Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm by leo-rcc.)
Just for reference, what country are you from Nobelives?
I would not say we don't know anything, we have advanced our ways of understanding of the universe and life in general a great deal. I agree that there is a huge amount we don't know. I do know that the insertions of any deity doesn't make any explanations easier, quite the opposite.
The reason we do argue against the existence of gods, is that deists and theists hold on to these beliefs without evidence and hold progress back on various fields of science because of those beliefs. This to an extent that is even harmful to humanity itself.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 647
Threads: 21
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
10
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm
(January 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: The reason we do argue against the existence of gods, is that deists and theists hold on to these beliefs without evidence and hold progress back on various fields of science because of those beliefs. This to an extent that is even harmful to humanity itself.
Nobelives, I think I know what you are trying to say! 
Leo, I don't think it's true to say that theists or deists have no proof for their assumptions or belief in a 'god'. The proofs or evidence we present are not accepted by atheists. This doesn't mean they are not evidence of an intelligence outside of what we know.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"
Albert Einstein
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm
(January 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I don't think it's true to say that theists or deists have no proof for their assumptions or belief in a 'god'. The proofs or evidence we present are not accepted by atheists. This doesn't mean they are not evidence of an intelligence outside of what we know.
So, imagine if I were to write on a scrap of paper "Invisible pink unicorns exist", and present this as evidence for the existence of said unicorns.
Now, as conclusive as my proof is....  people don't accept it.
Are you suggesting that this doesn't mean it is not evidence for my unicorns?
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Posts: 647
Threads: 21
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
10
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm
(January 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: So, imagine if I were to write on a scrap of paper "Invisible pink unicorns exist", and present this as evidence for the existence of said unicorns.
Now, as conclusive as my proof is.... people don't accept it.
Are you suggesting that this doesn't mean it is not evidence for my unicorns?
If you expanded your statement to say for example: 'Invisible pink unicorns exist BECAUSE I detect an intelligence in the laws of mathematics/physics and indeed the intelligence behind the origins of life', then I would agree that your 'detections' are noteworthy but I would conclude that your narrowing it down to a particular entity (in this case, a pink invisible unicorn????) was somewhat peculiar, whereas I would say that I concluded that these 'laws' and intelligence pointed towards a being or intelligence of whose exact nature I did not know.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"
Albert Einstein
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 2:28 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2009 at 2:29 pm by lilphil1989.)
(January 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm)CoxRox Wrote: If you expanded your statement to say for example: 'Invisible pink unicorns exist BECAUSE I detect an intelligence in the laws of mathematics/physics and indeed the intelligence behind the origins of life', then I would agree that your 'detections' are noteworthy
I don't see how adding that phrase to the statement makes any difference.
Just because I say I've "detected" (I'd certainly be interested to hear about this method of detection) an "intelligence" as you put it, doesn't mean I have!
My point was that my scrap of paper was in no way, shape or form evidence of anything (expect perhaps the usefulness of scraps of paper ).
Saying that something is evidence for something else does not make it so.
I suppose that what I'm trying to get at is that I don't reject the evidence for a god, an intelligent designer or, for that matter, invisible pink unicorns.
Instead, I say that what is being put forward as evidence is definitively NOT evidence.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Posts: 4807
Threads: 291
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
35
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 3:01 pm
(January 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm)CoxRox Wrote: If you expanded your statement to say for example: 'Invisible pink unicorns exist BECAUSE I detect an intelligence in the laws of mathematics/physics and indeed the intelligence behind the origins of life', then I would agree that your 'detections' are noteworthy but I would conclude that your narrowing it down to a particular entity (in this case, a pink invisible unicorn????) was somewhat peculiar, whereas I would say that I concluded that these 'laws' and intelligence pointed towards a being or intelligence of whose exact nature I did not know.
You would a: have to explain your method of dedection. b: prove that this what you have dedected in method a is indeed only possible through some deity and not formed by any natural occurrence.
Suich a statement would be nothing more but wild speculation and/or personal interpretation, and has no value as evidence.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Posts: 647
Threads: 21
Joined: October 29, 2008
Reputation:
10
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Lilphil, of course it doesn't mean you have detected an intelligence, just because you see things a certain way or understand things in a certain way. This 'evidence' for a supernatural being has been debated for thousands of years. I have been debating this 'evidence' on this forum since I joined. I dare say I will continue to do so.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"
Albert Einstein
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 3:35 pm
(January 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm)CoxRox Wrote: Lilphil, of course it doesn't mean you have detected an intelligence, just because you see things a certain way or understand things in a certain way.
Exactly
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: The argument against God
January 23, 2009 at 9:03 pm
(January 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm)CoxRox Wrote: Leo, I don't think it's true to say that theists or deists have no proof for their assumptions or belief in a 'god'. The proofs or evidence we present are not accepted by atheists. This doesn't mean they are not evidence of an intelligence outside of what we know.
Well evidence is studiable material. No such material has ever been brought forward.
Science rejects the claimed evidence by theists because it isn't evidence to support their claims. Your evidence but this evidence is nothing but shadow that follows the imagination.
Through pure curiosity, I'd like to view this evidence of a creator.
I think it's safe to say that every atheist would jump at the chance to see this evidence of a god. So that we can study it for ourselves and decide weather it is able to support the claims through the scientific method.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 835
Threads: 47
Joined: September 18, 2008
Reputation:
3
RE: The argument against God
January 24, 2009 at 8:25 am
Many christians say that the existance of God can't be dissporvied. But just becuase it can't be dissporved doesn't make him real.
I can say for an example that Bob the mighty demon made out of candy, who you have to pray to while eating choclates during the full moon, exist. No one can prove that he doesnt exist which, according what the chrsitians argument are, make him real.
|
