Riktor posted:

There is no god. Disagree? If so, provide clear, observable, empirical proof that I am wrong.

gaaira posted:

Riktor posted:

Opening Argument:

There is no god. Disagree? If so, provide clear, observable, empirical proof that I am wrong.

prove to me there is not a god. you can't. therefore there is.

Theeverliving posted:

God can be defined as a synonym for reality and it's a mistake to believe older definitions of God weren't defined out of observations of reality originally and are in need of better interpretation. Aristotle wouldn't disagree that spirituality and the physical world are indifferent and anyone that would use logic fallacies should consider how they're editing the context of the same person responsible for logical fallacies and maybe consider that Aristotle made them up one day and named the original 13 logical fallacies whatever he wanted and did what he perceived as science with them because they were new in his day, invented, and that had nothing to do with prior knowledge or influence or thought aside from the thought process of Aristotle himself to create something he's always been credited as a creator of. His learned thought process was probably dualism, so I assume he had a broad sense of indifference he had to prove. Then around 2,200 years later he is replicated as a subjective guideline that most atheists accept as logical. Him as an authority is subjective, it's subjective to read into the authority.

It is now a watered down observation of what's logical, and people claiming to be logical are usually in denial of being subjective when interpreting it. He was supposedly original and known as an inventor of philosophy before he was taken as a physics authority. It matters because atheists try to replace God with logical reasons for disbelieving, and physics being the main science, but logic can be disbelieved because it comes from a subjective place and that's normally how god is dismissed. God is made subjective as a topic, not indifferent with what science is which is observation and everything has a point of view. Atheists believe in logic they're taught, or they're not out actually trying to prove they're Atheos people which is not just "without god practice" (a-the-ism), but being certain that they're "without god" as a position and those are different and likely the god nihilists that don't know it yet. Atheists will more than likely use the agnostic argument though because they will still at least ask for proof whether they're really that interested in defining god or not, but they're usually offended when someone would say God could technically be a synonym of reality.

kimsophia posted:

So Riktor, are you at all swayed by the Big Bang theory? I'm not sure that it is logical to believe there was nothing, nothing,, nothing, nothing at all, no atoms, no energy, nothing, nope still nothing, nothing some more, nothing for a real long time, yep there's still nothing in existence KERBLAM everything's in existence!!!!!

smllyjlly posted:

This really sucks because I have no way to prove that anything I believe is real. As long as I believe it it will be that as far as I am concerned. DAMN IT DO I EVEN EXIST?

DoubtingThomas posted:

Riktor posted:

Can any provide me with empirical proof of the magic sky-daddy?

Different people require different levels of proof to accept or reject a thing. Some require very little if any, some need a great deal, and there are still others that even if it were standing before their very face and they were beholding it with their own eyes and touching it with their own hands, they still reject it.

Which sort are you? What is it that you would need? What is your definition of empirical proof in this matter? Please give a “for instance.”

smllyjlly posted:

Riktor posted:

smllyjlly posted:

This really sucks because I have no way to prove that anything I believe is real. As long as I believe it it will be that as far as I am concerned. DAMN IT DO I EVEN EXIST?

I'm not sure if you are joking, but I sincerely hope you are.


Cogito ergo sum.

LOL serious is silly.

The thing is really that since there is no way to know for sure that what I'm seeing is real proof of anything becomes suspect. What's even real? Seriously if you know how to tell the difference I want to know. How can you prove to me I'm not making this all up? So in the end it's your choice if there is a god in your world and you say no so it's no. The mind is a crazy thing that sees what it wants to.

The closest thing I've seen to "god" is us. We consciously create and destroy. We can make things that never existed before.

Riktor posted:

I am operating under the scientific standard of evidence. Ergo, for data to qualify as evidence, it must meet all of the following criteria:

1- There must be a logical connection/causal link to the premise.

2- It must be repeatable.

3- It must be falsifiable.

4- It must be testable.

5- It must be presentable.

6- It must be objective.

7- It must exclude other possible explanations.

DoubtingThomas posted:

This is a demand that is not reasonable when it comes to the incorporeal or other dimensional. I’m sure you well know this. We can only examine or apply science to a thing within the limits of our ability + our desire to expend time and resources on examining that thing. But to what we are able to examine and apply science to, there are definite limits. The proof you are demanding goes beyond mans physical limits or abilities to furnish in the case of God.

If there is a God, you must know that humans can not summon him on demand to probe, prod, and perform lab experiments on. This physical realm of being and all of its great scientists with their most advanced equipment, can do absolutely nothing to study and understand a different domain or realm of existence. What this boils down to is that the existence of God cannot be adjudicated on for or against by using science because science is not in a position to give a result on something it does not have access to and can not be applied to.

kimsophia posted:

I'm not quite certain why you bring up statements like

"Faith is a belief held in absence of proof.

posted:

I'm saying, it's not logical to think that nothingness suddenly turns into somethingness. Why would it?

posted:

I also don't get why entropy and chaos are the normal trends of how stuff winds up, yet evolution works in the opposite way, toward making neater and neater critters and plants. But I do believe in evolution, even though I don't understand it.

Talk Origins posted:

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

posted:

Oh? So, you don't know whether God exists or not, yet you also do not have belief in a deity? Sounds like taking an extra step to me. You have a proposition of disbelief in the face of not knowing if its correct or not, no?

posted:

I say, God exists, and I can't prove it by science as Doubting Thomas explains far better than I can. I also did not believe in a magical sky daddy (I referred to him as "magical floating being in the sky". But I don't consider God to be magical, but supernatural. Anyway, I like believing in God, it helps me to be a better person, and cheers me up, so I'm stickin' to it