''There is no physical evidence to support God, therefore I don't believe in God.'' This is the methodology that you probably subscribe to, with pride and confidence.
However, the drawback of this methodology is the ''physical evidence'' part. You demand evidence that can be seen, tested and not misunderstood. Which, incidentally, is not possessed by a ton of stuff that folks undoubtedly view as real things.
For example: Caesar. The oldest documents that ever said anything about him existed 900 years after his supposed death; and there ever were only 10 copies. It would be circular reasoning to say that these documents were real because their authors were trustworthy; and that the authors were trustworthy because the documents were real. What's more, it's common for ancient people to make up historical figures. And most importantly, nobody has ever seen Caesar. Therefore, shouldn't we throw Caesar into the pit of non-belief?
Another example: dark matter. Scientists realized that the math didn't work out. They discovered a direct violation of the laws of physics. However, instead of admitting that they don't know what's going on, scientists threw out the concept of some kind of ''invisible magic mass'' (which is not a straw man because I'm merely stating the obvious) to compensate for it. Why is it invisible? Because it doesn't interact with light. Why is it magic? Because it's makin' galaxies, for goodness' sake. Has anyone detected it? No, but someone definitely will. Think for yourselves...is it sounding familiar?
Back to the point. The drawback of your methodology is that it will never, ever potentially result in the falsification of atheism. For example: even If God healed amputees, you'd throw in aliens or hidden tech as ''more believable'' explanations. As David Wood put it, ''that doesn't sound like science to me''.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@JazzTheist you already brought up these points and we already answered them, multiple times. Just because you ignore the answers does not mean you found a giant flaw in how some atheist think and it proves your god.
Short run down:
-Claim of ceasar living is not a large claim. Humans lived back then, there were leaders back then, just like now, the only real claim is one particularly powerful leader was named caesar. There was no claims of him performing miracles, No claims of him doing seemingly the impossible, there is not deep logical contradictions in the telling of his story, even the shakespeare plays that are obviously mostly fiction based on some history, you do not see large logical flaws.
As for dark matter, many scientist theorized its possible existence, other scientist argued of it's non existence, and then work was done to try to prove the concept one way or another. Progress was made to develop the tools to actually detect dark matter, even now with several advancements in this area, most educated scientist that spend their lives studying this are fully willing to admit they may have it wrong. That is a far cry difference from how most people that believe in a god/religion view their god/religion. Instead of a giant maybe, until we can actually solidly prove our god, they just go with god is definitely real by default with zero real evidence, and they operate and organize their lives around it.
This is exactly where the flaws of your methodology reveal themselves, regarding the Caesar part. ''There was no claims of him performing miracles, no claims of him doing seemingly the impossible.'' You see, the unbelievable and supernatural are dismissed by default. It has become an presupposition. This is why it's never going to potentially falsify atheism. In addition, there are no logical flaws in the Bible if you take context into account.
And I don't see how you have demonstrated that dark matter is a far cry from theism. In the case of a philosophical God, some have inferred its existence and some have argued against it (duh). The vast majority of religious gods, however, are indeed believed by default with zero real evidence--and so is dark matter! ''Progress was made to develop the tools to actually detect dark matter.'' Sounds exactly like faith to me. And a vast number of scientists do build their lives around it.
@JazzTheist
Except you can, just because we demand evidence etc for large claims, and until then dismiss them like any rational sane person would, does not mean someone can go get the evidence and show, hey my large claim is real, here is my powerful evidence that is commensurate with the claim, here is all my evidence that overwhelms any evidence against. Show some evidence that Caesar was not real and we will consider it.
I could say that about any book. Harry Potter series has now logical flaws if you take the "context" into account? Therefore Harry Potter must be real!
Well yeah of course you do not see it, I was not trying to make you see that dark matter is a far cry from theism. What is the far cry difference? How people go about investigating. There the difference is night and day.
Scientist do not believe in dark matter by default. Especially the scientist that have dedicated their lives to this particular area of study.
What progress has been made by faith to develop tools to detect your god? Please share I have not seen any. All I seen is a steady erosion of "proof" for god as science continues to uncover more and more information that explains how things really work, rather then "god-did-it-no-explanation-needed!"
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
''Except you can, just because we demand evidence etc for large claims.''
And any evidence presented to you is assumed to be natural by default; and that's the problem.
''Show some evidence that Caesar was not real and we will consider it.''
I don't need to because the burden of proof doesn't lie on me; as I've already demonstrated how we have every reason to not believe in Caesar (according to your methodology).
''Harry Potter series has now logical flaws if you take the "context" into account? Therefore Harry Potter must be real!''
False analogy. To label the Bible as fiction is simply intellectually lazy. What's more, the authors of the Gospels were tortured and killed. Nobody would martyr for something they knew was a lie. Even if the world banned Harry Potter today, I don't think J.K.Rowling would start martyring for her stories.
''Scientist do not believe in dark matter by default. Especially the scientist that have dedicated their lives to this particular area of study.''
Yes they do. And I'm afraid they should; because a presupposition of science is that anything can be explained naturally. It's a valid presupposition and somewhat a necessary evil. What I'm objecting, however, is applying science to the supernatural. Further elaborations below...
''What progress has been made by faith to develop tools to detect your god?''
Faith isn't a tool to detect God. It's just a state of the obvious; just like how scientists have always had faith that things can be explained naturally.
Philosophy and common sense are the tools to infer God. I know that you'd reject this because it doesn't abide to the Scientific Method. But God, supernatural by definition, isn't a natural thing; and science only applies to natural things. Therefore, the Scientific Method is never going to potentially confirm the existence of God. Which, again, is the flaw of your methodology: if you insist that science is the only way to know anything, then atheism becomes unfalsifiable; which isn't scientific.
Uh yeah.. look up the word evidence. I would like to hope if you thought about this sentence of yours I just quoted, you would think the same way. Although I realize there is a very distinct possibility that it does not. That you would accept evidence even if it is not natural/physical/testable/repeatable. That is a problem. A huge problem. Fortunately you do for most things only accept real physical evidence in your life.
For instance: you owe me 1 million dollars. Prove to me you do not. You cant. But you do not have to, because I provided zero real evidence that you do owe me 1 million dollars. See that simple skill you just utilized there that you utilize all the time? Use it on your god concept.
You are the one that brought up Ceasar only has a few books still lying around talking of him and they are written long after his death. Not me. I never claimed to know for sure if Caesar exist or not. My methodology and that of most people about most things is: hey its an opinion, its an idea, until proven otherwise, it is fine that the Caesar idea exist, I do not know for sure whether he exist or not, but it does not really matter, I do not worship the guy, I do not plan my life around Caesar, I do not try to go around convincing other people Caesar exist. I have zero burden of proof. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that your god exist, and you make this claim with zero evidence, of course you are going to be challenged on that, just like you would challenge my million dollar claim, why you can say: "no, the burden of proof lies on you logicftw that I owe you 1 million dollars, as it should be."
Is it intellectually lazy to call the bible as nonfiction? I would say it is quite a bit more so. A fiction claim is easy, there is no proof in the bible, a nonfiction claim is much harder, as there is no proof/evidence in the bible.
Can you prove that? Nope. Also what does that have to do with anything? If JK rowling was tortured and killed does that make harry potter series suddenly non fiction?
Perhaps they did not know it was a lie? Perhaps they did not die? Perhaps life was cheap back then, and the writers did not think they would be killed? Who knows? Again we do not even know for sure anyone was martyred. Ever consider it is highly useful and convenient to write in some book later the original authors with martyred? The kind of stuff that makes people go oh how terrible how important it must of been to write those things if people gave their lives for it?
Backed yourself into a corner there, I am sure any one of us can find a scientist in that field of study that says: "I am not sure if dark matter exist or not." Even the famous spokesman for scientific finding, like neil degrasse tyson is careful to say it is currently a not yet very well supported theory and nowhere near accepted scientific consensus.
What is the obvious? Also I was not saying faith is a tool, I am saying what tools have people of faith developed, what advancements have people of faith gotten done to progress the proof of their god? I see none. But I see science constantly advancing, getting better and better and improving all our lives because of it. I have a GPS on my phone that can allow a computer voice to tell me turn for turn exactly when and where to turn to go from one end of the country to other without ever even looking at a map to get to an exact destination. How? Scientific advancement. I have seen zero of that from the faith/religion side of things.
Your common sense is very very different then mine. My common sense SCREAMS there is no god and the entire concept is utterly ridiculous, in so many ways, on so many levels. It absolutely comical to me that anyone would think there is a god based on "common sense." I consider those that believe in god to have lost all shred of common sense in that area of their lives.
I do actually agree with you there. It will never confirm nor deny a god, because science is real world stuff, and it has no business trying to confirm or deny a human made idea that has zero basis in reality. I can tell you if every single person today that believes in your version of god suddenly had total amnesia about your god, your god would cease to exist on even the idea/conceptual level.
I do not insist on that. Maybe others do. But if someone comes to me with an unevidenced opinion trying to convince me their particular god concept is real, I am going demand evidence. Or how would I be able to deny any idea/opinion? God or otherwise? How could I deny if you switched my tactic on me: "Hey logicftw you owe me 1 million dollars., either pay me or prove that you do not owe me (JazzTheist) one million dollars. That large claim you made that I owe you 1 million dollars? Requires evidence or I can dismiss it out of hand. Just like I can dismiss your god idea without evidence out of hand. I am simply just more consistent on my demand for evidence then you are. Because I do not need the warm "lie" blankie of religion to be able to sleep at night.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
''That you would accept evidence even if it is not natural/physical/testable/repeatable. That is a problem. A huge problem.''
I've just demonstrated how the opposite is a huge problem; that makes certain things (e.g. atheism) unfalsifiable.
''For instance: you owe me 1 million dollars. Prove to me you do not. You cant. But you do not have to, because I provided zero real evidence that you do owe me 1 million dollars. See that simple skill you just utilized there that you utilize all the time? Use it on your god concept.''
Which is why there's more than physical evidence. There are evidence drawn from common sense that can argue for certain things that can't be proven or disproven by physical evidence. For example: whether reality is real, whether your wife loves you, whether there is a God, etc.
''You are the one that brought up Ceasar only has a few books still lying around talking of him and they are written long after his death. Not me. I never claimed to know for sure if Caesar exist or not. ''
You are evading the question. Your methodology, as I've demonstrated, should result in non-belief in Caesar; and claiming otherwise would be the extraordinary claim. And I'm wondering if you can solve this problem.
''Is it intellectually lazy to call the bible as nonfiction?''
No, because the Bible is a collection of multiple books that had different purposes and fall into different genres.
''Can you prove that? Nope.''
Yes I can. The New Testament was copied thousands of times within just one century. Documents about Caesar was only copied ten times within nine centuries. If that doesn't validate the New Testament as legit historical documents, I don't know what will. And again, if you're gonna be unconditionally skeptical, then I have exactly the same reasons to claim that Caesar never existed.
''Perhaps they did not know it was a lie? Perhaps they did not die? Perhaps life was cheap back then, and the writers did not think they would be killed? Who knows? Again we do not even know for sure anyone was martyred.''
More unconditional skepticism. Perhaps Confucius was actually Korean? We would never know.
''Even the famous spokesman for scientific finding, like neil degrasse tyson is careful to say it is currently a not yet very well supported theory and nowhere near accepted scientific consensus.''
Which is a nice thing. Which, incidentally, is a blow to your methodology, which insists that things without physical evidence aren't real.
''I have a GPS on my phone that can allow a computer voice to tell me turn for turn exactly when and where to turn to go from one end of the country to other without ever even looking at a map to get to an exact destination. How? Scientific advancement. I have seen zero of that from the faith/religion side of things.''
All you're demonstrating is that philosophy and theology don't fall into the realm of science. Despite this, though, science as we know it actually grew out of theology. The notion of a grand designer convinced them that the universe is governed by laws which can be known. On the other hand, China used to have better economical potentials to launch a scientific revolution, but never did; because they had the wrong theology--that the universe is lawless and unknowable.
''Your common sense is very very different then mine.''
I agree. To me, claiming that reality exists without an objective reason is to claim that reality doesn't exist.
''I do actually agree with you there. It will never confirm nor deny a god, because science is real world stuff, and it has no business trying to confirm or deny a human made idea that has zero basis in reality.''
Then we'd disagree on the ''reality'' aspect. You're saying the if it's not physical then it's not real. And again, this is the flawed presupposition that should cause you to not believe in Caesar!
''I do not insist on that. Maybe others do. But if someone comes to me with an unevidenced opinion trying to convince me their particular god concept is real, I am going demand evidence.''
To be more specific, you're going to demand evidence that you want. Yes, it has to be physical and detectable. And again, this is the flawed presuppo--yeah, you get it. The point is, only picking physical evidence doesn't just make the non-physical non-existent by default, it doesn't apply to the physical reality, as it inevitably causes you to not belie--OK, you get the point.
@JazzTheist
This is getting long so I am going to go with short answers, feel free to ask if you need further clarification.
I just explained in my last post, that science (not atheism, atheism is not a religion, its not an organization's of beliefs, it is simply the negative of theism, a simple way to describe someone that does not believe in god, not WHY they do not believe in god.) Scientific finding if fully falsifiable, and if an atheist uses science to argue a point, it is absolutely falsifiable.
That "common sense" you refer to? That common sense is actually the notion of: you do not accept wild claims without evidence, it is not some invisible "force" that is always right, it is based on real things, like the requirement of evidence for claims. If you want to call it common sense fine, apply common sense to your god/religion concept please. AKA: REQUIRE EVIDENCE for your own god belief. Arguing something that can or cannot be proven with total lack of real world evidence is silly. Would you buy snake oil to cure your fading eyesight because they guy said: "I cannot prove it, but I tell you I believe it and you cannot disprove it!"
So you make no claim that the books are indeed nonfiction, cool got it, agree with you there, the bible and other holy text are not proven or claimed to be nonfiction.
Uh you saying things is not proof. Can you prove the new testament was copied thousands of times in one century? Since we agreed they could be fiction, what about a fictionalized caesar books? They even took it a step further and made several live action movies that have been copied millions of times in just a few decades, does that make your god story lesser than then the caesar story?
Yes you know would validate it. You know perfectly well, you just know it wont happen so you cant say it. I can think of any number of different scenarios a "god" could prove him self and a book about him. He could come down and enter the thoughts of every persons minds. He could write a few quick lines in text that etches into the sky and written in multiple different languages the things most important to him that people should know. etc etc etc. It could even be a lot easier than that. Perform spontaneous limb regrowth on demand in a very carefully controlled lab experiment that is being filmed in ultra high definition live to the entire world.
You are fine to claim that, it is a whole lot less of a stretch to claim then to claim your god's existence. I also have a chance to possibly prove you wrong, I could go date the surviving books about Caesar, I could go find ancient ruins that may have his name carved out and date that. I could attempt to find the remains of this person and use dna tools to find still living ancestors today. I got options if I wanted to prove caesar was real or not. The comparison is NOT the same. Not even close.
We can make an evidenced based guess that he is. Plus Korea was not known as Korea back in Confucius's time. But will we ever truly know beyond any shadow of a doubt? No. Why wont you even apply that standard to your god? The whole well maybe I do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt.. Instead you are 100% sure of its existence, even though there is no evidence at all of your god, far less then possible evidence of Confucius and his heritage.
a: "not yet very well supported theory and nowhere near accepted scientific consensus.'' Is very very different then "without physical evidence." If you cannot see the difference in that, it is little wonder you struggle so much with what is reality and what is not.
Okay that is fine, we agree science is real world stuff, with real evidence and real results, and philosophical non physical stuff like your god idea is just ideas. Meaning your idea is baseless, without merit, easy to dismiss and discard, because like all ideas without merit they should be discarded, we do it all the time. Just stop clinging to your god blankie, risk getting a little cold and stop letting a completely unsupported idea dictate your life, break free from the con.
I know, I know I am talking to a wall, it would hurt far to much for you to deal with reality you think you need this blanket for your own sanity. It is scary without the blanket. Except if you actually tried it, you will find out you are just fine. In Fact: you gain freedom shedding this ridiculous human created religion/god nonsense.
More details please. Even still if I accepted that, what does that have to do with anything in relation to actually proving your god idea? It proves only (if true) that there particular methodology for scientific advancement did not work. I do not even know what time in China's history you are referring to.
Again no wonder you are so stuck, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, I think, I hope, we can all agree reality exists, reality existed before you ever even heard of this god concept, reality existed before their was any humans at all, or life on this planet. Reality will continue to exist for everyone still alive after you die, or even when you go into a deep sleep. Only your own in your head reality will cease to be. What you are really trying to say I think is: reality exist because of your god idea. And that is the only explanation for reality is your specific god idea. Of course, in absolutely no way can you prove that god idea of yours.
Yes if it can not be detected or measured in any way with current tools then it is fair to assume that it is not real until it can be measured and tested proven and evidenced. Dark matter is a perfect example of that. We assume it is only an idea, a concept until it can actually be measured, that we can apply real things to it. If it became critically important to prove a person name caesar lived and ruled Rome for a while ~2000 years ago, we could probably begin to gather real world evidence of it, like I mentioned above.
Yes you are correct there. I am not a fool, I do not accept ideas, opinions, concepts as evidence. Just like you don't. For just about everything other than your god concept. Just like you are easily able to dismiss that you owe me 1 million dollars just because I said so.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
''Scientific finding if fully falsifiable, and if an atheist uses science to argue a point, it is absolutely falsifiable.''
Let me demonstrate how scientifically unfalsifiable it is. Let's say a huge cluster of stars suddenly popped into existence in intergalactic voids, which conveniently arrange into the word ''hey wassup''.
Of course, science has the duty to assume that everything has a natural explanation. Which is exactly why science can't be applied to the supernatural. So, you might throw in every possible natural hypothesis (e.g. aliens) and even claim that the arrangement of stars is a result of dumb luck. And you'll never be proven wrong.
On the other hand, it is actually highly falsifiable if I claim it to be a result of supernatural intervention; because if we discover a physical law that can naturally result in what we're seeing, then my stance is falsified.
''That "common sense" you refer to? That common sense is actually the notion of: you do not accept wild claims without evidence, it is not some invisible "force" that is always right, it is based on real things.''
The flaw of this line of reasoning is that ''invisible forces'' are considered unreal by default. Yes, science works this way; but science isn't everything.
''Can you prove the new testament was copied thousands of times in one century?''
Here you go: http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
''They even took it a step further and made several live action movies that have been copied millions of times in just a few decades, does that make your god story lesser than then the Caesar story?''
No, because only in modern times can things be copied millions of times. 2000 years ago it was a tons-of-pounds lot harder to copy anything.
''I can think of any number of different scenarios a "god" could prove him self and a book about him. He could come down and enter the thoughts of every persons minds.''
These objections are shaky for they boil down to ''if God exists, why hasn't he convinced me yet?'' or ''I can't see how God did or did not do this, therefore God doesn't exist.'' Sort of a personal incredulity fallacy.
''I could go date the surviving books about Caesar, I could go find ancient ruins that may have his name carved out and date that. I could attempt to find the remains of this person and use dna tools to find still living ancestors today.''
And here's exactly where your worldview fails. I can always say that the ancient ruins were fabricated; and that the remains weren't even Caesar and was just a random person thrown in just to satisfy people's fantasies. And you can't say I'm wrong because I'm just being ''skeptical''.
The point is, the amount of skepticism you put on the Bible incidentally does not apply to most other historical documents.
''Instead you are 100% sure of its existence, even though there is no evidence at all of your god, far less then possible evidence of Confucius and his heritage.''
There IS evidence, albeit not physical. Non-physical thing cannot have physical evidence; and even if it did leave physical evidence by interacting with the physical world, you're still gonna use faith to believe that there's a physical explanation (thus making your stance unfalsifiable).
My ''Confucius could be Korean'' analogy was meant to parody your methodology on determining whether there's a God or not.
'''Not yet very well supported theory and nowhere near accepted scientific consensus' is very very different then without physical evidence'.''
I agree because non-physical things do not fall into the realm of science.
''We agree science is real world stuff, with real evidence and real results, and philosophical non physical stuff like your god idea is just ideas.''
Why aren't ideas real then? Here's an objection: is ''purpose'' a real thing to you? If purpose is a real thing, then the universe was brought into existence with a purpose. If purpose isn't a real thing, then claiming that life has a purpose is simply self-deluding. Simple as that. Yes or no?
''Risk getting a little cold and stop letting a completely unsupported idea dictate your life, break free from the con.''
The exact same reasons why I left atheism. Describing how someone got their ideas from doesn't invalidate their ideas; especially if your description is already wrong.
''It proves only (if true) that there particular methodology for scientific advancement did not work. I do not even know what time in China's history you are referring to.''
Practically all of its history, but especially the third to sixth centuries (the Wei, Jin, North and South dynasties). There was a school of thought call Neo-Taoism which literally claimed that the universe came from nothing and is unknowable and lawless. Hmm...sounds familiar? Sure it does, and it did everything to stop modern science from occurring; for there'd be no incentive to know the universe if it's unknowable in the first place.
On the other hand, Christian theology states that the universe is knowable, lawful, and created; which paved the way to modern science, and is still the basis of modern science.
''Again no wonder you are so stuck, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.''
Let me elaborate more on it. I'll replace the word ''reason'' with ''purpose'' to avoid equivocal confusion.
1. If everything we know came to be without any purpose, then purpose itself isn't a real thing, neither objective nor subjective.
2. We know that purpose exists, and necessarily assign purpose to our own lives.
3. Therefore, everything came to be with a purpose.
''Dark matter is a perfect example of that. We assume it is only an idea, a concept until it can actually be measured, that we can apply real things to it.''
Agreed; this is how science works. But again, dark matter became an idea because we saw a huge, direct violation of the laws of physics, which is exactly what we'd expect if supernatural intervention (aka miracle) occurred. I'm nowhere asserting that dark matter is supernatural intervention; but atheists often claim that if massive violation of physical laws took place, they'd consider God; and when galaxies are observed to violate physical laws, atheists use the dark matter idea to dismiss supernatural explanations. This is an typical example of ''science of the gaps'', which happen when you regard science as the only source of knowledge.
''If it became critically important to prove a person name caesar lived and ruled Rome for a while ~2000 years ago, we could probably begin to gather real world evidence of it, like I mentioned above.''
And the Gospels, which are probably more legit than the Gallic Wars, would be the real world evidence of Jesus' divinity. The same methodology that confirms Caesar's existence also confirms Jesus' divinity, whether you like it or not; and the saying ''extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence'' is simply double standards.
''I do not accept ideas, opinions, concepts as evidence. Just like you don't. For just about everything other than your god concept. Just like you are easily able to dismiss that you owe me 1 million dollars just because I said so.''
Still, false analgy; a million dollars would be things in the natural world and cannot provide existence for anything.
@JazzTheist: I could attempt to find the remains of this person and use dna tools to find still living ancestors today
Good luck with that. Julius Caesar was cremated.
LogicFTW said that; not me.
JazzTheist: "Let me demonstrate how scientifically unfalsifiable it is. Let's say a huge cluster of stars suddenly popped into existence in intergalactic voids, which conveniently arrange into the word ''hey wassup''."
And this statement shows how ignorant and illiterate you truly are. Try studying astrophysics and celestial mechanics for as long as I have. You will then begin to learn just ignorant and illiterate you truly are.
Scientists/Atheists read many books and still feel they have a lot to learn (us).
Religious Absolutists barely read one book and feel they know everything (you).
Science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything.
Faith believes everything and requires proof of nothing.
rmfr
Ugh, do you know what ''thought experiment'' means?
But when your "thought experiment" is compete poo poo, it means absolutely nothing. I at least will use a "thought experiment (ThEx)" that is actually feasible. When you make up that kind of ThEx in celestial mechanics where it is completely impossible, it makes you look like a complete retard, idiot, dimwit, bonehead, nitwit, imbecile, do I need to add any more.
rmfr
My thought experiment was meant to demonstrate how a supernatural intervention would like (which frankly could be anything). So how is it ''compete poo poo''? If you say ''because supernatural intervention DON'T happen, duh'', then it simply shows how biased atheism is--rejecting the supernatural by default.
Mr. Squidburt (posing as a jazztheist)
I am not biased. I am as open-minded as anybody can be. Show me OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and I shall believe you. Otherwise, apply
The Eight Razors:
...and admit you are wrong.
Remember OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or admit your just playing a fantasy from that tiny little mind here on these forum boards.
Don't make me sic Tin-Man on you. He is less forgiving than I am.
rmfr
"If you say ''because supernatural intervention DON'T happen, duh'', then it simply shows how biased atheism is--rejecting the supernatural by default."
Winner of the Grinseed Cosmological Blunt Instrument of Trauma Award for Unintentionally Funniest Theist Comment for 2018. Congratulations.
@JazzTheist
In the interest of shortening my reply I will not respond to every point and again try to keep my responses short. Let me know if you want me to cover something I skipped or further clarify something.
Actually I think it is quite likely if we looked long enough, and from the correct direction we will see clusters of stars/galaxies etc spell out "hey wassup" in english using standard widely recognized font. Probably more then once. There is that many points of light out there, and given infinite angles to look at it.. etc. Yes it will never be proven wrong... OR RIGHT. No one is going to say hey: I have proof that the modern english language circa the 21st century is the language of the "creators." Seeing a spelling out of "hey wassup" you wont see scientist trying to say that proves something. We cant even deny if it is of "supernatural" intervention we cant prove it one way or another. (On a side note, if something supernatural were to do something to change something like star position in this universe to spell something out, is it now no longer supernatural, but instead natural?)
That link you provided is not proof. But I will accept it as likely, simply because it is not a large claim to say the new testament has been copied a lot. Just like Harry potter books have been copied a lot.
So because it was "hard" for humans to copy back then that makes it more authentic? Why was it hard to copy? God did not want humans to jump ahead in advancement, even to spread his word?
Being incredulous about total lack of evidence is a fallacy now? Yeah, does not surprise me to hear a theist say that. Do you ever get worried you will fall for lots of scams, do you worry about ghost and zombies and other monsters? How do you dismiss those ideas? If the most central and important thing in all the universe is absolutely proven and real in your mind how do you disprove the notion of far less things like bigfoot?
Does not fail to me. I do not even see how that relates to my world view of : requiring evidence for claims, evidence commensurate to the size of the claim. If I was skeptical that ruins were fabricated I have something to test, I can go to the ruins see if they were fabricated, and if so, by who, and maybe even figure out why. You can't do that with your supernatural god idea." It is funny you keep attaching your supernatural god to comparisons of the real world, that can actually be studied and tested and proven, unlike by your own definition your god idea.
Agreed, non physical things cannot have physical evidence, or it would now be physical, cant have your god idea become physical now. Because that could actually be falsified! Honestly I have no idea what you were trying to say in the 2nd part of that sentence.
Again we agree! Yay? I am just fine with dismissing all non physical things as "just theory until it can be proven physically." Why because that is how we SHOULD operate. Soon as you start accepting non physical things as real you open yourself up to all sorts of untruths, lies, cons, etc. Not to mention fear and I would even say quite possibly madness.
Ideas are not real until we try to make them real, then they crossover from purely thought/idea to real. Can't that with the god thought. Especially when the thought process on it explains the the thought is "not real" and is "supernatural." Purpose for me is not real until I manifest it in the real world. The word and the pure concept of it however does remain always not a real thing. If I lose 90% of my brain tomorrow, then the pure concept of purpose to me will be gone. The purpose I made real in my life actions before then, will remain. (I just would not my self be aware of it anymore.)
Again I repeat, because you still have not answered it: I am your god, I use the same proof you use for your god, worship me, give me 1 million dollars. Unless you can prove I am not your god. You cant, without demanding actual real physical evidence. Your god idea is worthless, if you were indeed atheist at one point, you can describe your fall from atheist back to a christian based god as when you lost common sense, rational ability logic reasoning.
Yet here we are, lots of scientific advancement, and right now China is very interested in advancement.
We do? News to me. How do we know that? I can reject your entire premise until you can prove purpose exist. which we both know you can't. I know I know it is scary for a lt of people to contemplate that there is no purpose. But that is a very likely possibility.
Considering possibility of god is very different then considering possibility of dark matter, both are "okay I will consider it" but one of them actually has had a lot of progress lately in getting proved, where the various god ideas have been around for 20,000+ years and none of them gotten proved, if anything it's been a steady backwards slide for proof for the various god ideas.
I like how even you admit it is science gaps. Hey if you want to make your "god" the gaps in science so be it. Just do not push your completely unsupported opinions on other.
First the methodology is very different, along with a very different claim. 2nd, I reject the base methodology. I am fine with being unsure if caesar ever existed, because I do not have clear defined evidence that he does exist. People talking about it, in books or by word of mouth is not, and never will be enough for me to accept it as truth, especially in something so controversial as a invisible sky fairy that supposedly very selectively cast miracles in very select places and times, and breaks all known laws of physics, chemistry etc. I am willing to bet my life on it, and any possibility of afterlife on it. You on the other are not willing to make the bet, you do not want to risk your life/afterlife on a unevidenced claim being wrong.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I'll keep this short as possible too; my brain is startin' to hurt.
Response to passage 1:
But science has to always assume a natural explanation, and I'm all for it because that's how science work. But atheists often regard science as the only way to know anything, and hereby assert that it must have a natural explanation.
Response to passage 2 & 3:
Because it was hard back then to copy anything, folks would more likely copy something they consider real and important instead of fiction. Especially in this case, Christians copied a LOT despite being persecuted.
Response to passage 4:
The personal incredulity fallacy is to dismiss something SOLELY because it sounds unbelievable. Thus, the passage is a non sequitor.
Response to passage 5:
And I can still be ultra-skeptical and say that the ruins were never about Caesar anyway; and I wouldn't be disproven. Also, atheists are the ones attaching the God idea to the real world; which is why I'm making the parody in the first place.
Response to passage 6:
Let me elaborate. Yes, the supernatural by default cannot produce natural evidence; but when it interacts with the natural world, it CAN produce evidence detectable by science. The problematic reasoning is rejecting all supernatural explanation and assuming everything has a natural explanation.
Response to passage 7:
That's how SCIENCE operates, and science isn't the only way to know anything. Also, how can you be sure that your wife loves you? Is there physical evidence? Of course you can use the wedding ring as evidence, but I can also argue that all it demonstrates is that your wife intends to appear loving towards you, and demand evidence that she really loves you. You'd be stumped and I wouldn't be proven wrong.
Response to passage 8:
Again, the point is: if there's no objective purpose (note the word ''objective''), then any form of purpose you assign to yourself would be self-deluding, as you clearly know that everything we know was brought into existence without purpose.
Response to passage 9:
I have answered. I know you're not God because you're clearly just another natural thing in the natural world. So do a million dollars. Neither your or a million dollars can live independent of anything else, nor provide existence to other things.
Response to passage 10:
Non sequitor. I was talking about China in the third to sixth century where Neo-Taoism was hip.
Response to passage 11:
You have proved the existence of purpose to me already. Look at passage 8.
Response to passage 12:
And God is also philosophically demonstrated to be very likely to exist. What's more, I don't see the ''both are OK'' mentality anywhere in atheism. In atheism only natural explanations are valid.
Response to passage 13:
Ironically that's exactly what atheists do. ''There are only natural explanations and supernatural ones are bollocks by default''.
Response to passage 14:
You're saying that you personally can't see how miracles can happen and how God (who is not a sky fairy, that's a straw man) only selected a number of people to witness them, therefore none of it happened. That's the personal incredulity fallacy. Also, the ''fear of afterlife'' was not even why I became a theist; and frankly nobody knows jack about afterlife. Therefore, you bringing this up is a non sequitor.
Squidburt (posing as a jazztheist): "I'll keep this short as possible too; my brain is startin' to hurt."
It should be hurting after having to create all those FAITHS — Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery Hogwash and Stupidity.
rmfr
i love how he conceives the differents hypotheses of dark matter as "invisible" and "magic".
Similarly, I also love how you conceive God as a sky fairy.
Also, rebuttals please?
Where and when did "I" say God was a sky fairy? It would be nice of you to not accuse me without reasons. Rebuttals of what? Dark matter being magic? But my dear, it is the job of scientists to provide explanations for unexplained phenomenas , today they have certain conceptions of dark matter, maybe it is merely a modification of gravity at these scales maybe, maybe.
You say god is outside existence (reality), what is defined by the word Universe?
''Where and when did "I" say God was a sky fairy?''
You yourself probably didn't say that, but I bet that you believe so; isn't that a common assumption of atheism?
''It is the job of scientists to provide explanations for unexplained phenomena...''
Yes it is, and one of the fundamentals of science is to assume that everything in the universe abide to laws and have natural explanations. Which, makes science not applicable to anything non-physical, and thus not the only way to know anything. It would be ''science of the gaps'' to assert that galaxies aren't results of supernatural intervention because we've already come up with dark matter.
''You say god is outside existence (reality), what is defined by the word Universe?''
A universe, or a reality, is a natural thing, consisting of time and space, which governs itself with a set of laws.
I am the ONLY one who has said you worship the three deities known as the Sky Faerie, Magic Lich Virgin, and Rather Comedic Spook.
JazzTheist, you had better learn to tame that tongue of yours. Or do you not believe as it was written:
I think you now owe some apologies. And make damn sure you are accusing the correct person.
rmfr
I don't think I owe one, because viewing God as a ''sky fairy'' is kind of a presupposition of atheism. I don't need people to state out the obvious to know what they believe.
When you accuse someone else of using that term when they NEVER did, then owe an apology for making that accusation. Much like I did in apologizing to you when I made a wrongful accusation.
You are just like all Religious Absolutists.
Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:
And the biggest problem you have is that you have matched every last one. That makes you not just a Religious Absolutist, but a practicing Religious Absolutist Apologist.
You are the worst of the worst.
rmfr
Incorrect. The premise of Atheism is to not concern oneself with the idea of Gods in the first place. We can't refer to a god as a sky fairy if a god is not in our thoughts to begin with.
But proving Caesar and dark matter don't exist doesn't prove your undefined god exists. And I don't rely totally on lack of physical evidence. Philosophy, morality, Occam's razor to name a few things. And the christian bible is a cesspool of evil and meanness while their theology is just barking mad. And which god gets top honors? Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is about as much evidence for each of these is there is for a teapot orbiting Mars.
''But proving Caesar and dark matter don't exist doesn't prove your undefined god exists.''
Non sequitor. My objective is to demonstrate the flaw of your methodology; not to validate mine.
''Philosophy, morality, Occam's razor to name a few things.''
Incidentally, these are exactly what I use to infer God's existence.
''And the christian bible is a cesspool of evil and meanness while their theology is just barking mad.''
Non sequitor. My post is not talking about theology or the Bible.
''And which god gets top honors? Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Flying Spaghetti Monster? ''
There's a philosophical notion of God and a religious notion of God. Even thought the two aren't mutually exclusive, they are still very different things. You are committing an equivocation fallacy by mixing the two. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example, is something obviously natural judging by its name. Therefore it's not God.
''There is about as much evidence for each of these is there is for a teapot orbiting Mars.''
Again, God is not a natural thing (which a teapot definitely is) and doesn't fall into the realm of science; or whatever methodology to determine whether or not there's teapot orbiting Mars.
JazzTheist: "Non sequitor. My objective is to demonstrate the flaw of your methodology; not to validate mine."
Talk about idiocy. Do you not know that sword cuts both ways?
rmfr
Pages