dan,
>>What would you conclude if you came upon a used deck of cards that were in perfect order? Would you assume they were shuffled once into order, or that someone put the that way? You wouldn't have to assume; of course someone put them that way. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. The chances of the shuffle falling into perfect order is 1/8 to the sixty-seventh power. That's a big number.
Sounds good so far.
>>Now, we all know about the second law of thermodynamics, right? Entropy. The natural progression of all energy is from an organized state to one of disorganization. In order for order to happen something has to act upon the energy, or chance has to play a role. Some scientists don't like the idea of "God," so they assume chance is what organized matter, the universe, this planet, life, intelligence. Those are the only two options: God or chance. Wanna know what the odds are of chance having created and sustained (and continued to sustain) life on this planet? I do to;
Please enlighten us with your calculations. First off, scientists do not assume chance is what organized matter. Chance is only part of the equation - physical and mathematical laws work on chance in an algorithmic process to create what we see. Who or what created the physical and mathematical laws? Who knows? Maybe they always existed. Maybe there are other universes out there where they don't exist. Maybe they just are?
To posit a god is necessary just moves the question back one step - who created god? To claim only god can be eternal is special pleading. Did god just come about by chance? Please show us your calculations where god coming into existence by chance is more probable than the universe coming into existence by chance.
>>and so does the rest of the scientific comunity, but the numbers are too high. The fact is, science hasn't arrived at a number high enough to calculate those odds. You could shuffle a deck of cards into perfect order a million times in a row before a universe could be created out of chance, and yet, so many jump at that as the only solution.
You seem to know a lot about the universe. Did you create it or something?
>>Why? Because they just don't want to believe in God.
Your evidence?
>>If you say God doesn't exist it's just because you just don't want Him to exist.
Who says god doesn't exist? Atheists believe there is no reason to believe one or many gods exist. There is no proof a god doesn't exist. Many atheists such as myself would probably like there to be a god that exists, but then again, I would also like Santa Claus to exist.
>>God means responsibility, and most people don't like responsibility.
Maybe your god does, but not all definitions of god do.
>>William James says our "passional" nature has the most to do with our beliefs and conclusions in this life. Critical thinkers put aside their emotional and anecdotal reasoning to figure things out, but atheists often just go by their gut.
I think you have this reversed. Atheists go strictly on evidence. Without evidence there is no belief.
>>If you were a gambler you would put every dime you had on God existing, and you'd be giggling to yourself all the way to the bookie because you would know that your odds were unbeatable.
Are you proposing Pascal's Wager here? :) Actually I would bet there is no god. I'm confident my money would be safe. You haven't provided any evidence that the odds are in your favor yet.
>>So, you'll obviously disagree with me, but that's all right. Believers are always racked by the burden of proof, but since atheism is the newest brand of idolatry on the block, I throw the burden to you. Show me conclusive proof that God does not exist or I will have no choice but to call this argument forever concluded.
I will as soon as you prove to me that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. Deal?
>>By the way, lack of evidence that He does exist is not considered evidence at all. It is a lack of evidence, and only proves the need for further research. Show me conclusive proof, if you think it actually exists; and if it doesn't then your conclusion is just preposterous assumption.
No one has ever said otherwise. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But you don't worship Thor just because nobody has proven he doesn't exist... or do you?
rem
Atheist/Agnostics..you'r e in good company
by badwillie 101 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
rem
-
dan
OK. If chance didn't create life, then what is the force that has been acting in progressive opposition to entropy and has been designing an infinitely complex life system since the beginning of time?
Science doesn't like eternity. Our brains aren't intelligent enough to wrap themselves around that concept. Aristotle calls God the Unmoved Mover, but that begs the question, Who put Him there? Some say that God has always been God, just chillin' in yonder heaven from eternity to eternity. I don't like that idea, but that could just be the result of my imperfect reasoning. "Create" is an interesting word. The Hebrew word, "bara" means to organize, shape, or fashion. It in no way implies initial creation. We also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. We were not created in the sense that God went, "Abra cadabra!" and we popped into existence. We were organized as spirits, and then given bodies. God went through the same process. The energy that quickens our bodies is just as eternal as the energy that quickens God's body. As far as who was the first? Don't care.
No I didn't create it, but I know a lot about how it was created.
My evidence? I have yet to meet an "atheist" that wanted to believe in God. Some say they do, but deep down they really don't.
Atheists believe many different things (just like Christians, the only difference is preference), but the most conspicuous ones are the ones who's litany is that God does not exist, and it is them that I address in my post.
If you really want God to exist I can show you how to get to know him.
My God is the one true God. This I know.
Then atheists wouldn't exist, everyone would be agnostic. Besides, whenever evidence is presented they immediatly dismiss it as nonesense. I have a 100% gauranteed method to help anyone get to know God personally, but you'll dismiss it without trying it. You'll have a reason or two, but you really just won't want to try. It's either not worth it, or you just don't want to know.
No, I'm not refering to Pascal's wager. I'm just saying no gambler in the world would take the chance odds over the creator odds.
Now you're just patronizing. You've made no point whatsoever.
I have asked many "atheists" to show me proof that God doesn't exist, and the only answer I ever get is, "There's no evidence that he does, man!" You have also failed to give any evidence, because you know none exists. My question is, Why is the default belief atheism?
-
SixofNine
So basically dan, you're as shallow and as arrogant and as self-righteously assured of what everyone elses' motives are as the day you walked out of a Kingdom Hall?
-
rem
dan,
>>OK. If chance didn't create life, then what is the force that has been acting in progressive opposition to entropy and has been designing an infinitely complex life system since the beginning of time?
Nothing works in opposition against entropy indefinitely. A baby growing into an adult is opposing entropy temporarily. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics works on closed systems and does not preclude the fact that small pockets of reduced entropy can exist within the system for a time. The sun provides the energy that chance and natural selection work with as a creative force. In time, this force and these algorithmic process will succumb to entropy.
>>Science doesn't like eternity. Our brains aren't intelligent enough to wrap themselves around that concept. Aristotle calls God the Unmoved Mover, but that begs the question, Who put Him there? Some say that God has always been God, just chillin' in yonder heaven from eternity to eternity. I don't like that idea, but that could just be the result of my imperfect reasoning. "Create" is an interesting word. The Hebrew word, "bara" means to organize, shape, or fashion. It in no way implies initial creation. We also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. We were not created in the sense that God went, "Abra cadabra!" and we popped into existence. We were organized as spirits, and then given bodies. God went through the same process. The energy that quickens our bodies is just as eternal as the energy that quickens God's body. As far as who was the first? Don't care.
That's an interesting theory and it would be nice if it were true. How is your theory better than the theory that 13 gods created the universe and all of your memories last Tuesday? Both are non-falsifiable and there is no way to rank a non-falsifiable theory as more probable than another.
>>No I didn't create it, but I know a lot about how it was created.
You think you know. You have beliefs.
>>My evidence? I have yet to meet an "atheist" that wanted to believe in God. Some say they do, but deep down they really don't.
Most atheists want to believe in anything that has positive evidence. If there is good evidence for god, then they will "want" to believe. You are making a lot of assumptions without evidence - that is unless you can read minds.
>>Atheists believe many different things (just like Christians, the only difference is preference), but the most conspicuous ones are the ones who's litany is that God does not exist, and it is them that I address in my post.
Who are you addressing? This is a strawman caricature of what an Atheist is. As an atheist who knows many atheists I can honestly say I've never met anyone who makes this claim. To not believe in any gods is not the same as claiming that no gods exist.
>>If you really want God to exist I can show you how to get to know him.
I'm sure I've already tried what you would suggest, but feel free to enlighten us. Hindu's will probably disagree with you, as will Buddhists.
>>My God is the one true God. This I know.
This you believe. To know requires evidence. Again, Hindus and Buddhists would disagree with you. The thing with non-falsifiable assertions is you cannot prove yours is better than any other non-falsifiable assertion.
>>Then atheists wouldn't exist, everyone would be agnostic. Besides, whenever evidence is presented they immediatly dismiss it as nonesense. I have a 100% gauranteed method to help anyone get to know God personally, but you'll dismiss it without trying it. You'll have a reason or two, but you really just won't want to try. It's either not worth it, or you just don't want to know.
You assume a lot. It is true that with certain definitions of god, atheism would be impossible, hence disproving those definitions of god.
I would really like to get to know Vishnu personally as well, but lack of evidence tells me it's probably not worth my time trying to find him. I will put effort into it when evidence of his existence becomes clear. Should I waste my time trying to get to know thousands of fictional gods?
>>No, I'm not refering to Pascal's wager. I'm just saying no gambler in the world would take the chance odds over the creator odds.
Again you assume a lot. An atheist gambler would take that bet any day.
>>Now you're just patronizing. You've made no point whatsoever.
I think you've got the point. You have just as much evidence for your god's existence as there is for the existence of the Tooth Fairy... yet you want me to take your god seriously. You also got the point that proving a negative is impossible, so your demand was unreasonable.
>>I have asked many "atheists" to show me proof that God doesn't exist, and the only answer I ever get is, "There's no evidence that he does, man!" You have also failed to give any evidence, because you know none exists. My question is, Why is the default belief atheism?
I don't *know* no gods exist. I just don't *believe* any gods exist. Big difference, and this is the standard atheist position. You're caricature of atheism is unhelpful.
Why is the default belief atheism? Why is the default belief a-invisible-pink-unicornism? It is not rational to put belief in something that has no evidence for its existence.
rem -
dan
SixofNine, I was never a JW. And if I'm right, don't I have the right to be confident and assertive about it?
As for Michael Stipe, I'll ask you one little question. If you can answer it I'll tell you how I know for a fact that I am right. I imagine your skeptical views on knowledge will be that it is impossible for me to know anything. That seems to be the common idea. If I'm off base I apologize. (I'm not saying that you are one, but) Pyrrho and Zeno would be so proud of all the pot smoking little atheists running around whining about how I can't know anything. They make me laugh. I've got a little test to see how well you can show me if you know something. If you can accurately show me that you know a particular thing I will explain in great detail how it is that I know for a fact that I do not have faith in my beliefs; I know that they're true. Have you ever tasted salt? Could you distinguish salt fro sugar or, say, Ajax just by tasting it? Would you say that you have a pretty good idea that your understanding of the taste of salt is accurate? I don't know what salt tastes like. Tell me what it tastes like. Make me understand. I am familiar with every other taste except for salt. Help me.
Once you post an answer I will respond.
-
rem
Modern skeptics and atheists do not follow the teachings of Pyrrho. That extreme form of philisophical skepticism is self refuting. Modern skepticism is about evidence: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
As far as the salt example, you are confusing confirming the existence of something with confirming its perception. It is very easy, say, for me to show you table salt or prove that salt exists in a solution by introducing some type of chemical reaction, but the taste of salt is just a mental construct in your mind. As Aristotle would say, the taste of salt is not part of it's essense since it depends on perception.
How do I know that you see the color green the same way I do? I don't, but I can prove that "green" light exists because there are many materials that can pick up and respond to that wavelength of light.
rem -
dan
That's just my point. "Qualia" is the word. Sensory perception can be a subjective thing, so how can you tell me that I am mistaken when you have no idea what my perception is or how I came about it? You make just as many assumptions about what I think that I do about what you think; so why don't we just stick to expressing what we think and not attack others. It's possible to say "This is right," without saying, "That is wrong." If you're a student of philosophy then you can respect that. And just what are your feelings about God if you're not what I consider to be a traditional "atheist"?
Why is it that atheists always ask, "How do you know that my idea of green is the same as yours?" Is this in some handbook that they pass out?
-
rem
>>Sensory perception can be a subjective thing, so how can you tell me that I am mistaken when you have no idea what my perception is or how I came about it?
So is your point that god is subjective... he only exists in the minds of those who believe in him? I would heartily agree with that.
>> And just what are your feelings about God if you're not what I consider to be a traditional "atheist"?
There seems to be a misconception that atheists would never accept any evidence of the existence of gods. Many even believe that atheists in general make the claim that they know there is no god. This is the definition of a "strong atheist" and I don't personally know any, though I'm sure a few must exist.
Typically atheists are what most people would call agnostics, though this is not technically correct. Atheists such as myself do not believe in any gods - Thor, Vishnu, Brammah, Jehovah, Jesus, etc. but there of course is always the remote possibility that one or more exists. But this possibility seems about as remote as finding out that elves exist. There are certain definitions of god that can be explicitely denied to exist, but most others are just non-falsifiable.
I personally think it would be great if there were a higher being to take care of us and the thought of an afterlife is comforting, but to me it seems like wishful thinking.
>>Why is it that atheists always ask, "How do you know that my idea of green is the same as yours?" Is this in some handbook that they pass out?
Haha, I'm not sure - it was just the first thing that popped into my head. Maybe I did read it in a book somewhere? :)
rem -
dan
"So is your point that god is subjective... he only exists in the minds of those who believe in him? I would heartily agree with that."
No, that's not my point at all. My point is that you have no right (as a skeptic) to tell me in such absolute statements that I am unequivically mistaken. You make no claims at knowledge, so you really have no leg to stand on whatsoever as to the truthfulness of my knowledge. If you want to doubt the existence of God, that's your prerogative; but if someone comes by and say, "I know he exists." don't just tell him he's wrong, because your argument is, "I don't know," to begin with. Tell him you aren't so sure about it and let him feel like you respect his intelligence. You are the one saying, "I'm not sure," anyway.
-
rem
Dan,
I think it is appropriate for a skeptic* to say someone is "wrong" when they claim they *know* god exists. You can only know something when there is evidence, otherwise you just have a belief. The skeptic is just reminding the believer that they are using the wrong terminology (know vs. believe). The skeptic is not claiming he knows that there is no god.
Here is the difference:
Believer: I believe god exists
Atheist: That's fine, I don't
vs.
Believer: I know god exists
Atheist: No you don't, you just think you know
rem
* by the way, I think you are still confusing modern skeptics with they Pyhhronist philosophy. Modern skeptics do not claim that knowledge is not possible.