A question to Atheists what is an evidence?

[Makky]

Acc. Wiki;

"anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion".

"Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable"

I don't have an issue with either of those. Quite how this relates to a 'problem in atheism' I'm not sure. In the first instance it will always be open to question what is sufficient to 'determine or demonstrate the truth'. In the second instance you can always question the truth of those propositions presumed to be true. That's no different if you are a theist or an atheist.

OK! for you Trumble I have 2 Questions.

the 1st one..according to your belief what happens when a person die!

 

[SixTen]

OK! for you Trumble I have 2 Questions.

the 1st one..according to your belief what happens when a person die!

edit: My bad, thought trumble = atheist.

 

[i_m_tipu]

He doesn't have any belief par say - he believes when we die - we just die - since he does not see evidence for anything else happening (i.e. reincarnated, or whatever).

Pls let the Trumble ans it. Bcoz it looks to me ur ideology is different than him.

 

[Trumble]

He doesn't have any belief par say - he believes when we die - we just die - since he does not see evidence for anything else happening (i.e. reincarnated, or whatever).

Please let me answer for myself, particularly if you intend to provide an answer that is wrong! I do, in fact, believe in 'reincarnation' like all Buddhists, although it is essential that word is understood in a Buddhist context.

We do not think that a person, or soul, is simply reborn in another body.. indeed we do not believe there is any soul at all, only an ego that is purely illusory. We do believe that the laws of cause and effect, which you normally might think of in connection with physics, say, also apply to spiritual and mental action. When you die, therefore, you are 'reborn' in the sense that the spiritual direct consequences of all your actions and thoughts are still around. It is these that initially manifest in the 'reborn' body (or bodies).

Anyway, this is all rather off Makky's original topic!

 

[Makky]

Please let me answer for myself, particularly if you intend to provide an answer that is wrong! I do, in fact, believe in 'reincarnation' like all Buddhists, although it is essential that word is understood in a Buddhist context.

We do not think that a person, or soul, is simply reborn in another body.. indeed we do not believe there is any soul at all, only an ego that is purely illusory. We do believe that the laws of cause and effect, which you normally might think of in connection with physics, say, also apply to spiritual and mental action. When you die, therefore, you are 'reborn' in the sense that the spiritual direct consequences of all your actions and thoughts are still around. It is these that initially manifest in the 'reborn' body (or bodies).

Anyway, this is all rather off Makky's original topic!

OK, for the second Question:

Do you have any evidence to prove That?

Thanks for your patience!

 

[Trumble]

OK, for the second Question:

Do you have any evidence to prove That?

No. Nor do I ever expect to find any. As with all religious beliefs (and note that is a religious belief, not an 'atheistic' one) it is largely a matter of faith.

However, faith is usually based on something. I happen to think that is how things work because the concept involved, and indeed the entirety of Buddhist teaching, makes more sense to me than any of the alternatives. Some of the latter I believe I have also experienced directly, albeit in a very modest way. I also see some very interesting parallels with certain aspects of Western thought, particularly David Chalmers' work on the nature of conciousness and ultimately reality in its entirety. So I have evidence sufficient for me to reach my own beliefs; I wouldn't assume it we sufficient for anybody and it certainly isn't 'proof' of anything.

 

[Makky]

No. Nor do I ever expect to find any

I agree 100%.. yes you are right you don't have any evidence ..that what i was expecting from you to say

As with all religious beliefs (and note that is a religious belief, not an 'atheistic' one) it is largely a matter of faith.

you are wrong according to your difinition to (an evidence) .

Let me show you with an example.

assume you are walking in desert , and the nearest city to you is 500kms away , the desert is very hot and very wide that you are sure that you might be the 1st human being to walk on these sands..once while you are walking you find a very very simple cubic iron box with a lock on it. and with a very simple regular decoration on both the box and the lock.

the 1st Question now is : what is the probability of the formation of this box by chance.

and the2nd one is : Do you need to think more than one second that this cubic box once has been touched by a living creature (human being)

 

[Skavau]

assume you are walking in desert , and the nearest city to you is 500kms away , the desert is very hot and very wide that you are sure that you might be the 1st human being to walk on these sands..once while you are walking you find a very very simple cubic iron box with a lock on it. and with a very simple regular decoration on both the box and the lock.

the 1st Question now is : what is the probability of the formation of this box by chance.

None whatsoever.

This is because we know the origins of boxes. We know that they are created from experience and current knowledge. Since we know its origins, we have excellent reason to believe that the existence of one is due to a human creator.

 

[Trumble]

edit: My bad, thought trumble = atheist.

I am an atheist. I am also a Buddhist.

you are wrong according to your difinition to (an evidence) .

No, I'm not. I'm sorry, but you are shooting off on a tangent to what I was asked, and what I am talking about. Your 'example' is irrelevant. It's also feeble as Skavau has pointed out... why on earth would I be "sure that you might be the 1st human being to walk on these sands?" Seeing the box would be highly convincing evidence that I was not as all my life experience to date suggests such boxes are creations of human beings. And just to save you the trouble I fully accept that there can be 'no design without a designer', as that is true by definition. Where we will differ is in what we think was designed and hence required a designer. All of this has been covered ad nauseam on these boards before.

 

[Makky]

And just to save you the trouble I fully accept that there can be 'no design without a designer', as that is true by definition. Where we will differ is in what we think was designed and hence required a designer. All of this has been covered ad nauseam on these boards before.

Good so you say that a box which is very very simple is designed But the human being cell which has a structure as complex as that of newyork city is not designed..

if its not designed then its easly to design a cell better than it... I'll be an Athiest the time you prove( which will never happen) that a human being can design and create a simple loop of DNA like that of a fly.

Allah said :

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ضُرِبَ مَثَلٌ۬ فَٱسۡتَمِعُواْ لَهُ ۥۤ*ۚ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ تَدۡعُونَ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ لَن يَخۡلُقُواْ ذُبَابً۬ا وَلَوِ ٱجۡتَمَعُواْ لَهُ ۥ*ۖ وَإِن يَسۡلُبۡہُمُ ٱلذُّبَابُ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا لَّا يَسۡتَنقِذُوهُ مِنۡهُ*ۚ ضَعُفَ ٱلطَّالِبُ وَٱلۡمَطۡلُوبُ (٧٣)

the translation of the meaning :

O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): Verily! those on whom you call besides Allâh, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatches away a thing from them, they will have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought. (73) surat Alhaj

.

 

[Skavau]

Good so you say that a box which is very very simple is designed But the human being cell which has a structure as complex as that of newyork city is not designed..

That is because complexity does not necessarily mean design. You yourself provided credence to that by demonstrating that something very simple (a box) is a product of design.

if its not designed then its easly to design a cell better than it... I'll be an Athiest the time you prove( which will never happen) that a human being can design and create a simple loop of DNA like that of a fly.

This is a false dichotomy.

It is also a complete non-sequitor to assume that our inability to create or cause something ourselves therefore means that it is a product of design. In fact, it provides credence to the opposite view. Us humans are the only creators we know. If something exists that we have not caused, or created - then there is no known designer.

 

[Makky]

That is because complexity does not necessarily mean design. You yourself provided credence to that by demonstrating that something very simple (a box) is a product of design.

What would happen to a city as complex as newyork if it is not designed?
you do nothing but arguing...you do nothing but destroying yourself..how could you define yourself...Do you really believe in what you say:

complexity does not necessarily mean design

this DNA code! do you know from what its made? and can you realize the amount of data it carries???

could a chance create this complexity while its immposible to create if we intended to do it with all the 21th century scientific tools..

poor answer

every single atom in your body is a sign that guides to the creator..how ungrateful you are...

 

[Trumble]

could a chance create this complexity while its immposible to create if we intended to do it with all the 21th century scientific tools..

Erm.. the only person talking about 'chance' is you. This oft repeated strawman really is getting tedious. It was a natural process involving random elements operating according to particular probabilities. Do we know precisely what those probabilities were? No.. and are unlikely to for a long while. You vastly over-rate '21st century scientific tools', I'm afraid.. the scientists who finally can present all the answers to this one will probably look on us as we look on medieval alchemists or witch-doctors.

Think about it. Have those wonderful '21st century tools' come up with a cure for cancer? No. A source of power sufficient for all our needs that doesn't pollute either with greenhouse gases or radioactivity? No. The unification of weak and strong nuclear forces and electromagnetism that most physicists are convinced is there to be discovered? No. A halfway plausible explanation of what phenomenal consciousness actually is? No. Is there a realistic chance of seeing any of those things anytime soon? No.. but all are relatively trivial compared to designing and creating DNA from scratch. Yet nobody just gives up and says "well, it must just be God then, there's nothing we can do". Those things are there to be discovered tomorrow, after a century, or after a millennium, or a thousand millennia - who knows? How many things were assigned to God or gods even a couple of centuries ago that science can now explain with no trouble at all? It is way, way too early for 'God of the gaps' to have any serious intellectual credibility without making what can only be faith based assumptions that an atheist would never accept.

 

[i_m_tipu]

None whatsoever. .

Lets see

This is because we know the origins of boxes. .

Totaly agree.

We know that they are created from experience and current knowledge. .

Somewhat agree. Bcoz the component of this Box is not created by Human. Human make a research and get experience of how to assembled theses component in order to make one box. So the proper sentence here should be like this ”Human makes a lot of research for their own goal/need and get experience abt how to assemble various components of nature in order to make various things for their daily needs.”

Since we know its origins, we have excellent reason to believe that the existence of one is due to a human creator.

I m afraid there are very strong reason to believe that u r wrong. We Human just a assembler.

 

[Gator]

Since this debate is drifting into complexity, I'm going to give you a little skit I've posted before as to how I feel when hearing it. This isn't to say who's right and who's wrong, its just maybe to give you a little insight into how I see things.

It’s the dawn of human history (not assuming YEC). Two cavemen are standing outside their caves. One believes that only natural forces control the universe and the other believes a deity does. Unfortunately both were named Thag, so I’m going call one Atheist Thag (Athag) and one Theist Thag (Tthag). As they stand there, a lightening bolt cracks through the sky, striking the tallest tree in the forest.

Athag: Whoa! Did you see that!
Tthag: Wow! God is amazing!
Athag: Here we go. Why do you think god caused that?
Tthag: Well, I believe God causes lightening. It is so complex and unlike anything else and we have no clear scientific explanation so it has to be from a God.
Athag: Why does it have to be a god? Couldn’t it come from some natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Do you have an explanation for it?
Athag: Well, it could be some shifting of energy when some unknown power source becomes unbalanced.
Tthag: Puh-lease, that is just a lame theory. Do you have a solid explanation or not.
Athag: A one hundred percent sure fire complete explanation…..no.
Tthag: Ah ha! You admit it.
Athag: But do you remember what our grandfathers used to tell us about fire. They used to say it only came from God.
Tthag: Yeah, I do. They used to believe it was delivered by only lightening. And when they needed it there was only one way to get it. Sacrifice a virgin to produce lightening, which would strike a tree and bring fire.
Athag: Well, my Mom discovered you could make fire by rubbing sticks a certain way.
Tthag: Yeah, my grandfather says he had never seen a woman try to break out of the wooden sacrificial pen as hard as she did. Wasn’t that nine months before you were born?
Athag: Yes, moving on. But don’t you see that what people once thought was only from God because it was so complex and unknowable was actually something they could do because it was a natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Nice try, heretic, but that was then, this is now. What tree did it hit?
Athag: That tree there. The tallest one.
Tthag: That’s right smart guy, the tallest one. There must be thousands of trees in the forest and the lightening just happen to hit the tallest tree. Do you know the odds of that happening!? In fact, have you ever noticed that it almost always hits the tallest tree. The odds are incalculable! Can you explain that!
Athag: Well no not in exceedingly technical detail.
Tthag: Well thank you for proving my point. Don’t you think that in our advanced age we would know this stuff by now. Think of it. In the last two generations we’ve discovered how to make fire and the wheel! And even with all our amazing and complex advances, no one understands where lightening comes from. Ergo God. Lightening is just one example, all you have to do is look around to see evidence of God. Its right their in front of your eyes.
Athag: uhg.

 

[Skavau]

What would happen to a city as complex as newyork if it is not designed?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means?

What would happen if New York was not designed? It is designed.

you do nothing but arguing...you do nothing but destroying yourself..how could you define yourself...Do you really believe in what you say:

We're having a discussion. You made the implication that complexity insinuates design (presumably to demonstrate or provide credence to the assertion that God created the universe)

And yes, I do believe what I type.

this DNA code! do you know from what its made? and can you realize the amount of data it carries???

I am not well-informed on the specifics of DNA, regretfully I don't see your point.

could a chance create this complexity while its immposible to create if we intended to do it with all the 21th century scientific tools..

No-one is claiming that chance 'created' (an oxymoron if there ever was one) the DNA. It is merely a consistent theistic myth that Atheists contend that everything came to be from chance.

Not in the slightest - evolution is not based upon chance.

poor answer

It wasn't actually my answer. It was a strawman you set up.

every single atom in your body is a sign that guides to the creator..how ungrateful you are...

First of all, my disbelief in the existence of God is not based on 'ungratefulness', but contention. I honestly do not believe that God exists and therefore do not worship this God. It is the same with Thor. You do not believe in Thor and therefore you do not engage in any rituals to worship or praise Thor. Does this mean that you are ungrateful? Not at all. It means you simply don't believe in Thor.

When you understand why you disbelieve in Thor and all other possible Gods, you will understand why I do not believe in God.

Secondly, how is every single atom in my body a 'sign' that is indicative of my 'creator'?

 

[Skavau]

I m afraid there are very strong reason to believe that u r wrong. We Human just a assembler.

I'm sorry, are you denying that we are the creators of boxes?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Makky,

I would rather talk about faith than evidence.

If there were total proof for the existence of God than the chances are we would all see this proof in the same way. As it stands there is Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Hindu and many other proofs for the existence of God.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship.

Eric

 

[Makky]

Erm.. the only person talking about 'chance' is you. This oft repeated strawman really is getting tedious. It was a natural process involving random elements operating according to particular probabilities. [/I].

That is because complexity does not necessarily mean design. You yourself provided credence to that by demonstrating that something very simple (a box) is a product of design.

.

Trumble, Skavau and Gator

according to what you said on this forum you don't have the right to blame a person if he believe in the propability of the formation of this box by wind and sunlight and other infuences

You don't have the right to blame me if I think that there is a probability that your direct father was one of the few ( propably exist) advanced monkeys that could be -still- living in a hiddin part of the world

and you came by a useful mutation that occured in your father's body

what would make me sure that this box was man made while there is a probability that there are some kind of existing creatures that i don't know who can make this box.

 

[Skavau]

according to what you said on this forum you don't have the right to blame a person if he believe in the propability of the formation of this box by wind and sunlight and other infuences

Uh, no. We can't blame anyone for thier conclusions in life.

However, we have reason and evidence to believe that boxes are creations of men. We know that humans create boxes from experience.

You don't have the right to blame me if I think that there is a probability that your direct father was one of the few ( propably exist) advanced monkeys that could be -still- living in a hiddin part of the world

No, I don't. I don't play the 'blame game'.

But because I understand evolution, I'd know your idea to be absurd.