When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.
However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.
The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.
Here is where you are mistaken about all of these analogies to flying tea pots and leprechauns, evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, sure there is no physical evidence for God but it in no way follows that God does not exist because of that fact, it’s rather the evidence against something that we take into account to prove his being or his non being.
For example we have robust evidence that there are no trolls under bridge and we also have robust evidence that no such a flying teapot exists in our world it’s very easy to prove they do not exist, however there is not a shred of evidence that God does not exist and here is where your little childish examples fall flat.
There are many things for which there is no evidence for their non-existence. I am sure you and I could think of dozens in a matter of minutes.
I don't use this example to offend you, but consider the type of evidence required in order to prove there are no other humans in your home. You could attempt to monitor each room from each angle with cameras, you could remove all furnishings and all non-supportive structures, you could use various electromagnetic waves to document the regularity of the structure. All of this would have to be over an extended period of time, around the clock, until you come to realize that the only thing being demonstrated is that there is no one in the home when it is being observed. I illustrate this to show that in order to satisfy a negative proposition requires a certain amount of evidence, and even so, that evidence will never be satisfactory. Now think about the supernatural beings that the others have used as analogies. Easter bunnies, leprechauns, santa clauses, etc... are not normal beings which we encounter in our daily lives. These have properties which necessarily make them special, and are necessarily (for the sake of folklore) ill defined. We would have such a hard time negating the existence of physical beings which we are familiar with, how much harder would it be to disprove beings which are not constrained by what we understand as the physical world.
I don't believe in santa clauses, or easter bunnies, and it's not because I find the idea of those beings ridiculous. I don't believe in their existence because I don't yet have a reason to believe them. If you think about it, there are far too many propositions in the world, whether past or present, and in respect to the vast majority of them we would be on the same page. Just as you wouldn't turn your head every 4 seconds to catch some possible intruder because you have no reason to believe there is one to begin with... and as no one seriously proposes there are trolls under bridges, no one believes there's any reason to look for them.
Just to let you know I'm not trying to be difficult. There have been many cultures which formed a religion which worships the sun. The sun itself was their god, or representative of their god. With respect to the beliefs of those people, I could not say that I am an atheist. They would call the sun their god, I could look up and see the sun, and by their definitions their god exists and I could share that experience. I would not necessarily be an adherent to any other faith or beliefs that they would hold. We don't have to agree that their sun is supernatural or representative of chariot in the sky, because those beliefs would themselves need proof.
format_quote Originally Posted by Justufy
You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.
The statement "there are no married bachelors" would not begin or end any sort of proof. The attribute of being married and the attribute of being a bachelor are mutually exclusive. Any two terms which are mutually exclusive by definition will work.
Pygoscelis, it's not my task to choose how to express someone else's point. Of course that doesn't preclude me from taking offense if they express it in an offensive way, let alone offensive in such a typical, predictable, and unfair-to-other-atheists manner.
Actually I think it is your task, because I suspect you will take offense no matter how it is expressed. I think the point itself offends you and not the way it is expressed. I'd be happy if that were not the case, so prove me wrong and express it in a way you don't find offensive.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 12-08-2009 at 06:30 AM.
You may argue that it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist, then again this would be wrong because it’s very easy to prove something does not exist, for example I can prove there are no married bachelors.
You do that by definition. That is just a trick of language.
But yes indeed some things can be falsified. But the examples people give such as invisible unicorns etc are purposefully made to be non-falsifiable, just a gods are non-falsifiable.
God almighty can not be proven or dis proven. He's the ultimate enigma.
Threads like this, will only end up in Justufy winning by default because atheists take a position of ignorance on the matter and Justufy simply has to state his case at the beginning regarding the workings and products of God, and post away from there defending that position. The atheists actually have to logically prove that God does not/can not exist, which is impossible.
Entirely depends on how you define the word "atheist". I have noticed that a lot of religious people like to define the word as one who is certain that there is no god. However every self-defined atheist I've met defines it as one lacking a belief in gods (just as one lacks a belief in many other things, indeed just as theists lack beliefs in competing gods). You are right of course that nobody can prove that any particular god (space alien or what have you) don't exist. But that doesn't establish or even hint that they do.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 12-08-2009 at 06:34 AM.
Entirely depends on how you define the word "atheist". I have noticed that a lot of religious people like to define the word as one who is certain that there is no god. However every self-defined atheist I've met defines it as one lacking a belief in gods (just as one lacks a belief in many other things, indeed just as theists lack beliefs in competing gods).
Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah
So, we actually believe there are no competing gods.
To turn it around, using your analogy, atheists believe that there is no god.
If you lack belief in those gods its one thing. If you are absolutely certain that those gods don't exist, then you are more certain that these gods don't exist than atheists are. Kind of an ironic in a way.
I don't lack belief in competing gods.
I believe there are no competing gods or in other words I don't believe there are competing gods.
How many times do I have to repeat before the meaning is clear to you?
If you are absolutely certain that those gods don't exist, then you are more certain that these gods don't exist than atheists are. Kind of an ironic in a way.
I believe in Allah, the one and only God.
You don't believe god exists.
The only ironic thing about it is that we both are creations, and yet I submit to Allah while you reject even the existence of Him.
I submit to Allah while you reject even the existence of Him.
You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.
Actually I think it is your task, because I suspect you will take offense no matter how it is expressed. I think the point itself offends you and not the way it is expressed. I'd be happy if that were not the case, so prove me wrong and express it in a way you don't find offensive.
You're the one claiming things about me you couldn't possibly know. If anyone has anything to prove here, it's you. If you're so far beyond the boundaries of understanding the most basic rules of tact that you can't imagine why a comparison of God to fairy tale creatures would offend theists without other, less insulting types of comparison doing so, that's your problem, not mine.
Last edited by IAmZamzam; 12-08-2009 at 06:10 PM.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
If you lack belief in those gods its one thing. If you are absolutely certain that those gods don't exist, then you are more certain that these gods don't exist than atheists are. Kind of an ironic in a way.
Are you trying to give us that old "all people are atheists in a way because everyone disbelieves in some god or other" line?
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.
Perhaps the choice isn't what you think it is.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.
I have to agree most if not all atheists are not so because of choice. Us theists also have no choice. We have what we believe to be indisputable proof and can not deny the existence of God(swt)
Are you trying to give us that old "all people are atheists in a way because everyone disbelieves in some god or other" line?
I'm not familiar with these "lines" of yours, but no that isn't the point.
It goes further than that. If he is certain these gods do not exist then he is MORE of a disbeliever than atheists are. Atheists merely don't believe gods exist. He is certain these gods don't exist.
I have to agree most if not all atheists are not so because of choice. Us theists also have no choice. We have what we believe to be indisputable proof and can not deny the existence of God(swt)
Exactly. From your perspective I would expect it'd be hard if not impossible NOT to believe.
I'm not sure its equivalent though, but then I've never been a theist so I don't and can't know. We'd have to ask somebody who has been both. I do have to wonder what "faith" is for though if the two viewpoints are as self evident.
Entirely depends on how you define the word "atheist".
here is the definition from the merriam Webster
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no diety
I have noticed that a lot of religious people like to define the word as one who is certain that there is no god.
Well no atheism per its definition is the doctrine that there is no God. If you decide to make more modest claims like '' I don't know'' that leaves you at best with agnosticism.
However every self-defined atheist I've met defines it as one lacking a belief in gods
Sorry but this does not fit the definition of atheism, if you simply lacked a belief in somehting it would no be atheism it would be something else, for example a young baby that has never heard about God fits this definition, And I also fit this definition If I have never heard of a distant and obscure Diety, then I can affirm to lack belief.
(just as one lacks a belief in many other things, indeed just as theists lack beliefs in competing gods).
Why then, do we so often reject the existence of the gods of other religions? Many of the gods we have not even heard of before, so how can we say that we have rationally decided to reject them?
There are several reasons we don’t give the claims of many other religions much credence. First of all, the vast majority of other religions have simply failed to produce a positive case. This is where the atheists will claim that the theist is being inconsistent. However,I am only inconsistant if I have not produced my own positive case.If I provides evidence for his or my own belief, there is no intellectual sacrifice related to belief in this very God.
Now I would like to know your reason for your athesitic world view, and your reasons for coming here as an atheist militant? surely God cannot be proven false, you have 0 evidence for your claims, you hold them by faith.
I'm not familiar with these "lines" of yours, but no that isn't the point.
It goes further than that. If he is certain these gods do not exist then he is MORE of a disbeliever than atheists are. Atheists merely don't believe gods exist. He is certain these gods don't exist.
What is it? And what do you say I think it is?
That does not fit with any common definition of atheism.
You do that by definition. That is just a trick of language.
Im not playing on words, In another example I can prove that their are no living t-Rex on the planet. Its very easy to prove somehting does not exist.
But yes indeed some things can be falsified. But the examples people give such as invisible unicorns etc are purposefully made to be non-falsifiable, just a gods are non-falsifiable
Well having something and giving it the known attributes of God and labelling it a unicorn or pixies wont win you any point, which is why these analogies are useless. Its a bit childish and does not accomplish anything in proving the atheistic view.
In another example I can prove that their are no living t-Rex on the planet. Its very easy to prove somehting does not exist.
Go on then. What is your logical proof that there are no living T-Rexs on the planet?
The two situations are completely different. The argument that there can be no married bachelors 'proves' nothing beyond the accepted meaning of its own premises. An argument that there are no living T-Rexs involves an empirical claim about the universe. Any claim for or against the existence of God is of the second type, not the first.
I'm not familiar with these "lines" of yours, but no that isn't the point.
What is the point then? The point, not the meaning. As in what's even the point of bringing it up? I can't see any unless it's the rationale behind what you're saying is that equally cliched circular thinking that religions (or gods' existence) are in such multitudes that the odds are very low of any being correct. I hope that isn't it, because I shouldn't even have to point out the fallacies involved.
It goes further than that. If he is certain these gods do not exist then he is MORE of a disbeliever than atheists are. Atheists merely don't believe gods exist. He is certain these gods don't exist.
So just because you're an atheist you can somehow speak for every single other living atheist on the planet? You people don't even have any doctrines, so how could this be the case? I've known of some very certain ones. For all you or I know they could even be in the majority.
What is it? And what do you say I think it is?
The choice is whether or not to assess the situation fairly, fully, and with an open mind, which may or may not lead you to our own conclusion. For example, my (admittedly clipped and edited) excerpt summarizing why the argument from natural law works and the inevitable defenses against it fail has still gone ignored since the beginning of this thread, apparently by you as much as anyone. That's just an example. (And any objections I missed will likely be covered in future "Atheistic Chestnuts Refuted" articles.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
Go on then. What is your logical proof that there are no living T-Rexs on the planet?
The two situations are completely different. The argument that there can be no married bachelors 'proves' nothing beyond the accepted meaning of its own premises. An argument that there are no living T-Rexs involves an empirical claim about the universe. Any claim for or against the existence of God is of the second type, not the first.
Well, there is absolutely no empirical evidence against God, however we can make a Good case that God does indeed exists.
Like I said the absence of evidence is not proof of the non existence of God here or anything for that matter, rather it’s the evidence against a claim that is.
In my T-Rex example we have robust evidence that there are no living t-Rex on the face of this planet.
In an other example: If I am a stock broker and I give you a number of reasons to invest your money in the stock market, and these reasons seem unconvincing to you, it in no way follows that the stock market won’t go up... or that it’s going to go down! So the arguments for God’s existence could all fail and it would not follow that God does not exist.
I will now add a ''cool'' spin to my thread with this argument.
Premise 1 A thing has maximal greatness if and only if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Premise 2 Whatever has maximal excellence is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect.
Premise 3 There is a possible world in which the property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified.
Premise 4 The property of possessing maximal greatness is exemplified in every possible world.
Premise 5 If maximal greatness is exemplified in every world, then it is exemplified in this world.
premise 6 Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
I think its fair to say that this is a sound argument for the existence of God
granted that P1, P2, P4, and P5 are all true: P1 and P2 by definition and P4 and P5 by logical inference. and P6 follows logically.
But what about p3? Well, God's existence is certainly possible in some possible worlds, and if God is possible then he is necessary. Because
there is no sense in speaking of a merely possible necesary being.
If God exists then God's existence cannot be a contingent fact.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks