|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2001 : 14:43:57
|
When people declare to me that Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of GOD so you should-for safety's sake-go along with the existence, I slide my glasses down my nose. Then I raise one fierce eyebrow and squint the opposite eye, and stare at them so hard that they are forced to flee.
I am tempted to have tracts printed from that wonderful piece that Carl Sagan did on the burden of proof. You all remember the invisible green dragon who lived in his garage. Wonder if Ann Druyan would let me?
Here at SFN I have run into all the standard claims.
On the old board we had one that for proof offered the fact that I am a terrible person and will know God exists because I am damned to Hell.
Ouch!
Then there was an -- of course I have proof. You wait right here and I'll be back with it for you.
I'm still here.
Then there was one who wanted to debate the merits of religion (and by religion he meant only Christianity) over Atheism but declared that it was "crazy" to try to prove the existence of god and we could not touch on that point in the debate. A difficult thing, defending Atheism and not talking about god's existence.
But the most disturbing of all are those who claim that the answer is unknowable. Why should any answer be unknowable? If the burden of existential proof is solely on the claimant why grant any claim enough credibility to be considered "unknowable"? Is it reason or emotion at play behind this decision?
For decades I have asked people Why they believe what they believe. I have never gotten a straight answer. I am always told What they believe but never Why they believe it.
What would it take--for you personally--to either prove or disprove the existence of god, any god, and why?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2001 : 15:14:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What would it take--for you personally--to either prove or disprove the existence of god, any god, and why?
oooh. Since I'm going home for the weekend, I'll dive in and not know of any repercussions until Monday and so be blissfully unaware ;) (sounds rather like religion, doesn't it?)
I am still a christian (I say 'still' because I think I'm on the fence atm and at least am cognizant of it). What would it take to prove an almighty being (or pantheon thereof) to me? a personal experience. a miracle. I want god to speak to me, or if He can't fit that into His schedule, send Uriel on down. To me, that will be definitive proof (at least until someone proves I'm hallucinating)
How could you disprove a Being to me satisfactorily? I'm afraid.. I can't think of a way to, short of me dying. And then having 1. No afterlife (how the heck can you know if you're no longer a consciousness?) 2. Being reincarnated and aware of the fact (in which case I would probably start following Buddhism and hope for the best)
Maybe someone else has a better idea of disproval than I do. Until it is either proven, or disproven, for me, it will remain a 'belief' in 'faith'. I am currently very uncomfortable with this. I blame SFN :> Heaping the blame on others always leaves one in a more comfortable position!
One reason I still follow the Bible is because, all in all, with a few exceptions removed, it is a good set of morals to live by. (I know there are some iffy bits, some VERY iffy bits in there, but please refrain from pointing those out. If I choose to believe in something without proof I will pick and choose what I wanna believe darnit!)
- Judge not others lest ye be judged yourself
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
- Love thy neighbour as thyself (unless he happens to be a molestor and/or pedophile, axe murderer, the list goes on...)
- Hate the sin, love the sinner (hard. damn hard to do.)
I do not want to believe in a God that sends innocent children to eternal damnation, or lets good honest people burn simply because they have the temerity to use the damn brains they were born with and question things that DONT SEEM RIGHT.
SO I have told you both what I require as proofs and what I believe. Sorry about that last rant ;) As to the Why... ... .. Why would I require rock solid proof? Faith is a deep-rooted thing in many people. Ripping it up by the roots generally required irrefutable proof. Something in me wants to believe in something more. I want to be able to see all that there is. I want to have the time to know more than this paltry lifespan gives me. I am not satisfied with the bit of earth I've been allotted and would like to cast my mind into space and see the wonders beyond what we -now- can see. Maybe I will, maybe I wont, maybe I'll have to leave it to my greatgrandchildren, but I want to hope for it anyways.
K. I'll stop ranting now.
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 15:40:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When people declare to me that Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of GOD so you should-for safety's sake-go along with the existence, I slide my glasses down my nose. Then I raise one fierce eyebrow and squint the opposite eye, and stare at them so hard that they are forced to flee.
I am tempted to have tracts printed from that wonderful piece that Carl Sagan did on the burden of proof. You all remember the invisible green dragon who lived in his garage. Wonder if Ann Druyan would let me?
Here at SFN I have run into all the standard claims.
The folly of arguement for proving the existence of God is that you must first quantify God. Once God becomes a known, it ceases to be devine. I believe that there is a central creative force in the universe and it split itself into the God and Goddess. Can I prove it? No. That is the essence of belief in a supreme being. Faith is believing when there is no logical proof for what you believe. Science quantifies, measures, and explains the behavior of systems. Therefore, for a devine being to exist, it may not be quantified.
What would it take to prove to me the existance of a supreme being? I already have enough "proof". I feel it all around me. I believe that the "spark" of life is part of the divine. But thats me.
As for you being a horrible person? I haven't seen any proof of that. All religion (or lack thereof) is equally valid. One is not intrinsicly better than another.
I've argued religion with Atheists before and I've found that they generally fall into two classifications
1) Athiests - believe there is no God due to logical concerns. There is no reason for God. It cannot be proven. Therefore, it does not exist.
2) PseudoAthiests - People who be come Athiests to "punish" God.
So far, you seem to fall into the former category (Atheists).
Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 07/27/2001 15:41:35 |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 16:01:48 [Permalink]
|
god (gŏd)
n.
1.God.
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
te·qui·la (te-ke'la)
n.
1.Tequila
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
Tequila is God. Ergo, the proof of God is around 80.
God's mystic name is "Perfidio".
"Pancho Villa" is the name of Satan.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Edited by - Bozola on 07/27/2001 16:04:13 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 19:35:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've argued religion with Atheists before and I've found that they generally fall into two classifications
1) Athiests - believe there is no God due to logical concerns. There is no reason for God. It cannot be proven. Therefore, it does not exist.
2) PseudoAthiests - People who be come Athiests to "punish" God.
I have met a 3rd type:
3) Ignorant Atheists - When asked why they are Atheists, they can only say "it's obvious that there's no God." If pressed for more they give answers like "because" or "leave me alone" 
I don't mind Atheists but I do prefer them to have some substantial reason for calling themselves one and can at least demonstrate that they understand the concepts involved.
As for myself, I am not sure that there could be anything that would ever convince me that a God exists. If a powerful being showed up claiming to be a God and demonstrated mind numbing power I would think of that famous quote(Arthur C Clarke I believe)that says something like: Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So it might not be a God but some advanced being with some sort of power complex. If there was a God, why would it give a flying F*ck what we believe anyway?? God, being God, would probably be far beyond such egotism. And if it wasn't, what kind of God would that be to worship anyway?
The Christian God I don't even care about. While I don't feel it is possible to 100% discount a gods existence, I do feel very comfortable with dismissing the ones that are so obviously fake.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 19:39:13 [Permalink]
|
Cool this is starting well with honest and above board answers
Until it is either proven, or disproven, for me, it will remain a 'belief' in 'faith'.
What does that actually mean to you? Dictionary says that faith is an "unquestioning belief"---but you are asking questions. Including the one--what's wrong with asking questions?
One reason I still follow the Bible is because, …, it is a good set of morals to live by.
- Judge not others lest ye be judged yourself
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
- Love thy neighbour as thyself (unless he happens to be a molestor and/or pedophile,axe murderer, the list goes on...)
- Hate the sin, love the sinner (hard. damn hard to do.)
First off these don't originally come from the bible. They were in common usage for hundreds (if not thousands) of years before the bible was written.
Except, of course the last one which is brand new and contradicts what you just said at the end of the "neighbor" one.
The last one is senseless anyway.
A woman drowns her two children. You are to hate the murder but not the murderess as though she had no self-responsibility? Get real.
Why would I require rock solid proof? Faith is a deep-rooted thing in many people. Ripping it up by the roots generally required irrefutable proof.
Why would you not require proof about this topic when you do about every other aspect of your life? Why would you require evidence and substantiation when you buy a used car but not when you take on a philosophy that governs and guides your entire life?
Where did you get the idea that faith was a positive thing in itself? What is the difference between 'belief' in 'faith' and simple credulity?
I want to have the time to know more than this paltry lifespan gives me. I am not satisfied with …
A valid emotional response. But only an emotional response. They reflect only your desires and do not mirror the actual world.
---------------------
The folly of arguement for proving the existence of God is that you must first quantify God. Once God becomes a known, it ceases to be devine.
Then by this argument no one can ever claim that there is a god or goddess as their very knowledge of this fact would negate the assertion.
I believe that there is a central creative force in the universe and it split itself into the God and Goddess. Can I prove it? No.
If you cannot prove it then you cannot truly say that you know it. If the truth of the assertion is not demonstrable then the asserter cannot claim that he is stating the truth. Even if is should turn out at some future time that the assertion was true, as there was no way for him to have known it at the time.
The most you can say is that this is something that you want to be true. But you cannot state it's (their) existence as being a fact.
Faith is believing when there is no logical proof for what you believe.
And yet you express it as though it were a positive attribute. You have just described it in the same terms you would use to describe a fantasy. It is by definition "illogical" to believe something without logical proof.
… for a devine being to exist, it may not be quantified.
Catch twenty-two I believe this called. For unless it can be quantified then there is no possible way for you to know that it does exist.
Therefore irregardless of whether a divine being existed or not it would only be possible for us to Know that it did not. There would be no way for us to honestly say otherwise.
What would it take to prove to me the existance of a supreme being? I already have enough "proof". I feel it all around me. I believe that the "spark" of life is part of the divine. But thats me.
Once again we come to an emotional desire being expressed as if it had an existence of its own. You have not submitted any "proof" at all.
I find it strange that this infantile (and I do not say this as an insult, but rather that it is a common mind set among very young children) belief that the exterior world is subject to ones interior feelings is discarded by all intelligent adults. And yet, solely, in the topic of religion it is presented as a "proof".
A Pagan and a Christian both (although not in so many words) just said in effect that the "divine" exists because I want it to exist.
In no other aspect of their lives, on no other topic, would they ever say anything of the sort.
I've argued religion with …
1) Athiests - believe there is no God due to logical concerns. There is no reason for God. It cannot be proven. Therefore, it does not exist.
Claiming the right of self definition, and having been active in the Atheist movement for a few years, I would like to rephrase that.
Atheists do not believe that there is no god. Atheists lack a god belief.
That may seem very nit picky but the distinction is not at all subtle if you would consider it for a while.
It cannot be proven, therefore it cannot exist
Is not something that we are saying.
It cannot be proven therefore we cannot know if such a thing exists or not. And neither can the people who are making the claims that it (they) does (do). And yet Theists continually make claim to knowledge they cannot possibly posses. God is the Father. the Son and the Holy Ghost. God split into a male and a female creative force. God lives on Mt Olympus. Etc. etc. etc. They can even tell you the gods likes and dislikes, what they look like, what their plans are, who their chosen people are, all sorts of stuff. All with absolutely no way of knowing if it is true.
None of these existential claims holds any water. Neither Christians nor Pagans have any powers or abilities that Atheists do not have. We all have the same five senses, the same instruments. There is no secret way of assessing the facts.
The claims of the divine are indistinguishable from those of fantasy. Fantasy and some semantics thrown in to cloud the issue.
Atheists just see no reason to play along with unsubstantiated whimsy.
Come up with some facts, some hard evidence--such as you would for any other claim that you might make in your entire life--and we will change our opinion.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 20:40:51 [Permalink]
|
I will begin with a cop-out: I belive in whatever I believe to be true at any given moment. What I mean by this, is that my beliefs are constantly changing, subject to my experience.
It would satisfy my own ego to say that, given sufficient proof, I would instantly believe anything. In my own experience, this is not true. I will gradually accept anything as conditional truth, given sufficient evidence. This leads to the same question that started this particular thread: "What is sufficient evidence?"
In the case of a deity, I cannot say. If God spoke to me through a burning bush, I feel I would sooner doubt my own sanity. I may then choose to believe anyway, but I don't think I would. I feel the best way for God to show me it exists (since, as we all know, God is omnipotent) would be to make me a believer. God would have to change my personality into that of one who believes in a higher power.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 20:55:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Atheists just see no reason to play along with unsubstantiated whimsy.
Exactly. I have better things to do with my life and my Sundays.(Like sleep.)
quote:
Come up with some facts, some hard evidence--such as you would for any other claim that you might make in your entire life--and we will change our opinion.
If solid, substantial proof can be provided as to the existence of God, whomever provides it will win a million Nobel Awards. Can almost guarantee it.
"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." -Master Yoda |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 21:03:46 [Permalink]
|
Slater,
Every time that I try to determine what would be a "proof" of a god's existence to me, I end up with the existence of a god not being a necessary condition. All except - When I die, I find that I have an immortal soul and get to meet God. A god however, could still exist even if I do not have an immortal soul. A god who exists but has no interactions with humans either during life or after death is an irrelevant god though and not worth worrying about or trying to describe.
Something that you said in your last post reminded me of some ideas. Everyone who belives in a god projects all of their personality, or at least that personality that they wish that they could have, upon that god. We all have the gods that we want and that's why it's so easy to believe when logically it makes no sense. In times past, when the gods that we had were not the ones we wanted, we just invented new gods to take their place. We did this collectively. The god of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition though, is a personal god. He loves what we love, hates what we hate, and we know him because he is like us. Why would we want to get rid of a god like this? Some day, science may provide proof of the existence of Jesus or Yahweh or another deity. Until then though, it's fun to search (Slater, even an Atheist like you is in to digging around).
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 12:14:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If a powerful being showed up claiming to be a God and demonstrated mind numbing power I would think of that famous quote(Arthur C Clarke I believe)that says something like: Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So it might not be a God but some advanced being with some sort of power complex. ...While I don't feel it is possible to 100% discount a gods existence, I do feel very comfortable with dismissing the ones that are so obviously fake.
@tomic
That Arthur C. Clark (Childhood's End--argueably the best piece of SF ever written) scenario already happened you know.
In old Hawaii the great god Lono, brother of Kane, left the islands. He and his wife Lono-Motu sailed "to the west" in his magic canoes. But he promised that he would return one day and bring happiness and prosperity to his followers. Might sound familiar to you. There are lots of stories like this; they range from Jesus to King Arthur. It's a basic death and resurrection myth.
As his symbol of remembrance Lono left his sign. A thin wooden cross with a large square of tapa draped over the cross member.
These symbols were set up at Heiaus all over the island chain.
The people devoutly believed that one day, in a twinkling - in the blink of an eye, god would come back. Priests continually prayed for his return for hundreds of years.
Then one morning the people of Waimea, Kauai went down to the beach and HOLY SHIT HE IS BACK!!! Prophecy is fulfilled! There were the magic canoes of Lono and Lono-Moku. They were huge, bigger than a village. No man could build anything like that. And they each had, just as you would have expected, many of the symbols of Lono from one end of the giant canoes to the other. Even one on top of the other, which is an impossible thing for any human to make.
The tapa squares hanging from them (just like in every temple) were magic tapa unlike any that had been seen on earth before.
The canoes were filled with gods. Strangely different from humans they spoke the language of the gods (everyone on earth spoke pretty much the same language). They had canons and this wonderful thing from heaven called iron. Things like that did not come from earth. There was no iron any where in the world. Some of the chief gods even had hair that was removable…if that isn't the sign of a true god then what is?
There is hope for us in this story of mistaking technology, and poor taste, for deity in case we should ever make the same mistake.
Through observation and study the Hawaiians were able to come to the correct conclusion that this magic man wasn't Lono at all. So they bashed in Captain Cook's skull and eat his heart. Which could be an option for us if god did one day appear.
(Another lesson to be learned is never go to Hawaii without your American Express card)
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 18:47:48 [Permalink]
|
Well, what would it take to prove the existence of a god or pantheon of gods to me? Off-the-cuff - a hell of a lot more than I've seen, heard or read.
First lets define 'god' in three broad catergories...
1 - People based mythologies that I've read or heard about
2 - People based mythologies that I know nothing about
3 - A nebulous being that created everything (or at least set it in motion) that is a non-corporeal (as we understand it) conscious intelligence.
Catergories 1 and 2, IMO, can pretty much be considered non conetenders (had to create separate catergories cause I know I don't know all the possible religious beliefs out there). The religions with which I am familiar and most probably those with which I am unfamilar would lack proof sufficient to alter my views. There religions all seem to be constructs of the society in which they thrive or have thrived. These gods were created by man to explain that which he did not or could not understand. This was how they defined their world.
Organized religion/religious practices also allowed the definition of a set of moral standards by which followers could/should live their lives. However, god could also be used by a group of people or an individual to justify or excuse attrocities against their neighbors or enemies.
Now for the ill defined non-corporeal conscious intelligence. I would for all intents and purposes require more than just personal interaction with this deity. (I could be losing my mind....) If this entity were to interact with the real world that would suppose that this entityt would become quanitifable and by some means detectable. Whether we currently have the means for such detection or no. However, this type of god, would seem to me, to be less than involved in theis world and therefore become irrelevant.
As to why I am an atheist. Well I think there is one sentence that sufficiently describes the why: *I can not reconcile faith with reality*
I could, should you like, go into the reasons behind my search for god and enetual disbelief in a god or any gods. Please don't aske about the research I did - it was a few years ago - but I found sufficient information to seriously begin questioning my own Catholicism. Eventually I was able to articulate and rationalize my reluctance to give up all belief in the Judeo-Christian god. Once this was accomplished I was able to leave behind the concept - not entirely the conditioning.
For another two years or so I continued to look at various religions. I guess I was still looking for that *higher power*. I realized that the supposition about catholicism applied to these other religions as well - I could not reconsile any faith system with reality.
So I gavve up my desire to believe (ok I still struggle with this sometimes) in something beyond myself. No matter how I might wish a higher power true. I find I am unwilling to re-enter the land of fantasy promoted by religion.
Hopefully that answers what and why. If not - I will clarify as required.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 18:56:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...I found sufficient information to seriously begin questioning my own Catholicism. Eventually I was able to articulate and rationalize my reluctance to give up all belief in the Judeo-Christian god. Once this was accomplished I was able to leave behind the concept - not entirely the conditioning.
For another two years or so I continued to look at various religions. I guess I was still looking for that *higher power*. I realized that the supposition about catholicism applied to these other religions as well - I could not reconsile any faith system with reality.
So I gavve up my desire to believe (ok I still struggle with this sometimes) in something beyond myself. No matter how I might wish a higher power true. I find I am unwilling to re-enter the land of fantasy promoted by religion.
Trish,
This sounds eerily familiar to me.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 19:23:04 [Permalink]
|
How does one disprove the existence of a non-existent deity? It is not up to anybody to disprove anything. It is up to the true believer to make all of the proofs. The skeptic is simply asking for proofs of existence (which, of course, are never offered, because such proofs are as non-existent as the deity in question.)
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 21:16:59 [Permalink]
|
There can be no proof. It is an answerable question, just not in these 4 dimensions. God is supernatural, and therefore cannot be proven with natural science. If God created us with our own will, which he obviously did, then his appearance in our reality would be a violation of that free will, thus forcing us to believe in him. If God wanted to get you a message without violating your free will, how would he do so? Not only that, is he doing it know? My faith says yes, but I can't prove it to anyone else.
If God was to show up right now in human history to tell us something, and we knew without a doubt that it was God, how would we pass the event on to the people who are not born yet? How would we prove to them that it was God?
To me God's existence is an issue of faith not proof.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 23:58:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One reason I still follow the Bible is because, all in all, with a few exceptions removed, it is a good set of morals to live by.
That really isn't a good reason for following the Bible (or any other religion). I personally hold with a lot of the moral principles espoused in the Bible, such as loving thy neighbor as thyself, trying not to judge others, etc. However, I think that real morality requires you to do more than just follow some written code.
Consider slavery. I, and probably most people these days, consider this to be an extremely immoral institution. Yet for centuries, people who attended church "religiously" kept slaves and found no moral issue in doing so. I suspect the reason was that they never really thought about it. As long as they were following the moral requirements laid out by the priest, they figured they had the moral thing covered. If the bible was the final arbiter of morality and there wasn't any commandment specifically saying "Thou shalt not enslave they fellow man", then they figured it must be OK.
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 08:34:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote]
Consider slavery. I, and probably most people these days, consider this to be an extremely immoral institution. Yet for centuries, people who attended church "religiously" kept slaves and found no moral issue in doing so. I suspect the reason was that they never really thought about it. As long as they were following the moral requirements laid out by the priest, they figured they had the moral thing covered. If the bible was the final arbiter of morality and there wasn't any commandment specifically saying "Thou shalt not enslave they fellow man", then they figured it must be OK.
Don't confuse slavery with indentured servitude or bondslavery. The slavery in this country was due to racism. Other forms were often due to debt. At the end of the alotted time, your debt was paid and you were considered free. A bondslave was someone who chose, after their period of restitution was resolved, to remain with the family for the rest of their lives. I would agree that some forms of slavery are wrong, but not all.
As for the commandment, I think that would fall under treating your neighbor as yourself. A specific commandment was not necessary.
Jim
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
