Riktor posted:

That's awfully flippant.

Flippant? I apologize but I’m not sure that I follow. I would be very interested in knowing what gives you that perception.

Riktor posted:

If it is your position science cannot measure the non-physical… like gravity and magnetism are not physical, yet fit completely within the scientific criteria for evidence.

This was not the appearance or suggestion I intended to give.

Riktor posted:

If God interacts with this world, the interaction, just like any change over time, should be measurable, and therefore demonstrable.

What exactly is the interaction that one would look for to measure? A footprint in the dirt, a fingerprint left behind, or a stray hair sample? If God were to exist, I think we can agree that these are not things that we could reasonably expect to find from a non corporeal being. So what are you suggesting is the thing that should be measurable if the divine were to interact with our universe? What are the instruments a man would use to measure God or his interactions?

Riktor posted:

Why stop with God?

Because God is the subject at hand.

Riktor posted:

The argument from differing planes of existence is, frankly, stupid. Even if God resides in some parallel plane, knowledge of him would necessarily mean he interacts with our plane. If God interacts with this world, the interaction, just like any change over time, should be measurable, and therefore demonstrable.

Reading God as a synonym for reality makes a lot of sense. The later versions started to put the definition into compartments (hiding places) that sound more distant when looking for it, but those places are never originally stated as "Somewhere only to be found in outer space" and that logic comes from people that assume God cannot be an inherent or indifferent generalized description of nature, but skeptical people will say god should be a character that should have specific physical attributes limited inside of what humans know about natural laws and reality.

Humans might be distinguishable enough as "complex" life forms from nature's design, but that just means something complex enough beforehand existed physiologically, and deductively before that down to matter, atoms, it's parts and so on (or in Hawking's type of "magic," something came from nothing), and the classification for intelligence should be indifferent since humans are more the subject of nature and it would be objective to classify intelligence in other animals and deductively other things, but not to a point nature doesn't know what it's doing. Nature knows how to interact with itself, that's where evolution comes in (intelligence is usually taken out of the definition for no real reason).

Then there are popular scientific myths about evolution that people should probably mock. For example, a person can't go to a zoo and watch a human being born from a monkey (unless someone's getting manipulative about nature and decides to go crazy with stem cell experiments to manufacture the conditions, like the rat with human ear on it's back)... Normally when someone goes into Michelangelo prototype land with expecting to see a god I think it's fair to expect to see scientific observation produce a monkey to man transformation in nature before my very eyes like all those old cartoon morph drawings of the monkey that grows up to be a man that exist in every high school and college science classroom. It's not going to be that type of sensationalized proof in either case, but somehow I might get made fun of for talking about the possibility of animals shapeshifting (just saying the possibility of a werewolf) when that's really not beyond what can happen in evolution.

Transdifferentiation is similar enough to the process of cell conversion one might possibly expect in shapeshifting to make it likely (if not the same in several ways)... Turritopsis Nutricula is a real "known of" creature. The possibly of something less known of in reality like a werewolf is taken a step further by skeptics though before experiments take place and turned into something deliberately more complicated to find like a werewolf riding a unicycle juggling knives just like it did on this or that movie.

.... Or ghosts, most scientists aren't proactive enough to look around the countless numbers of places supposedly haunted to at least see if their skepticism is based on never having a direct experience with them, if they did it would be logical they'd focus their experiments on proving their experience instead of copping out and telling themselves it was a stress induced delusion as soon as poltergeists starting throwing things at them. Most won't subject themselves enough just to get past their initial skepticism and that alone usually blocks the experiment for some people. Admitting ghosts exist would probably logically lead to other previously considered dead things being alive in a different state, that would give them work to do, and sometimes the status quo is simpler for them. It's easy to be the person saying obviously this and known that, anybody that actually discovered anything had difficulties because of their discoveries and that's a theme throughout history.

Thread of the Year Award

Fuck God.

BloodType89 posted:

Thread of the Year Award

RhettButler posted:

I cannot, no one can. But I do believe in God, simply because I do not believe that the earth, the universe and all of its' intricacies can be created without some kind of higher power. That and God is just something that I feel that I can sense.

But yeah, the argument is over. You believe in God or you don't. No empirical evidence can be offered to prove that there is a God and not being able to provide it won't sway people who do believe.

This pretty much. My last post was made when I was pissed off. It was directed at the malevolent, sadistic terrorist figure that is the god of the Abrahamic religions. I believe that there is a god but he has no power to ruin our lives.

RhettButler posted:

Riktor posted:

Opening Argument:

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

Argument over.

I'll be in the lunchroom if anyone needs me.

I cannot, no one can. But I do believe in God, simply because I do not believe that the earth, the universe and all of its' intricacies can be created without some kind of higher power. That and God is just something that I feel that I can sense.

But yeah, the argument is over. You believe in God or you don't. No empirical evidence can be offered to prove that there is a God and not being able to provide it won't sway people who do believe.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sway people who believe. I trust you know that.

smllyjlly posted:

Haven't you ever had a dream that was completely real? It's not impossible for your brian to generate realistic fiction. I'm not saying nothings exist outside of the mind but you have no way to be 100% sure that what you are seeing is actually happening.

And incase you haven't noticed a fuck load of people CHOOSE to be miserable even though it is within their ability to change things.

I understand this process rather well, in point of fact. My undergraduate degree was in psychology.

Furthermore, I would add no one, except perhaps true believers, would claim to have absolute knowledge of anything. Science is based on degrees of certainty. As the same results arise from the same conditions repeatedly without interruption, certainty increases.

Just as an example, most of us take gravity for granted. I wouldn't imagine many would deny its existence. However, the reality of the matter is our unwavering acceptance that objects are attracted to the earth by an unseen force is based entirely on repeated testing. If I drop a pencil from my hand, it is entirely possible it will stay suspended in midair, but I am far more certain it will fall.

Scientists should never speak in absolute terminology, and few do.

Theeverliving posted:

Reading God as a synonym for reality makes a lot of sense. The later versions started to put the definition into compartments (hiding places) that sound more distant when looking for it, but those places are never originally stated as "Somewhere only to be found in outer space" and that logic comes from people that assume God cannot be an inherent or indifferent generalized description of nature, but skeptical people will say god should be a character that should have specific physical attributes limited inside of what humans know about natural laws and reality.

Humans might be distinguishable enough as "complex" life forms from nature's design, but that just means something complex enough beforehand existed physiologically, and deductively before that down to matter, atoms, it's parts and so on (or in Hawking's type of "magic," something came from nothing), and the classification for intelligence should be indifferent since humans are more the subject of nature and it would be objective to classify intelligence in other animals and deductively other things, but not to a point nature doesn't know what it's doing. Nature knows how to interact with itself, that's where evolution comes in (intelligence is usually taken out of the definition for no real reason).

Then there are popular scientific myths about evolution that people should probably mock. For example, a person can't go to a zoo and watch a human being born from a monkey (unless someone's getting manipulative about nature and decides to go crazy with stem cell experiments to manufacture the conditions, like the rat with human ear on it's back)... Normally when someone goes into Michelangelo prototype land with expecting to see a god I think it's fair to expect to see scientific observation produce a monkey to man transformation in nature before my very eyes like all those old cartoon morph drawings of the monkey that grows up to be a man that exist in every high school and college science classroom. It's not going to be that type of sensationalized proof in either case, but somehow I might get made fun of for talking about the possibility of animals shapeshifting (just saying the possibility of a werewolf) when that's really not beyond what can happen in evolution.

Transdifferentiation is similar enough to the process of cell conversion one might possibly expect in shapeshifting to make it likely (if not the same in several ways)... Turritopsis Nutricula is a real "known of" creature. The possibly of something less known of in reality like a werewolf is taken a step further by skeptics though before experiments take place and turned into something deliberately more complicated to find like a werewolf riding a unicycle juggling knives just like it did on this or that movie.

.... Or ghosts, most scientists aren't proactive enough to look around the countless numbers of places supposedly haunted to at least see if their skepticism is based on never having a direct experience with them, if they did it would be logical they'd focus their experiments on proving their experience instead of copping out and telling themselves it was a stress induced delusion as soon as poltergeists starting throwing things at them. Most won't subject themselves enough just to get past their initial skepticism and that alone usually blocks the experiment for some people. Admitting ghosts exist would probably logically lead to other previously considered dead things being alive in a different state, that would give them work to do, and sometimes the status quo is simpler for them. It's easy to be the person saying obviously this and known that, anybody that actually discovered anything had difficulties because of their discoveries and that's a theme throughout history.

I'm sorry, but I cannot address this point.

The reason is this: due to its repeated use across the whole of human history, there is a widely-accepted definition of "god" which describes specific attributes, and it is with this definition Atheism concerns itself.

If you are going to claim "God", to you, falls outside the scope of this widely-held definition, then there's really no reason for me to argue against it.

smllyjlly posted:

The only realistic support that god exists is us. Our intelligence doesn't fit. It's hard to find what seems to be any logical reason for why we have emotions and more importantly act on them as we do. It even tends to come before our own suvival instict. Morality as we see it doesn't seem to exist in the animal kingdom nor does the need to look for a "purpose". But the problem is that each person has a unique relationship or lack thereof with god and no one else can ever fully understand how/why another feels the way they do because there is no consistant definition of god. We fill in the gaps as we choose. There is a good chance we have proof of god but since we have a preconceived notion of what that is we can't see what is right in front of us. I think it's a bit silly to assume we could comprehend what god is based on the simple idea that god created everything. Our minds are far to limited to grasp that. We generally don't fully understand anything until we actually experience it. I can't even imagine how to begin to imagine god lol. I just don't get how anyone can believe god doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be more realistic to say there isn't enough evidence for or against it? But instead we do the emotional thing which is make a choice based on a lack of evidence and then try to validate our own personal belief. It doesn't matter if you have the answer if you aren't asking the right question.

Maybe god is just a representation of our insecurity. As long as god is there we don't ever have to be fully responsible for what happens. That to me best explains why we'd kill for god. Because it's all for us really but we can do it without seeming selfish.

I'm keeping my personal opinion on the matter out of this btw. I just think the questions starts with us since no one else is asking so all of the ways we appraoch it make a difference as to how to find the answer. I'm not trying to drive you nuts lol.

Part of the criteria for "proof" is that is has to be exclusive, which means it must by virtue of itself preclude other possible explanations.

Our intelligence, emotions, and morality are not evidence for God, in part because evaluating them with any degree of serious does not necessarily point one in the direction of the divine (rather, this is assumed), and in part because we already have workable models for their existence which do not require supernatural intervention.

Intelligence is hardly unique to humans. Neither is emotion, for that matter. Furthermore, both are easily explained as evolutionary adaptations (I would suggest reading through Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal"; he does a good job of explaining emotion as adaptation).

The issue of morality is prickly for believers because morality is, in a way, relative. Bertrand Russell once quipped, "Sin is geographic", obviously meaning different societies have differing taboos. What is socially acceptable in one location is absolutely verboten in another.

Every society, I believe, has a taboo on the unjustified slaying of another human, or the theft of personal or communal property. These kind of rules make sense, biologically, however, and do not require supernatural explanation. We know not kill or still because we're social animals and are biologically programmed to survive on a communal level. Bertrand Russell also made a distinction between morality based on social utility and moral based on superstition.

But again, the issue gets prickly. What constitutes justified killing or justified theft varies by society, and even then by context. We have laws against murder, but there are circumstances in which killing another human being are socially forgivable. In the US you can kill in self-defense, or you could be sent to war to kill dozens, if not hundreds, of other human beings. In Pakistan, you could stone your daughter to death for falling in love.

I would argue if morality stems from an absolute being, then that morality would be absolute. However, it is not, and much more simply explained as adaptation to social conditions.

And, no, you're not driving me nuts. These are much more cogent, thoughtful points than the standard, "PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST LUL" arguments I so routinely encounter.

DoubtingThomas posted:

as being my position. I believe this was your assertion, I’m not sure how burden of proof rests with me and not you.

That is because you are confusing two premises.

Premise A (my premise): Science is the measure of change over time. Interaction is change. Ergo, interaction is measurable.

Premise B (your premise): God interacts with our world.

Again, if you are making the claim God interacts with this world, then you should be able to describe the manner in which this interaction occurs. All I've done is describe the conditions under which scientific measurement is possible.

On a side note, if God doesn't interact with the world, then he's irrelevant and this conversation is pointless.

posted:

Riktor posted:

If it is your position that evidence of God's existence can't be given

Precisely. We can not appily science to that which we are not in a position to access. This may be the case with God, if God does exist.

I am not refuting this point. God "may" exist, sure. It is my position the probability of his existence is so remote as not to warrant a second thought. If you have no manner of addressing the probability of God's existence, then, again, this conversation is pointless.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2012 10:33PM by Riktor.

Riktor posted:

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to sway people who believe. I trust you know that.

Yes, of course. I didn't mean to imply anything negative.

DoubtingThomas posted:

Riktor posted:

Premise B (your premise): God interacts with our world.

I don’t mean to be redundant, but again I don’t recall that being my position. I believe this was your assertion,

You assertion,

Riktor posted:

Even if God resides in some parallel plane, knowledge of him would necessarily mean he interacts with our plane. If God interacts with this world, the interaction, just like any change over time, should be measurable, and therefore demonstrable.

My response,

DoubtingThomas posted:

What exactly is the interaction that one would look for to measure? A footprint in the dirt, a fingerprint left behind, or a stray hair sample? If God were to exist, I think we can agree that these are not things that we could reasonably expect to find from a non corporeal being. So what are you suggesting is the thing that should be measurable if the divine were to interact with our universe? What are the instruments a man would use to measure God or his interactions?

Your response,

Riktor posted:

Again, you are shifting the burden of proof.

It is my position that, probabilistically, there is no God. By extension, it is also my position God does not interact with this world. I can't give you evidence for something I do not believe happens.

If it is your claim that God interacts with this world, then you must know the manner in which this happens.

My response,

DoubtingThomas posted:

I don’t recall this, as being my position. I believe this was your assertion, I’m not sure how burden of proof rests with me and not you.

Riktor posted:

That is because you are confusing two premises.

Premise A (my premise): Science is the measure of change over time. Interaction is change. Ergo, interaction is measurable.

Premise B (your premise): God interacts with our world.

Where again was this my premise? It appears that you are supplying the idea that if in existence a God or his operations should be measurable by some process of science (which still hasn’t been divulged), and then projecting this onto others as their idea and then demanding they prove it. I’m not sure why.

Look, this isn't difficult.

Do you know God to exist? Answer: Yes or No.

If YES, then God must necessarily interact with this world. If God interacts with this world, he changes it. Since science is the measure of change over time, God is therefore measurable by science. ERGO: If you know God to exist, you must necessarily know the manner by which to scientifically prove his existence.

If NO, then you have nothing further to add to this conversation.

gaaira posted:

we can't survive sorely on blood, it's impossible be instantly burned by exposure to sunlight and we cannot live for centuries: there's no such thing as vampires.

No, we can't. Vampires, by definition, can. Describing the physical limitations of humans, which Vampires aren't, doesn't disprove the existence of vampires.

gaaira posted:

f(x)=x2, prove to me there is no x1E(1,2) so that f(x1)=0, answer: bolzano in [1,2]

Can you prove a negative premise? Certainly. I can prove you're not smart by making the argument you are dumb, because the two are mutually exclusive and testable.

A more appropriate analogy to existence of God, however, would a test used to ascertain the effect of a drug. You can test whether or not a drug has an effect, but you cannot test whether or not a drug has no effect.

You can write equations to your heart's content, but it is clear you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of logic. But hey, I guess if your magic sky daddy wanted you to be conversant in logic, he would have made you that way himself.

m0nster posted:

All I have to say is, if God created this world, according to the bible, how could he do it from another dimension? There would have to be some sort of connection, like a wormhole. It's your job to find God's wormhole. Go.

Ha ha.

Riktor posted:

Part of the criteria for "proof" is that is has to be exclusive, which means it must by virtue of itself preclude other possible explanations.

Our intelligence, emotions, and morality are not evidence for God, in part because evaluating them with any degree of serious does not necessarily point one in the direction of the divine (rather, this is assumed), and in part because we already have workable models for their existence which do not require supernatural intervention.

Intelligence is hardly unique to humans. Neither is emotion, for that matter. Furthermore, both are easily explained as evolutionary adaptations (I would suggest reading through Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal"; he does a good job of explaining emotion as adaptation).

The issue of morality is prickly for believers because morality is, in a way, relative. Bertrand Russell once quipped, "Sin is geographic", obviously meaning different societies have differing taboos. What is socially acceptable in one location is absolutely verboten in another.

Every society, I believe, has a taboo on the unjustified slaying of another human, or the theft of personal or communal property. These kind of rules make sense, biologically, however, and do not require supernatural explanation. We know not kill or still because we're social animals and are biologically programmed to survive on a communal level. Bertrand Russell also made a distinction between morality based on social utility and moral based on superstition.

But again, the issue gets prickly. What constitutes justified killing or justified theft varies by society, and even then by context. We have laws against murder, but there are circumstances in which killing another human being are socially forgivable. In the US you can kill in self-defense, or you could be sent to war to kill dozens, if not hundreds, of other human beings. In Pakistan, you could stone your daughter to death for falling in love.

I would argue if morality stems from an absolute being, then that morality would be absolute. However, it is not, and much more simply explained as adaptation to social conditions.

And, no, you're not driving me nuts. These are much more cogent, thoughtful points than the standard, "PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST LUL" arguments I so routinely encounter.

Our intelligence vs the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't quite seem to fit in my way of thinking. I'm not at all saying animals aren't intelligent or emotional but more that our level of thought, even if an evolutionary trait, has yet to be seen as helpful over harmful. I personally feel we've moved passed self preservation on a lot of levels. We are fucking brilliant but is that stoping us from allowing our emotions to cloud our judgement enough that we destroy ourselves? Obviously we aren't all on the same page but as a whole we aren't exactly moving forward. I wish I could understand why exactly we evolved this way. How likely is it that our own evolution will be our demise?

On the morality front I completely abandon that idea because there is really no way to know our instinctual moral traits because from minute one someone else is defining that for us. Whatever our natural feelings on the matter would have been it doesn't stand much of a chance against good ol' conditioning. So there is really no way to tell if morality as we know it is deeply rooted in us or mostly learned.

Now this isn't quite what you are asking but I'm going to go with it anyway. I like making up crazy shit especially when you know we aren't gonna get an real proof up in here lol. What if we are currently, and have been for years, creating god. Our power to take in idea and make it something tangible is quite remarkable. Since the idea of god is our idea (unless you really want me to get all "aliens seeded the earth" on your ass) and we are actually creating that which we see as god then truthfully there's no way to say that god created everything but leaves room for a way to prove the existence of god. Computers are a reflection of our desire to process information in a way that we would only ever associate to a higher life form. Perhaps in our desire to play god we will eventually see that we are god, but only after we have fully created god and are able to see our reflection in what we have made.

Sometimes I don't know if I made sense or if I just need to lay off the ganj.

Riktor posted:

Any debate with a believer on the nature of God is invariably reduced to an argument of special pleading.

Well in one sense I can see special pleading in majority terms, in the other sense I see a believer on the nature of something facing unacceptance of his evidence where logic is put into terms of a confirmation bias (similar to a prosecutor's fallacy). The point here is the logical standard is subject to change, not shift, but incorporate definitions for problems that previously existed and weren't defined yet, and the reason for that is that a person could know all the logical fallacies right now for example, but new standards for logic can be created and they have been historically to illustrate injustices with logic that couldn't have been defined at earlier times. The list of logical fallacies has grown hundreds maybe thousands since Aristotle's original 13. My point is that I could create a new fallacy right now and call it the "lightening that never happened that way" fallacy. Person A saw lightening strike a specific way, person B didn't, but person B claims the lightening never happened the way that it was described by the observer unless it were to reoccur the exact way person A described it the first time. Could be the new confirmation bias, psychological fallacy combo. Why not? Why can I not subjectively make up something that is also logical and without also needing group confirmation?

Haha, indeed I'll just be waiting for someone to describe something that we all know to be true, but cannot be proven. If it can't be proven by a human, it can't be claimed as absolute truth by a human. I don't mind believers as long as they don't try to tell me that they are absolutely certain that god exists. Absolute certainty requires absolute proof.