god thread, number 3 Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

So, it seems that everything talked about in another thread leads to religion.

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

[*mipadi*]

I don't see the need to prove anyone wrong in this area. I'm comfortable with my own personal religious beliefs; the beliefs of others don't influence me unless I intend to discuss and learn from the beliefs of others. I'm not even certain why we bother having these discussions. I'm not concerned with another's personal beliefs, so long as his beliefs are not forced on me in such a way as to affect my own life, such as through governmental legislation.

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

[NoSex]

Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa.

Agreed. So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

[aznxdreamer]

prove that there is no god.

[Ington]

^Thank you.

Frankly, there is no way to prove anything beyond knowledge. We don't know. Instead, why don't we just say what we believe in?

I believe it is possible for there to be a God. Psionics lets it.

[EddieV]

God is a Legend. I am a Legend Killer, boy I can't wait...

That's if he/she/it/they/feces/etc. exists...

[*Programmer*]

yes...there is no right or wrong...awnser...to god's exsistance... it cannot be proven....or unproven...you just simply have to deal with the real awnser "Not Knowing"

The choice has always been up to the person to believe or not...

[*disco infiltrator*]

Heyyyyy guys, if you don't see the point in debate, then don't post. Thanks.

[xxtaintedlips]

i dont know if there is a god, but i sure hope there is because people just cant help me with my problems right now

[sadolakced acid]

the rules of logic dictate skepticism before blind faith.

therefore; you do not believe in a flat earth unless you can prove it is, not you believe in a flat earth untill you can prove it is not.

quite simply, god's existance cannot be proven by the scientific method.

ergo, god does not exist. simple, from a purely logical sense.


of course, outside of logic, god may exist. but there is no evidence of him in this world.

a common quote is the one about "you can't see the wind, but you know it's there". quite fallicious, when used to defend faith in god. you can see the trees move, you can feel the wind.

you cannot see god's actions; actions are merely attributed to god.

god, therefore, is based upon faith alone. you either believe in him or you don't. if you attempt to prove he exists, you will fail.

however; belief in god is faith. science is logic. the two should not cross.

i do not walk into a church and distrust the bible on matters of faith becuase of logic. Ergo, christians should not walk into a classroom and distrust science on matters of logic because of faith.

saying you don't believe in evolution because of faith in god is as absurd as saying you don't believe in god because of evolution.

matters of faith and matters of logic need not, and should not, mix.

[illumineering]

For me, faith occupies a space unburdened by the need for proof in a scientific or logical framework. The experience of living beyond a terminal cancer diagnosis and two near-fatal automobile accidents is proof enough for me.

[NoSex]

prove that there is no god.

The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

[*mipadi*]

a common quote is the one about "you can't see the wind, but you know it's there".  quite fallicious, when used to defend faith in god.  you can see the trees move, you can feel the wind. 

you cannot see god's actions;  actions are merely attributed to god.

You can't see the actions of the wind, either, but merely the consequences of the action of the wind. The same goes for God. My point is that, using that logic, a religious person can easily point out that one cannot see God performing an action, but one can see the results of such action (e.g. miracles).

[NoSex]

You can't see the actions of the wind, either, but merely the consequences of the action of the wind. The same goes for God. My point is that, using that logic, a religious person can easily point out that one cannot see God performing an action, but one can see the results of such action (e.g. miracles).

It's a false analogy.

We can show exactly how and why there is a causal relation between the wind and the movement of the trees. We can not show such a relation between a so-called miracle and an, for the most part, unknown entity hiding behind the laws of nature.

Obviously we have the knowledge, and scientific instruments necessary to measure, detect, and explain the nature of wind currents and their effects on us and our enviroment. We can demonstrate these proofs and understand them. The same can not be said for any spirtiual form of "measurment or detection."

We don't have faith that the wind is there, we know that the wind is there. It would take a larger amount of assumptions to believe that the wind was indeed not there than to believe that it is. So, reason dictates that we accept the reality of wind. Belief in the exitsence of wind is proportional to evidence, reason, and rationality. The same can not be said for belief in God.

Also, the standard of evidence, burden of proof, and all other mechanisms of proper reasoning need to be considered in the matter.

[*mipadi*]

It's a false analogy.

We can show exactly how and why there is a causal relation between the wind and the movement of the trees. We can not show such a relation between a so-called miracle and an, for the most part, unknown entity hiding behind the laws of nature.

Obviously we have the knowledge, and scientific instruments necessary to measure, detect, and explain the nature of wind currents and their effects on us and our enviroment. We can demonstrate these proofs and understand them. The same can not be said for any spirtiual form of "measurment or detection."

We don't have faith that the wind is there, we know that the wind is there. It would take a larger amount of assumptions to believe that the wind was indeed not there than to believe that it is. So, reason dictates that we accept the reality of wind. Belief in the exitsence of win is proportional to evidence, reason, and rationality. The same can not be said for belief in God.

Also, the standard of evidence, burden of proof, and all other mechanisms of proper reasoning need to be considered in the matter.

And what is science but, in the end, just another way of explaining and believing?

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

And what is science but, in the end, just another way of explaining and believing?

Yes it's true. Science can be that way, but for some reason, I find science much more reasonable than God. Besides, science doesn't really justify your acts and tell you that you're going to hell if you're gay or commit this certain sin. Science has proven a lot of things like gravity, cells, etc. But what has God proven? In the bible he talks of rules we have to live by that are all of a sudden contradicted in the next few books. There's always something about heaven and hell and yet we do not know of it. They talk of blessing those who do not see but believe. Or is that just something the bible used to convince Christians to remain faithful?

[Ington]

Basically, because we don't have hard scientific proof on the existence of God, we shouldn't believe He exists?

You know, at a time, people thought the world was round flat.

Yes it's true. Science can be that way, but for some reason, I find science much more reasonable than God. Besides, science doesn't really justify your acts and tell you that you're going to hell if you're gay or commit this certain sin. Science has proven a lot of things like gravity, cells, etc. But what has God proven? In the bible he talks of rules we have to live by that are all of a sudden contradicted in the next few books. There's always something about heaven and hell and yet we do not know of it. They talk of blessing those who do not see but believe. Or is that just something the bible used to convince Christians to remain faithful?

Lets assume there is a God for a minute. Would it be better for Him to set up a system of rules for mankind to build off of, or to show how things work? Obviously you haven't been reading into it much, because all those things you said were pretty vain. The rules are to avoid chaos. Supposedly He created and loves us all, and the point of it all was to treat each other well. Really, I think if everything were explained first, we'd all have killed each other. Thats why we were created with the mind capacity to solve things for ourselves.

Oh, and Christians read the bible. The bible isn't Christian. Therefore, the bible isn't only for Christians, and that last sentence was pretty shallow as well.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Basically, because we don't have hard scientific proof on the existence of God, we shouldn't believe He exists?

You know, at a time, people thought the world was round.

the world is round. Did you mean square?

Isn't that just something that helps prove that we might be wrong about God? That in this period of time we used to think there is a god and then all of a sudden in the future we were able to prove he doesn't?

[NoSex]

And what is science but, in the end, just another way of explaining and believing?

This is the most common mistake among both believers and non-believers. As George H. Smith explained it: Reason is viewed as a single tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, within a giant tool box full of tools. We use the hammer for some things, and the screwdriver for others. Faith is just another tool within the box. When the hammer does not work we might need a screwdriver. When reason "fails" us, we might need to use faith. However, the problem here is that reason is not a single tool within a tool box, it is the entire tool box. Once you throw out reason, you have no more epistemological tools to work with. It's the end of the line.

This is why I asked all those questions about fatih originally. Those have not yet been answered, unfortunately. Once we can tackle the idea of faith as an epistemological process we can actually begin to have a meaningful debate and discussion on this matter.

[Also, if there is another way, aside from using reason, that we can understand why the tree moves and what that may have to do with wind, let me know. Cause, that would be mighty useful to this discussion.]

[*mipadi*]

I'll start off by saying that I place a heavy emphasis on science; I am a computer science student, after all. When I want to explain something, I pull out my ruler, or protractor, and measure angles, calculate sines, cosines, tangents, radians, and what have you, and draw a conclusion. My studies and research is based mostly around math and science. So naturally, I believe that yes, the wind can be measured with tools, and explained scientifically. Clearly wind is caused by pockets of high-pressure air moving into pockets of low-pressure air. I certainly can explain why one pocket is of a higher pressure than the other. And I can certainly ascribe visual indicators—leaves blowing, trees bending—to wind.

Having said that, if I may play Devil's advocate for a minute, it's certainly easy to see how a religious person could argue this point. Could he not say that the wind itself is caused by God, and every "scientific" indicator, from trees bending to measuring the excitement of the atoms that make up the air (i.e. temperature) is willed by God?

And there we have the crux of the problem: All the application of logic in the world is not going to shake a believer. I don't believe in God because I invest a lot in tools of science, and God doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe what I noted the believer would tell me—I think that's a load of garbage. But it's very easy to see how the faithful can undercut scientific principles. And that is why we have a problem: The tools of science cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot shake the tools of science. So what is the point of trying to apply the tools or beliefs of one discipline to another?

As I noted, I very much believe in science, and I once made a similar argument to a friend of mine who is currently at working on a philosophy thesis. As he pointed out to me, religion and science are both ways of examining The Truth—and The Truth, ultimately, is defined by one's own perceptions and experiences, which makes it highly subjective. (He had a further interesting discussion, but not being a student of philosophy myself, and having no interest in philosophy, aside from the narrow study of symbolic logic, I didn't care to remember all of his precise details and arguments.)

[Ington]

Science doesn't prove what we need to know. I hope someone has noticed that by now. I am a student of science, but I know it will not tell me what I want to know. It is possible that nothing will.

The unsolvable question is Why?

For example, you may ask why trees move, and someone can answer because of the wind. Well, why is the wind there? Why is it blowing? Why did whatever blew it blow? Why can it blow? Why does it exist? Why does anything exist?

Every time science answers one why, it leads to another question. It will never reach the last question, and thus never truly solves the first.

Basically, we can find out how things happen with ease. Science however, cannot explain the why.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Science doesn't prove what we need to know. I hope someone has noticed that by now. I am a student of science, but I know it will not tell me what I want to know. It is possible that nothing will.

The unsolvable question is Why?

For example, you may ask why trees move, and someone can answer because of the wind. Well, why is the wind there? Why is it blowing? Why did whatever blew it blow? Why can it blow? Why does it exist? Why does anything exist?

Every time science answers one why, it leads to another question. It will never reach the last question, and thus never truly solves the first.

Basically, we can find out how things happen with ease. Science however, cannot explain the why.

Well that's better than having a God make up reasons as to why these things happen. Most of the reasons stated is, "Because I am the almighty creator of" blah blah blah it's not enough. though truth is NOTHING is enough, I prefer what science can do than what religion can prove.

[sadolakced acid]

the world is round. Did you mean square?

Isn't that just something that helps prove that we might be wrong about God? That in this period of time we used to think there is a god and then all of a sudden in the future we were able to prove he doesn't?

flat and round like a pizza.

[NoSex]

So naturally, I believe that yes, the wind can be measured with tools, and explained scientifically. Clearly wind is caused by pockets of high-pressure air moving into pockets of low-pressure air. I certainly can explain why one pocket is of a higher pressure than the other. And I can certainly ascribe visual indicators—leaves blowing, trees bending—to wind.

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive senses
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable
- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·plain·er noun
- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct
synonyms EXPLAIN, EXPOUND, EXPLICATE, ELUCIDATE, INTERPRET mean to make something clear or understandable. EXPLAIN implies a making plain or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known <explain the rules>. EXPOUND implies a careful often elaborate explanation <expounding a scientific theory>. EXPLICATE adds the idea of a developed or detailed analysis <explicate a poem>. ELUCIDATE stresses the throwing of light upon as by offering details or motives previously unclear or only implicit <elucidate an obscure passage>. INTERPRET adds to EXPLAIN the need for imagination or sympathy or special knowledge in dealing with something <interpreting a work of art>.

A true explanation leads directly to understanding. We explain the unknown with the known, in hopes that the unknown may one day become known. In the case of trees silently moving, you can most certainly explain this phenomena. This is good.

Having said that, if I may play Devil's advocate for a minute, it's certainly easy to see how a religious person could argue this point. Could he not say that the wind itself is caused by God, and every "scientific" indicator, from trees bending to measuring the excitement of the atoms that make up the air (i.e. temperature) is willed by God?

A religious person could very well say that, but in no way does that make it any more true. As you demonstrated above, we can explain exactly what is going on behind the movement of the trees. We can demonstrate a definate causal relationship behind the movement and the wind. The same can not be said in this instance. A religious individual can not demonstrate that a "God" has a causal relation to the movement of trees or the effects of wind in general.

If a religious person were to say this, it would not be an explanation. As an explanation allows us to understand an often unknown phenomena, we would expect that if subscribing a "God" to the wind was truly an explanation, such a relationship could be demonstrated. No such relation can be shown.

Saying that God causes the wind or created the universe is equivalent to saying that KGHSDAHA causes the wind or that ajknhjkldfHABV created the universe. In these cases, we are attempting to explaining the unknown with the less known, or the unknowable. In many cases where a religious believe understands God to be an explanation to the cosmological problem, in reality, that same "explanation" is almost entirely meaningless, nonsensical, incoherent, and in no way does it truly help us to understand what is happening in our universe.

And there we have the crux of the problem: All the application of logic in the world is not going to shake a believer.

We have been over this before. But, I'll make it quick this time. That is a hasty generalization, and is simply not true.

But it's very easy to see how the faithful can undercut scientific principles. And that is why we have a problem: The tools of science cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot shake the tools of science. So what is the point of trying to apply the tools or beliefs of one discipline to another?

Refer to my post about George H. Smith's tool box analogy as well as the meaning behind my dubious nature towards faith. Wait till someone responds to my list of questions on the nature of faith, maybe then we will have something to actually discuss.

As he pointed out to me, religion and science are both ways of examining The Truth—and The Truth, ultimately, is defined by one's own perceptions and experiences, which makes it highly subjective. (He had a further interesting discussion, but not being a student of philosophy myself, and having no interest in philosophy, aside from the narrow study of symbolic logic, I didn't care to remember all of his precise details and arguments.)

We can show how "science" is a form of examining the truth. No one has yet to show me how "religion" is even capable of examination, let alone examination of 'the truth.'

Depends on what you are talking about. A great deal of things are subjective, morality, beauty, intellectual taste, and any other number of human experiences. However, The truth, as the truth corresponds with reality, is objective.

"The apple is red. The car is there. God exists. George W. Bush does not exist."

Those are all objective propositions. As in, they have truth values and their truth values can not be determined by the subject.

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

flat and round like a pizza.

Back then no one thought the world was round. They thought it was flat and square.