Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[Jehanne]

Interaktive quote- Whoever has a high aikju and good mental health will come to the right conclusion that there is no God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Dawkins nutty then?

Dawkins has always said this.  Read The God Delusion.  Dawkins says the same thing about fairies and unicorns.

P.S.  The above was from February 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...exist.html

The whole article:

For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.
At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.
Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”
Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.”
There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.
“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.
He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.
At one point he discussion strayed onto the theoretical question of whether a traditional cut throat razor could be described as a more complicated thing than an electric shaver.
There was laughter as the Archbishop said he would attempt an answer before adding: “Not that I know much about razors.”
During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”.
He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally.
“The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st Century physics,” he said.
When Prof Dawkins suggested that he believed the Pope took a rather more literal interpretation of the origins of humans, the Archbishop joked: “I will ask him some time.”

[Amarok]

Of course is not sure that's why he's an agnostic atheist

[KevinM1]

It should probably be noted that the potential god that agnostic atheists concede might exist isn't the Christian god. At all.

So, no, Dawkins saying "I'm 6.9 out of 7.0 convinced there isn't a god (and that if you know me, I reject the Christian god (among all the rest I've encountered))" isn't really the point of favor someone like DropShip thinks it is. And as an agnostic atheist myself, I can't help but chuckle.

[Astonished]

Well we don't think that a three-legged squid descended from heaven 3000 years ago to enlighten humanity, despite that no one ever came forward and said it DIDN'T happen.

In any case you may be surprised to find out that I contend that we are living in a world where these events DIDN'T transpire as reported. Unlike you I am not in the least impressed that people believe something that is concocted. Happens all the time. Leeches my friend, leeches. Common belief is no evidence that the belief is true. Even the canard that people are willing to die for a belief is no evidence that it's true (witness Islamic suicide bombers).

I'm sure that's what you think. However, the probability of all the events following Christ's death/resurrection (people, churches, Q, letters, gospels, second century writers, etc.) happening as they did are very low if the events did not happen as related. I have never heard a good evidenced explanation from an atheist why we see what we do. Just half-baked conspiracy theories and "people where gullible back then" scenarios. Neither addressing hardly any of the details.  

It is insufficient for tens of millions of others too. Neither fact speaks to the validity of the evidence or the arguments pro and con.

If I made the argument that the facts are true because billions of people believed, then you point is correct. I did not, so it does not apply to my point. 

Absent your low bar of what constitutes an "eyewitness" neither can you.

Do you honestly think there is a comparison to be made between the historicity of the events of Jesus (and aftermath) and that of Buddha? 454 years is 18 generations of people relating stories before someone wrote it all down. Paul was sharpening his pencil to write to the pre-existing churches across the empire, pre-gospel document(s) existed, and people were going on missionary journeys to tell of their eyewitness experience 18 years after Jesus. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. That is a basic principle. If I claim to be married, that's not extraordinary and you're inclined to accept it as fact unless and until you know something that argues against it. But if I claim to be married to a woman who turns water into wine and rose from the dead, you'd be disinclined to believe it until you know something that argues FOR it.

It is not a basic principle! While it sounds intuitive, it is not well-grounded. First, 'extraordinary' is very subjective and has to do with what a person knows or believes. In the extreme example of a person knowing nothing, everything would be extraordinary. Second, it is simple probability theory that you can examine what is the probability of having the effect of a miracle (say hundreds of eyewitnesses see X) if the event they witnessed did not really happen.  Third, you are still question begging because you are discounting eyewitness testimony for the only reason that you believe miracles are not possible. We are justified in preferring a naturalistic explanation--all things being equal. We are not justified in insisting on one. 

Other than by traditional attribution we have no idea who wrote the gospels. That's a simple fact. They aren't known to US who are examining the claims NOW.

You fail to explain why a name is important. Do you think the documents were secretly left on the doorstep of someone and were stumbled upon in the morning? Of course the people who first read and copied them knew the provenance. It was the content that was important. Labeling them "anonymous" is inaccurate and intentionally pejorative. 

I was raised on Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology and I know all the circumlocutions around the disagreements of FACT. As to disagreements of theology, there are enough disagreements between Paul and the gospels alone to drive a truck through. Read the oldest of Paul's writings and then work through the NT chronologically and pretend while reading Paul, that you're a contemporary reader who is unaware of the gospels (because they don't exist yet). Here you have Paul appealing, not to eyewitnesses that (unlike later when the gospels appeared) were still mostly alive and yet to who or what does Paul appeal to "authenticate" his claims? A personal subjective experience, a heavenly vision. Odd. And how does he describe Jesus? As "seated in the heavenlies" No mention of the later mythos of the flesh-and-blood god-man working miracles. It's almost like Paul was promulgating the gnostic heresy and a different orthodoxy later won out over it. These contrasts between Paul and the gospel accounts would have been confusing to people in the 1st century but when the canon of scripture was eventually organized, by the simple device of putting the gospels first, front, and center, Paul can be interpreted in the "context" of the much later gospel writings and thus "harmonized" with them based on assumptions that didn't exist for Paul's original readers.

What were the main theological differences between Paul and Jesus that can't be understood thought the entirety of the Gospels or of Paul's letters (in other words, in context).

Paul was not writing to unbelievers. Why would he appeal to eyewitnesses? The people he was talking to were or knew eyewitnesses. 

It seems the people he was writing did not become as confused as you as to his message, purpose, and authority. But if you want to give a specific example, I will consider it.

How do you fit all those red herrings up your ass? Is it like the TARDIS in there?

[mordant]

It should probably be noted that the potential god that agnostic atheists concede might exist isn't the Christian god.  At all.

So, no, Dawkins saying "I'm 6.9 out of 7.0 convinced there isn't a god (and that if you know me, I reject the Christian god (among all the rest I've encountered))" isn't really the point of favor someone like DropShip thinks it is.  And as an agnostic atheist myself, I can't help but chuckle.

Exactly. But theist's "understanding" of atheism is generally so rudimentary and distorted that they really don't understand. To an evangelical, generally, atheism is disbelief in the evangelical god specifically, and involves some form of resentment, hatred or rebellion against it. So that Dawkins is saying there's 0.1 chance out of 7 that there is a god sounds to them like Dawkins is starting to "crack", the scales are about to fall of his eyes about THEIR god.

It's been my experience that evangelicals are attracted to these inaccurate tropes about atheists and atheism because it eases their own cognitive dissonance. If they think atheists are atheists because they're just "bad and mad" then they avoid having to accept, even theoretically, that our position could be rational and have some sort of evidential and philosophical basis. It's easier to consider us irrational and reactionary and resistant to what they believe is inexorable Truth.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't believe, that what they are describing in the expansion of the universe, is analogous, to adding infinitesimally small amounts to a real number infinity.  Also, in doing this, there is somewhat of a trick.  They are changing the units in order to do this.  If you stick to one unit of measure (Planck Length for instance), then there is a finite number of them, in any given distance.  If you can cut that in half, there is still a finite number.  You can keep cutting them in half, but the result is always a finite number, it is only the process which is infinite, and I would add, doesn't seem to match reality. 

So how does something, which goes on without end, expand or become bigger (more)?  Even if it is my very very small amounts (or increasingly small), you said, that this is a sure as the earth orbiting about it's axis around the sun.  I don't think that "infinities within infinities" explains this.  You are still talking about expansion or an increase.  

I also think that there is a difficulty of equivocation here in what is called the "universe".  You can go back in time based on the expansion (this is actually measured a few different ways to my knowledge), and come to the big bang and an age to the universe (13.82 billion years).  On the other hand, some refer to the universe as everything even what we speculate on, and cannot observe or make any declarations with much of any certainty.  In the first case, the universe does appear to be finite.  In the second it is mostly just guesses which are unsupported. 

What are the metaphysical absurdities of nothingness, which you mentioned, can you be more specific?

The expansion of the Universe is with respect to its radius of curvature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

It is the radius of curvature that is increasing over time, even in a universe with infinite volume.

As for the metaphysical absurdities of nothingness, I don't think that there are any; that is a claim that WLC makes, not me.

Sorry Jehanne,
Busy schedule working late, and generally tired, this conversation got a way from me.   I think that we were veering away, and perhaps getting close to a standstill anyway. 

Unless, you would wish to continue, I wanted to thank you for a thoughtful discussion!

[Astonished]

It should probably be noted that the potential god that agnostic atheists concede might exist isn't the Christian god.  At all.

So, no, Dawkins saying "I'm 6.9 out of 7.0 convinced there isn't a god (and that if you know me, I reject the Christian god (among all the rest I've encountered))" isn't really the point of favor someone like DropShip thinks it is.  And as an agnostic atheist myself, I can't help but chuckle.

I like how the guys from God Awful Movies put it; "I can disprove your god to the extent that you can define it." So yeah, anything specific, it can be fucked with. It doesn't help that the Xtian god does so much to disprove itself in its own damn Penthouse Forum letters.

[Interaktive]

I do not think that you can prove that religion is a lie or that there is no God. Theology is not a science because it is not checked and not falsified. These are the criteria of science. God is like Russell's teapot. Flying Macaroni Monster can not be refuted. Like Yahweh too. Even if you know the scientific origin of the universe, the Earth and man.

can be called atheists of all unbelievers. Believers are theists. Agnosticism is the third superfluous. That God can not be proved logically because the brain works by emotions. I believe that God is - I do not believe that God exists, there is no God - the third is superfluous.

Atheists are unbelievers. Believers are theists. Agnosticism is the third superfluous. The non-existence of God can not be proved logically because the brain works by emotion. Truly, either I believe that God exists or I do not believe that God exists. God does not exist this third is superfluous.

[Whateverist]

Atheists are unbelievers. Believers are theists. Agnosticism is the third superfluous. The non-existence of God can not be proved logically because the brain works by emotion. Truly, either I believe that God exists or I do not believe that God exists. God does not exist this third is superfluous.

You over simplify the issue.  "Truly, either I believe that pfbtchek exists or I do not believe that pfbtchek exists.  There is no middle position."

For some of us it is not so simple since the object of belief is so poorly defined.  For others it is more a matter of holding out for some semblance of evidence for deciding whether the object exists, the decision regarding belief is merely tabled pending further information.  In either case, belief is withheld but it would not necessarily be true to say the non-believer holds the position that gods do not exist.

Personally, my belief regarding the object of other people's belief in gods is that those beliefs are unfounded.  I assume there is a natural explanation for what gives rise to belief in gods in so many human beings.  I believe they misattribute the source of that belief to something supernatural out there, when it is far more likely that the source is intra-personal and structurally psychological in nature.  I am comfortable in holding the belief that some things in which people believe are the result of a mistake and that god-belief falls into that category.  I won't however argue for this belief of mine until there is at least an unambiguous and universally accepted definition of "gods".  But the question of whether gods exist is no where near as interesting to me as the question of why god-belief exists and has been so widespread for so long. 

BTW, with such an old thread, starting a new one is recommended.

[Minimalist]

I do not think that you can prove that religion is a lie or that there is no God.

Not our burden.  Let the believers "prove" that their sky-daddy exists.  Our job is to evaluate any evidence they come up with.  So far, none of it has been very impressive.