Why I'm not an Atheist

[Budget Player Cadet_]

a thought experiment...

suppose i dial a random 10-digit number on my phone, and before pressing send i say "the person who answers the call will be female". is that a logical belief?

You can get a rough estimation of the probability that this is true. You cannot get a rough estimation of the probability of the existence of god. In addition, the comparison is broken – the probability of getting an object of a certain quality out of a pool of objects with known qualities is not the same as the question of the existence of an object.

suppose i am about to flip a coin, and before i flip i tell you "this flip will come up tails". is that a logical belief?

You can get a rough estimation of the probability that this is true. You cannot get a rough estimation of the probability of the existence of god. In addition, the comparison is broken – the probability of getting an object of a certain quality out of a pool of objects with known qualities is not the same as the question of the existence of an object.

when someone tells me "god exists" or "god doesn't exist", they are doing the same thing as the phone caller and the coin flipper. they are making an assertion without evidence.

Great. Now just tell me one thing, John!:

WHO THE **** IS ASSERTING THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST?!

Don't answer that, because I know what you're going to say, and you are wrong.

now, gwjumpman says that any claim should be considered false before any evidence is given. suppose one person says "the coin will come up heads" and another person says "the coin will come up tails". what would gwjumpman say about those claims? they can't both be false, and neither person has evidence for their claim.

Yes, but here's the thing: we know the coin exists. We know it will either come up heads or tails. We can estimate the probability of it coming up heads. We cannot do any of that with an existence question. We have no tools to evaluate it. However, this really is pretty basic ****. Just because you reject my claim to the invisible pink unicorn doesn't mean that you are making the claim that there is no pink unicorn. It means that you do not believe my claim. YOU HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF IN THAT CASE.

 

[john!]

Suppose I am thinking about the existence of god, and before I come to my conclusion I do research and discover that there is no scientific evidence of god and I said, "I believe there is a god despite there being no scientific evidence for it yet." That is illogical, because there is no evidence to support it and he have no prior evidence for anything supernatural happening.

you missed the point of my examples. in the examples, there is no prior evidence to support any claim that you might make. yet it's not more logical to believe one outcome instead of the other.

John by your own logic you have a BoP too. You said the atheist has a BoP because they deem current arguments/evidence for God unsatisfactory. However, you also deem that to be the case, because if you did find it satisfactory you'd be a theist.

As an agnostic you're basically saying 'I don't know if this evidence is enough to make belief in God rational' which is just as much a position on the issue as saying 'I don't believe this evidence is sufficient'.

You're still commenting on the evidence, so by your own logic you would have a BoP too.

you're right that agnosticism has a burden of proof, but agnosticism/gnosticism is on a different level of cognition than theism/atheism, because it concern itself with what we CAN know or believe, not what we DO know or believe.

You can get a rough estimation of the probability that this is true. You cannot get a rough estimation of the probability of the existence of god. In addition, the comparison is broken – the probability of getting an object of a certain quality out of a pool of objects with known qualities is not the same as the question of the existence of an object.

sure you can. i think richard dawkins once gave his own estimate for the probability for god's existence as .1% or some very small number. it is a scientific question... why can't we estimate the probability of its truth value?

Yes, but here's the thing: we know the coin exists. We know it will either come up heads or tails. We can estimate the probability of it coming up heads. We cannot do any of that with an existence question. We have no tools to evaluate it. However, this really is pretty basic ****. Just because you reject my claim to the invisible pink unicorn doesn't mean that you are making the claim that there is no pink unicorn. It means that you do not believe my claim. YOU HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF IN THAT CASE.

we know that god either does or does not exist. we can estimate the probability that god exists. we do have tools to evaluate the existence of god, because (as i've always maintained) it is a scientific question.

also, i do have a burden of proof if i reject the invisible pink unicorn because i'm making a claim about whether it exists or not. to fulfill this burden, i will point out that nothing can be both invisible and pink at the same time, nor have we ever seen a naturally pink horse (ignore my avatar for the time being), nor have we ever seen a unicorn. there is my evidence against the IPU...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...**** this ****.

John, you're wrong in more ways than I care to count, and it doesn't matter how often I explain it to you, it apparently isn't sticking.

 

[john!]

it's very hard to change the way someone thinks when they don't understand how knowledge and proof work. you aren't the first person to fail to understand, and you probably won't be the last.

 

[Dre89]

It's not a scientific question.

Science can't conclusively prove the non-existence of something. It also won't prove the existence of being said to be outside of space and time, and science functions within space and time, unless God commits a scientifically provable miracle. It's also not within the scope of science to hold certain metaphysical positions. For example whether it's possible for brute contingencies to exist or not is not a question of science yet is very important to the question of God.

And don't listen to Dawkins when he talks about God. He has no education on the subject and has little understanding of sophisticated theism. His opinion is no more valid than that of a plumber. Just listen to him when he talks about evolution.

 

[GwJ]

I use science because it is the most reliable way of discovering truth about the universe.

you missed the point of my examples. in the examples, there is no prior evidence to support any claim that you might make. yet it's not more logical to believe one outcome instead of the other.

You're still making the assumption the chance of god existing and it not existing is a 50/50 chance.

 

[FoxoF]

I LOVE how you're making it sound like the existence of god is a 50/50 issue.

Either god exists or he doesn't, right? Either you're right or I'm right, so we have an equal chance of being correct, right?

Let me revise your first example.

Suppose I dial a random 10-digit number on my phone, and before pressing "send" I say, "The person who answers the call will be from Allentown, Pennsylvania. Zip code is 18106."
This is not a logical belief because the chance of it being true is slim because since it is random, there is no reason to believe the area code will be the area code of said area.


Suppose I am about to roll a 2,000-sided die, and before I roll it I tell you, "This die will come up as 1,362." This is not a logical belief, because there is literally a 1:2000 chance of you being correct.


Suppose I am thinking about the existence of god, and before I come to my conclusion I do research and discover that there is no scientific evidence of god and I said, "I believe there is a god despite there being no scientific evidence for it yet." That is illogical, because there is no evidence to support it and he have no prior evidence for anything supernatural happening.

Can you define to me what "scientific evidence of God" would be to you?

Or give me an example?

[Anyone atheist/theist can answer this]

 

[MuraRengan]

It's not a scientific question.

Science can't conclusively prove the non-existence of something. It also won't prove the existence of being said to be outside of space and time, and science functions within space and time, unless God commits a scientifically provable miracle. It's also not within the scope of science to hold certain metaphysical positions. For example whether it's possible for brute contingencies to exist or not is not a question of science yet is very important to the question of God.

I agree with this, but I think the difference in belief in this problem is a simple misunderstanding of the usage of the word "science".

John, have you explained already why you believe the God question is scientific? If so I'd like to read it, because I think that we believe the similar things, but we're using "science" in unclear ways that make our beliefs seem contradictory. But if you believe what I think you believe, then I can clarify the God-in-science confusion.

 

[GwJ]

Can you define to me what "scientific evidence of God" would be to you?

Or give me an example?

[Anyone atheist/theist can answer this]

Possibly a true miracle would work. By true miracle, I mean an event that cannot possibly happen in the natural world following the laws of nature/physics.

Perhaps a physical manifestation?

How about he just talks to us like he talked to people in the bible? Why not just make it so the whole world heard him and said, "Listen pal, I'm god. Stop pretending I'm not there."

Hell, GOD HIMSELF would know how to perfectly prove himself to all of mankind. He can do anything, can he not?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

John, one more try.

If I go to a judge at the start of a trial and ask him "Is person X guilty", if he refuses to say "yes", does that mean that person is innocent?

 

[FoxoF]

(@GwJ)

Assume, for a second, that mankind have free-will (unlike some other "things").

If God provided us with irrefutable scientific proof of his existence, as you are looking for, would this not invalidate the concept of free-will?

 

[GwJ]

(@GwJ)

Assume, for a second, that mankind have free-will (unlike some other "things").

If God provided us with irrefutable scientific proof of his existence, as you are looking for, would this not invalidate the concept of free-will?

Satan, a perfect being, knew Yahweh personally and still denied him. Your argument is invalid.

Also, think about this. If you go in for surgery, is the doctor violating your free-will by letting you know he's there doing the surgery?

 

[FoxoF]

Satan wasn't a perfect being (unless I'm misinterpreting your meaning of the word)...

And regardless of whether or not he was, Satan never disbelieved in god...he disobeyed him. He never denied him though (or at least, that's what my religion teaches), as you mentioned. So that example doesn't really work.

If you are provided with irrefutable proof, then you do not have the choice of accepting or denying his existence. You do however have the choice of obeying or disobeying.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Wait... is it an argument from Christians (or whatever denomination) that revealing God to be undeniably true to the universe is wrong because then we'd have no choice but to believe in him, thus meaning the free will is there in order to believe and disbelieve as we wish?

 

[GwJ]

First of all, Satan was an angel, perfect being created by Yahweh.

Second of all, my example worked against the notion of the concept that Yahweh revealing himself violates free-will. It is not violating free-will to tell people that something exists.

If you provided with irrefutable proof, you have to believe it if you are intellectually honest. That's not violating free-will, that's life.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

(@GwJ)

Assume, for a second, that mankind have free-will (unlike some other "things").

If God provided us with irrefutable scientific proof of his existence, as you are looking for, would this not invalidate the concept of free-will?

Both Noah and Lucifer directly witnessed to God and went on to refuse his commands.

 

[GwJ]

I completely forgot about Noah.

 

[FoxoF]

I'm not a christian...any religion that teaches that the devil was an angel is flawed, because how can he then disobey (unless angels can disobey, which I dont believe).

My religion teaches that he was something else, similar to us in that he has free-will too (unlike angels who do not have free-will).

None of the prophets could deny the existence (but they could disobey). But they aren't typical beings.

My point is that I think we will never be able to know for sure, even in the future, because that goes against the idea of choice, because we didn't make a choice.

 

[GwJ]

That's the thing. Similar religions can't agree on jack ****.

Satan WAS an angel. He disobeyed god. The reason is disputable. I think the one I was personally taught in sunday school was that he was jealous of Yahweh that he couldn't have the power he had and broke off taking 1/3 of the angels with him.

The point is he WAS able to disobey god.

How do you know the prophets could not deny Yahweh's existence? Just because they did believe in him doesn't mean they could not disbelieve in him.

My point is that I think we will never be able to know for sure, even in the future, because that goes against the idea of choice, because we didn't make a choice.

*sigh*
No. This argument is a total cop-out. Knowledge itself does not disobey free-will if you believe in Yahweh. Even if you think it did, it wouldn't matter. If you're a Christian/Jew, you already know that your god knows absolutely anything and everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. He has the power to change and do anything he wants. Your free-will was forfeit the moment you existed. Hell, your free-will was gone BEFORE you even existed if you believe in Yahweh.

 

[FoxoF]

Why do you keep calling God Yahweh btw?

How can an angel (in your words, perfect being) be jealous? How does that work?
An angel cannot disobey, that's what they are, that's how they were created.
Mankind can disobey, and so can other things (like the thing that Satan was originally)

The prophets couldn't deny the existence of God because they were given the "miracle", the "scientific proof" that you are looking for. All they could do was obey or disobey, but they had no choice to believe. Unlike you and me.

I'm not Christian or Jewish.

Expand on why mankind cannot currently have free-will, if God knows everything.

 

[MuraRengan]

FoxoF, nothing about knowing that God exists violates free will in any way. I don't know how better to say it, but you're wrong. Just wrong. If God came down and told people that he exists, that would not stop people from having the ability to say that he doesn't. It might be illogical to have such a belief in the midst of empirical miraculous evidence, but the person's will is not altered in a manner that forces them to believe.

Also, @ GwJumpman, you might want to look up some of the Catholic miracles before you go around saying that there's no evidence of the supernatural. I personally can't come to a good conclusion about them, because most of them are pure written testimony and are as reliable as general recorded history (take that as you want). We are at the disadvantage of not having witnessed these miracles, but the fact of the matter is that multiple people in history claim to have witnessed them AND recorded detailed testimonies and descriptions of miraculous events. Part of the canonization of any Saint is the scrupulous analysis of their life, and the verification of the validity of miracles ascribed to them, so you can't just claim that they're all lies. There's research and science behind these things, and many miracles have been deemed as fraud by the church while others aren't.

Saying that there's no evidence of the supernatural is a pretty big assumption, because there's a LOT that you have to prove false.

 

[FoxoF]

Dude, hence why I was trying to establish what "scientific proof" is.

True proof would give you no choice but to believe. But you can still disobey nevertheless, but you can't disbelieve.

If you do have a choice in believing, then the proof isn't true proof.

With true proof, you would have no choice or control over the belief...you can't deny something you KNOW, even if you actively want to.

Maybe the only true proof would be like an implantation of personal thoughts in your mind or something...other than that, you can always claim its not proof. Some guy talking from the cloud can be denied to be so many thousands of things...or a voice talking to all the world at once could be thrown off as some crazy sound **** sent from satellites or something...I don't know, I'm just giving crude examples of what I mean.

 

[john!]

John, one more try.

If I go to a judge at the start of a trial and ask him "Is person X guilty", if he refuses to say "yes", does that mean that person is innocent?

no.

our legal system is specifically designed, though, to guarantee people innocence if they aren't proven guilty. so, in the eyes of the law, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty, and if no evidence is given either way then the judge will be forced to set them free.

that's different from justified beliefs, though. it's completely justified to believe that o.j. simpson is a murderer even though he is not a murderer according to the law.

You're still making the assumption the chance of god existing and it not existing is a 50/50 chance.

it's a 50/50 chance until one side gets evidence that helps support their viewpoint. what evidence do you have to sway your opinion towards atheism?

I agree with this, but I think the difference in belief in this problem is a simple misunderstanding of the usage of the word "science".

John, have you explained already why you believe the God question is scientific? If so I'd like to read it, because I think that we believe the similar things, but we're using "science" in unclear ways that make our beliefs seem contradictory. But if you believe what I think you believe, then I can clarify the God-in-science confusion.

well (of course) i believe that a statement like "the god question is scientific" starts off with a 50/50 probability (as i said above). but my evidence to support that statement is that many things previously attributable to supernatural causes (lightning, the sun, etc.) have been later shown to be natural and scientific. so i think it is reasonable to believe that questions which we may not currently have the tools to study scientifically (like what lies beyond our universe) are still scientific questions despite the fact that they are currently outside the scope of human science.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

no.

our legal system is specifically designed, though, to guarantee people innocence if they aren't proven guilty. so, in the eyes of the law, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty, and if no evidence is given either way then the judge will be forced to set them free.

that's different from justified beliefs, though. it's completely justified to believe that o.j. simpson is a murderer even though he is not a murderer according to the law.

Way to completely miss the point.

"Is person X guilty of crime Y" is a binary statement. It can either be true or false. It is also an objective, scientific statement: we can determine whether or not this is the case based on the evidence available. However, when you ask the judge if he believes that the client is guilty and he answers with "no", this does not mean the court gets to go home. It can either mean that he thinks that the judge believes that the client is not guilty, or he doesn't believe the client is guilty. There is a difference.

it's a 50/50 chance until one side gets evidence that helps support their viewpoint. what evidence do you have to sway your opinion towards atheism?

This is just mind-numbingly dumb.

 

[john!]

Way to completely miss the point.

"Is person X guilty of crime Y" is a binary statement. It can either be true or false. It is also an objective, scientific statement: we can determine whether or not this is the case based on the evidence available. However, when you ask the judge if he believes that the client is guilty and he answers with "no", this does not mean the court gets to go home. It can either mean that he thinks that the judge believes that the client is not guilty, or he doesn't believe the client is guilty. There is a difference.

no judge would say "he is not guilty" at the start of the trial.

"not guilty" is a verdict that is reached after examining the evidence.

This is just mind-numbingly dumb.

i'm sorry that i contradict what you have been taught by the modern atheist movement.

 

[MuraRengan]

well (of course) i believe that a statement like "the god question is scientific" starts off with a 50/50 probability (as i said above). but my evidence to support that statement is that many things previously attributable to supernatural causes (lightning, the sun, etc.) have been later shown to be natural and scientific. so i think it is reasonable to believe that questions which we may not currently have the tools to study scientifically (like what lies beyond our universe) are still scientific questions despite the fact that they are currently outside the scope of human science.

Are you assuming that everything that matters to the god question is inherently comprehensible to humans, and therefore comprehensible to science? If so, how do you support that claim. The fact that things that were considered supernatural but were later found not to be so doesn't mean that all things that could be considered supernatural aren't.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

no judge would say "he is not guilty" at the start of the trial.

Yeah. Except that that's not what I'm talking about. The question is, how would he answer to the binary, scientific, yes or no question "do you believe he is guilty". Stop misinterpreting my ****ing analogy. Clearly, any judge worth their salt would not say "yes" to that claim. They would say "no". But by no, they clearly would not mean "I believe the person is not guilty".

There's more than one way to reject a claim, even a binary one. You can say "Claim X is false", or you can say "I reject claim X". The former has a burden of proof, the latter does not. Again, none of this is actually difficult to understand.

i'm sorry that i contradict what you have been taught by the modern atheist movement.

Prove it. There is no reputable system that works like that in the world, that posits an equal probability of a claim with no evidence being true and false. And in fact, if we apply this to god concepts, it becomes insane very quickly.

In fact, **** it, I'm just going to prove you wrong with basic probability. Let's just go by your assumption, eh? God has a 50/50 chance of existing. Now what about Allah? Remember, Allah is also lacking any and all evidence and in fact cannot be disproven, and therefore, according to your proposition, must also have a 50/50 chance of existence. However, if God exists, Allah cannot exist. In other words, P("God" n "Allah") = 0. However, since both God and Allah must have a 50% chance of existence, but neither overlap, this leads to a simple problem: P("God") and P("Allah") are both 50%, and P("God") + P("Allah") is already 100%, and you can't get more than that! However, there's more than just "God can exist" and "Allah can exist". There's also "Neither exists". Which, according to your proposition, must have a 50% chance. So we're already up to 150%, which is impossible.

But let's just say that we revise your math, and make it so that mutually exclusive concepts all have an equal chance of occurring. So with God, Allah, and Atheism, each has 33%. The problem is, of course, that there is literally an infinite number of potentially existing, mutually exclusive gods. Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Bob, FSM, Princess Celestia Omnipony, johnisagigantic******... I could create unprovable god concepts all day long which are just as unprovable, unevidenced, and (according to you) equally likely to exist. There is literally no end to them; they are infinite. So the chances of your god existing are, quite literally, 0%. Same as, you know, everyone else's stance on the "god question" being right.

Huh.

You know, somehow, I get the feeling that this is not a productive way of dealing with existence questions. Science seems to agree – when the existence of a being, or the veracity of theory is put to the test, the side claiming something with no solid evidence is not treated with equal respect to the side declining it with a similar lack of evidence. The side making a claim with no evidence is the one who has to put up, not those declining it. LOGIC 101, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME NOW?

 

[john!]

Yeah. Except that that's not what I'm talking about. The question is, how would he answer to the binary, scientific, yes or no question "do you believe he is guilty". Stop misinterpreting my ****ing analogy. Clearly, any judge worth their salt would not say "yes" to that claim. They would say "no". But by no, they clearly would not mean "I believe the person is not guilty".

There's more than one way to reject a claim, even a binary one. You can say "Claim X is false", or you can say "I reject claim X". The former has a burden of proof, the latter does not. Again, none of this is actually difficult to understand.

no judge worth their salt would say "no". "not guilty" is a formal verdict reached after examination of the evidence.

Prove it. There is no reputable system that works like that in the world, that posits an equal probability of a claim with no evidence being true and false. And in fact, if we apply this to god concepts, it becomes insane very quickly.

In fact, **** it, I'm just going to prove you wrong with basic probability. Let's just go by your assumption, eh? God has a 50/50 chance of existing. Now what about Allah? Remember, Allah is also lacking any and all evidence and in fact cannot be disproven, and therefore, according to your proposition, must also have a 50/50 chance of existence. However, if God exists, Allah cannot exist. In other words, P("God" n "Allah") = 0. However, since both God and Allah must have a 50% chance of existence, but neither overlap, this leads to a simple problem: P("God") and P("Allah") are both 50%, and P("God") + P("Allah") is already 100%, and you can't get more than that! However, there's more than just "God can exist" and "Allah can exist". There's also "Neither exists". Which, according to your proposition, must have a 50% chance. So we're already up to 150%, which is impossible.

But let's just say that we revise your math, and make it so that mutually exclusive concepts all have an equal chance of occurring. So with God, Allah, and Atheism, each has 33%. The problem is, of course, that there is literally an infinite number of potentially existing, mutually exclusive gods. Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Bob, FSM, Princess Celestia Omnipony, johnisagigantic******... I could create unprovable god concepts all day long which are just as unprovable, unevidenced, and (according to you) equally likely to exist. There is literally no end to them; they are infinite. So the chances of your god existing are, quite literally, 0%. Same as, you know, everyone else's stance on the "god question" being right.

Huh.

You know, somehow, I get the feeling that this is not a productive way of dealing with existence questions. Science seems to agree – when the existence of a being, or the veracity of theory is put to the test, the side claiming something with no solid evidence is not treated with equal respect to the side declining it with a similar lack of evidence. The side making a claim with no evidence is the one who has to put up, not those declining it. LOGIC 101, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME NOW?

the expression "lol" is overused on the internet, but i ACTUALLY laughed out loud when reading this. the reason i did is because you were so obviously raised as a christian and had a rebellious teen phase (which you are likely still in) where you decided that god doesn't exist because you don't like the bible. and now you use arguments against christianity (which are spread among the atheist community because most aren't smart enough to formulate arguments themselves) to argue against someone like me.

when i say "god" i'm not specifically referring to the god of christianity. i'm referring to the concept of god, which has been a part of countless religions across human history. the only basic trait of the concept of god is that it is a consciousness that created the universe.

the problem is that humans tend to personify god and give him specific traits according to their culture, and then illogical people like you come along and think that god doesn't exist just because you don't like one culture's interpretation of the idea of god. that's not how it works my son.

as you add specific traits (god had a son named jesus, god is a trinity, etc.) then the probability lessens because it is easier to disprove specific traits like those.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

the expression "lol" is overused on the internet, but i ACTUALLY laughed out loud when reading this. the reason i did is because you were so obviously raised as a christian and had a rebellious teen phase (which you are likely still in) where you decided that god doesn't exist because you don't like the bible. and now you use arguments against christianity (which are spread among the atheist community because most aren't smart enough to formulate arguments themselves) to argue against someone like me.

I was raised by non-religious parents in a predominately secular environment. My parents tried to put me through a few jewish cultural rituals (which I didn't do because I was too lazy to learn hebrew), but at no point was religion a part of it. It's "so obvious"? No. What's obvious is that you are ****ing dumb. If I'm still in my "rebellious teenager" phase, you're still in your "I'm unable to form rational arguments" phase. Which, for a surprisingly large number of theists, is their entire lives.

when i say "god" i'm not specifically referring to the god of christianity. i'm referring to the concept of god, which has been a part of countless religions across human history. the only basic trait of the concept of god is that it is a consciousness that created the universe.

But my proof still works to demonstrate why we do not offer a 50/50 shot to every new idea, because all it requires are more than two positions which are mutually exclusive before the whole damn house of cards comes falling down. You're stating an assertion, and then when I respond to it, you're changing the topic. Stop doing that. And furthermore, this definition of the god concept fails miserably, as there are conceivable religions whose concept of god is either not a consciousness, or didn't create the universe.

the problem is that humans tend to personify god and give him specific traits according to their culture, and then illogical people like you come along and think that god doesn't exist just because you don't like one culture's interpretation of the idea of god. that's not how it works my son.

Bull****. When presented with a particular, personal god, my most basic grounds for rejection remain exactly the same as for this meaningless deistic god: what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. In the case of personal gods, there are further things to address and more detailed arguments to make (for example, it's entirely fair to claim that the god of the Bible is not unprovable, but rather has been proven logically inconsistent and therefore impossible), but failing that it will always come down to a basic rational guideline: "No proof? **** off!".

as you add specific traits (god had a son named jesus, god is a trinity, etc.) then the probability lessens because it is easier to disprove specific traits like those.

Probability. Do you even understand what that word means? There's simply so much wrong with your previous statement that it's absolutely hilarious to anyone with the slightest grasp of how the world actually works.

 

[Oasis_S]

How much longer will this thread try in vein to take John seriously, hoping he'll be undumbified?

Though I'm probably the John of the other team.

 

[john!]

But my proof still works to demonstrate why we do not offer a 50/50 shot to every new idea, because all it requires are more than two positions which are mutually exclusive before the whole damn house of cards comes falling down. You're stating an assertion, and then when I respond to it, you're changing the topic. Stop doing that. And furthermore, this definition of the god concept fails miserably, as there are conceivable religions whose concept of god is either not a consciousness, or didn't create the universe.

...wat?

the only two positions of a proposition are "true" and "false". how can you have more than that?

Bull****. When presented with a particular, personal god, my most basic grounds for rejection remain exactly the same as for this meaningless deistic god: what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. In the case of personal gods, there are further things to address and more detailed arguments to make (for example, it's entirely fair to claim that the god of the Bible is not unprovable, but rather has been proven logically inconsistent and therefore impossible), but failing that it will always come down to a basic rational guideline: "No proof? **** off!".

a christopher hitchens quote! i see you have been well educated in the atheist tradition.

 

[GwJ]

I missed a lot. I'll respond to all of this after I eat.

 

[GwJ]

Why do you keep calling God Yahweh btw?

Because that is the name commonly assigned to the god of the bible. I say Yahweh to signify that I'm specifically talking about that god as opposed to any other idea of a god. It's just for clarification.

How can an angel (in your words, perfect being) be jealous? How does that work?
An angel cannot disobey, that's what they are, that's how they were created.
Mankind can disobey, and so can other things (like the thing that Satan was originally)

I was only recalling what I was taught as a Christian. If you want clarification, you should see if you can find which parts of the bible address that. I'd imagine it's some part in Genesis for obvious reasons.

The prophets couldn't deny the existence of God because they were given the "miracle", the "scientific proof" that you are looking for. All they could do was obey or disobey, but they had no choice to believe. Unlike you and me.

This is assuming they actually WERE given the miracles.

Expand on why mankind cannot currently have free-will, if God knows everything.

For something to have free-will, the person must be able to perform actions which are not already predetermined. If god controls everything in all time, past, present, and future, then everything humans do is predetermined. Therefore, no free-will.

Also, @ GwJumpman, you might want to look up some of the Catholic miracles before you go around saying that there's no evidence of the supernatural. I personally can't come to a good conclusion about them, because most of them are pure written testimony and are as reliable as general recorded history (take that as you want). We are at the disadvantage of not having witnessed these miracles, but the fact of the matter is that multiple people in history claim to have witnessed them AND recorded detailed testimonies and descriptions of miraculous events. Part of the canonization of any Saint is the scrupulous analysis of their life, and the verification of the validity of miracles ascribed to them, so you can't just claim that they're all lies. There's research and science behind these things, and many miracles have been deemed as fraud by the church while others aren't.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a miracle in context of "Christian Science" is as follows: Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle)

I can assert that we have no evidence of miracles because nothing that fulfills this definitions has been reliably reported and determined to be necessarily a miracle according to the above definition.

Saying that there's no evidence of the supernatural is a pretty big assumption, because there's a LOT that you have to prove false.

Sauce?

True proof would give you no choice but to believe. But you can still disobey nevertheless, but you can't disbelieve.

If you do have a choice in believing, then the proof isn't true proof.

With true proof, you would have no choice or control over the belief...you can't deny something you KNOW, even if you actively want to.

This is correct as long as we assume the person evaluating the proof is able enough to correctly interpret the proof.

Maybe the only true proof would be like an implantation of personal thoughts in your mind or something...other than that, you can always claim its not proof. Some guy talking from the cloud can be denied to be so many thousands of things...or a voice talking to all the world at once could be thrown off as some crazy sound **** sent from satellites or something...I don't know, I'm just giving crude examples of what I mean.

Do you doubt your god can figure out how to prove it to the world?

it's a 50/50 chance until one side gets evidence that helps support their viewpoint. what evidence do you have to sway your opinion towards atheism?

I cannot begin to fathom the amount of wrong with what you just said. In terms of the two, it is a 50/50 chance ONLY if the two have an equal amount of likelihood of being true. In "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", when they pull the 50/50 and are left with 2 choices, it is a true 50% chance because the two choices are the only two possibilities. We know it's one of those; that's predetermined. However, in the terms of "God or no God?", it's not that simple. You still have to justify yourself.

John, you're not going to talk yourself out of the burden of proof here. Unless you can prove your god, you will get absolutely nowhere.

i'm sorry that i contradict what you have been taught by the modern atheist movement.

I apologize for re-using images, but

I apologize for double post.

 

[john!]

I cannot begin to fathom the amount of wrong with what you just said. In terms of the two, it is a 50/50 chance ONLY if the two have an equal amount of likelihood of being true. In "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", when they pull the 50/50 and are left with 2 choices, it is a true 50% chance because the two choices are the only two possibilities. We know it's one of those; that's predetermined. However, in the terms of "God or no God?", it's not that simple. You still have to justify yourself.

fully agree up until the last two sentences. in a world where no theist or atheist had ANY reason for their beliefs, the odds would be 50/50. you say that the odds are naturally stacked in favor of the atheist, but you give me no reason why that should be so, other than "we don't have the burden of proof lol". why is the god question fundamentally different from any other question?

 

[GwJ]

The choices are theism and atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the theist's claims. If the theist cannot prove their claim, then atheism is the choice one should take if they are being intellectually honest. So it's not a case of, "Is theism right, or is atheism right? They have the same chance since neither have evidence for them."

Atheism's evidence is the lack of evidence for theism essentially.

 

[Latch]

So reading this thread, it has come to me that soft atheism doesn't make sense (I was a soft atheist an hour ago).

Theism: God created the universe.

Soft Atheism: no evidence to support Theism, therefore I have no reason to believe it.

We can agree that there is no evidence about anything prior to the big bang, at all. Therefore, any possible belief, or disbelief, of ANYTHING that happened prior to the big bang has no evidence to support it.

Remember, rejecting the claim that God created the universe is rejecting a claim that has no evidence for it. Makes sense, right? No. Why? There is also no evidence against it. To scientifically reject a claim, there must be evidence against it. Just as there must be evidence for it to accept it. Without evidence, it can neither accepted nor rejected (at least scientifically).

Because of this, the only logical stance, until there is evidence, is that nothing that is claimed to have occurred prior to the big bang can be accepted OR rejected.

Also, along the lines of probabilities, here's a common mindset: "well there are infinite possibilities, therefore chances of God creating the universe is one out of infinity!"

Since we know nothing about anything prior to the big bang, we don't know that every possibility is EQUALLY LIKELY. That is what the above statement assumes. We can not know how likely any possibility is, therefore NO OPTION IS MORE LIKELY THAN ANY OTHER OPTION!!! We can't even say "it is less likely that a potato created the universe than it is that a potato did."

Replace 'a potato' with God and you have Soft Atheism.

TL;DR: God is a potato.

 

[GwJ]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. That's the stance I hold towards theism.

 

[Chuee]

tradition.

 

[MuraRengan]

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a miracle in context of "Christian Science" is as follows: Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle)

I can assert that we have no evidence of miracles because nothing that fulfills this definitions has been reliably reported and determined to be necessarily a miracle according to the above definition.

You've got an incomplete definition. Even though I could argue for some particular miracles that I know of that fit that definition, I'd prefer to get the most relevant definition. Your definition is taken form "Christian Science." But there are several forms of Christianity, each, possibly, havign a different understanding of miracles. That's why I made the specific clarification of Catholic miracles, because they are the only highly documented and corroborated testimonies of miracles. Therefore, the best definition of a miracle, relevant to this discussion, is a catholic one:


wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

Now, if you think there aren't miracles that fit this description, you'll be disappointed.

Sauce?

There's a lot I could go through, but I'll just leave you with the most easily defendable.

The Stigmata - recurring phenomenon, multiple instances, very highly recorded and diligently observed in each case

I'll also give you St. Thomas Aquinas, keep in mind, I chose this specific saint because he is one of the most important figures of the Catholic Church, and events of his life were recorded with great detail.

 

[john!]

The choices are theism and atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the theist's claims. If the theist cannot prove their claim, then atheism is the choice one should take if they are being intellectually honest. So it's not a case of, "Is theism right, or is atheism right? They have the same chance since neither have evidence for them."

Atheism's evidence is the lack of evidence for theism essentially.

the first two sentences are correct, and the rest of the post could only have been written by someone who ignored half my posts in this thread.

you took the exact premises that i've been disproving this whole time, and just stated them without reasoning, as if they were factual. you're begging the question hardcore here. i feel like i'm arguing with these guys