Evidence for the proposition “There is no god”.
Hutu Death camp survivor - Rwanda 1994
9/11 World Trade Center Jumpers - 2001
The Killing Fields of Cambodia
Nazi Crematorium
2011 Japanese Tsunami
Haitian earthquake 2010
Evidence for the proposition “There is a god”.
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
Free Will, His ways are mysterious, yadda yadda.
His infinite love and mercy for the sinners in the pictures. yadda yadda.
I’m so disappointed. I was expecting a picture of a rainbow, or the Grand Canyon, or a hatching chick, as evidence for god.
Philly and I aren’t playing by the rules? OK… How’s this?
There is a god! I’m saved
Not so fast, fella. You’re only saved if you
a) admit you’re a sinner,
b) believe in Jesus
c) confess that Jesus is Lord
That is, if the Christian god is the real one…
He does these bad things to scare you into accepting Jesus so you will go to heaven. Millions must die horrible deaths to save your immortal soul. (Mine is beyond saving. They wouldn’t want my cynicism. Even in heaven they aren’t too keen on Debbie Downers.
In other words, speak softly, but carry a big stick.
I was about to say “I was born with a big stick so I have no choice,” but then remembered that kids probably read this blog.
“but then remembered that kids probably read this blog.”
Shouldn’t be. They were blocked.
Well, CL used to read it.
{high fives Evo}
I read in one of the “Little Blue Book”s by Haldeman-Julius tha at least one clergy-(I use the next word advisedly) person felt that all the destruction, death, pain, and upset caused by WWI was worth it if it caused one soul to be saved.
As a Ham radio operator, I’ve noticed certain parallels with religion and radio gear:
The more after-market things available for it, the shittier and more unworkable item. It should be able to fulfil its function in the first place without it. Don’t waste money on it.
With religion, you have the same thing. Apologetics, commentaries, re-translations, and simple pronouncements that such and such is actually so, no matter what.
That much addenda and supplimentation indicates that religion is a very dodgy product, indeed, don’t waste your time or anything else. It STILL ain’t gonna work as advertised.
Still, the nazi crematorium picture brings to mind the question and it’s corollary which arose from such places:
Question: Where was god?
Corollary: Where was man?
And, it’s us by default.
I just stumbled upon this blog by accident but have something to add / ask.
So are you folks making the argument that horrible things that happen on earth are evidence of the lack of God? If something terrible means that then by that logic beautiful things and acts of selflessness and love are proof of God.
I don’t subscribe to either of these ideas … just poking a hole in your suggestion.
CL? Back already?
That’s a lousy, unsupportable application of logic, but feel free to try again. I award Kewpie dolls for well reasoned logic.
I agree it’s flawed logic. That was my point. Terible things don’t equal no God just as much as beautiful things and selfless acts are not proof of a God. You’ve agreed with my original post that stated the suggestion you made regarding the photo essay was not logical. Thanks for making my point.
OK, I’ll play for a little while.
The problem with your logic is that you fail to acknowledge the assumed premise. In this case, the assumed premise is that God is good. No. Better than good. He’s perfect. He is goodness exemplified. He is omni-benevolent. He is who all goodness tries to emulate. A good god insures that there is only goodness in the world. etc. etc. blather blather, etc. IOW, with a benevolent god there should be no evil.
No one assumes that God is the opposite. If one did, then your conclusion might mean something.
So to say that there are extremely rotten things in Denmark, is to say we have very good evidence that god doers not exist. For if he existed, he would not allow such evil things to occur. It’s the Problem of Evil Argument.
The opposite does not necessarily compute. Just because there are good things in the world doesn’t mean that ipso facto that’s (as you say) proof of god’s existence. It just means that there is good in the world. We expect goodness in a benevolent god universe. We don’t expect evil in a benevolent god universe, so when we see it, it’s evidence (not proof) of god’s non-existence.
This can go on for awhile, because there are a lot of apologetics by Christians that purportedly explain why evil in a benevolent god universe is tolerated by a benevolent god, but then those arguments change the premises, so it goes round and round.
Now, if you want to say that “beautiful things and acts of selflessness and love are proof of” the non-existence of Satan, your logic would be better, because the unstated assumption would be that of an evil god (Satan) that doesn’t like goodness.
OK, I think you are missing the meat of what my original post was about. I was merely saying that your post “Photo Essay” was sloppy. You took horrible acts of man and nature and tried to use them as some sort of proof that God isn’t present else why would he allow said acts to occur. I said by that logic, good acts, etc are proof of God. But then you missed the part where I state I believe neither to be true. So in fact I wasn’t making any type of argument for the existence of God … yet you found a reason to argue with me anyway.
I have only one question regarding your retort. What if God isn’t an interventionist? Even on my most “believing” days I’ve never been able to swallow that he was an interventionist God.
For what it’s worth, I don’t pretend to have it all figured out. It is not difficult for me to imagine that a power beyond our capacity to understand created life. It is, however, difficult for me to make sense of a lot of things religious.
I am glad I found your blog and I hope you don’t mind my using it in my journey. If your first impression of me was a trouble maker I apologize.
You mean, like, I spilled spaghetti sauce on it or something? It’s about the cleanest post I’ve ever done. All pictures. Even Gideon would understand it. (OK, I don’t expect you to know who Gideon is). Sloppy is not what I’d characterize it as.
Well, aside from the fact that I never used the term “proof”, but “evidence” (which really are two different and distinct concepts), they are neither proof of god, nor evidence, given the assumed premise, as a mentioned. To create a dichotomy like you created is not logical, hence my argument. The first half that I created was, but the second half doesn’t necessarily follow. If you didn’t want me to disagree, you shouldn’t have brought it up.
BTW, I don’t think of arguments as bad things.
Then he’s superfluous to our existence, and should be ignored, if he exists. A god that doesn’t intervene is the same, for all intent and purposes, as one who doesn’t exist. Why pray to him? Why create churches to worship him? etc. He has as much relevance to my life as a jelly fish floating off the coast of New Zealand. i.e none.
Key word=”imagine”. I can imagine all sorts of things in my mind. Doesn’t make them real. For reality, we demand evidence, and lots of it. So far there isn’t a shred of evidence for gods. None. Nada. Zilch.
No sweat. You appeared, coincidentally, at the same time I banned a long suffered troll, who had a similar style of writing and inquiry as you. In fact, you’re not off the suspicious list just yet, though I see from the Interwebs you have three cute little kids, while I know that troll only has one.
Though I wouldn’t put it past him to create a fictitious family to troll here.
OK, I know you know what I meant. Your logic was sloppy.
“To create a dichotomy like you created is not logical, hence my argument.” – Again, I said in my very first post it was not logical. We agree. That was the point.
“He has as much relevance to my life as a jelly fish floating off the coast of New Zealand. i.e none.” – As intelligent as you seem to be you should be able to admit that you don’t know that. I agree with you in that God’s existence hasn’t been proven (I assume this is your sticking point for not believing). But it also can’t be proven that he does not exist. It is because of these reasons that I am skeptical of anyone, Atheist or Priest, who claims to KNOW they have all the answers.
Regarding your suspicion that I am someone you know, all I can do is promise you I am about 3 days new to your blog.
They are pretty cute aren’t they?
… oh, and do you take off for spelling?
I would find the existence of The CHRISTIAN version of god (benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence) to be a very curious phenomenon, in light of the incredible levels of sentient suffering – but my problem with accepting such existence has always been the lack of evidence beyond dubious scriptures and problematic personal experiences (in the form of some sort of telepathic interaction) which vary wildly from believer to believer – neither of which is EVIDENCE, even on their best days.
Next!
Pray tell, what parts do you have figured out? And by figured out, do you mean imagined?
Boy you kids are a literal bunch aren’t you? I’m pretty sure everyone else knows what the phrase “have it all figured out” means. And if you are suggesting that there are ANY conclusions that are NOT imagined in the quest for understanding the origins of life you are fooling yourself. That, to me, is what makes this the great debate that it is. Your conclusions are no less unproven than the existance of God.
The wisest man is he who knows that he knows nothing.
Who are you praying to Chief?
Your response did not answer my two very simple questions, so I’ll try to ask them again in a form that’s hopefully more clear:
• What do you have figured out?
• By what means did you figure it out?
Normally you should answer questions before asking your own and/or changing the subject. It’s only polite; however as you’re new here I’ll indulge you this one time. One should not be imagining conclusions for any question and calling that knowledge. If a suitable answer is unavailable, then we keep looking. In the mean time, we must admit our lack of knowledge and leave the answer blank. A lack of knowledge is no license to call the products of our imagination “knowledge”. Our imaginations can create hypotheses that we can then test, however until that hypothesis is tested and verified, it’s only a hypothesis and not knowledge.
As for your question, prayer is not one of my indulgences.
I am sorry. I didn’t think you asked me serious questions. When I said “I don’t pretend to have it all figured out” I made the mistake of assuming you knew what most people would assume about that statement. Here on earth that quote means the speaker doesn’t have the answers. I hope that helps you.
Please point out where I used the word, “knowledge”.
“Our imaginations can create hypotheses that we can then test, however until that hypothesis is tested and verified, it’s only a hypothesis and not knowledge.” – So can you admit your lack of knowledge?
“Pray tell, what parts do you have figured out?” Hey, you prayed for my response …. just wondering who you were praying to.
I see, so you don’t give all that much thought to the phrases you use. I assumed you did because most people who comment here and who engage in intelligent conversation do. My mistake. 🙂
I brought up knowledge because you spoke of both knowing and arriving at conclusions which, in the real world, require knowledge. Furthermore, I wanted to make clear what constitutes knowledge, just in case you weren’t clear on that. I mean hey, we’ve seen so far what happens when we assume, right? 😉
Oh and no, I did not pray for your reply. You may recall I said earlier that prayer is not one of my indulgences.
If you’ll permit me going on a bit Mulachi, I saw one of your responses to someone else and I think you’re working under a false definition of what defines most atheists. No worries, most make the same mistake. It’s an issue of a long and concerted effort by religions to misinform. Anyway, most non-faith-based atheists (ie – Buddhists and Raellians would be examples of faith based atheists) do not make claims of knowledge about gods, but rather decisions about the claims concerning them. In other words, a believer in a god or gods presents their claim and we examine it and see if it holds water. If it doesn’t, then we don’t accept the claim. Atheism then is a position on a subject.
Now of course you’re going to be tempted to point to atheists saying there is no god. Yeah, that happens in the same way you or I may say there are no fairies, no monster in Loch Ness, and no hairy, big footed hominids roaming the wilderness. Those are positions based on available evidence. If evidence of fairies, Nessie or Big Foot was discovered tomorrow, we’d revise our positions.
A good and quick read which would probably make this all much clearer is Sagan’s A Dragon in May Garage.
I promise I don’t mean to be disrespectful. But you are the one who didn’t understand the phrase “I don’t have it all figured out.” I had to exaplin what that meant to you. Everyone else got it. So don’t do that please.
You said “Pray tell …”. How can you spin that? We can all see your post.
OK, I appreciate your thoughts on how I may misunderstand Atheists. You make a good distinction. So I’ll ask, which are you? One who admits you don’t have the answers or one who claims there is no God? As you point out, there is a difference. It is one thing to point to believers and say, “You don’t know that.” It is quite another to tell them, “You are wrong.”
“I don’t pretend to have it all figured out” directly implies there’s at least something that you do have figured out, and in the context with which you used it, discussing your belief in a god, implies there’s at least something you have figured out about your god. Not surprising that someone would ask about that, is it? I don’t think so. It also begs the question of the means of your figuring. It appears you’d consider the workings of your imagination viable means, whereas I would not.
“Pray tell” was my failed attempt at being cheeky. I wasn’t being serious. Sorry for the confusion.
It’s not worth capitalizing “atheists”, first of all. As for the rest of your questions, I don’t pretend to know what I don’t know. I don’t know if there are gods, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters or an honest politician, however I can state my position on any of those, and I’d base those positions on weighing the evidence. It’s how humans function every day. You look both ways, make a decision about when it’s safe, and then you cross the street. You could say you “know” it’s safe, but you don’t know absolutely. A car could come around the corner suddenly. You could misjudge speed. You could trip, and so on. Some mistakenly call that faith, like “knowing” the light will come on when you flip the switch or that the mail will be delivered tomorrow. That’s not faith, those are logical conclusions based on experiential knowledge.
“So I’ll ask, which are you? One who admits you don’t have the answers or one who claims there is no God?”
You didn’t ask me, but I’m both.
I don’t see how those two are compatible. If you admit you don’t have the answer then how can you exclude one of the possible answers? I suspect you’ll answer with the, “there’s no proof and it’s not likely” response. If there is one thing I have learned from this crowd in a very short amount of time it’s that you guys are quite literal. If you don’t know where life came from you can’t exclude the possibility of a higher power at work as an answer … there aren’t many viable alternatives.
“there aren’t many viable alternatives”
Since we’re both seemingly admitting that there’s much we don’t know about the universe – then I take you’ll agree that you don’t KNOW that’s a true statement.
You seem to conflate a lower case “c” creator with upper case “G” God.
let me ask you – If our planet were taken over tomorrow by a race of aliens as technologically beyond us as we are over bacteria, they demonstrated scientifically how they had jump-started our universe, explained patiently to us that their are 1,000s of trillions of other universes, that we (life-bearing Earth) arose more or less by chance out of the materials they created this bubble within the multiverse, and that they had detected our presence and thought it would be interesting to pop in and have a look at how we were doing –
Would you call them “Gods”? Would you worship them? Do you find this shortly described potentiality of my imagination more or less plausible than any capital “G” God description you have ever heard from any religion? Can you come up with other imagined “causes” for us being here? For instance, what is wrong with eliminating upper case “G” God as an eternal “creator” and simply saying the universe ITSELF is eternal? Are there any particularly good reasons at this point in human knowledge to assert ANY of these (or other imaginings) as being factual? Any particularly good reason for NOT living our lives as if none of them are the true story?
Would I call them “Gods”? That would depend on how they answered the questions, “Where did your species begin? How did life begin?” I wouldn’t find this sceniaro to shed any new light on wheter there is a God or not.
I don’t think any human has ever understood what or who God is. I won’t be the first. For me, it all comes back to answering the question, “How did life begin?”. I can’t imagine any answer that sounds more likely than one that includes a higher power, beyond our understanding, being responsible for our creation. You know … as long as we are imagining.
“Where did your species begin? How did life begin?”
The question wouldn’t be any different if something called “God” showed up.
The question wouldn’t be any different but the answer sure would be. If aliens came down from some distant planet and told us they made us as an experiment no one’s opinion on earth would have to change in the great God debate. Especially if they couldn’t show us how life began. Now, if God, Yahweh, or whomever came to earth and said, “OK, here I am,” and made the heavens and earth do tricks and shit I think a lot of us who don’t know the answers would start to believe. “Something called God” would be able to answer these questions. Aliens wouldn’t … that is assuming you believe there can only be one beginning of anything and that coins don’t magically turn blue.
Evo to the RESCUE!
Mulachi –
Main Entry: pray tell
Part of Speech: phr
Definition: please do tell (about something)
I think it’s an old English expression. “Pray tell, my good sir, what are your intentions towards my younger sister”? has absolutely nothing to do with “saying a prayer”.
I’m pretty sure you (in this case) are the only one who didn’t get that, but I hope it helps. In these blog discussions about faith and atheism, it’s really a drag to get bogged down in that type of argument. I hope you won’t continue in this vein.
“I haven’t got it all figured out” can easily be seen as “I only have some things figured out”. It seems like you are simply being asked (if this is true) WHICH things you DO have figured out – particularly in reference to the possibility of god/s. If this is NOT true (for your use of the phrase) you could just say, “no, I don’t have anything figured out about the existence of god/s” and we can move along to more interesting questions.
I really hope this was helpful.
I think it was.
Man you guys aren’t big on humor are you? Perhaps I am just not as funny as I think I am. I know what it’s usage means. I found it ironic that the chief would use the word “pray” on this blog . . . on this subject. That’s all. It wasn’t an argument (as you call it) of any sort.
I am confused about your (an others) lack of flexability or understanding of casual speech within the English language. It’s like you guys are grading a master thesis or something. Surely you aren’t this much fun to talk to in person. I am so sorry I used the phrase “don’t have it all figured out”. I guess I should have said “I don’t have it figured out”.
Geez.
You know what? Don’t take it personally. I have two responses.
First, casual speech doesn’t work well in writing. It’s the nature of the beast. I try it myself, and it usually falls flat. Words have meaning, and without the accompanying body language and context that comes from speech, it oftentimes will be misunderstood. Best to stick to the formalities, if you have a serious topic. If you want to make a joke, throw a little emoticon (like this 8) ) in at the end of the lighthearted banter. Philly did that a couple of times up there.
Second, as I mentioned before, I just banned a troll (who I hope is not you) whose stock in trade was playing semantic games with us, parsing every word and nuance we typed, and attempting to twist it around so he could then claim some Pyrrhic victory. We are gun shy, and until we’re comfortable that you are not him, we’ll tread lightly (or heavily, as the need warrants).
Actually we laugh a lot.
Fair enough. I will take heed to your ideas on word use in here.
“Second, as I mentioned before, I just banned a troll (who I hope is not you) whose stock in trade was playing semantic games with us, parsing every word and nuance we typed, and attempting to twist it around …”
Maybe I missed something but I felt like it was this crowd, not me, who was parsing my words … not the other way around.
I come in peace and I mean well.
I can see you’re in for much merriment and good times around here, as I shout “Jesus Christ”! and “God damn it to hell”!
Well, you’re conflating two arguments. The first was about a non-interventionist god. Deists believe in a non-interventionist god, one who created the world, then left us to our own devices. If that god exists, why should I care? Why should it affect my life in any way? I can be whatever I am, and when I die, I’ll be just as dead as if he didn’t exist.
The second is about knowledge. But it does tie into the first, perhaps peripherally. I don’t claim to know all the answers. But I do know what evidence is out there for the claims that people put forward as true. I know there is no evidence for the Christian god. I know there is no evidence for Zeus, Thor, Mithra, Wotan,. Proserpine, Santa Claus, goblins, leprechauns, angels, fairies, Spaghetti Monsters, dragons, and teapots orbiting the earth. Since there is no evidence for any of those things, and I don’t live my life as if they DO exist, why should I be inconsistent and live my life as if the God of the Christians exists?
It’s all about probabilities, not certainties. There are very few things in life we know with absolute certainty. We weigh the evidence for the probabilities, one way or the other, and live our life accordingly. The probability of the existence of god approaches pretty damn close to 0 (on a percentage scale), whereas the probability of his non-existence approaches pretty damn close to 100. I don’t even to pretend to live my life as if those things low on the scale are true. And neither do you.
For instance, the probability of being hit by lightning is very low. I don’t consequently, purchase a portable lighting deflector (assuming I could) to wear on my body whenever I venture forth outside. The odds are pretty damn good I will live and die without being hit by lightning, so I live my life accordingly. I don’t KNOW that I’ll never be hit by lightning, but I’m not going to live my life as if I will.
I don’t KNOW there is or isn’t a god, but given the utter lack of evidence, I’m justified in living as if there isn’t.
YMMV.
I can’t argue with anything you said here and I appreciate your thoughts. I’d like to talk more about the evidence and lack-there-of in a later post if that would be alright. You don’t owe me any dialogue at all but this is good for me and my own attempt to make sense of things.
Feel free. I post here to express my thoughts on whatever bugs me, or interests me, not to evangelize in any way. If you want to discuss things, I’m willing and open to all dialogue. If not, well, the writing exercise is good for me.
Humor me for being suspicious. If you’re legit, it’ll pass.
The one little picture indicates that they are. Why don’t you allow comments on your blog?
I am surprised you found it. It was really intended just to be a place for me to capture some of the things I will forget about raising my children when I am older. If you saw it then you know I haven’t done a very good job of keeping it updated.
I actually thought it was a nice, well intentioned idea, but that much like new Years Resolutions, it would naturally get neglected.
I still have pictures of my three kids in unsorted and unorganized boxes, and the youngest is 21.
Someday…
Ugh… boxes of pictures, drawers of pictures, a few albums of pictures, 8MM video cassettes full of 80’s and 90’s growing kids, birthdays, vacations, graduations, sporting events – all in a shoe box; none of it it transferred to digital….
I suck.
…just like the rest of us.
No POSSIBLE answers have been excluded.
Here’s an example – If I flip a coin, the possible results would be either heads or tails, right? Why not blue? Why exclude the possibility that one side may turn blue as it lands?
Here’s another – I hear a noise in my house when I’m home alone. Possible answers for the noise might include a burglar, a mouse, or perhaps a busted pipe, but what about aliens coming to abduct me? What about underwear gnomes?
That’s a logical fallacy known as an argument from personal incredulity. Truth is not contingent upon your imagination or ability to comprehend any facet of reality.
If when I heard the noise in my house I said, “I can’t imagine any answer that sounds more likely than Olivia Wilde must be here to jump my bones,” that sadly wouldn’t make it true or any more likely to be true.
OK, then we actually agree. When you say, “no possible answers have been excluded” you are saying “maybe God created life”. I’ll take it. Maybe I’m having trouble keeping up but I don’t understand your ‘blue coin’ example. I DO know it won’t turn blue.
“That’s a logical fallacy known as an argument from personal incredulity. Truth is not contingent upon your imagination or ability to comprehend any facet of reality” – I didn’t call anything the “truth”. I only stated my opinion that I can’t imagine a more likely source of our creation. And as for Olivia Wilde (wildy over-rated IMHO, ;)), I think it’s much more likely God created life than it would be for Ms Wilde to show up at your place (insert appropriate emoticon here).
No, we don’t agree on much of anything. First, I’m not interested in your opinions, only what you can back up. Your opinions are just fanciful thoughts. Second, a god is not considered possible because there’s nothing to point to one’s existence; therefore if its existence is in doubt, how can you start considering it a possible cause for anything? Yes you can imagine it, but again I’m not interested in what you can imagine or in the case of your previous comment, what you can’t imagine that’s any better.
Incidentally, this is why the original post was silly. It’s predicated upon the character of a being which we have no reason to believe exists.
Well that’s just plain rude. I am interested in your opinion. You are only interested in things one can back up? Well why are you here? This isn’t an on-line dictionary or encyclopedia. 90% of everything anyone has said here is nothing more than opinion. That’s an odd thing to say in a blog.
“It’s predicated upon the character of a being which we have no reason to believe exists.” – We just plain disagree on this one. The fact you and I are having this discussion is reason enough for me to believe something created us. Do you have to witness something being made to understand something made it? There is the Argument of Causality that asks you to identify something, anything, that does not have a cause or a beginning. These are not my words … “This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.” Thoughts?
So true. Something did create us. My mom and dad had sex, and voila!, I was created.
Why is this so hard to understand? Why do you have to assume it’s far more complex?
OK this is some kind of trap I am walking into isn’t it? You are clearly smarter than that.
But I’ll bite … becasue I have to assume something or someone created your Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom’s Mom.
Sorry. I was being a bit facetious, but you did say that “The fact you and I are having this discussion is reason enough for me to believe something created us.”
You are able to communicate with us because you exist. You exist because your parents created you. It’s really that simple.
If you were trying to argue that humans were created by god, and the fact that you are here is proof of that, you failed.
Humans are a species that evolved from a prior species, that evolved from a prior species, etc. etc. back to, most likely a single celled organism, or perhaps a mixture of different single celled organism. We don’t really know.
Atheists (unlike theists) don’t say they have all the answers. Theists, on the other hand, claim they know God created us. Which of the two is the most presumptuous?
Well, yes and no. If my “opinion” was that little pink fairies actually created the universe, would you stick around very long? How about if I had actually evidence, like pictures from the Large Hadron Collider of little pink fairies humping a Higgs Boson?
Surely, without something to back up my opinion, you’d be long gone, twirling your finger next to your ear in a circular motion as you exited the blog.
Same thing. Your opinion is worthless in a serious discussion, especially one about the existence of gods, unless you can back it up with evidence.
You can’t have any discussion regarding the existance of gods WITHOUT OPINION. No one ever has, no one ever will.
How is my opinion that I can imagine a creator made all of this any different then your opinion (and it is an opinion anyway you slice it) that nothing did? You say the lack of evidence leads you to believe a creator’s existence is doubtful. But you have to fill that gap between what you know and what you don’t with the same stuff I do … opinion … opinion based on what makes sense to you.
If the criteria for contributing to this discussion is “facts only”, well then you guys would have an awfully short blog.
Neither I nor Philly said you couldn’t have a discussion about anything WITHOUT OPINION (if I may repeat your emphasis). There’s no restriction. What we said is that if all you have to offer is opinion, then what’s the point of offering it? Opinion without something of substance to back it up is worthless. See my little pink faerie opinion example.
You are welcome to voice any opinion you want. Just be prepared to back it up. If you can’t it will either be ridiculed or ignored. Or both. A good discussion always has elements of ridicule in it. As long as the ridicule is directed to the idea, and not the person. E.g. “That’s a very insignificant idea you have there” vs.”That’s a very insignificant penis you have there”.
Again, don’t take that personally. We mean it in the nicest way. 😉
What do you do for a living? I’m not being nosy or overly personal, but sometimes if we can relate what we say to a personal example, It’s easier to understand. I’ll start. I’m a lawyer.
You are a good moderator.
Too be fair, he said he wasn’t interested in my opinion. And if I failed to back something up please allow me the opportunity to do so. My only point regarding this was that we both fill in the gaps with opinion whether we admit it (or realize it) or not.
I hope I haven’t seemed like I took anything personally.
I’ve been a stay-at-home dad for the last six years.
Technically, I’m not the moderator. I’m God. But we established that a few posts back. 8)
And he’s qualified that since then. He’s not interested in ONLY your opinion. Nor am I.
Well, OK, but…if that’s all you have for a particular gap, then you’re better off saying “I don’t know”. Sometimes opinions are really inductive or deductive arguments, from facts or inference. So while it’s hard to come up with Fact A to support Opinion B, by inference, you can at least keep the conversation going.
If someone feels the opinion isn’t warranted, believe me, you’ll hear about it.
That’s an accomplishment worth noting and being proud of.
Unless you’re just a lazy-ass, good-for-nothing, leeching off your wife’s earnings.
(OK. That was an example of personal ridicule. 😉 )
I haven’t given you opinions, I’ve given you facts and substantiated arguments.
The argument of causality, or the cosmological argument, or the Kalam variant, are all flawed. The biggest flaw is the first cause not needing a cause itself. That’s special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. The big one for those believing in a god is it only argues for a first cause, without specifying what it is or was; therefore the argument could just as well be for the intergalactic universe creating gnomes. You can’t get from such an argument to your personal god, but that never seems to bother a believer because these little arguments aren’t for concluding that there’s a god, but rather justifying their belief in one. That’s why they stop there, because they feel that’s all the work that needs to be done because of course it would have to be THEIR god. What other god could it be? Duh!
Well now you are getting into the whole “who’s God is the real God” thing. That’s a topic I have no wish to explore at this time. It’s not relevant to this discussion.
I hate to say it but you have given your opinion many times in here. “a god is not considered possible because there’s nothing to point to one’s existence …”, that’s opinion because you don’t know if that’s true or not. Plently of people more scholarly than me very much consider God’s existence. Just like you, they reach these conclusions based on reason, consideration, and yes, opinion.
“… I don’t know if there are gods, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters or an honest politician, however I can state my position on any of those, and I’d base those positions on weighing the evidence.” The gap between knowing something to be true and taking a “position” based on weighing the evidence is opinion.
I don’t follow your logic on explaining how the argument of causality is flawed. I am not challenging you as much as asking for further explaination (I’m slow). “The biggest flaw is the first cause not needing a cause itself.” Are you saying God can’t be real because that doesn’t explain who made God?
“The big one for those believing in a god is it only argues for a first cause, without specifying what it is or was; therefore the argument could just as well be for the intergalactic universe creating gnomes.” You are right to say this theory doesn’t specify or suggest who or what caused the first cause. But I don’t see how that takes away the likelyhood that whoever or whatever was first is probably our God.
I am sorry. I feel like I have just been arguing with you guys most of the afternoon and that is not my wish. I really do appreciate your thoughts and insight here even if I don’t understand them or disagree.
I think the long and short of it is this … you refuse to believe anything you can’t see/prove for yourself. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality.
In the end, the believer is not convinced of his or her theism based on sophisticated arguments or capable apologetic defenses. The believer is convinced of his or her position based on faith. The atheist also is convinced of his position based on faith, albeit a different kind.
“Are you saying God can’t be real because that doesn’t explain who made God? ”
No, he did NOT say that, however it is true that god would require an explanation. Additionally, creation ex nihilo requires explanation. God folk are fond of the “watchmaker” or “painter” arguments – but they have no application to creation ex nihilo. Paintings not only require a painter, they also require matter. If a tree is “created”, IT requires matter. It’s ludicrous to propose a creator which exists outside of space/time creating universes from nothing. It MEANS nothing. It tells us nothing. it is not analogous to a watchmaker.
Back to what I said earlier, a timeless universe makes more sense than god. Occam’s Razor is particularly handy on that one.
Or – put much better than I ever could:
“Yes, everything we’ve ever observed come into being has been caused to do so. And yet, everything we’ve ever observed come into being has been so caused by a reorganization of previously existing stuff.”
In other words – NOT “ex nihilo”. We’ve never observed any type of creation other than ex materia and, in FACT, such a thing would be an illogical proposition.
Full post here and it is a very recent one. I’m sure Scott will appreciate any dissenting points you might have. http://12tuesday.com/on-causality-and-experience-a-response-to-noah/
That Tuesday PM site looks interesting. Consider it bookmarked.
Well if you can’t see the difference between fanciful opinion and an evidentiary based position, then I suppose we’re done here, unless if you’re interested in learning what the difference is.
Ah, the wide net strategy. Very well, with no such thing as absolute knowledge then everything is technically opinion, however there’s a vast difference between basing an opinion on evidence and basing an opinion on whatever you can imagine. Does that help clear things up? Your opinions are of the latter kind, Mulachi. Mine the former. I have no interest in the latter.
See special pleading. Defining your god as not needing a cause itself in order to avoid the problem of infinite regress in the cosmological argument is the very definition of special pleading.
You’re right, the intergalactic universe creating gnomes are our gods for they had no cause. I know this because I read it and other people, some very very smart, believe it too so it must be true.
Since you can’t understand or accept how that’s demonstrably false, then it must be true.
OK, just to show you guys we can agree on something … I’ve always found it shallow and limiting when a believer trys to challenge or respond to an atheist by quoting scripture from the Bible. Really? You’re going to try to prove your point by reading from the text that I just told you is rubbish? You’re not going to win many hearts and minds that way. Well maybe hearts, but not minds.
Or maybe that’s just a pet peeve of mine.
I still want to reply to a couple of posts from this evening but I need to sleep. Between getting slapped around by you guys all afternoon, the wine, and being forced to watch The Batchelor with my wife this evening I need some rest.
Say your prayers boys (again, I think I’m funny).
When did cl get married?
Not sure he is, though he announced a baby about a year ago.
All indications at the moment are that cl is NOT Mulachi. His argumentation and writing style is somewhat different.
Final judgment is reserved, however.
BTW, Ildi. Good to see you back. Where are you hanging out these days?
I don’t know… sounds like Godless Randall when he first started posting… (“don’t want to come across as a troublemaker”); and “that’s just your opinion” is definitely cl-speak. Also, interesting coinkidinky that Mulachi showed up just as you banned cl. My money is on sockpuppet.
I’m back in school in addition to working full time so I mostly lurk at various scienceblogs and Ebon’s web site – fisking doesn’t roll off my keyboard so by the time I have the time to research my position and compose my response the ship has usually sailed, so I pick my battles. I did enjoy occasionally yanking cl’s chain at Luke’s site when he insisted on bringing up his flying videos as evidence for the supernatural, and his ‘agnosticism’ re. the age of the Earth.
I’d rather not be quick to declare sockpuppet. I mean, lots of people drink the kool aid and lack a logical grounding, however the choice of the name in light of past and recent events does scream cl.
Who is Luke and what site is that of which you speak?
commonsenseatheism.com – however, Luke has moved on from discussing religion to (more limited postings of) discussions of rationality, metaethics, desirism and the Singularity. Used to be a very popular atheist web site; lots of philosophy-speak, which took me a while to understand, coming as I do from a science background. (Seriously, folks, philosophical zombies?) It was the first site I came across the term scientism being bandied about. Also the triad of: cosmological argument — fine-tuning of the universe — ‘secular’ historical methodology proving resurrection occurred = bff Jesus!
Oh, yeah. I read a Dennett book about 10 years ago that was chock full of “zombies” – would they they think they were conscious beings? How would they know they weren’t? How could you know, from the outside, that they weren’t, etc.
… or “tries” … geez.
“getting slapped around by you guys all afternoon,”
Don’t forget the straight arms, spinning side kicks, choke holds, paralyzing pressure points and nose tweaks.
I hope they have Internet in the E.R.
Conversion isn’t about minds, it’s about hearts. You’re telling me the cosmological argument, Pascal’s Wager, or similar arguments prompt conversion? Those are just to reinforce pre-existing belief and/or an attempt to give the indulgence of faith the veneer of rationality. I’ve yet to hear any believer who was made a believer by such means. No, it’s always something else, something irrational like Collins’ triple icicle or some comparable ‘road to Damascus’ event.
All of the god arguments have been easily refuted. They’re logically flawed, yet they continue to be used. Why? Because the mind is not the target, really. If you want to believe, you’ll see past the logical flaws, maybe try and make excuses for them as well. Is Comfort still using the banana argument, or has he finally abandoned that? Anyone know?
I think someone ate his prop. A distant relative, I’m told.
Distant?
He went on the AE show and tried to use that, “well I’m not that knowledgeable about science” bit as an excuse for anything he said that might be off, however he was repeatedly reminded how often those who are in the know have responded with corrections, therefore he should know what’s what now. Funny how often that happens. How many times have I explained the same thing to T4T for instance? How many things that were explained got ignored in Mulachi’s last comments?
Yes, well some of us are closer to our ancestors than others.
“How many things that were explained got ignored in Mulachi’s last comments?”
Few come here to worship at the foot of Wisdom; not even the ones who express that they are here simply to “clarify their own thinking” or “on a personal voyage of discovery” and “hope they will be permitted to ask a few questions”. Despite that, Philly, I personally like to think that each and every one of them leaves here a tad better human being than when they arrived.
*holding face straight as long as I can*
John and Chief, you guys are jerks. Spanish Inquisitor, you’ve been a gracious, clear, and fair host. I appreciate your reading comprehension skills and recognition of where I was and where I was coming from. I would’ve enjoyed your input going forward. Sorry I can’t stick around.
I never pretended to have it figured out and I never once told any of you I thought you were wrong. Did I challenge some things that I found didn’t make sense to me? Sure. But I hardly acted as if I was right and you were wrong. I came with questions and an open mind and you did a great job of running off someone trying to make sense of things. Chief, how you can accuse someone of drinking Kool-Aid who never once took a stance on the existence of God is beyond reason and shows your lack of understanding and reading comprehension skills.
I’m sorry about the name calling … not cool. But you guys should know the truth.
Be well.
“John and Chief, you guys are jerks. Spanish Inquisitor, you’ve been a gracious, clear, and fair host.”
Wha-wha-what? Hey, I’ll admit I can be a dick at times and that Philly dude – oh, yeah, I hear ya! – But I wasn’t even close to being something that you would call a “jerk” in anything I said to you.
Since you are attaching this to the last thing I said, well, that only serves a good notice to you of what SI talked about early in terms of “Net humor”. Sorry if that one bent you out of shape (I certainly can’t imagine anything else I said having that effect) but as that dick Philly has said in the past – “suck it up, cupcake”! 😀
Oh… and that guy Spanish inquistor – the WORST of the dicks. You would have found out, had you stuck around for a while, so maybe it’s good you’re clearing out of here with a favorable impression!
Moi? I’m a bunny rabbit.
Final thought –
I hope you will follow that link I left for you. If you have an interest in the cosmological argument, there is no better guy (in my admittedly limited experience) to set you straight (in a very nice way)!
Do you still get to say you’re the good guy if you throw shit at people on your way out?
Anyway, Mr. Good’s behavior was anything but. My initial questions were dismissed and he implied that something was wrong with me for asking. He did that not once but three times. That’s kinda jerky. Ignoring what someone says and continually insisting the opposite is jerky, too. So is ignoring an explanation for something and continuing to assert what’s incorrect. Citing things you seemingly don’t understand yourself, such as the cosmological argument, is jerky IF you exhibit no interest in learning anything about it and the objections to it.
Oh, and I find this amusing: “Chief, how you can accuse someone of drinking Kool-Aid who never once took a stance on the existence of God is beyond reason and shows your lack of understanding and reading comprehension skills.”
• “I don’t think any human has ever understood what or who God is. I won’t be the first. For me, it all comes back to answering the question, “How did life begin?”. I can’t imagine any answer that sounds more likely than one that includes a higher power, beyond our understanding, being responsible for our creation.” link
• Reiterated – “I only stated my opinion that I can’t imagine a more likely source of our creation.” link
Now of course he never stated the exact words, “I believe in god”, but that’s what anyone would take away from these and other comments he made. Of course if he wanted to take such a literal stance then I’d have to both point to his objection to others being too literal and the fact that I never directly said he’s drinking the kool-aid. 😉
Didn’t Godless Randall also start out with “I haven’t taken a stand either way; I’m just here to ask some questions?”
Just sayin…
It’s a common stance for theists. They pretend they are simply inquiring, but in reality, their motive is to proselytize, because they’ve already come to their own conclusions.All they need to do is act innocent and naive, and the light bulb will blink on over our heads, and turn into a halo.
And yes, that’s exactly what Godless…erm…Cl did.
They’re all sockpuppets for Jesus!
Think of “theist challenging the atheist” as a chess game. The “just making an inquiry” gambit is the opening move. It’s used to get a read on you and figure out which game plan/strategy would be best for advancing to the next stage of the proselytization game and gaining the advantage.
That’s actually a brilliant idea for a Christian board game, or even a video game. Were I less scrupulous, I’d pursue that.
Christian1: How far did you get?
Christian2: I got to level 20, but I can’t beat the boss atheist on that level.
Christian1: Did you play the Kalam card?
Christian2: Yeah, and the “something can’t come from nothing” talisman, the Watchmaker gauntlets, and even how it’s impossible to imagine not having a Creator.
Christian1: Wow! Did you at least get close?
Christian2: No. I mean, I’ve got the Comfort Ring which is supposed to provide protection from logical fallacies but he just sliced me apart with his Personal Incredulity Sword.
Christian1: I bet the Plantinga Pendant would get you past him.
Christian2: Yeah, that’d be the Holy Grail!
Christian1: Actually, the Holy Grail isn’t available before level 50.
copy, paste, expand… and you have a new blog post!
Yes, along with similar attempted jabs at reading comprehension, but there are more than just one unsavory person online so again, I don’t want to be so quick to say they’re all just cl sockpuppets.