religious debate

[unreality]

I don't "believe scientist all the time", I believe in logic and the process of looking at things critically. Under this view, religion falls apart pretty quickly- so obviously it requires faith. All religions do.

Since it gives you strength and courage- that's a good thing, though religion is not the only thing that does that, but you should definitely pursue your religion, then, if it makes you happy, no matter how many logical fallacies it tends to ignore do what your heart desires

[Guest]

I don't "believe scientist all the time", I believe in logic and the process of looking at things critically. Under this view, religion falls apart pretty quickly- so obviously it requires faith. All religions do.

Since it gives you strength and courage- that's a good thing, though religion is not the only thing that does that, but you should definitely pursue your religion, then, if it makes you happy, no matter how many logical fallacies it tends to ignore do what your heart desires

okay thanks for that And i am sorry if i remind u of converting ppl into christianity. that is not what i am trying 2 do i was just trying to get my point across. All i have 2 say that in every religion there r its pros and cons and u know what i mean? There r faults in scientests, relions everything. And truthfully speaking i don't think it is possible for scientists 2 figure out how the earth was created there r only theries. No offence to scientists. But if they actually do have all the proof with no way 2 get around it then congrats 2 them!

[unreality]

Everything is a "theory", just to remind you- religious beliefs are "theories" too. So is gravity- theory is a broad term. Just because something is a theory and can only be made through inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning, it doesn't mean it's wrong

But anyway... if I were religious, I would most likely be a Buddhist or one of the Chinese philosophies, with Yin and Yang and such ;D

[Guest]

But anyway... if I were religious, I would most likely be a Buddhist or one of the Chinese philosophies, with Yin and Yang and such ;D

ditto

[Guest]

Wow. I just finished reading (/skimming some of the longer posts) all 50 pages of this debate. Man you guys have a lot to say. Even though I was basically with you other atheists before reading this thread, I definitly learned a few things along the way. Interesting arguments and discussions.

Learning; always a good thing. We always have more we can learn, and that is what makes life interesting.

Personally, I never really believed in God, my parents never really forced it upon me. I like to consider myself a logical person that bases things on evidence. For example, when I was still a kid, I didn't really believe in Santa Clause, not only for the fact that his actions are physically impossible, but as our chimney leads straight into a furnace (not a fun ride for Santa).

Yes, go with the logic and reason thing, it's the way to go (whether that leads to atheism or Islam or Pastafarianism or.... )

Our "Chimney" was like a pipe (isn't Santa meant to be fat?! )

While it's true that it would be nice if God existed and there was a heaven after death, there isn't any real proof of any of that. It's not that I don't want a God to exist, it's that I don't logically believe one does, though it's completely possible that there is one, just not very likely.

Interestingly I (raised a Christian) "lost my faith" while in the same state you describe; I wanted it to be true, liked the idea, but reason got the better of me. It comes to this: Believing something to be true because you want it to be, because you would like things to be the way that belief-set says it is, is to commit the Appeal to Consequences Logical Fallacy. And basing ones beliefs squarely on a fundamental error is reasoning is never a good idea.

Anyway; I have since moved even further away - now I wouldn't even like it to be true either (not that my current positions based on that desire in the least). But it means that there is now no way that anyone could possibly convince me to believe again through this wishful-thinking ploy:

1. Because I would never fall for such a fallacious irrational argument, and

2. Surviving my own death, a big sky daddy, none of that; appeals to me in the least. certainty not over "the truth" (even a "bad" truth)

I prefer to think that religion is not very important, it's who you are as a person.

True, and for the most part most people live their lives like that, even the theists. And even many "faith-heads", at least most of the time. Unfortunately there is enough damage being done through religious convictions, that one can not simply rest on ones laurels, there is a very real danger out there of irrational theistic convictions taking over and doing real damage.

I am not just talking about Extremists flying planes into buildings either. The creationist movements (Including the ID movement) are seriously undermining the very valuing of reason itself!

If there is a heaven (which I doubt), I think that no matter what religion (or no religion) you are, as long as you are a good person, you will go to heaven.

I on the other hand look at it like this: I value reason, the God-hypothesis does not stand up to reason, there is simply insufficient evidence. If there is a god, and he prefers blind obedience and Faith over reason, then screw him.

As Bertrand Russell put it when asked what he would say if he died and was confronted by God, demanding to know why he had not believed in him:

"Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence."

None of this really relates to the current discussion (which has changed like ten different times), but I just thought I'd share my two cents.

Sorry if I repeated anything unnecessary.

Repeat away, some things bear repeating

The discussion is "Religion", no fixed limits beyond that really (would probably be different on a religious forum, but keeping it all together here is, I think, a good idea)

[Guest]

okay wow i just skimmed over some of the arguments and wow.

I will say that i am a christan. It was not that my parents made me be on

but i wanted to be one.

Hi Drummergurl

You just "Wanted to"?! So, no real reason but you liked the idea?!

Me; I might want to be and/or believe all manner of things - The Flying Spaghetti Monster, UFOs, Ghosts, superpowers... - but with no evidence or reason to do so, I don't.

i have nothing against ppl that don't believe in god!

Uh, good?

I have nothing against people who prefer Pepsi to Coke (I may not understand it, but I have nothing against them)

But I get what you mean; some people do have that attitude.

I think u don't have 2 b friends with ppl that are only in ur religion.

Too right! That is the old "Us and Them", In-group out-group mentality, it only leads to division and conflict!

I have cathlic friends atheist friends and Jahova witness or howev. u spell that friends

"J E H O V A H"

As do I; I and my wife are atheists, our best friends are Catholic. I had a friend who was a Young Earth Creationist (he left for unrelated reasons), and are friends with a couple of Mormons as well. I disagree with those beliefs (obviously) but that is hardly all that those people are.

i respect what u say. but many i do

not agree in but i will say that there is a heaven and hell and there is god and there is

satan. well i'm good just wanted 2 clear that up w/ all of u!

Well I see no reason whatsoever to believe in any such things (And I have asked many to provide it). And your assertions sans any justification at all certainly won't change that, and I would hope that you would not expect them to!

[Guest]

Okay i respect that u think logically but i am a christan and believe that the lord created r earth but seeing how the scientist have no proof on how the earth was created therefore u can't say that there is not a god.

I accept that you believe that, but that offers no reason why we should.

Scientists may not have proof ("proof" is rarely if ever a part of science, you want proofs - look into mathematics) on how the earth was created- well actually they have a bloody good idea (I think you are confusing the origin of the Universe with that of the Earth however), lots of good evidence -

But that has bugger all to do with the God-Hypothesis. What you are doing here is committing, or seriously bordering on committing, two, count them two, Logical Fallacies:

1. The Argument from Ignorance: We haven't got the (ultimate) answer to X, therefore GODDIDIT -; this is the version of the logical fallacy known as the God-of-the-Gaps.

2. The False Dilemma: If we can't prove that it was X, then it must have been Y. Why not Z or B or...?

Your claim that "as there is no proof of how the Earth was formed there might be a god"; is just vacuous. About as good as "as there is no proof of how bees can fly there might be a dragon in my garage".

As to god: "We" do not say that there is definitely no god, but I do say:

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present."

(Calilasseia - RichardDawkins forum).

That is why I do not believe in the God-Hypothesis.

And I would not believe in God because I don't know how the earth was formed! When will people learn that ignorance about something does not equal evidence for something else?!

But i respect ur beliefs. Ik a couple ppl believe in the "big bang" theory

One DOES NOT "Believe" in scientific theories! One "Believes" in doctrines (like religious ones), one "Accepts" scientific theories.

This "couple of people" amounts to practically the entire scientific community for the past few decades! And most people who actually understand at least a little science. But that is just because it is the best theory we have at present on the early nature of the universe.

but c'mon ppl how did the earth get here in the first place how did outter space get here.

The Earth? Not even remotely directly from the Big Bang, that's for sure - The Earth was formed over 9,000,000,000 years AFTER the Big Bang!

Outer Space? What exactly is "outer space"? The theory goes that the entire universe expanded (this is the Big Bang rapid expansion event- not "explosion" - and all that followed) and included in that expansion are the very things we call dimensions - the universe expanded, and is still expanding. All within that is what you call "outer space."

Truthfully sometimes i doubt my own religion this way like how is god created when there was nothing 2 creat him but i don't like to ask that question because then i start doubting my religon.

Bad mistake that! You"don't like" doubting your religion?! Why not, cherished belief?

Think what that implies: You would rather keep on believing it, even if it is FALSE?! You are afraid of no longer believing it? Why?!

If you never question your beliefs, then how can you ever hope to rid yourself of the false and flawed ones? For that matter; how can you ever be sure that the beliefs you do have are any good?!

Doubt is good! Cherished belief is not!

[Guest]

Okay so what i am getting from u is that atheists are the way 2 go.

Not exactly: Atheism is simply "Not-theism", we don't share your belief in God, nor anyone else's beliefs in their gods.

As Richard Dawkins puts it:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

This is not "the way to go". this is the proper Default position:

With insufficient evidence or reason to believe in god, any god, the only rational position is not to! That is; not to have any god-beliefs.

Lack of evidence (and reason) should equal lack of belief.

Unless you have good reasons to consider something not just possible, not just plausible, but probable, one should not "believe" in it.

but in my religion it gives me strength and courage in what i need help most in.

This is nothing more than "It makes me feel good" - The problem with this is:

1. It is the Appeal to Consequences again. In particular the version that says you should believe X because it makes you happier if you do. It's not necessarily true in this case, but even if it was; it in no way makes it any more true!

2. Many delusions and false beliefs make one feel better, and can give one strength etc.: Believing in Santa Claus does for example. There is also the well documented "Placebo effect".

By way of example: those 19 men who flew themselves (and many others) into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon (and the ground) on 11 sept 2001 - they did so with the belief that they would be rewarded with 72 virgins and an afterlife - Their beliefs gave them strength and courage, the strength and courage to end their own lives and that of thousands of perfect strangers! Think about it - is this really a good thing?

When i say ik some ppl that believe in the big bang theroy i mean in ppl i have experienced in my whole life.

And you said "a couple of people"! Is that all?! You should really get out more

Well please tell me how long forever is cause scientest don't even know that.

1. So what? Just because science does not yet (if ever) have ALL the answers, that in no way makes the God-Hypothesis any more likely or rational. Religions have come up with many many "answers". Mostly contradictory, all hopelessly flawed in some way or another. Most based on logical fallacies. All others either demonstrated to be false or entirely unfalsifiable. No matter what science has "proved" or not, this does not change the complete lack of evidential support for the God-hypothesis.

2. Science is a Search for knowledge, evidence, and truth. It is not a doctrine of claimed truths. As such shouts of "Science does not know X" simply demonstrates one's lack of understanding of what science actually is!

3. "Forever" is a general fuzzy term. But according to all the current evidence, and examination thereof: "forever" so far is about 13.7 billion (13,700,000,000 years), almost surely something between 10 and 20 billion years. This is when the universe began, and you see; time is a property, a dimension just like the three spacial ones we know and love, of the universe. What this means is that "Before the universe began" is something of a meaningless statement, like "a married bachelor"

There is new emerging scientific hypotheses emerging (from people like Stephen Hawking) that it might just be that the universe had no beginning at all AND that it is 13.7 billion years old - It's all about how time and space works at its extremes - weird counter-intuitive stuff, and very much early days of study, but interesting none the less.

Okay from what i see all throughout the world a huge majarity of ppl have a religion.

Whats this? The Appeal to Popularity?!

At one time pretty much everyone believed that the Earth was flat, and that it was the stationary centre of the solar system and universe (the Catholic Church only officially accepted that the latter was false in 1992!). But despite the fact that not just a "huge majority", but EVERYBODY believed this; THEY WERE STILL WRONG!

Doesn't exactly help either (not that it really matters) that that "huge majority" actually comprises of tens of thousands of differing, contradictory, bickering sects does it? Some majority

what i have learned from mine is how the earth got created

No, you have heard a Story of how the earth was formed, one of many. Not how it was really formed - not that GODDIDIT is much of an explanation anyway.

Why believe whatever story it is you do happen to believe? There are many others to choose from.

Look; just because something gives you answers to certain questions, it does not mean that those answers are the correct ones, or even rational ones. And no; it is NOT better to believe in any old answer rather than not "knowing". It's a sign of intellectual maturity actually, to come to the position of being able to accept that there are things that you just don't know, and not having to fill those gaps with stories to comfort you.

Just because your particular religion gives you a set of answers (as bad as they are) this does not mean that you should cherish it or hold to it, not if those answers have no basis on reason, evidence or observable reality.

and if u r telling me 2 become an atheist there is no way, i mean no affence but i believe in god.

Telling you to become an atheist? Nah, just trying to get you to think, to actually look at your beliefs and critically assess them, something everyone should do, no matter what beliefs one might have.

You see; you are doing it again - you refuse to even consider the possibility that your belief in God might be mistaken - Not because you are certain based on the evidence, but because you have come (most likely through the typical nature of religious indoctrination. Which can be subtle) to the conviction that this particular belief is to be cherished and protected from assessment! That is a serious mistake! No belief should be exempt from scrutiny, not one! That is how you keep bad beliefs (flawed, false) in the "hearts and minds of men."

And THAT is why we still have this "huge majority" of people believing all those myths! Don't like me calling them myths? Well they are aren't they, at least all of them but your one eh?

Religion was one of the, if not THE, first attempt from our species to try to understand Life, the Universe and Everything, and our place in it. Being the First, it was naturally the worst. Amounting to nothing better than making up stories to explain the perceived problems, and that of which we were ignorant, away

AS I already alluded to him (did you miss that?) here is a good video of the kind of thing I am talking about:

The Origin Of God - Douglas Adams

From there our species grew up (at least the intellectuals among us); we realised that we could actually do more than make up stories to comfort us; we could use our reasoning ability to figure stuff out - hence Philosophy was born!

Along with that was the realisation that we could get a better understanding of the world and our place in it if we actually looked at it! And examined what it had to tell us. This was known as a branch of philosophy called "Natural Philosophy". And later there where two lines of thought: "Rationalism" that suggested that one could learn and know things through reasoning alone. And "Empiricism" that claimed that all could be known by looking at the evidence. Of course eventually it was realised (by most) that the truth was a bit of both; reason and Examination of evidence from observable reality is needed.

Natural Philosophy (and the more sophisticated Empiricism) "evolved" to become what we now call "Science", eventually that name replaced "Natural Philosophy" as well - In Charles Darwin's time those who studied life and nature (what we call "Biologists") were still known as "Naturalists."

But sadly, at every step of the way, many people (not generally the smartest, most wise and intellectual; just the loudest) resisted and actively combated any change. That is why Religion remains strong. Religion in particular (as opposed to early philosophical thought and science. - like the four elements, alchemy...) because unlike its successors it was never founded on an appreciation or valuing of reason, as such advances in that reasoning could not so easily dismiss it from the minds of its adherents. Adherents who believed those things not because it was reasonable to do so (the evidence and reasoning no longer supported that) but because they believed due to wishful thinking, because it made them feel comforted and safe;

Cherished beliefs, not Rationally supported ones.

As u said there is many things that can't be found. so who created them, god of course the simple answer.

First mistake: Why assume these "many things" were Created? And why on earth by a "Who"? You are Begging the Question; assuming your chosen conclusion into the question!

Yes GODDIDIT is a simple answer isn't it? And a mind-numbingly Simplistic one!

Why not:

"Zeus" or

"Odin" or

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster" or

"Certain Natural Processes" or

"We Don't Know"?

Only the last two of those "answers" is supported by any evidence or good reasoning at all, the second to last has some , but hardly all. The final has none, but it counts because it is simply an admission of that fact.

Of course "God" is only a simple answer (and you touched on this with your uncomfortable admission about the "where did God come form?" question that you avoided thinking about too hard) if you ignore all questions that follow this:

What is this "God" thingy?

How did this God thingy do it?

What evidence is there to support this hypothesis?

--Is there any?

--Why do I (or others) believe it? What are their reasons? Are they any good?

What predictions does this hypothesis make and/or how would it be falsified?

What reason is there to prefer this God hypothesis over all of the other hypotheses?

If it is "God" then where did that come from, how did that come to be?

...

Without these hard questions however; "God" is no better an answer than "Snuflehigliemen" or "It just happened" or "Dunno."

now i am not telling u to become a christan but this is what i believe in. I mean think about it if u look at how u commented u took apart everything i wrote and made reasons 2 not believe in it. Just consider it for a second. i mean can u really believe scientist all the time. they could b telling u a lie.

Well you see scientists can lie (and some have been caught out.) BUT that is why science is better than any religion: It is not a set of cherished doctrines and dogmas, not a set of beliefs to be cherished and protected as is, something actively resistant to change and revision.

Instead Science is:

1. A Search for answers (not a set of claimed already possessed answers.)

2. Its theories and hypotheses (in contrast to doctrines, dogmas and beliefs) are not "cherished" and held in stasis; they are actively and competitively challenged, constantly.

3. It is a highly competitive field of endeavour. Dedicated to change and progress, one succeeds and gains fame and prestige, not through protecting, but through challenging and changing the current theories. It's all about progress and change; improvement, getting closer to the truth.

4. It has things like Peer-Review, dedicated to ensuring (as far as is possible) that what is currently held as the prevailing theories (and laws and facts...) are as accurate as possible, and that any changes are made because the evidence warrants and demands it. Thus if a scientist lies; he is very likely to get caught out, and his claims dismissed (as not meeting the criteria of the scientific method), and his career may well be ruined as a result.

In other words Science is set up (partially by design, partially naturally) to avoid errors and falsehood getting (and remaining) in. It's all about Reason and the evidence.

So so; one should not "believe" scientists, certainly not the word of any particular scientist. But one can rely on the acceptance that the prevailing set of scientific knowledge and theories is the best answers we have at present on the questions they attempt to answer.

The big difference between you "believing" and our "accepting" is that we realise that some (if not many or even all) of those prevailing theories may well ultimately be shown to be wrong, to be replaced by brand new theories - based on brand new evidence (plus all of the old evidence as well of course). Something we AND the scientists involved readily accept

The "acceptances" are NOT cherished, like "Beliefs" so often are

On the contrary: a challenge, and better yet a replacement, of a theory or "fact" is a thing, not to dread (as you say you feel about yours) but something to positively relish! The thought of one the most securely held theories within science being replaced with something new is an exciting prospect indeed! In fact it is that very idea that excites many scientists to do what it is they do - They want to invoke such change!

It is a common canard for instance that "Big Science" is protecting it's cherished doctrine of Evolution. ARE THEY KIDDING?! If someone could disprove [and replace with something new and improved] Evolution that would be HUGE, and guaranteed Nobel Prize material!

The reason it hasn't been is that all the evidence points toward Evolution being true, like it or not.

[Guest]

okay thanks for that

It sounded more like a cheeky shot than a heartfelt recommendation to me (perhaps a little of both). I can not agree if it was an honest recommendation: I do not agree that it is okay to believe something if it is wholly irrational, certainly not if (as the case for religion) that irrationality includes the means to make the Irrational Faith-based religious belief virus spread - And that means includes things such as you have already made claims of; like that such a belief should be cherished and protected from critical assessment, that "it feels good" is a good reason to believe it, that "Lots of people are religious" is likewise a good reason.

The problem is not that it is religion (whatever), but that it is irrationality that suggests, instructs and inspires the spread of irrationality and the corresponding erosion of reason and the valuing thereof itself. That is by no means "OKAY"!

All i have 2 say that in every religion there r its pros and cons and u know what i mean? There r faults in scientests, relions everything.

Well there are faults in religious hypotheses and even theories, and errors are made in science and reasoning. BUT the problem is that there is more than errors and faults in certain religions (the equivalent to certain hypotheses and theories in science), but errors and faults in the very nature of Religion itself! That is to be found in it's lack of a rational basis or foundation. As such it (they) is not self-correcting, in fact religion is positively resistant to any corrective measures!

That is why (as already alluded to) it "only" took about 360 years, after Galileo "proved" it beyond reasonable doubt, for the Catholic church to admit that perhaps the Earth is not the stationary centre of the universe after all

And truthfully speaking i don't think it is possible for scientists 2 figure out how the earth was created there r only theries.

Do not put "theory" in a sentence with "only" or "just"! That simply shows your ignorance of what it means to be a scientific theory. To put that into a perspective you might more readily appreciate; one might say "Oh its only a miracle <shrug>."

From Wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts."

A theory is a powerful model that has passed numerous trials, and failed none, to become more than a hypothesis. They are far more than "Just a theory" or "only theories" implies - Far more!

Sorry if that sounded harsh, but this is an important point, and one constantly under assault and derision from anti-science religious apologetics. One of those examples of religion undermining reason and the valuing thereof. This is in a word: Evil.

No offence to scientists. But if they actually do have all the proof with no way 2 get around it then congrats 2 them!

This sounded like "congrats to them... But no matter what I will keep on believing my cherished beliefs".

I have actually heard just that before, no "reading into it" required: people have actually come out and said things like:

"Even if tomorrow someone came out and proved 100% without a shadow of a doubt, such that no-one could deny it, that there was no God - I would still believe; because I HAVE FAITH!"

And that last bit said with such pride, as if it was actually a good thing!

People like that scare me, they really do. And hence my reason for doing what I do, in places such as this forum.

[Guest]

i havent read 52 pages so i might be repeating but its hard to believe in things that since has proved naturaly possible(the 10 plauges against eygept). and some just dont make sense. like having 2 of every animal in the world. thats a big boat plus food for the animals and wat about plants and othe organisms? its hard to believe

[unreality]

You're right, most of the stuff in the Bible is impossible and has never happened on this planet- I guess that's what makes them "miracles"

[Guest]

I have actually heard just that before, no "reading into it" required: people have actually come out and said things like:

"Even if tomorrow someone came out and proved 100% without a shadow of a doubt, such that no-one could deny it, that there was no God - I would still believe; because I HAVE FAITH!"

And that last bit said with such pride, as if it was actually a good thing!

People like that scare me, they really do. And hence my reason for doing what I do, in places such as this forum.

[unreality]

See that's the thing- through inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning, there is NEVER a 100% proof, but rather 99.9%

Take gravity, for example. We know what it is via inductive reasoning- thus we are not, and CAN NOT, be 100% certain that gravity exists. But we are 99.9%, know what I mean? Anyone would bet their life that if they dropped a pencil, it would fall. Anyone would bet their life on the law of gravity, even though it was reasoned inductively.

That's how we would 'prove' the inexistence of god- through inductive reasoning, not deductive. Therefore, it won't be a 100% proof. The question is, would you face the truth if it were 99% correct? Most atheists probably believe it's at least 95% or higher, if I were to hazard a rough guesstimate

[Guest]

I have actually heard just that before, no "reading into it" required: people have actually come out and said things like:

"Even if tomorrow someone came out and proved 100% without a shadow of a doubt, such that no-one could deny it, that there was no God - I would still believe; because I HAVE FAITH!"

And that last bit said with such pride, as if it was actually a good thing!

People like that scare me, they really do. And hence my reason for doing what I do, in places such as this forum.

No i I'm Telling you that if scientist proven it 100% i would turn from my religion and face the truth. I am Not afraid to face the truth. If scientest give me the 100% truth tomoro i will believe them!

Oh I wasn't saying that you were saying that, just that they way you worded it gave that possible impression. And just wanted to point out that some people DO say just that, so be careful or you might come off sounding like one of them.

[Guest]

See that's the thing- through inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning, there is NEVER a 100% proof, but rather 99.9%

Take gravity, for example. We know what it is via inductive reasoning- thus we are not, and CAN NOT, be 100% certain that gravity exists. But we are 99.9%, know what I mean? Anyone would bet their life that if they dropped a pencil, it would fall. Anyone would bet their life on the law of gravity, even though it was reasoned inductively.

That's how we would 'prove' the inexistence of god- through inductive reasoning, not deductive. Therefore, it won't be a 100% proof. The question is, would you face the truth if it were 99% correct? Most atheists probably believe it's at least 95% or higher, if I were to hazard a rough guesstimate

Okay i would believe at 99% true. Like i believe that gravity exists. But any lower than that i prob. wouldn't believe it.

[Guest]

Okay i would believe at 99% true. Like i believe that gravity exists. But any lower than that i prob. wouldn't believe it.

The problem as I see it is this; This kind of thinking you allude to here is completely back to front!

One should assess the probability (through evidence and reason) for the existence of X (God in this case) and decide whether you think that is good enough to accept ("believe" if you must). Non-belief, a lack of belief in X, should be the default position. Evidence and reason for X should then be examined to move from that default.

Evidence and Reason might well do the opposite; cement ones lack of belief into a positive disbelief of course.

Therefore one should need, not 99%, but 0% evidence against X to lack any belief. As no evidence FOR is enough to dismiss such a belief. See; you don't have to believe or have good reason to believe that X positively does not exist to drop the belief that it does.

Quoting Calilasseia (RichardDawkins forum):

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present."

[Guest]

Okay i would believe at 99% true. Like i believe that gravity exists. But any lower than that i prob. wouldn't believe it.

OK, here goes. I dare say that every experience you have had is consistent with gravity existing. Like, have you ever dropped a pencil and it didn't fall? No, so it's a pretty safe bet that gravity exists.

So let's look at God. If everything in your experience, and the world as a whole, is consistent with God not existing, you can be pretty sure God doesn't exist. In my experience, that's how things are. Can you point to anything which is inconsistent with God's non-existence?

[Guest]

PS. It's probably worth pre-empting a response to what I've just written. Someone might say that gravity, being an observable phenomenon, can be verified by observation, but if God is unobservable, there is no observation you can make to support either the existence or non-existence of God.

However, there are two things to note here:

1) You only believe gravity exists because of its observable effects. In the absence of evidence for something existing, you can be pretty sure it doesn't, particularly if such evidence has been actively sought.

2) An unobservable God is a God that does not interact with our world, and is therefore irrelevant. In addition to gravity, I could say that there is a force, "nullity", which has absolutely no effect on anything. It's kind of hard to prove "nullity" doesn't exist, but if it has no effect on anything it's irrelevant. If, on the other hand, God does interact with us, those interactions must have an effect and therefore be observable. The lack of any such observations is therefore powerful evidence for the non-existence of such a God.

Which brings me back to the point I was making. I put it to you that all observations support God's non-existence. Does anyone think otherwise?

[unreality]

nope

[Guest]

PS. It's probably worth pre-empting a response to what I've just written. Someone might say that gravity, being an observable phenomenon, can be verified by observation, but if God is unobservable, there is no observation you can make to support either the existence or non-existence of God.

However, there are two things to note here:

1) You only believe gravity exists because of its observable effects. In the absence of evidence for something existing, you can be pretty sure it doesn't, particularly if such evidence has been actively sought.

2) An unobservable God is a God that does not interact with our world, and is therefore irrelevant. In addition to gravity, I could say that there is a force, "nullity", which has absolutely no effect on anything. It's kind of hard to prove "nullity" doesn't exist, but if it has no effect on anything it's irrelevant. If, on the other hand, God does interact with us, those interactions must have an effect and therefore be observable. The lack of any such observations is therefore powerful evidence for the non-existence of such a God.

Which brings me back to the point I was making. I put it to you that all observations support God's non-existence. Does anyone think otherwise?

What ev. Come to think of it scientist have never said there is no god. They have no idea so untill they prove that. Then u can't say there isn't one.

[Guest]

What ev. Come to think of it scientist have never said there is no god. They have no idea so untill they prove that. Then u can't say there isn't one.

Drummergurl, you said you would stop believing in God if scientists could prove He didn't exist to a 99% certainty. Who proved to you within a 99% certainty that He does exist?

[Guest]

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27)

As for Jesus:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

But then again, God isn't human, so he doesn't really have a gender. . . . . But if he was. . . . ^

i understand your take on this, but wasnt the bible written by humans? many people respond to this by saying that God spoke through them, but how do we know that they didnt put their own little spin or bias in there, too? as for Jesus, i dont think that you really answered my question. Why didnt God make Jesus female? you're not going to find any bible readings for that, but i want to know your opinion.

[Guest]

What ev. Come to think of it scientist have never said there is no god. They have no idea so untill they prove that. Then u can't say there isn't one.

"What Ever"?! Nice Rebuttal

No, Scientists (or anybody else actually basing their conclusions on actual evidence and reason, as opposed to "Faith") have never said there was no god.

They haven't said there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster either, or Purple People Eaters beneath the surface of Jupiter, or... either

Why not? Because that is not how it works!

<sigh> once more for you benefit:

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present.

We may not be able to say (conclusively) that there isn't one, But we CAN say there is absolutely no reason to believe there is one!... Or to consider one probable... or plausible.

[unreality]

"What Ever"?! Nice Rebuttal

No, Scientists (or anybody else actually basing their conclusions on actual evidence and reason, as opposed to "Faith") have never said there was no god.

They haven't said there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster either, or Purple People Eaters beneath the surface of Jupiter, or... either

Why not? Because that is not how it works!

<sigh> once more for you benefit:

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present.

We may not be able to say (conclusively) that there isn't one, But we CAN say there is absolutely no reason to believe there is one!... Or to consider one probable... or plausible.

Amen!

(pun intended, lol)

[Guest]

Amen!

(pun intended, lol)

lol indeed!