Is it possible for religion to merely be a moral philosophy and not interact directly with science? As an example, if one tries to live life by the example of Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammed), does this still qualify as religion or merely philosophy? Does it become something else when you deify the person you wish to emulate?
BTW, I watched Dawkins' documentary and found him to be extremely arrogant and condescending. In just one example, the idea that Atheists == "Free Thinkers" and Religious!="Free Thinkers" is ludicrous. Just because someone came to the conclusion that religion was the correct way to live his/her life makes them a non-free thinker? Having religion does not make one less of a person or an intellectual. Blindly following any belief (including atheism, global warming, conservatism or any others) is foolish.
Is it possible for religion to merely be a moral philosophy and not interact directly with science? As an example, if one tries to live life by the example of Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammed), does this still qualify as religion or merely philosophy? Does it become something else when you deify the person you wish to emulate?
Are you saying that Jesus was an atheist? Honoring God was a large part of Jesus's life.
Is it possible for religion to merely be a moral philosophy and not interact directly with science? As an example, if one tries to live life by the example of Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammed), does this still qualify as religion or merely philosophy? Does it become something else when you deify the person you wish to emulate?
If you aren't worshiping, or having faith in, a supernatural force or deity, then it's not religion. Confuscianism isn't a religion, neither is Platoism or Aristotlism. If you decide to live by the philosophy of an already existing human being, you're doing just that and nothing more. Jesus probably wasn't a real person, but I don't think that matters in this point. Even assuming there never was a Jesus, living according to his supposed philosophy would be no different than living by the philosophy of Batman or Vash the Stampede. You can live by whatever philosophy you want as long as you can defend that philosophy.
BTW, I watched Dawkins' documentary and found him to be extremely arrogant and condescending. In just one example, the idea that Atheists == "Free Thinkers" and Religious!="Free Thinkers" is ludicrous. Just because someone came to the conclusion that religion was the correct way to live his/her life makes them a non-free thinker? Having religion does not make one less of a person or an intellectual. Blindly following any belief (including atheism, global warming, conservatism or any others) is foolish.
I've said it before in this thread and other places. Even if someone is arrogant, that has no bearing on whether or not what they are saying is correct. It is possible to speak both the highest truths and the bases lies in an arrogant and condescending fashion. In this case, Dawkins is clearly right. You said it yourself, following any belief blindly is foolish. Someone who follows a belief blindly can not think freely because their judgment is clouded by illogical faith. Therefore, it is only possible for non-religious people to be free thinkers.
As for the possibility of following atheism blindly, I don't think anyone does that. I don't know if it is even possible. Most atheists, at least most of them here, were raised as theists. Only by logic, reason and education were we able to arrive at atheism. To say we arrived at it blindly couldn't be further from the truth. Also, atheism is the default state. If we took a human family and put them in the jungle having no exposure to the outside world, would they be theists? Probably not. Even if they were theists, they would believe in whatever joojoo they came up with to explain the things they didn't understand. They would most certainly not believe in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Most likely they'd just live like animals. Animals are all atheists. Humans are animals.
The authors' versions of the scriptures were genuine and correct, because this article was given to over 200 of the top universities in the world. Not one mathematician could prove it wrong.
I say Bollocks to that. For all we know, 200 (or 2000) top universities tossed it in the bin, with the other simian drivel, on receipt. There is no need to answer every crackpot, especially a crackpot with a known woo-woo idea.
I repeat, nobody has to prove this garbage wrong, the authors must prove it correct. Repeated assertions do not count as proof.
I do not believe the author should cite sources, because all he used was the bible and his brain.
If the author wants to be taken seriously, he must give enough information for the work (such as it is) to be repeated by independent scholars. In this case, that would include at least a reference to which version of the scriptures used, and a discussion as to why they are a better set than any other possible set.
The books in the Apocrypha should be rejected because that is not the bible. The bible has 66 books. It may have had books taken out of it, but because those books were purely written by humans and incorrect.
This ignores the fact that all of the decisions on which book to keep and which books to toss were made by humans, not god. The composition of the scriptures is a controversy as old as christianity. The 66 books accepted by some sects of christians are those chosen by some dusty group of ancient theologians long ago. Why were they correct? Did they have some direct line to god that others did not?
I only brought this up because I thought you guys would want "mathematical" evidence. May it be evidence or not, this is the closest thing I have. Similar studies have been done, and no other "religious" book can nearly compare results.
There is no evidence of anything in that article but the author's ability to waste perfectly good time staring at his navel and finding logical fallacies to employ. There is no evidence of the divine inspiration of the scriptures in the article, mathematical or otherwise.
I do not understand how this only provides extraordinary claims. The math is there, and correct.
Among the extraordinary claims here are, first, an omnipotent, supernatural being exists, and gives a hoot about us. Second, a particular book, written by humans, is in fact the inspired word of this being and is correct in every particular, even where it appears to reflect the ignorance of science and technology that would be expected of the ancient nomadic culture from whence it sprang. There are no doubt others, but those two will do for a start.
Further, the math is not there. Until we have access to the exact text used in the analysis, and to any algorithms and/or code used, so it can be independently inspected and tested, nothing is there. What we have here is an overlong, breathless bit of drivel that makes many claims that cannot be independently verified with the information provided. Some of the claims -- the special significance of the number 7 comes to mind -- cannot be proven or disproven in a rational sense. They are simply assertions. Well, someone else could just as well assert the opposite, and where would the author be?
I do not need scientific evidence to prove my god.
This is the first rational thing I have heard in this discussion. The faithful have faith; which does not require proof. That is fine, as far as it goes, but the faithful go astray when they try to then claim that there is any rational basis for their faith. There is not.
I just thought that's what you guys want me to try and find. "Extraordinary prove, for extraordinary claims". Claim or not, I am just trying to give what you guys are asking for. I am not a snot christian who thinks that "ooh atheist" he must be a real bad person. You are all great people, I am just trying to explain my points.
For myself, I never worried about that. The opinion of a christian (or muslim, or zoroastrian, ...) on my non-belief means not a thing to me. Actions, like trying to establish protestant christianity as state religion in the USA, seeking to make us into some sort of Iran with crosses in place of crescents, bothers me. I don't read that in hiro's writings. I just see a lot of irrational nonsense, and point that out. That is the nature of discussion, and nothing personal.
This is like a court room. Anything I say can and will be used against me. What the fuck am I supposed to do?
I would argue that this is nothing like a courtroom. It is true that anything you say can and will be examined, and counterarguments made. That is the nature of discussion, and nothing to get huffy about. You make claims, others will examine them and point out the errors they see.
That is an invitation for you to either agree, or not. Unlike a courtroom, you are allowed to make a counterargument of whatever length you like, and no judge or attorney will cut you short, or twist your words without allowing you to respond. Further, you need no degree or other credential to express yourself. Your arguments will stand or fall on their merits.
Further, neither your freedom nor your property are on the line.
Now, if your feelings are being hurt by people refusing to agree with you, I suggest two things. One, grow a thicker skin. Second, never forget that anyone one this forum (or anywhere else) is as full of shit as the next guy.
It is unlikely that all the people in the world, given an infinite amount of time, without any new discoveries being made to support either position (God does exist, God does not exist, to put it bluntly), will ever determine the truth, and here is why:
It is clear to scientists that the universe operates according to a set of laws that is likely finite and unbounded (PRINCIPLE 1). We admit that we do not know all of these laws, and that we may never know all of them. We create theories to approximate these laws.
It seems clear (I cannot say this from first-hand experience, as I am not a member of the party) to believers in an intelligent designer that the universe operates according to the will of an intelligent being, with the power to enact virtually anything within the realm of the known universe (PRINCIPLE 2).
I hope it is clear to you, the reader, that these two possibilities are indistinguishable given the sum of all possible human knowledge and thinking available today. To say the second is true is to imply the first--the intelligent designer's thoughts are the laws that bind the universe. To contradict the previous statement is to say that the intelligent designer's thoughts are utter chaos. That statement is problematic, since the intelligent designer is meant to provide meaning, where the purely scientific viewpoint promotes chaos.
I put it to the believers, on whom the burden of proof for the claim of an intelligent designer is firmly set, to explain to me the difference between the scientific point of view (PRINCIPLE 1) and the so-called religious point of view (PRINCIPLE 2). This must be done outside of the context of issues such as evolution, the age of the planet Earth, and the destiny of individuals after their death, because those issues are a subset of the true question.
You may find that when you examine the whole question, and not one instance of it, the distinction becomes meaningless. You also may not.
The point is, if you do accept that PRINCIPLE 1 and PRINCIPLE 2 are indistinguishable (that is not to say identical), then you cannot resolve any dispute between any instances of the class of this question, such as the evolution question, by referring to this, the parent concept. In other words, a theory of evolution contradicting the modern Darwinian-based theory would require its own evidence independent of the statement of PRINCIPLE 2.
Arguments like this are made only by people who do not understand what science is. It's sort of a straw man when you think about it. He sets up his idea of what science is, which is not accurate, and attacks it. The only other thing I can say is that science is not avoiding faith. Science is following the evidence which has steered us in a direction far away from anything magical or supernatural. It really all comes down to evidence.
The only other thing I can say is that science is not avoiding faith. Science is following the evidence which has steered us in a direction far away from anything magical or supernatural. It really all comes down to evidence.
Yeah, my parents believe that evolution can work with religion. They believe in the big bang and evolution, but they believe God caused it. Instead of being ignorant to science, they embrace it as being more "evidence" towards God. And that's a hell of a lot better than being a creationist.
Yeah, my parents believe that evolution can work with religion. They believe in the big bang and evolution, but they believe God caused it. Instead of being ignorant to science, they embrace it as being more "evidence" towards God. And that's a hell of a lot better than being a creationist.
I would agree. I've actually always wondered why religious people seemed to attack the Big Bang theory so much to begin with. It does sound a lot like something a god would do in the first place. ^_^
Have you ever asked them what changes if they removed God from the equation?
Just a note on this thread, I find it extremely entertaining reading over this thread again. That every time someone presented evidence that was shown to be illogical they stormed off and said enough with this. We shouldn't get offended by people challenging our dearly held beliefs.
I think the original question itself was flawed. The burden of proof cannot lay on either side. For religion, and therefore God (or god if you prefer) is something that is based on faith, not science. Short of God coming down himself and say "yo, what-up?" there is no way to either prove or disprove an existence of something that does not answer to any laws of the universe that we know and don't know. And even that would not necessary be proof as someone could claim that is not god, but instead someone imitating God.
There is also nothing I can think of that you can even compare it to. Everything else in existence is contained in the universe that we live in. So for everything else it is a matter of proving through either methods we currently have or future discoveries of those methods. Belief in God is just that. Belief. Proof of no god will not sway someone who believes, for that belief is based on faith and not something factual. Nor will any proof (or assumption of proof) be enough to sway someone who does not believe as they would then have to accept that belief itself.
So the original question is flawed in my opinion. Belief of God relies on Faith, proving God doesn't exist relies on Science. The two are mutually exclusive. The burden of proof can not rest on either side, for there is no way to prove it either way that the other side will accept.
[T]he original question is flawed in my opinion. Belief of God relies on Faith, proving God doesn't exist relies on Science. The two are mutually exclusive. The burden of proof can not rest on either side, for there is no way to prove it either way that the other side will accept.
That one or the other side won't accept the "proof" might show a lack of logic or rationality, but it says nothing about the question.
It's more straightforward than you seem to think: "who bears the burden of proof regarding God?". I guess it could be clarified by changing "regarding God" to "of God's existence". So, when we talk about God, who bears the burden of proof: the believer to prove God exists, or the non-believer to prove he doesn't?
The answer is equally easy: if someone says something exists, they have a lot of questions to answer, starting with: "why should I believe this thing exists?" The believer (in God, or anything else) clearly bears the burden. They made the claim, and further, in God's case, the believer would have us change our behavior--by force if needs be--based on God's existence, and the inspired truth of their particular book of tales.
If we think about it more, the question should be "why is the answer not obvious to the most casual observer?".
Rationally, the non-believer cannot prove God does not exist---non-existence is logically unprovable. The best a pedantically correct non-believer can say is "there is no rational reason to believe God exists". The believer cannot take too much comfort in this: it is trivially true of any belief, however wacky. Disprove ESP, you can't, nor telekinesis, or Santa Claus. No one can bear the burden of proving something's non-existence.
However,given the lack of evidence for God's existence, the non-believer could argue further that there is no reason to act as if God exists, or even as if God might exist. The non-believer can't prove God doesn't exist, but that does not mean he has to think it probable or even likely that God exists. Given the current state of evidence for God's existence, a rational person could choose to act as if he didn't exist until some iota of evidence suggests otherwise.
So why do the believers insist on respect for their religious beliefs? Why is religion a rude topic to bring up at a dinner party? Why would most people call me a nut if I insisted I have a Pokemon in my garage, but give Father O'Brian of St. Mary's of Perpetual Oblivion a pass? After all, Fr. O'Brian does the same thing I do, substituting God for Pikachu.
The reason: Fr. O'Brian comes from an organization that has been asserting God's existence for centuries, most of that time having the temporal power to force people to agree, in public at least. God has become a given in our societal programming. Without the tradition, the question of proof becomes easy to answer. Who would bear the burden of proof regarding Zeus? Why not hold the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god to the same standard?
More generally: if anyone says "X is true, so you should do Y", the first thought should be "is X true?". If the only answer is "because", or "you gotta have faith", or "shaddup before I lock you up, infidel!", your bull corn meter should be going off. If we taught that sort of thinking in schools, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, many seem more interested in making sure kids know their place, and don't get uppity. Too bad...
[note: Lest anyone think I think I've stumbled on something new: that is a mangled restatement of Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot parable, which I read in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, which I can finally really dig into (having finished the much more important Watchmen). Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world makes a similar argument, with an Invisible Pink Dragon replacing my Pikachu. --HJA]
Here's my problem with the argument (and chances are its just me): I am a rather rational person. However I "Know" there is a higher power. I could go into allot of why I believe this however as a rational person I know that all my "reason" are more or less only partial attempts to prove a non-provable issue. As a rational person, not being able to explain rationally why I know this to be a fact, causes a conflict. This is where faith comes in. Religion is based on faith. If there was no faith, then there would be no religion. There would also be allot less science. Allot of science is accepted as truth, even though there is no hard evidence of things (one example that comes to mind is the whole Big Bang Theory, as scientist have no idea where that came from except to guess a previous universe which goes in a forever ending loop until you just have to have faith that this was the way it always was). Many theories are still theories because rational thought can only bring it so far
My reason to think the question is flawed partially stems from this. I do not believe that someone who is religious can prove to someone who is not religious since that proof would require proof of something unprovable. As belief in God stems from faith, there is no way I could impart faith into someone who does not want that faith. If imparting faith was the same as imparting knowledge, then it would be possible. but Faith must come from oneself, not from outside sources (no matter what a church may say).
By the same token, someone who is not religious could not prove to me that God does not exists. Given your example of Pikachu, I could go into your garage and see there is no Pikachu. Now if you stated he existed in a way I couldn't see or react with, then I could not disprove this to you. If you beleive this to be true, then there is no way I could prove Pikachu, or even a Pichu does not exists as this state. No test i could do could ever not prove its existence.
The burden of proof to prove or disprove a God can not be had by either side. I know that very religious people believe that they have the burden to go out and convert the world. People who do not believe in the Spaghetti Monster want to go out and tell those that do that they are idiots and therefore also have a self imposed burden to prove their point. So I'm not sure how one can expect one side or the other to bare that burden. Or another way to say it is both sides bare the burden of proof since both side have an equal footing in both the thought behind their reasons. But neither has a hope to change the minds on the subject.
Can one expect one side or another to bare a burden of a task that cannot be accomplished?
Religion is based on faith. If there was no faith, then there would be no religion. There would also be allot less science. Allot of science is accepted as truth, even though there is no hard evidence of things (one example that comes to mind is the whole Big Bang Theory, as scientist have no idea where that came from except to guess a previous universe which goes in a forever ending loop until you just have to have faith that this was the way it always was). Many theories are still theories because rational thought can only bring it so far
First off, how do you come to the conclusion that there would be less science if there was less faith? Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method. As per the Big Bang, I would suppose that you have little to no comprehension of the Big Bang at all and you are just going on stuff you have heard from other people. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Here is a link to some answers to common misconceptions of the Big Bang, including going over the overwhelming evidence supporting it. The Big Bang may not be the correct theory, but it is the best we have now and there has yet to be any contradictory evidence.Also, the Big Bang doesn't go out to prove how the universe started, just what happened after the instant of it's beginning. People always try to ask more of the theories than what they actually explain. Like Prof. Voisey said, you don't demand that the Theory of Gravity explain where mass originated, the Germ Theory explain where germs come from, the Atomic Theory explain where atoms come from, do you? Finally, a scientific theory is different from how it is understood in common knowledge. In common usage, the word theory means "conjecture" or "opinion". However, in scientific terms, a theory "is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation"(Wikipedia). Please understand the difference.
I do not believe that someone who is religious can prove to someone who is not religious since that proof would require proof of something unprovable.
If god is not provable, then why believe he exists? If he in any way affects your life, that should be an observable event. If prayer really worked, we should be able to study it and quantify it. If something in the universe was only explainable through, to what would seem to us now, a "supernatural" event or "influence", then there might be reason to believe he might exist. But no such observation has been made.
By the same token, someone who is not religious could not prove to me that God does not exists. Given your example of Pikachu, I could go into your garage and see there is no Pikachu. Now if you stated he existed in a way I couldn't see or react with, then I could not disprove this to you. If you beleive this to be true, then there is no way I could prove Pikachu, or even a Pichu does not exists as this state. No test i could do could ever not prove its existence.
If there is no way to empirically observe a phenomenon or event, why would you think that it would exist? If someone told me they had a pickachu that I could not see or react with, I would say he doesn't exist, or else prove it to me. If they can't, then why even give credence to the idea? The scientific method demands that you provide empirical evidence for your claim, else it effectively does not exist. There is no method to prove that something does not exist. This is a logical fallacy. Try reading into Russell's Teapot.
Or another way to say it is both sides bare the burden of proof since both side have an equal footing in both the thought behind their reasons. But neither has a hope to change the minds on the subject. Can one expect one side or another to bare a burden of a task that cannot be accomplished?
Wrong, the sides are not on equal footing. I demand empirical proof of your god. Give it to me, and I will change my mind. I am not biased in my stance, I wish dearly there was a god, it would be comforting to know that someone was watching over me and that if I do what he commanded, I would live in bliss for eternity. Unfortunately, there is no scientific reason to believe he or any supernatural being exists. If you cannot accomplish the task of evidence, then he is effectively non-existent.
Wrong, the sides are not on equal footing. I demand empirical proof of your god. Give it to me, and I will change my mind.
Truth in the Bible... Time for a a test. Well a test of things that can be tested at least. The Flood. The Bible tells of a great flood that covers the earth. Truth. Scientist have indeed covered the earth. In fact sea shells have been found on-top of mountain ranges. Babel. The Bible states at one point all people were together, and all the land was connected. Scientist have proposed Pangea. A land mass that over time has slit apart to what we now know to be the continents. God Exists. The Bible states that he exists. Unprovable. There is no way I am able to prove that he exists, except through my own faith that he exists. If there was a way to impart faith in something, the world would be a very different place. Therefore I demand proof that he does not exists. You are also unable to prove that he does not exists. The two sides therefore cannot prove to each other anything.
If god is not provable, then why believe he exists? If he in any way affects your life, that should be an observable event. If prayer really worked, we should be able to study it and quantify it. If something in the universe was only explainable through, to what would seem to us now, a "supernatural" event or "influence", then there might be reason to believe he might exist. But no such observation has been made.
"Evidence" of influence exists all around. The problem is thus: Those that believe in a higher power see it as influence. Those that do not see it as coincident, accident, or just a statistical anomaly.
This is my problem with the question. The burden of proof lies with whoever needs to prove to the other side wrong. My fiance, who does not believe in God also is content, and does not try to disprove God (which incidentally is probably why there's no issue there). So the burden does not lay with her. I am content with not proving God's existence. Therefore the burden of proof does not bare with me. I believe in a God because I just feel that this is a truth. As my fiance says "Faith is where rational thought ends, and hoping begins". My belief in his existence does not rely on anything earthly.
If I ignore my statement that this is something in which there cannot be burden of proof, we then must determine it one of two ways. Unfortuanly these two ways give the opposite answer. One way is the boldness of the claim. In this case people who are religious or believe in a higher power need to prove that there is a God. The other is whichever is the majority does not need to prove itself. The majority of the world currently believes in a higher power, so then the burden of proof lies with the the anti-God crowd.
I do not accept either of these as answers. The reason is that the burden of proof must be prove in the other persons arena of thought. This is not possible! Scientist argue science, theologians argue faith. These are mutually exclusive. one deals with the tangible, the other deals with the intangibles. The same arguments could be applied to burden of proof that the soul exists, or reincarnation is true. Not of those will be able to be answered due to the fact that science cannot prove nor disprove them, so there can't be an answer, therefore no burden except that which people place upon themselves. This is my argument.
(side note - the Big Bang Theory thing I should have explained differently. I understand that the Big Bang theory deals only with after the creation of the universe not he actual creation itself. However the majority of the population does not understand this. Most group the two together. What I was trying to explain was that people accept theories as fact. Most people do not understand that although theories are general scientifically sound, they are not absolute, and therefore take some faith to completely trust)
"Evidence" of influence exists all around. The problem is thus: Those that believe in a higher power see it as influence. Those that do not see it as coincident, accident, or just a statistical anomaly.
This is a nothing statement. You're skirting around the issue by saying that. Evidence doesn't require a certain perspective to be true. I can say all I want that from my view, chairs are proof of vampires. Doesn't mean that that should hold any sway over anyone else.
Truth in the Bible... Time for a a test. Well a test of things that can be tested at least. The Flood. The Bible tells of a great flood that covers the earth. Truth. Scientist have indeed covered the earth. In fact sea shells have been found on-top of mountain ranges. Babel. The Bible states at one point all people were together, and all the land was connected.
Sources? I haven't found anything to support your claims.
The story of Babel covers the creation of a "tower that reached the heavens". Looking through Genesis 11:1-9, I see no mention of a single land mass nor do I see any mention of god splitting apart the land to create continents. There is mention of a single language, but not a single land mass or large mass. Also, we have geological evidence to support the current Pangaea model, a model which does not require the influence of the super natural to exist.
You mention that you have "faith" that god exists and that faith is irrational. Why would you find believing in something which has no evidence or support apart from an old book a virtue? Why is irrational thought something which is admired in our culture?
I do not accept either of these as answers. The reason is that the burden of proof must be prove in the other persons arena of thought. This is not possible! Scientist argue science, theologians argue faith. These are mutually exclusive. one deals with the tangible, the other deals with the intangibles. The same arguments could be applied to burden of proof that the soul exists, or reincarnation is true. Not of those will be able to be answered due to the fact that science cannot prove nor disprove them, so there can't be an answer, therefore no burden except that which people place upon themselves. This is my argument.
Again, a negative proof is a logical fallacy. Science does not need to disprove anything. It has no agenda, it doesn't care about what you believe. As far as it is concerned, there is no reason to believe that some deity exists. Science is a way to correlate evidence to phenomenon through the process of reason. Since you state that your faith is irrational, it is not science, which you state. I have no problem with what you believe, you can do whatever you want. But do not say that some deity exists when you have no evidence and do not try push your beliefs off as fact.
I'll restate it, but why believe in something for which there is no reason to believe exists in the first place?
I'm afraid that I cannot answer your question. For I cannot in any rational reasonable way. This is the whole problem that most people that try to "expand" religion will always run across. The reason I believe it to exist is that something internal makes me believe it. There is no rational reason. The reason that this conversation will last forever if we keep discussing is this issue. I do not argue that there is a God. To me this is a personal issue that only can be answered to oneself. It cannot be proven to someone else. Your reasons to believe in God therefore are useless in any given conversation. I do not try to push my belief in God as fact since I know his can never be the case. To that end I'll stop here. To me discussions are only usefully or entertaining if they continue a moving a thread of thought. We have only been arguing in circles for the last day or two with no clear distinctions on either side of are argument to each other. I appreciate that you have no issues with my belief, but in terms of the conversation I'm afraid that there is no real reason for either of us to continue putting energy into this. I will never accept your base theory that in order to believe or prove God there must be a reason behind it, nor (I assume) that you will accept that one's belief in God will always fly in the opposition of science since faith takes over where science ends.
That every time someone presented evidence that was shown to be illogical they stormed off and said enough with this. We shouldn't get offended by people challenging our dearly held beliefs.
To that end I'll stop here. To me discussions are only usefully or entertaining if they continue a moving a thread of thought. We have only been arguing in circles for the last day or two with no clear distinctions on either side of are argument to each other.
Truth in the Bible... Time for a a test. Well a test of things that can be tested at least. The Flood. The Bible tells of a great flood that covers the earth. Truth. Scientist have indeed covered the earth. In fact sea shells have been found on-top of mountain ranges. Babel. The Bible states at one point all people were together, and all the land was connected. Scientist have proposed Pangea. A land mass that over time has slit apart to what we now know to be the continents. God Exists. The Bible states that he exists. Unprovable. There is no way I am able to prove that he exists, except through my own faith that he exists. If there was a way to impart faith in something, the world would be a very different place. Therefore I demand proof that he does not exists. You are also unable to prove that he does not exists. The two sides therefore cannot prove to each other anything.
But when Waterisposion showed you how these things were fallacies, you then fell back on your faith. If you indeed believe these things on faith alone, why did you even bother presenting these proof's since when they were shown not to be helpful to your belief you completely abandoned them and then left the rational side of the debate.
Are you saying that the god you believe in has an effect on this word that would be testable or are you arguing for the god of Einstein (a god of math and physics and nothing else) the god of most astronomers or some god inbetween. This is a important distinction because if a god does not have any testable claims it can as you say not be shown to not exist, but a god that doesn't have any testable claims is not a necessary god to believe in.
Mark 16 v 17-18 And those who believe will be able to do these things as proof: They will use my name to force out demons. They will speak in new languages. They will pick up snakes and drink poison without being hurt. They will touch the sick, and the sick will be healed.â€
Yet you claim to have faith in one. Why do you believe in something that you refuse to back up? You've admitted clearly several times that you have zero backing for your beliefs. Yet, you continue to believe. That is a serious cognitive dissonance. You are either incapable of rational thought, or you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.
More to the point, Tasel has provided nothing but poorly written, facile arguments lacking both substance and clarity. They are intellectually void, and frankly not worth the time of rational people. In the marketplace of ideas, Tasel is selling wooden nickels.
Comments
BTW, I watched Dawkins' documentary and found him to be extremely arrogant and condescending. In just one example, the idea that Atheists == "Free Thinkers" and Religious!="Free Thinkers" is ludicrous. Just because someone came to the conclusion that religion was the correct way to live his/her life makes them a non-free thinker? Having religion does not make one less of a person or an intellectual. Blindly following any belief (including atheism, global warming, conservatism or any others) is foolish.
As for the possibility of following atheism blindly, I don't think anyone does that. I don't know if it is even possible. Most atheists, at least most of them here, were raised as theists. Only by logic, reason and education were we able to arrive at atheism. To say we arrived at it blindly couldn't be further from the truth. Also, atheism is the default state. If we took a human family and put them in the jungle having no exposure to the outside world, would they be theists? Probably not. Even if they were theists, they would believe in whatever joojoo they came up with to explain the things they didn't understand. They would most certainly not believe in Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Most likely they'd just live like animals. Animals are all atheists. Humans are animals.
I repeat, nobody has to prove this garbage wrong, the authors must prove it correct. Repeated assertions do not count as proof. If the author wants to be taken seriously, he must give enough information for the work (such as it is) to be repeated by independent scholars. In this case, that would include at least a reference to which version of the scriptures used, and a discussion as to why they are a better set than any other possible set. This ignores the fact that all of the decisions on which book to keep and which books to toss were made by humans, not god. The composition of the scriptures is a controversy as old as christianity. The 66 books accepted by some sects of christians are those chosen by some dusty group of ancient theologians long ago. Why were they correct? Did they have some direct line to god that others did not? There is no evidence of anything in that article but the author's ability to waste perfectly good time staring at his navel and finding logical fallacies to employ. There is no evidence of the divine inspiration of the scriptures in the article, mathematical or otherwise. Among the extraordinary claims here are, first, an omnipotent, supernatural being exists, and gives a hoot about us. Second, a particular book, written by humans, is in fact the inspired word of this being and is correct in every particular, even where it appears to reflect the ignorance of science and technology that would be expected of the ancient nomadic culture from whence it sprang. There are no doubt others, but those two will do for a start.
Further, the math is not there. Until we have access to the exact text used in the analysis, and to any algorithms and/or code used, so it can be independently inspected and tested, nothing is there. What we have here is an overlong, breathless bit of drivel that makes many claims that cannot be independently verified with the information provided. Some of the claims -- the special significance of the number 7 comes to mind -- cannot be proven or disproven in a rational sense. They are simply assertions. Well, someone else could just as well assert the opposite, and where would the author be? This is the first rational thing I have heard in this discussion. The faithful have faith; which does not require proof. That is fine, as far as it goes, but the faithful go astray when they try to then claim that there is any rational basis for their faith. There is not. For myself, I never worried about that. The opinion of a christian (or muslim, or zoroastrian, ...) on my non-belief means not a thing to me. Actions, like trying to establish protestant christianity as state religion in the USA, seeking to make us into some sort of Iran with crosses in place of crescents, bothers me. I don't read that in hiro's writings. I just see a lot of irrational nonsense, and point that out. That is the nature of discussion, and nothing personal.
Cheers,
Hank
That is an invitation for you to either agree, or not. Unlike a courtroom, you are allowed to make a counterargument of whatever length you like, and no judge or attorney will cut you short, or twist your words without allowing you to respond. Further, you need no degree or other credential to express yourself. Your arguments will stand or fall on their merits.
Further, neither your freedom nor your property are on the line.
Now, if your feelings are being hurt by people refusing to agree with you, I suggest two things. One, grow a thicker skin. Second, never forget that anyone one this forum (or anywhere else) is as full of shit as the next guy.
Cheers,
Hank
It is clear to scientists that the universe operates according to a set of laws that is likely finite and unbounded (PRINCIPLE 1). We admit that we do not know all of these laws, and that we may never know all of them. We create theories to approximate these laws.
It seems clear (I cannot say this from first-hand experience, as I am not a member of the party) to believers in an intelligent designer that the universe operates according to the will of an intelligent being, with the power to enact virtually anything within the realm of the known universe (PRINCIPLE 2).
I hope it is clear to you, the reader, that these two possibilities are indistinguishable given the sum of all possible human knowledge and thinking available today. To say the second is true is to imply the first--the intelligent designer's thoughts are the laws that bind the universe. To contradict the previous statement is to say that the intelligent designer's thoughts are utter chaos. That statement is problematic, since the intelligent designer is meant to provide meaning, where the purely scientific viewpoint promotes chaos.
I put it to the believers, on whom the burden of proof for the claim of an intelligent designer is firmly set, to explain to me the difference between the scientific point of view (PRINCIPLE 1) and the so-called religious point of view (PRINCIPLE 2). This must be done outside of the context of issues such as evolution, the age of the planet Earth, and the destiny of individuals after their death, because those issues are a subset of the true question.
You may find that when you examine the whole question, and not one instance of it, the distinction becomes meaningless. You also may not.
The point is, if you do accept that PRINCIPLE 1 and PRINCIPLE 2 are indistinguishable (that is not to say identical), then you cannot resolve any dispute between any instances of the class of this question, such as the evolution question, by referring to this, the parent concept. In other words, a theory of evolution contradicting the modern Darwinian-based theory would require its own evidence independent of the statement of PRINCIPLE 2.
Do you agree or disagree?
Well, here is the thing, we have free will. Read Alita Last Order :P
Have you ever asked them what changes if they removed God from the equation?
Just a note on this thread, I find it extremely entertaining reading over this thread again. That every time someone presented evidence that was shown to be illogical they stormed off and said enough with this. We shouldn't get offended by people challenging our dearly held beliefs.
I think the original question itself was flawed. The burden of proof cannot lay on either side. For religion, and therefore God (or god if you prefer) is something that is based on faith, not science. Short of God coming down himself and say "yo, what-up?" there is no way to either prove or disprove an existence of something that does not answer to any laws of the universe that we know and don't know. And even that would not necessary be proof as someone could claim that is not god, but instead someone imitating God.
There is also nothing I can think of that you can even compare it to. Everything else in existence is contained in the universe that we live in. So for everything else it is a matter of proving through either methods we currently have or future discoveries of those methods. Belief in God is just that. Belief. Proof of no god will not sway someone who believes, for that belief is based on faith and not something factual. Nor will any proof (or assumption of proof) be enough to sway someone who does not believe as they would then have to accept that belief itself.
So the original question is flawed in my opinion. Belief of God relies on Faith, proving God doesn't exist relies on Science. The two are mutually exclusive. The burden of proof can not rest on either side, for there is no way to prove it either way that the other side will accept.
It's more straightforward than you seem to think: "who bears the burden of proof regarding God?". I guess it could be clarified by changing "regarding God" to "of God's existence". So, when we talk about God, who bears the burden of proof: the believer to prove God exists, or the non-believer to prove he doesn't?
The answer is equally easy: if someone says something exists, they have a lot of questions to answer, starting with: "why should I believe this thing exists?" The believer (in God, or anything else) clearly bears the burden. They made the claim, and further, in God's case, the believer would have us change our behavior--by force if needs be--based on God's existence, and the inspired truth of their particular book of tales.
If we think about it more, the question should be "why is the answer not obvious to the most casual observer?".
Rationally, the non-believer cannot prove God does not exist---non-existence is logically unprovable. The best a pedantically correct non-believer can say is "there is no rational reason to believe God exists". The believer cannot take too much comfort in this: it is trivially true of any belief, however wacky. Disprove ESP, you can't, nor telekinesis, or Santa Claus. No one can bear the burden of proving something's non-existence.
However,given the lack of evidence for God's existence, the non-believer could argue further that there is no reason to act as if God exists, or even as if God might exist. The non-believer can't prove God doesn't exist, but that does not mean he has to think it probable or even likely that God exists. Given the current state of evidence for God's existence, a rational person could choose to act as if he didn't exist until some iota of evidence suggests otherwise.
So why do the believers insist on respect for their religious beliefs? Why is religion a rude topic to bring up at a dinner party? Why would most people call me a nut if I insisted I have a Pokemon in my garage, but give Father O'Brian of St. Mary's of Perpetual Oblivion a pass? After all, Fr. O'Brian does the same thing I do, substituting God for Pikachu.
The reason: Fr. O'Brian comes from an organization that has been asserting God's existence for centuries, most of that time having the temporal power to force people to agree, in public at least. God has become a given in our societal programming. Without the tradition, the question of proof becomes easy to answer. Who would bear the burden of proof regarding Zeus? Why not hold the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god to the same standard?
More generally: if anyone says "X is true, so you should do Y", the first thought should be "is X true?". If the only answer is "because", or "you gotta have faith", or "shaddup before I lock you up, infidel!", your bull corn meter should be going off. If we taught that sort of thinking in schools, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, many seem more interested in making sure kids know their place, and don't get uppity. Too bad...
[note: Lest anyone think I think I've stumbled on something new: that is a mangled restatement of Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot parable, which I read in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, which I can finally really dig into (having finished the much more important Watchmen). Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world makes a similar argument, with an Invisible Pink Dragon replacing my Pikachu. --HJA]
My reason to think the question is flawed partially stems from this. I do not believe that someone who is religious can prove to someone who is not religious since that proof would require proof of something unprovable. As belief in God stems from faith, there is no way I could impart faith into someone who does not want that faith. If imparting faith was the same as imparting knowledge, then it would be possible. but Faith must come from oneself, not from outside sources (no matter what a church may say).
By the same token, someone who is not religious could not prove to me that God does not exists. Given your example of Pikachu, I could go into your garage and see there is no Pikachu. Now if you stated he existed in a way I couldn't see or react with, then I could not disprove this to you. If you beleive this to be true, then there is no way I could prove Pikachu, or even a Pichu does not exists as this state. No test i could do could ever not prove its existence.
The burden of proof to prove or disprove a God can not be had by either side. I know that very religious people believe that they have the burden to go out and convert the world. People who do not believe in the Spaghetti Monster want to go out and tell those that do that they are idiots and therefore also have a self imposed burden to prove their point. So I'm not sure how one can expect one side or the other to bare that burden. Or another way to say it is both sides bare the burden of proof since both side have an equal footing in both the thought behind their reasons. But neither has a hope to change the minds on the subject.
Can one expect one side or another to bare a burden of a task that cannot be accomplished?
This is my problem with the question. The burden of proof lies with whoever needs to prove to the other side wrong. My fiance, who does not believe in God also is content, and does not try to disprove God (which incidentally is probably why there's no issue there). So the burden does not lay with her. I am content with not proving God's existence. Therefore the burden of proof does not bare with me. I believe in a God because I just feel that this is a truth. As my fiance says "Faith is where rational thought ends, and hoping begins". My belief in his existence does not rely on anything earthly.
If I ignore my statement that this is something in which there cannot be burden of proof, we then must determine it one of two ways. Unfortuanly these two ways give the opposite answer. One way is the boldness of the claim. In this case people who are religious or believe in a higher power need to prove that there is a God. The other is whichever is the majority does not need to prove itself. The majority of the world currently believes in a higher power, so then the burden of proof lies with the the anti-God crowd.
I do not accept either of these as answers. The reason is that the burden of proof must be prove in the other persons arena of thought. This is not possible! Scientist argue science, theologians argue faith. These are mutually exclusive. one deals with the tangible, the other deals with the intangibles. The same arguments could be applied to burden of proof that the soul exists, or reincarnation is true. Not of those will be able to be answered due to the fact that science cannot prove nor disprove them, so there can't be an answer, therefore no burden except that which people place upon themselves. This is my argument.
(side note - the Big Bang Theory thing I should have explained differently. I understand that the Big Bang theory deals only with after the creation of the universe not he actual creation itself. However the majority of the population does not understand this. Most group the two together. What I was trying to explain was that people accept theories as fact. Most people do not understand that although theories are general scientifically sound, they are not absolute, and therefore take some faith to completely trust)
- Investigations of the flood
- The story of Babel covers the creation of a "tower that reached the heavens". Looking through Genesis 11:1-9, I see no mention of a single land mass nor do I see any mention of god splitting apart the land to create continents. There is mention of a single language, but not a single land mass or large mass. Also, we have geological evidence to support the current Pangaea model, a model which does not require the influence of the super natural to exist.
You mention that you have "faith" that god exists and that faith is irrational. Why would you find believing in something which has no evidence or support apart from an old book a virtue? Why is irrational thought something which is admired in our culture? Again, a negative proof is a logical fallacy. Science does not need to disprove anything. It has no agenda, it doesn't care about what you believe. As far as it is concerned, there is no reason to believe that some deity exists. Science is a way to correlate evidence to phenomenon through the process of reason. Since you state that your faith is irrational, it is not science, which you state. I have no problem with what you believe, you can do whatever you want. But do not say that some deity exists when you have no evidence and do not try push your beliefs off as fact.I'll restate it, but why believe in something for which there is no reason to believe exists in the first place?
Tasel, you presented evidence for your side. But when Waterisposion showed you how these things were fallacies, you then fell back on your faith. If you indeed believe these things on faith alone, why did you even bother presenting these proof's since when they were shown not to be helpful to your belief you completely abandoned them and then left the rational side of the debate.
Are you saying that the god you believe in has an effect on this word that would be testable or are you arguing for the god of Einstein (a god of math and physics and nothing else) the god of most astronomers or some god inbetween. This is a important distinction because if a god does not have any testable claims it can as you say not be shown to not exist, but a god that doesn't have any testable claims is not a necessary god to believe in.
Damn I have to run off to work!
Then people of faith are not rational people.
And those who believe will be able to do these things as proof: They will use my name to force out demons. They will speak in new languages. They will pick up snakes and drink poison without being hurt. They will touch the sick, and the sick will be healed.â€
Okay, Tasel, let's see it.
More to the point, Tasel has provided nothing but poorly written, facile arguments lacking both substance and clarity. They are intellectually void, and frankly not worth the time of rational people. In the marketplace of ideas, Tasel is selling wooden nickels.