Theology (Does god exist? Why/Why Not? etc.)

[burningplain]

How do you provide evidence of a negative Alan? I'll tell you how. YOU DO IT BY SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE OF THE POSITIVE AND FINDING NONE! The lack of existance can be proven categorically by the lack of evidence for existence, in fact in the case of the lack of existence of something the lack of evidence is the god damned proof.

CHrist alive!

[Alan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Like Alan said, you can't prove a negative.

Disprove a negative. That's important.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

How do you provide evidence of a negative Alan? I'll tell you how. YOU DO IT BY SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE OF THE POSITIVE AND FINDING NONE! The lack of existance can be proven categorically by the lack of evidence for existence, in fact in the case of the lack of existence of something the lack of evidence is the god damned proof.

No, that just shows lack of evidence. It does not mean an evidence of lack.

What's funny is that if what you're saying were true, then the concept of God goes out the window entirely. You keep contradicting yourself.

People have searched for evidence for god, and they have found none. There you have it, God does not exist.
But then you will bitch about how just because they haven't found evidence of the existence of a god, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which is exactly the opposite of your quote above.

So which is it, then?

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

the default position is once again that of non-belief. This is a reasonable and scientific approach.

That is complete bull. The default scientific position is ALWAYS neutral until it can be proven or disproven, one way or the other. That applies to anything. That's why science exists. If the default position on anything was disbelief, then science would never advance.

[burningplain]

Fine, then allow me to rephrase, think of this as a debate where a request has been made by both sides that evidence be given.

And actually one has been given Ashley. You know the whole Genesis 7 days thing? That's what's referred to as a misinterpretation. The Hebrew term is, I believe a Yom (spelling may be wrong as may pronounciation), for a Yom there is no direct translation it is literally translated an indeterminate period between light and dark. At which point we can throw all our preconcieved notions about the existence of a god. That you wait for a sign suggest you expect the existence of an inteventionalist God, Yet there are multiple stand points from which such a god does not exist.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

People have searched for evidence for god, and they have found none. There you have it

People have searched for the origins of life and have found none also.

By your logic, life then, does not exist.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

That is complete bull. The default scientific position is ALWAYS neutral until it can be proven or disproven, one way or the other. That applies to anything. That's why science exists. If the default position on anything was disbelief, then science would never advance.

No dude. Honestly, I will give you props because you're being a lot more impartial than burningplain, but there's still something wrong with what you're saying.

You're right in that the default position should be a NEUTRAL position. But that NEUTRAL position is the same as a position of disbelief. You just believe it's otherwise because of your own convictions.


Science progresses this way:

1) We know this much.
2) How about if *this*?
3) Can you prove it?
4) Let me try.


It does not progress by:
1) Anything goes.
2) How about this?
3) Sure why not?
4) Oh wait it doesn't work out.


A neutral position is a skeptic position. It's not a "I do not believe anything at all." It's a "I will not trust my own hypothesis until empirical evidence backs it up."

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

People have searched for the origins of life and have found none also.

By your logic, life then, does not exist.

No, even by 'that logic' it would just mean the 'origins of life' do not exist, not that life itself does not exist.
You can't even keep track of your own reductio ad absurdum.

[burningplain]

OKay, I acknowledge my argument is flawed. "you can't disprove a negative." What makes the lack of existence of God an empirical negative? Investigation is required. Investigations into the existence of God have been conducted, but the results, as previously stated are dubious at best and cannot be held as evidence for either case.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Fine, then allow me to rephrase, think of this as a debate where a request has been made by both sides that evidence be given.

That would only work if Ashley or Despanan are positing an alternative explanation of the universe. But they aren't. They're just saying why they cannot empirically believe yours.

All they need for that is to show that you have no evidence of it. If you demanded 'evidence' to be DISproven, then that's the dictionary definition of an argument from ignorance.
You can't just justify an argument by saying "prove me wrong." You have an argument when you prove it right.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

OKay, I acknowledge my argument is flawed. "you can't disprove a negative." What makes the lack of existence of God an empirical negative? Investigation is required. Investigations into the existence of God have been conducted, but the results, as previously stated are dubious at best and cannot be held as evidence for either case.

If you really understood that one can't disprove a negative, you wouldn't have written your following sentence. A lack of evidence of god's existence does not leave both cases in a dubious state, and you yourself explained why this is not the case in the top comment of this page.

[burningplain]

That's the thing Alan, I can't prove myself right, I cannot prove myself wrong. Data I have access to is inconclusive, therefore I am asking others to provide me with Data that would give me conclusiveness.
I am not appealing to ignorance, I am asking to have my stand point either validated or invalidated. My personal inclination is that God exists, I cannot provide evidence either way. I cannot prove the cause of the big bang, I can prove its existence, but not its cause. However I would conclude that something triggered it, as everythings is triggered by something, most things in nature seem to have a trigger of some kind. SO what triggered the big bang? My personal theory is some form of divine. I can't prove it, I can't disprove it. I'd hunt for evidence, but I've never had the brain for theoretical physics, I prefer to deal in more immediate things that don't require ridiculous volumes of mathematics, Forensics for example.

[Alan]

When scientists find data to be inconclusive, they know that means that the hypothesis was either wrong or needs to be worked on.

Inconclusiveness doesn't mean "it could go either way."
It means "the way we took does not follow from any data."

[burningplain]

Screw it I can't be arsed, yeah you're right the hypothesis needs work. Well done. You win. Go break someone else's faith. Go prove your whole little world view right. Stripping people of hope isn't a good thing Alan. Thanks for reminding me why I avoid philisophy and theology like the plague.

[AshleyO]

Deviant and Burningplain isn't going to understand because they're arguing from a desire to have their beliefs be true. They WANT to be right.

But one being scientific desires only to be correct despite what the outcome may be.

Deviant and BP is almost in a state of permanent devastation from being afraid that their beliefs wont be real.

Alan, Desp, and myself are saying that if god were proven empirically real, we would not be devastated by this new scientific fact. It would be like being devastated by the discovery of a new black hole. That would be silly.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

No, even by 'that logic' it would just mean the 'origins of life' do not exist, not that life itself does not exist.
You can't even keep track of your own reductio ad absurdum.

If the origins of life does not exist, then how can life exist? Everything has an origin. Just because it has not been found yet does not mean it does not exist.

Why does it offend you so much that there are people who believe in God? People who believe in a greater power? Just because you cannot see it, or touch it, or witness it's existence, does not mean it does not exist. Everything we've learned from science, at one point, was disbelieved or unknown until proven. None of it happened over night and the amount of science that we do know is virtually non-existent compared to what is left to be discovered.

Even Einstein believed in intelligent design, at least to some degree.

[Alan]

I am constantly finding myself to be wrong all the time in a numerous amount of things.
For example, just this week I understood the idea of marginal utility and how it disproves a large body of marxist economics.

But guess what. That didn't break me. Being wrong does nothing for my ego. It humbles me. It makes me realize that I have more things to learn, and that I must adjust my perspective to what I learn, instead of ignoring it for the sake of my investment in something.
That's what makes me a good scholar. And it sure as hell doesn't make me a 'shit scientist'.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Screw it I can't be arsed, yeah you're right the hypothesis needs work. Well done. You win. Go break someone else's faith. Go prove your whole little world view right. Stripping people of hope isn't a good thing Alan. Thanks for reminding me why I avoid philisophy and theology like the plague.

Only you can break your own faith. It doesn't matter whether someone believes you or not. It's their path, not yours, so it should be no concern to you whether they believe you or not.

People who have true faith, in whatever they believe, cannot be swayed. You know what is true for you, you can't be held accountable for what is true for someone else.

[burningplain]

I am tired, I have not slept solidly in approach 3 weeks. I am reaching my emotional and physical breaking point. People have commented I look like shit for at least a week. Pardon me for not being my usually rational self.

Devaint, you are correct. My faith is not broken, I am merely no longer in the mood to fight people with Alan's mind set.
I hold my beliefs based on my intepretation of the evidence around me. Rule 1 of science; its all down to how you interpret the results.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

If the origins of life does not exist, then how can life exist? Everything has an origin. Just because it has not been found yet does not mean it does not exist.

I would argue against this philosophically, actually. Just as an analogue, there was never a 'starting point' of capitalism from which you can derive its workings. It is a phenomenon that has to be synchronically AND diachronically understood, if it is to be understood at all.
But my point was that, first of all, your example was completely flawed, but even assuming it had a point, that we have not discovered the 'origin' of life does not 'disprove' the existence of life; it would just 'disprove' the origin of life and put into doubts either the search parameters we're using, the concept of an 'origin', or the concept of proof, but it in no way would invalidate the empirical observation of life itself.

Why does it offend you so much that there are people who believe in God?

It doesn't offend me. I like people like Terry Eagleton and liberation theologists.
The fact that you take my antagonism and believe that I can only be this iconoclastic because it offends me says more about you than it says about me.

Just because you cannot see it, or touch it, or witness it's existence, does not mean it does not exist. Everything we've learned from science, at one point, was disbelieved or unknown until proven.

You're sort of right in this. But why would you think religion is not a part of that ancient ignorance we have grown out of? Why that special place for religion?
Especially for your type of religion. You look to nature and at once you say "I know this is not all, there is more" but you also say "that 'more' is no more than that which already is"
This is an atheism that is afraid of losing its religion.

Even Einstein believed in intelligent design, at least to some degree.

Actually he didn't. The philosophy of Einstein is a huge thing in my philosophy department and we all know he wasn't religious at all, and becomes more and more antitheistic as he grew older.
There are numerous letters of him complaining about how people pervert his words into pretending he believes in a god.
His quote of "my god is the god of Spinoza" is a very open proclamation of atheism for anyone who has actually read Spinoza.
Even his "God does not play dice" has more to do with the fact that he was talking specifically to his theist friend Niels Bohr than Einstein's own beliefs.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Rule 1 of science; its all down to how you interpret the results.

Wow dude, that's like, the most perfect opposite of what science really is.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Why does it offend you so much that there are people who believe in God?

9/11, creationism being taught in science classes, Rick Santorum, religious child abuse, the GOP, other theocracies, Lisa McPherson, ect.

People who believe in a greater power?

The crusades, religious leaders admitting that reason and logic is the enemy of faith, anti-intellectualism from faith, the years of my childhood where I was in a constant and permanent state of guilt and sorrow for thought-crime because of religion, genital mutilation (circumcision), the condemnation of homosexuals and women the world over due to religious belief, suicide bombings, the laws being offered to allow bullying of children on the basis of faith, ect....

Just because you cannot see it, or touch it, or witness it's existence, does not mean it does not exist.

No, it means that it's not reasonable to assume it exists.

Everything we've learned from science, at one point, was disbelieved or unknown until proven. None of it happened over night and the amount of science that we do know is virtually non-existent compared to what is left to be discovered.

The faithful will ALWAYS insist on believing no matter how much evidence is brought up to prove the contrary. You will always seek to find that little tiny pocket of scientific ignorance because you WANT something to be true more than actually being correct. I doubt science will ever be able to give anyone willing to believe in non-sense any amount of evidence to convince them otherwise. Not because there's a point in their persistence but because they'll always want to be right somehow instead of just being correct.

Even Einstein believed in intelligent design, at least to some degree.[/quote]

[Alan]

I'm going to bed now but let me ask you something.

Why is it so hard for you guys to think that maybe you're just wrong? That maybe you don't know everything about the universe?

That's what gets me up in the mornings. The knowledge of just how much knowledge there still is for me to learn.
I would die if I ever woke up and found out that I already now everything there is to know about why the world is what it is.

Why is faith more important than reason?
Why is the 'I don't know' such a scary exclamation and you'd rather gamble in being wrong but determined on your faith? Why the universe not enough by itself, seeing how we have barely begun to understand it?
I don't need a god to fill the gaps of what I don't know. I'm perfectly comfortable in knowing that I don't know; in fact it makes me happy, because it means I know what directions I could go to learn even more about life.

Like the skeptic Hamlet told the religious Horatio:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Deviant and BP is almost in a state of permanent devastation from being afraid that their beliefs wont be real.

I can't speak for BP, but for myself, I can tell you that being afraid has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I think it's exactly the opposite.

Before, when I questioned the existence of God, when I questioned whether or not I was living a "Godly" life, or whether even questioning God's existence was a sin, as so many people are brainwashed into believing, I had a lot of fear. Mainly I feared that once this life was over, there would be nothing to show for it. A handful of decades and all that energy wasted for what? If God does not exist, what is the point in our own existence?

I used to fear death. Once I accepted that there is a God I don't fear death anymore. I know it will come when it's meant to come. If there is nothing else afterwards, then so be it. No harm done. Nothing I can do about it anyway. I'm at peace with it, and I can't explain what that peace feels like to someone who doesn't understand what God feels like. It's just not something that can be explained. You either feel it or you don't. If you're meant to feel it, then you will at some point.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I would say that nature and the universe is rather important to everything and everyone in existence. Pretty sure that most everyone else out there would agree with that, whether they believe in God or not.

Certainly, but both nature and the universe are empirical things which have real consequences for not understanding them. If I go out into a blizzard without a coat on, I will die. If I walk on the moon, I will be able to jump higher because of the decreased gravity (and because of the lack of atmosphere, without a space suit, I will die).

Your idea of God however, has no consequences whatsoever, and by your own admission, no observable effect on the natural world which it supposedly IS. Therefore your God is both irrelevant and self-refuting.

Where is your proof that it is false? Are you saying that nature is false? Are you one of those people that believe we're all just thoughts, that reality isn't real? I'm confused by your statement.

You have stated that your God IS nature, and simultaneously has no effect ON nature. Therefore your god is both irrelevant and self-refuting.

Got it?

No, I really don't think you do. I think your belief that there is no God prevents you from having any clue where I'm coming from at all.

I don't positively believe that there is "no god whatsoever" I just lack belief in Gods, as I have seen no sufficient evidence for their existence.

Let me put it another way: it may NOT be said that there definitively is no god, but it MAY be definitively said that there is no reason to believe that there is one. When we deal with specific gods (like the judeo-christian God, or various pagan gods), it often can be objectively shown that these gods do not exist, based upon logical suppositions taken from their nature.

For instance, the God of the bible is held as a perfect being, yet in the gospels he is shown to NOT know everything (Like when he sent his angels to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if there was a righteous man in town. A perfect God would know this and therefore would not need to send angels, Therefore he is not perfect, and therefore the God of the bible does not exist.

Similarly, we know Thor is supposed to cause lightning and thunder with his magical hammer, however, thanks to science we know that lightning and thunder are caused by electrical build-up in clouds. Therefore Thor does not cause lighting bolts to strike with his magic hammer, therefore Thor does not exist.

Why didn't you acknowledge my questions about your scientific evidence of there being no God? I showed you the courtesy of answering all your questions, even through your insults.

I showed you proof positive that your God does not exist. I also just showed you proof positive that Thor and the God of Abraham do not exist.

If you want me to show proof positive that all Gods ever imagined and all gods that ever will be imagined do not exist we're going to be here a long time.

As I said, the default position is the negative. It is not my responsibility to prove a negative, it is your responsibility to prove a positive.

If you told me that "aliens exist" It would be appropriate for me to say "Prove your claim", and you could do it by catching an alien and showing it to me.

I could say "Aliens do not exist" and you could say "prove your claim" which would be impossible, as the only way to prove this would be to be able to see everywhere in the universe at all times.

It would be silly, however, for you to say: "Show me proof" if I were to say "I have seen no sufficient empirical evidence for the existence of aliens, and therefore I will behave as if aliens do not exist, until I see some".

As a theist making a positive claim burden of proof is on you, not me.

Got it?