Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on December 26, 2011 at 7:25pm

Obviously, one can't prove that some sort of god doesn't exist. However, it's actually pretty reasonable for one to conclude that there is most likely not a god.

1) Theistic claims have not met their burden of proof. With a claim so amazing, I'm going to need a good reason to accept it. If I told you that I can teleport, you'd understandably be skeptical and ask me to prove it. Also, it would be ridiculous of me to reply that it's true and that you can't prove that I can't teleport. It would also be rediculous for me to say that I can only teleport if you also truly believe I can in your heart. For one, belief isn't voluntary. Each person has their own personal criteria that consciously, or subconsciously must be met. Two, I can always claim that you must not REALLY believe. Since I didn't prove that amazing claim, the natural reaction would be to doubt that I have that ability.

2) Specific claims shown false. Say, a believer swears that Noah's flood was 100% factual. The fact that we know that this flood never happened, and that all the proof attests to that fact, it leaves one understandably skeptical, and when the evidence is compelling enough we can conclude that it didn't happen. While that one false claim doesn't necessarily mean that there is no god, you can understandably believe that there is most likely no god (specific god) when his text is full of claims that have been found false, untruths and absurdities. So if the initial document that your belief was founded on is found so porous and wanting, I feel that it is understandable that you feel that all of it may not be true.

3) Natural explanations. This can also go with falsified claims as well. Science has shown things that were once thought to be the work or a deity to actually have a natural cause or process. Again, when it is show that a god wasn't needed, and it was actually natural, that god shrinks, shrinks, and shrinks to the point where it's understandable to start thinking that the god has retreated to such a small spec that it most likely doesn't exist.

4) I will grant that there is no way to disprove a deistic god. It doesn't interact in the physical realm, so there are no specific claims to test. While you could claim that a deistic god simply caused the big bang and just stood back from there, there is still an argument that can be made. We either have a deity that always existed or a universe that did so in some form. If we assume that, isn't it more reasonable to think that it's more likely that something simple like energy always existed, rather than a vastly complicated and powerful intelligence. Likewise if we assume either was created at some point, it is more likely that something simple would be created, than something unbelievably complicated. So even in the lack of any evidence against a deistic god, a look at probabilities tells us that there is a higher likelihood that that such a god doesn't exist of is unnecessary.

Cheers!

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 26, 2011 at 7:32pm

1) Theistic claims have not met their burden of proof. With a claim so amazing, I'm going to need a good reason to accept it. If I told you that I can teleport, you'd understandably be skeptical and ask me to prove it. 

The alternative is naturalism. Isnt that a even more extraordinary claim ?

3) Natural explanations. This can also go with falsified claims as well. Science has shown things that were once thought to be the work or a deity to actually have a natural cause or process. Again, when it is show that a god wasn't needed, and it was actually natural, that god shrinks, shrinks, and shrinks to the point where it's understandable to start thinking that the god has retreated to such a small spec that it most likely doesn't exist.

So what do you suggest as the cause of the universe ? And complex and specified information stored in DNA ? codified has been shown to have always a mind as cause.  just to give two examples.....

Permalink Reply by Rob Lippmann on December 26, 2011 at 7:52pm

Naturalism is consistent with observational evidence and is the only reasonable position to take--and yet another support for positive atheism, as naturalism also doesn't require a creator.  Supernaturalism, on the other hand, has no empirical evidence to back it up--in fact, by definition cannot have such evidence--and therefore is not even worthy of our consideration; go find a choir and preach it to them, my bridge dwelling friend. 

"Complex," "specified," and "codified"--pop go the weasel words.  DNA is just a really big molecule doing chemically what all molecules do on a larger than average scale--no DNA Vinci codes to see here.  From such simple beginnings does life spring--a far more wondrous story than dirt boys and rib girls in a garden.  DNA is no more coded than the results of 100 coin flips are part of my master plan all along.  

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 26, 2011 at 8:27pm

Naturalism is consistent with observational evidence

How so ?

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 27, 2011 at 8:00am

You mean as opposed to supernaturalism?

Ever read a science book?

Permalink Reply by James on December 26, 2011 at 8:40pm

The alternative is naturalism. Isnt that a even more extraordinary claim ?

Actually, naturalism is a simpler explanation. It doesn't require an all powerful being that has no explanation, and naturalism is also consistent with the facts that we do have.

So what do you suggest as the cause of the universe ? And complex and specified information stored in DNA ? codified has been shown to have always a mind as cause.  just to give two examples.....

That's the thing about Atheism though... I don't have to have a specific alternative to your theistic claim, I only need to reject your claim or find non-theistic claims more probable than theistic claims. The cause of the universe could be eternally existent energy that gave birth to the big bang, virtual particles that pop in and out of existence may have birthed the singularity that the big bang arose from, our universe could be the product of a vast see of universes in a multiverse. We aren't 100% certain yet, but one thing we do know is that science is always searching for the answers and getting closer to finding them all the time. These natural explanations do have data behind them though. Some are suggested by theoretical models, there is testable and observable evidence that support different models to a certain distance back in time, but at least there are differing reasons to believe that these possibilities could be correct or close to correct. The theistic claim is that a god created everything. This is something that there is no evidence for. So faced with the options of no evidence vs partial evidence and a quickly growing understanding of the cosmos, I think that it's perfectly understandable to say that it is much more likely that the option with the evidence backing it is more likely. But again, as a person not accepting your claim, I'm not compelled to make a counter claim to justify the rejection of your claim. You simply need to provide reason to believe that your claim is correct. And after you've heard claim after claim from a sea of different believers and still come up empty, my conclusion that you're wrong is justified and understandable. Let me put it this way... Lets assume you asked your parents where babies come from when you were young. Now lets assume that you were told that a stork brings babies to moms and dads. Are you saying that if you thought to yourself that it was odd that a bird would just randomly bring people children, or even ask where they got the children, and in turn didn't buy the stork story, that you aren't justified in saying that probably isn't true unless you propose an alternative explanation? Such would be absurd. If you don't believe a claim, you don't believe it. If you're not given a reason to believe it, it's understandable not to. If you can think of reasons why that claim doesn't make sense or work, you can understandably say that claim is likely false on those facts alone. One doesn't need to propose an alternative to reject one that is lacking or doesn't meet it's burden of proof. With Atheism, all we're saying is that the theistic claim has been found wanting. It isn't a world view that has to make a claim on everything. Granted, there are areas where many Atheists agree, but the only area where we have to is the god question.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 27, 2011 at 9:56pm

So what do you suggest as the cause of the universe ?

The great thing about science is that it can accept that it doesn't have a firm explanation. This is unlike religious people who want to have everything explained, no matter how ridiculously. Funny. Science actually embraces the mystery of the unknown whereas religious people are weak and feel a need to have SOME explanation, no matter how obviously it is just childish wishful thinking pretending to be knowledge.

As a matter of fact, cosmologists do have some POSSIBLE explanations. Unlike religious people, they don't pretend these are certainly true and don't offer them as much more than speculation. Not until there is some way of arriving at proof. Of course, there may never be proof in the mathematical sense, but only that whatever explanation they settle on satisfies all the equations.

We most likely will never know with absolute certainly what (if anything) caused the universe to bang into existence, but this is not a real basis for settling on an absurd explanation that some guy named God made it. And I say "some guy" because that is what theism proposes: that a person (albeit a supernatural one) made the universe. That has to be one of the most laughable notions of all time, and it's a disgrace that so many people insist on adhering to that fairy tale.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 10:20pm

The great thing about science is that it can accept that it doesn't have a firm explanation. This is unlike religious people who want to have everything explained, no matter how ridiculously. 

I don't know why you talk about " religious people " . I am not religious. I am a theist. I rely as much as anyone else on science, to deduce God. 

Funny. Science actually embraces the mystery of the unknown whereas religious people are weak and feel a need to have SOME explanation, no matter how obviously it is just childish wishful thinking pretending to be knowledge.

That is just a baseless preconception. 

We can deduce God based on scientific knowledge, without appeal to religious books. 

We most likely will never know with absolute certainly what (if anything) caused the universe to bang into existence, but this is not a real basis for settling on an absurd explanation that some guy named God made it.

Why do you think such a explanation is absurd ? 

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on December 28, 2011 at 4:14am

"We can deduce God based on scientific knowledge, without appeal to religious books. "..

That strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. Especially when it's books, such as the Bible which have given you your concept of God. 

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on December 28, 2011 at 4:25am

You cannot deduce any knowledge from scientific knowledge, scientific or otherwise. The basis of science is empiricism and induction. Deductive logic is about soundly restating premises. Inductive logic is about generalizing in a sound manner. The former is incapable of telling you something genuinely new and the latter is incapable of genuinely proving anything.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 5:32pm

Hey Angelo,

 

So what do you suggest as the cause of the universe ?

 

I don't know. Neither do you.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on December 26, 2011 at 9:29pm

Is this guy trolling again? 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page