God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[The Rich Port]

... Why does it matter that you prove you believe.

We'll take your word for it.

Your uninformed, willfully ignorant word for it.

We don't find the religious intolerable unless they're proselytizing down our throats.

We find you ignorant. That's it.

>calls someone ignorant
>affirms belief in no god and thus implying that this must by the right answer with no backup

What exactly do you want me to do when there's no evidence whatever God you believe in exists?

I can't assume it exists, nor can I assume there's a possibility it exists. It would be extremely unreasonable of me or you to do so.

We can only reasonably assume it doesn't exist.

That's how science works.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

... Why does it matter that you prove you believe.

We'll take your word for it.

Your uninformed, willfully ignorant word for it.

We don't find the religious intolerable unless they're proselytizing down our throats.

We find you ignorant. That's it.

>calls someone ignorant
>affirms belief in no god and thus implying that this must by the right answer with no backup

He doesn't need backup.

[The Nexus of Man]

>calls someone ignorant
>affirms belief in no god and thus implying that this must by the right answer with no backup

What exactly do you want me to do when there's no evidence whatever God you believe in exists?

I can't assume it exists, nor can I assume there's a possibility it exists. It would be extremely unreasonable of me or you to do so.

We can only reasonably assume it doesn't exist.

That's how science works.

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not?

That's flawed logic.

[The Rich Port]

What exactly do you want me to do when there's no evidence whatever God you believe in exists?

I can't assume it exists, nor can I assume there's a possibility it exists. It would be extremely unreasonable of me or you to do so.

We can only reasonably assume it doesn't exist.

That's how science works.

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

... It's unreasonable for me to assume God doesn't exist... When there's no evidence it exists.

Explain to me how that's flawed logic, O Wise One.

[Genivaria]

What exactly do you want me to do when there's no evidence whatever God you believe in exists?

I can't assume it exists, nor can I assume there's a possibility it exists. It would be extremely unreasonable of me or you to do so.

We can only reasonably assume it doesn't exist.

That's how science works.

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

No it's just logic.
We don't believe anything silly thing someone claims.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

[The Rich Port]

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Of course.

Just because we haven't found unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Arbolvine]

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Or that I am not the son of Napoleon?

[Godular]

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

NINJA Unicorns

[The Nexus of Man]

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

... It's unreasonable for me to assume God doesn't exist... When there's no evidence it exists.

Explain to me how that's flawed logic, O Wise One.

You might want to correct what you said.

And thanks for the compliment!

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Quite so, since they can be created by surgery to attach narwhal horns. As opposed to it existed from the beginning? Who is to say that a horse species with some type of horn did not exist? After all, their closest relative is the rhino.

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not/

That's flawed logic.

No it's just logic.
We don't believe anything silly thing someone claims.

Reasoning conducted along with validity is not singularly bound to "not believing anything that seems silly". Can you explain how the cosmological apparatus of the universe assimilated, including the creations of the four types of forces found throughout the universe? There isn't a concrete explanation for most of them; seems silly to believe that those ill-explained forces are just "apparent".

[Genivaria]

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Of course.

Just because we haven't found unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist.

You here that Celestia!? I'm not crazy!
Celestial: That's right Geni, now, *eyes glow red* KILL THEM ALL.
As you command Princess.

[Genivaria]

... It's unreasonable for me to assume God doesn't exist... When there's no evidence it exists.

Explain to me how that's flawed logic, O Wise One.

You might want to correct what you said.

And thanks for the compliment!

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Quite so, since they can be created by surgery to attach narwhal horns. As opposed to it existed from the beginning? Who is to say that a horse species with some type of horn did not exist? After all, their closest relative is the rhino.

No it's just logic.
We don't believe anything silly thing someone claims.

Reasoning conducted along with validity is not singularly bound to "not believing anything that seems silly". Can you explain how the cosmological apparatus of the universe assimilated, including the creations of the four types of forces found throughout the universe? There isn't a concrete explanation for most of them; seems silly to believe that those ill-explained forces are just "apparent".

Yeah the Argument from Ignorance is not convincing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

NINJA Unicorns

THIS GUY GETS IT.

[The Nexus of Man]

You might want to correct what you said.

And thanks for the compliment!



Quite so, since they can be created by surgery to attach narwhal horns. As opposed to it existed from the beginning? Who is to say that a horse species with some type of horn did not exist? After all, their closest relative is the rhino.



Reasoning conducted along with validity is not singularly bound to "not believing anything that seems silly". Can you explain how the cosmological apparatus of the universe assimilated, including the creations of the four types of forces found throughout the universe? There isn't a concrete explanation for most of them; seems silly to believe that those ill-explained forces are just "apparent".

Yeah the Argument from Ignorance is not convincing.

Isolating the main post that you are addressing would be quaint.

[Godular]

... It's unreasonable for me to assume God doesn't exist... When there's no evidence it exists.

Explain to me how that's flawed logic, O Wise One.

You might want to correct what you said.

And thanks for the compliment!

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Quite so, since they can be created by surgery to attach narwhal horns. As opposed to it existed from the beginning? Who is to say that a horse species with some type of horn did not exist? After all, their closest relative is the rhino.

No it's just logic.
We don't believe anything silly thing someone claims.

Reasoning conducted along with validity is not singularly bound to "not believing anything that seems silly". Can you explain how the cosmological apparatus of the universe assimilated, including the creations of the four types of forces found throughout the universe? There isn't a concrete explanation for most of them; seems silly to believe that those ill-explained forces are just "apparent".

The point you have failed to grasp here is that the burden of proof is on you to prove that God does exist. Elsewise we have no reason to assume God is nothing more than your imaginary friend. You cannot sit there and say 'we don't know, ergo god.' That's like... the bulk of Creationism.

[Genivaria]

Yeah the Argument from Ignorance is not convincing.

Isolating the main post that you are addressing would be quaint.

1. I'm on a phone, so no.
2. That's not how you use the word 'quaint'.

[Chartist Socialist Republics]

No. God doesn't exist.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Quite so, since they can be created by surgery to attach narwhal horns.

Do you have evidence that such a surgery has taken place? My statement was made in the present tense.

As opposed to it existed from the beginning? Who is to say that a horse species with some type of horn did not exist? After all, their closest relative is the rhino.

So you might entertain the idea in light of some evidence provided by the fossil record and genetics? Interesting.

Though I would point out again that my statement was in the present tense.

Reasoning conducted along with validity is not singularly bound to "not believing anything that seems silly". Can you explain how the cosmological apparatus of the universe assimilated, including the creations of the four types of forces found throughout the universe? There isn't a concrete explanation for most of them; seems silly to believe that those ill-explained forces are just "apparent".

That the interactions that the theory of the four forces describe actually take place would be very difficult to dispute.

It's not a matter of being able to explain it fully that gives it credence, it's being able to make predictions with a high degree of accuracy that shows a theory to be valid.

[The States of Balloon]

No. God doesn't exist.

You win.

[The Rich Port]

... It's unreasonable for me to assume God doesn't exist... When there's no evidence it exists.

Explain to me how that's flawed logic, O Wise One.

You might want to correct what you said.

And thanks for the compliment!

Is it unreasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist?

Quite so, since they can be created by surgery to attach narwhal horns. As opposed to it existed from the beginning? Who is to say that a horse species with some type of horn did not exist? After all, their closest relative is the rhino.

No it's just logic.
We don't believe anything silly thing someone claims.

Reasoning conducted along with validity is not singularly bound to "not believing anything that seems silly". Can you explain how the cosmological apparatus of the universe assimilated, including the creations of the four types of forces found throughout the universe? There isn't a concrete explanation for most of them; seems silly to believe that those ill-explained forces are just "apparent".

I won't correct shit until you address how I'm incorrect.

... That isn't the original claim of what a unicorn is. Rhinos don't have magical powers. They're also incredibly different to the current, modern interpretation of what a unicorn is.

Ironically... A theory is that the belief in unicorns was derived from ignorant Europeans who attributed the name to narwhals without evidence and study of what they actually were. Unlike Rhinos, narwhals are in fact not related to horses, except for them being mammals.

An extra irony is you miss the point that unicorns are artificial creations, both in your example and in history. Kinda like God.

As for that, no. Science isn't about assuming dumb bullshit in a single logical leap. It's about gathering sufficient evidence to determine the truth. The universe doesn't have an apparent purpose just because you deem it so.

EDIT: Also, I can't believe I fucking called his shitty argument.

Someone loan me $500, I'm going to Las Pegasus.

[Vilatania]

... Why does it matter that you prove you believe.

We'll take your word for it.

Your uninformed, willfully ignorant word for it.

We don't find the religious intolerable unless they're proselytizing down our throats.

We find you ignorant. That's it.

>calls someone ignorant
>affirms belief in no god and thus implying that this must by the right answer with no backup

Nope. Because it is ignorance. You believe in something with a lack of knowledge or information that serves as justification for believing in it.

[Salandriagado]

You should. Because it's not a theory, it's a nonsensical hypothesis.

Why should it? There is a thing that caused everything, that's pure logic.

Prove it. And I do actually mean prove it. If it's pure logic, you should be able to prove it.

Your failing to realize that if the universe has to have a cause then it is logical to assume that the cause has to have a cause and so on. Infinite causality. Something that religion dismisses on the grounds that their "God/Creator" is excluded from this logic which is illogical in itself because there is no reason to believe that they should be. It's just an assumption made to cop out of the issue.

do you read scientific hypothesis's? these scientists come up with some crazy ideas.

i was just watching a doco on our solar system and those scientists reckon the universe doesnt obey the rules sometimes.

Because obviously, your uneducated understanding of a dumbed down TV documentary is exactly the actual stuff that they're actually studying.

The thing is that this is for our material universe, however, something that transcends this does not have to abide these rules.

You hear they actually found what appears to be a horizon/border of the universe?

Source that shit. So far as I am aware, the universe does not have a boundary. (NB: This is not the same as being infinite. There are many perfectly sensible compact manifolds without boundary)>

Until we have support that even something transcendent exists, let alone it having the ability to defy our laws or create the universe and being described as any religion describes it as, we can dismiss it.

Dreams are a good example. It is not material, however, in a sense, it does exist.

Dreams absolutely are physical. They're the product of various electrical and chemical activity within your brain.

Dreams exist as electro-chemical signals in our brain during rest.

Yes, that is the cause in our material world.

However, the persons, figures, places in our dreams are something entirely different.

That's gibberish.

No it isn't.

You're applying a cause-and-effect model (which is, in itself, perfectly reasonable and logical) to the events prior to the creation of the paradigm in which we have observed cause-and-effect to be a mechanism.

It's like climbing into a barrel, and then claiming that the universe must be round - you're ignoring what went before.

(And that's before we even get started on the problems caused by the idea of what existed 'before' everything existed).

No, it is not. As everything MUST have a cause and effect in this material universe

Justify this assertion. Remember, you said pure logic, so evidence doesn't cut it.

there must be something that has caused it.

Valid step.

Furthermore it's the same with the big bang, something must have caused it.

Invalid induction.

Dreams do not exist outside the universe. Dreams are successions of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep. This isn't evidence that something can exist outside the universe.

Ideas and emotions are not from this material universe, you are giving things that are not manifested in this material universe self.

Dreams are absolutely physical.

Sorry, but you're 100% wrong.

I absolutely agree that cause is followed by effect in the paradigm in which we both currently exist - but that's EXACTLY the point - wherever our universe came from - THIS paradigm DIDN'T exist BEFORE it.



Again, no - what we understand by 'cause' and 'effect' are meaningless before the paradigm that governs cause-and-effect was in place.

The thing is that, according to the big bang, the theory DID exist because before the big bang there only was the material energy in which everything would come later out of. Therefore cause and effect MUST have been existed otherwise the laws our own universe exist in could not manifest.

No. Nothing existed before the big bang. "Before the big bang" isn't even coherent: time appears to be an internal feature of the universe. The net energy of the universe is, as accurately as we can measure it (which is pretty accurately) zero.

A bit off the rails with the current discussion...but I'm beginning to understand why so many Christians are confused about how Atheists think. I mean there are so many websites all over the internet especially their own websites that inaccurately define Atheism and Agnosticism, often getting the definitions turned around or wrong all together. Many of these sites fail to accurately describe the two by misconstruing the facts.

So for the record. Atheism is the LACK of belief or faith that a god does exist or that a god doesn't exist. Remember that faith is defined as believing in something without evidence. So relying on science is not a matter of faith because there is evidence to support what science determines about the universe. Without that evidence there would be no science to begin with. So in a nut shell an Atheist is someone who will not believe something unless there is sufficient evidence to justify the belief. Showing that something is possible is irrelevant to an Atheist.

Agnostic's are people who believe that it is not possible to determine if God exists or not. Since many Atheists agree that its not possible to know, there is a such thing as an Agnostic Atheist which is what I basically classify as. I however differ in that I believe that is still possible to determine that the God's described by religions can be proven to not exist. When you see me saying that God doesn't exist I'm referring to the God's our religions follow, not the overall idea.

Agreement
A convinced atheist should believe the definition you proposed for atheism to that point. The problem is that for some atheists lack of belief is insufficient. They must affirm a belief in the lack thereof and prove their certitude by objecting to anyone else holding a diametrically opposing view.

Christian faith is not faith without evidence.
When a theist says he believes in God, he is not necessarily saying he is trusting without evidence (although I have met some very anti-intellectual types whose incoherence regarding the issue strains credulity—but that can be said for any demographic including Atheists). Christian faith is certitude in the reliability or trustworthiness of a thing, and evidence is the best method of affirming that faith. Believing without evidence is at best hope and at worst madness, but it is not Biblical faith.

existential look at a metaphysical thing objectively
I sit in a (sturdy looking) chair that I have never used before because it is the nature of a chair to hold my weight. I believe it will hold my weight and act accordingly. One acts because of belief in the certitude of the thing. Someone who does not is not necessarily going to sit is said chair, especially if he sees no chair there to sit. Someone who sits in a chair that is not there (thus falling) delusionally believed in a false chair, and someone who tells a person not to sit in a chair that is there because it doesn't exist is equally mad.

Example
I do not believe in an all pervasive earth-mother Gaia spirit that attunes one to the love of nature, and that is where it ends. I have no driving need to affirm my lack of belief in an earth-mother by vociferously denouncing and ridiculing nature worshipers (those who do believe such). If someone wishes to discuss why it is considered idolatrous from Scripture I am happy to explain—whether they believe me or not is not by my mental prowess, but by the grace of God. I do have a desire to share the good news that there is a God who ransomed us from eternal (outside of time) death. Those who believe will believe. Those who won't, won't. It is that simple.

Rational Validity
There is a logical necessity for an uncaused causeless first cause. God is that uncaused causeless first cause. … God is a necessary being. While this is valid, an atheist will argue its veracity and a theist will hold it to be true.

What a theologically sound Christian means by God
Religion deals with man's concept of God, and is going to be just as flawed and limited as he is. Man's concept of God, is not necessarily God, but God is bigger than man's inability. When (theologically sound) Christians say God exists, we are not talking about a flawed concept of what one thinks God is—everyone has that—we are talking about the actual God who has been revealed in Scripture and is greater than what we can conceive—the greatest conceivable being is the best a limited mind can apprehend for that limitless Being.

I do believe the evidence presented that 2000 years ago the man Jesus of Nazereth was everything He said, and proved His divinity by raising from the dead. His testimony to the veracity of Scripture, and the nature of life, the universe, and everything pertaining to life and godliness is sufficiently compelling. The theological and philosophical depiction coheres to an objective reality that as Ravi Zacharias has stated, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

You have no evidence of any of this, yet you believe it. You contradict yourself. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the Christian god, specifically, does not exist.

By its very nature, it has no evidence to either claim. We can go on about the nuances indefinitely (which I won't), but it boils down to,"Theists need evidence, I don't; theists hhave no evidence, so I can dismiss their claim."

The people I was talking about apparently believed that God was entirely impossible. This is not what you are arguing.

Almost every specific deity is. The Christian one most certainly is (having internal logical contradictions is pretty close to being exactly the definition of the word "impossible").

What exactly do you want me to do when there's no evidence whatever God you believe in exists?

I can't assume it exists, nor can I assume there's a possibility it exists. It would be extremely unreasonable of me or you to do so.

We can only reasonably assume it doesn't exist.

That's how science works.

So, it unreasonable to assume that God does exist, but not that God does not?

That's flawed logic.

No, it isn't. It's the null hypothesis.

[Shaggai]

Then why the hell are you talking about evidence?

Because evidence is what really matters, while idle reasoning can only go so far. Lack of evidence is what damns every theological argument to dismissal.

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition. In 1500, people were justified in rejecting heliocentrism. In 1750, people were justified in believing that atoms did not exist. In 1900, people were justified in not believing that velocity distorts time.

(Of course, the majority of hypotheses which are against the balance of evidence are just wrong. There are countless hypotheses that were against the balance of evidence in 1500, and in 1750, and in 1900, and are still against the balance of evidence. But that doesn't equal disproof, since they could be reevaluated if new evidence showed up.)

[Vilatania]

Actually the lack of evidence indicates that there is no justification for belief. That's the general consensus around here, please do not try and twist things around.

[The Rich Port]

Because evidence is what really matters, while idle reasoning can only go so far. Lack of evidence is what damns every theological argument to dismissal.

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition. In 1500, people were justified in rejecting heliocentrism. In 1750, people were justified in believing that atoms did not exist. In 1900, people were justified in not believing that velocity distorts time.

(Of course, the majority of hypotheses which are against the balance of evidence are just wrong. There are countless hypotheses that were against the balance of evidence in 1500, and in 1750, and in 1900, and are still against the balance of evidence. But that doesn't equal disproof, since they could be reevaluated if new evidence showed up.)

And guess what. A lot of these were not rejected because of a lack of evidence. Heliocentrism is the big one.

The evidence for these eventually arose through scientific inquiry, not through wishful thinking or prayer.

And nowadays we have people who still don't believe in atoms, heliocentrism, and relativity.