, given what is conceptualized. A transcendental, Supreme Being, who brought every we perceive, and more, into existence?

If such a being exists, it stands to reason that such a being would be invisible to eyes and senses which are designed (or evolved) to work a specific range of nature. This is why the invisible dancing teapot, cha cha-ing through space, is a non related explanation.

Suppose your position is "I just believe in God, and that's it. It's a gut feeling I have that just lets me know that God is real." Then I say good for you, but don't expectme to believe just because you do. You haven't provided me with anyreason to believe

Fair enough. But it doesn’t mean God does not exist, it doesn’t mean there is no evidence for God’s existence, and as you pointed out, it doesn’t mean you have to believe in God.

I don’t care whether or not you believe in God, and it’s not my intention to persuade you. I would sooner encourage you to stay as you are, rather than try to convince you, because I know there is no way I can convince you of God’s existence. It doesn’t work like that.

If you go on to say "Look at the wonder of this universe we live in! God can be seen everywhere - in the glimmer of a star, the wings of a butterfly and the gut of the tape worm that bores into your eye!" then again there's noreason for me to agree with you.

Of course their isn’t. Having the ability to choose, and make decisions, is what it is to be human.

Of course you see God everywhere. You assumed that he is everywhere from the start, so everything is indeed evidencefor you of God. But it isn't going to convince anybody else.

I’m willing to bet if you proceed to assume that God is everywhere, that you will still be an atheist.

I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

You can always hope that I'll give up on rationality at some point and just believe like you did, but that's the best you can do.

I can think of better things to hope for James. If you’re ever going to become theist, then it’s going to be your own journey. Everyone individuals journey is unique to them.

This kind of circularity doesn't impress me as a reason to believe, Jan. It's probably because I'm just too hung up on the whole rationality thing. I'm too needy. I needreasons. I need someevidence before I just believe in something.

As long as you hide behind these logical fallacy excuses, you are convincing yourself God does not exist.

God exists, period. But the nature of God is outside of these stringent material laws and nature. But if you want to stick doggedly to these laws, put forward by certain types of scientists, and philosophers, then you’re safe, until such time you realize this (scripted) nature is not all there is.

What if material existence is all there is? There seems to be no good reason to believe otherwise.

Yes there is, but you just lock it down to ‘’there’s no evidence that convinces me). Purely subjective.

I'll start worrying about whether he's my God too once we've established that he exists at all. And yes, I know that if I just started believing then he'd be my God and I'd be convinced. But there are those peskyreasons rearing their ugly heads again!

If you just started believing, you would a reason to believe. You just haven’t given it much thought.


Jan.

 

[Yazata]

This kind of circularity doesn't impress me as a reason to believe, Jan. It's probably because I'm just too hung up on the whole rationality thing. I'm too needy. I need reasons. I need some evidence before I just believe in something.

As long as you hide behind these logical fallacy excuses, you are convincing yourself God does not exist.

God exists, period. But the nature of God is outside of these stringent material laws and nature. But if you want to stick doggedly to these laws, put forward by certain types of scientists, and philosophers, then you’re safe, until such time you realize this (scripted) nature is not all there is.

That kind of sums up the entire thread, at least since Jan took it over from Pachomius.

Of course, if we are supposed to dismiss reason as a "excuse" standing in the way of faith in God, we seem to be right back where we began, with the problem that motivated the 'invisible unicorn' and 'celestial teapot' analogies.

Once our minds and the rest of our human faculties have been thrown aside, what means would we have capable of distinguishing God from madness?

 

[Motor Daddy]

God is a spirit that resides in those that believe. Just like Santa!

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

God is a spirit that resides in those that believe. Just like Santa!

Despite all the evidence, I stubbornly refuse to believe in Santa because I don't want to be good & don't want to be on his list & I'm afraid of lumps of coal.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

That kind of sums up the entire thread, at least since Jan took it over from Pachomius.

Well, it started with a lie in the title.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Despite all the evidence, I stubbornly refuse to believe in Santa because I don't want to be good & don't want to be on his list & I'm afraid of lumps of coal.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/santa.htm

"I. There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million (according to the Population Reference Bureau). At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per house hold, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming that there is at least one good child in each.

II. Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second.

This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second -- 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional Reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour.

III. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional Reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" Reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them -- Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).

IV. 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second crates enormous air resistance -- this would heat up the Reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of Reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the Reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire Reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip. Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.

V. Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now."

 

[Sarkus]

But Santa operates outside of space and time as we know it (well, have you seen downtown Lapland!)... and in mysterious ways....
Or is that another person?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

But Santa operates outside of space and time as we know it (well, have you seen downtown Lapland!)... and in mysterious ways....
Or is that another person?

Maybe you're thinking of

 

[spidergoat]

Thanks everyone for your posts.


Spidergoat says:




I like to dialog with you, Spidergoat.

You say: "We know how complex things can come about without a creator."

Would you care to elaborate how complex things can and I presume you mean also, and do come about without a creator?

Is that a tall order?

Suppose, let you and me agree that you mean complex things can effect their own existence without a cause; then we both do not have to be weighed down with the work of describing how, we just have to examine whether complex things can bring themselves about, from your part; while from my part I still say that everything with a beginning needs a cause to bring it to existence.

I will look for your post tomorrow when I visit this forum again.

So, here is the question we are going to talk about, and we both will prepare for it:

From your part, complex things can bring themselves to existence.

From my part, everything with a beginning needs a cause to bring it to existence.

Suppose you mention in your post tomorrow an example of a complex thing that brought itself to existence.

From my part, I will right now present an example of a thing with a beginning that needs a cause to bring it to existence, for example,

the nose in our face.​

See you and the rest of you guys again tomorrow.



Annex

Thanks for your reply.

Complex things can come about through simple causes. Chaos theory shows us that simple rules can create complex behavior that isn't even theoretically predictable, in completely deterministic mathematical systems (reference: Stephan Wolfram). These are often simulated with computer programs. I would point to the example of cellular automata. Simple rules that describe only whether one cell of a grid is colored based on whether certain of it's neighbors are colored can perform complex computations after many generations of iteration. Evolution shows us how simple chemical systems featuring only some hereditary mechanism can lead to complex life forms, even some with the capacity to post on internet forums. If those examples are not clear enough, look at a snowflake, which is an ordered complex pattern made of water, and all that had to happen was that it cooled. It's the same with the universe itself. Complex chemistry could spontaneously form when the universe cooled. To equate the process of cooling with God seems quite a stretch.

Now I will postulate that nothing (apart from everything as a whole) had a beginning (and perhaps not even that). Naming is the origin of all discreet things. Your nose didn't begin, it grew out of your mother and father. Follow this train all the way back when the known universe was the size of quantum particles. The science is pretty well established that things on the quantum scale do not obey typical laws of cause and effect. Phenomenon like radioactive decay, while predictable on a statistical level, do not have any known cause. If we consider that the total energy of the universe is practically zero, it's reasonable to think that creation was instead "merely" a spontaneous quantum event, miraculous as that seems. Pairs of quantum particles emerge and cancel each other out all the time in a vacuum. Furthermore, "nothing" can be equated to a pure state, like super pure, supercooled water, which does not form ice. Once a tiny imperfection arises, like a particle of dust touches it, it solidifies instantly. Such structures in science are extremely unstable. "Nothing" is far more unstable than something. The universe before matter and energy was likely similar to this supercooled state of water.

Lastly, since complex structures only became possible after the universe cooled, the most complex structure imaginable, an omnipotent god able to conceive in it's mind of maximum complexity, would be more likely to occur at the end of a universe, not at the beginning; at the end of an evolutionary process, not at the beginning.

One more thing, any plan God may have had for the universe would not have survived the state of maximum chaos that was the early Big Bang.

 

[spidergoat]

Theists don’t struggle with the wording of that explanation, because the wording is silly and childish. Even you know that even though you won’t admit it.

It's silly and childish for a very serious reason. Do you believe in the celestial teapot or invisible unicorns? You might say, of course not, those are silly notions. So, do you realize that the evidence, the reason to believe those things, is precisely the same as that for God? So why believe in God and not those silly things? Simply being deep and not silly is not a good reason to believe something. You see?

Probably not because you explicitly reject reason, which means you aren't someone to be taken seriously.

We could exchange some words about this, but it would be more efficient for me to skip to the step where I beat my forehead to a bloody pulp against a brick wall in frustration.