Author Topic: Evidence  (Read 12052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #58 on: June 27, 2013, 03:54:11 PM »

ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ]   

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

In light of #3 I don't understand how it can be said there is absolutely no evidence for God.

I'd say there is a pretty strong case to be made for all three is there not?

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #59 on: June 27, 2013, 04:14:22 PM »
Later on, the rock meme may spawn even more legends, and perhaps even a pantheon of rock-gods and semi-divine hero figures
You know, worshipping a pantheon of rock gods doesn't seem all that bad to me...




Coincidentally, this is my 333rd post. Halfway to hell, baby!
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1712
  • Darwins +181/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evidence
« Reply #60 on: June 27, 2013, 04:18:02 PM »

Quote from: Jag
Think about it for a minute - if "immoral people" are making the rules, wouldn't they make rules to favor themselves, to get the results they seek? And if the instructions are to follow "moral behavior", wouldn't that make those "moral people" who are following the rules considerably easier to manipulate by the "immoral people" who made the rules?

If immoral people want everyone else to be immoral, they've essentially set themselves up in competition. "Immoral people" prey on "moral people" - it really is a wolf-sheep relationship.

So who is the immoral person that created Christianity?

That's not what I said. You expressed confusion about this:
Because it does not make sense that immoral people would instruct people to be moral.  It just seems that a moral person would not lie and an immoral person would prefer people to be immoral.

which I set out to clarify. Do you see the flaw that I see in your reasoning? It makes PERFECT sense for immoral people to instruct moral ones to behave morally. I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge christianity as created though.

I wasn't speaking to the origins of any particular religion, but since you brought it up, I'll give you my opinion  ;) - No one person, moral or immoral, created christianity. It developed over time into what you find today, and that development was influenced by many, many people, some of whom had motivations that had nothing to do with concerns over moral behavior. Some of them were sh!theads who abused their power and influence. Why, you ask? Because some people simply ARE sh!theads and that's the way it is. The end.

I could certainly give you more but I don't want to drag this off-topic into speculation about why some people just plain suck.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6410
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evidence
« Reply #61 on: June 27, 2013, 04:41:47 PM »

Quote from: Jag
Think about it for a minute - if "immoral people" are making the rules, wouldn't they make rules to favor themselves, to get the results they seek? And if the instructions are to follow "moral behavior", wouldn't that make those "moral people" who are following the rules considerably easier to manipulate by the "immoral people" who made the rules?

If immoral people want everyone else to be immoral, they've essentially set themselves up in competition. "Immoral people" prey on "moral people" - it really is a wolf-sheep relationship.

So who is the immoral person that created Christianity?

Constantine would be my first guess....unless you think the ruler of the Roman Empire--watching gladiators fight to the death and all-- was a nice friendly dude.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1776
  • Darwins +75/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Evidence
« Reply #62 on: June 27, 2013, 05:54:45 PM »
I'd say there is a pretty strong case to be made for all three is there not?

Welcome to the forum, Guybrush. If you think there's a strong case, feel free to present your evidence.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #63 on: June 27, 2013, 10:40:10 PM »
I'd say there is a pretty strong case to be made for all three is there not?

Welcome to the forum, Guybrush. If you think there's a strong case, feel free to present your evidence.

Thank you!
 
1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #64 on: June 27, 2013, 10:42:30 PM »
In that sense, yes, it satisfies the definition.  Then again, burnt toast making people think that Jesus is speaking to them also fits that definition, so I wouldn't read to much into it.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1776
  • Darwins +75/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Evidence
« Reply #65 on: June 27, 2013, 11:01:45 PM »
Thank you!
 
1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

It meets that particular definition, sure. Buuuttt...

Given the human propensity to find patterns and meaning even where there aren't any (a holdover from the days when it was safer to assume a certain combination of sound and movement in the brush meant something was stalking you even if it was just the wind), plus the total lack (thus far) of material evidence for any god, plus the accelerating rate at which the universe can be explained without the need (or even reasonable possibility) to evoke the supernatural... there is good reason to think the vast majority of humanity might simply be wrong.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #66 on: June 27, 2013, 11:04:21 PM »
True, though that would be just one of many- more compelling observations?

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6410
  • Darwins +829/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evidence
« Reply #67 on: June 27, 2013, 11:08:03 PM »
I'd say there is a pretty strong case to be made for all three is there not?

Welcome to the forum, Guybrush. If you think there's a strong case, feel free to present your evidence.

Thank you!
 
1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

I could buy the idea that the universe and everything in it was "created" if there was sufficient evidence of that. But considering all the problems with the universe and everything in it, I would be hard pressed to cop to the "intelligence" part, because there is no evidence of that.

The bonds that hold molecules together, the force of gravity, the way liquids condense at certain temperatures, cells dividing, none of these seem to need anyone around making them happen. And all of these things have both good and bad outcomes. Liquid water condenses and falls making crops grow, but also floods that drown thousands of people every year. Gravity holds everything on the earth in place, but also causes people to fall and die. Cells divide and a baby grows, but cells divide too fast in the wrong ways and you get cancer.

So, even if it seems like there is creative intelligence, it definitely does not follow that the creative intelligence is a nice guy.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #68 on: June 27, 2013, 11:13:57 PM »
Thank you!
 
1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

It meets that particular definition, sure. Buuuttt...

Given the human propensity to find patterns and meaning even where there aren't any (a holdover from the days when it was safer to assume a certain combination of sound and movement in the brush meant something was stalking you even if it was just the wind), plus the total lack (thus far) of material evidence for any god, plus the accelerating rate at which the universe can be explained without the need (or even reasonable possibility) to evoke the supernatural... there is good reason to think the vast majority of humanity might simply be wrong.

But the vast majority of humanity doesn't agree that those are good reasons to think the vast majority are wrong do they?

I agree there is zero material/empirical evidence for God, which puts it neck and neck with any other explanation for the universe doesn't it?

What's not even for me are other forms of evidence; the power of explanation, predictive ability

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #69 on: June 27, 2013, 11:27:16 PM »


So, even if it seems like there is creative intelligence, it definitely does not follow that the creative intelligence is a nice guy.
[/quote]

'I think this is a bad thing so God is bad (or doesn't exist)

I understand that point of view, as in the title of this site, and usually the biggest test of anyone's faith is reconciling seemingly pointless tragedy. It's oversimplifying of course, but is a parent only a good parent if they just do only what the child understands as good?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #70 on: June 27, 2013, 11:42:42 PM »

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

Welcome Guy.

Though I don't know for sure that the "vast majority" of which you speak exists, I do have to ask this. Is it a "vast majority" if the group doesn't agree with itself on the particulars. That is, are you lumping together christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, jews, zoroastrians, scientologists and any other individual/group/denomination/cult/sheep herds that happen to generically agree that there is something bigger, etc. out there. Or are you a member of some super-correct religious group that happens to, in and of itself, be a "vast majority"?

Also, I have to point out that being in some sort of majority status is not in and of itself any guarantee that you are right. It is only a guarantee that more agree with you than disagree with you. You can be as wrong it is possible to be (witness tea partiers) and still think that thing up your butt is something besides your own head.

You gotta pick your majorities carefully. Better yet, pick your truths without regard to their popularity.

Anyway, I was wondering what your criteria were for such things.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #71 on: June 28, 2013, 12:07:05 AM »

1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

Welcome Guy.

Though I don't know for sure that the "vast majority" of which you speak exists, I do have to ask this. Is it a "vast majority" if the group doesn't agree with itself on the particulars. That is, are you lumping together christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, jews, zoroastrians, scientologists and any other individual/group/denomination/cult/sheep herds that happen to generically agree that there is something bigger, etc. out there. Or are you a member of some super-correct religious group that happens to, in and of itself, be a "vast majority"?

Also, I have to point out that being in some sort of majority status is not in and of itself any guarantee that you are right. It is only a guarantee that more agree with you than disagree with you. You can be as wrong it is possible to be (witness tea partiers) and still think that thing up your butt is something besides your own head.

You gotta pick your majorities carefully. Better yet, pick your truths without regard to their popularity.

Anyway, I was wondering what your criteria were for such things.

Thank you

It is a vast majority that have, as I said, come to the same conclusion that the world around us is the work of a creative intelligence. Obviously you have subsets within that majority, down to any two people standing next to each other in any church who will find something to disagree on.

Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them! That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1776
  • Darwins +75/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Evidence
« Reply #72 on: June 28, 2013, 12:24:37 AM »
Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them!


Absolute certainty is a rare thing in science; theories are always provisional. That said, the materialistic explanations for the origins of the universe can be proven; currently the Big Bang has the most going for it. That is, it fits the available evidence far better than any other, most definitely including the creation stories of any religion.

That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Just to be clear, you aren't calling atheism a "faith" in the religious sense, are you? Because that would be like calling a hard vacuum a solid.

Neither is believing in naturalistic explanations over supernatural ones. You said yourself:

What's not even for me are other forms of evidence; the power of explanation, predictive ability

The Big Bang Theory certainly has those. No religion's creation story to date does.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #73 on: June 28, 2013, 12:54:44 AM »
It is a vast majority that have, as I said, come to the same conclusion that the world around us is the work of a creative intelligence. Obviously you have subsets within that majority, down to any two people standing next to each other in any church who will find something to disagree on.

Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them! That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Ah, you seem to have science and atheism mixed up. I am an atheist. I don't believe there are any gods. My views on the universe have nothing to do with my atheism. Especially since I'm not a scientist, (nor do I play one on TV). I don't read science stories and say "Oh, that must be true because I'm an atheist and it ties together with my lack of belief". Rather, I read something and say "That's interesting. I wonder how accurate it is? I wonder if the scientists involved are barking up the right tree or not?

So what I acknowledge is my lack of faith. Science is still sorting stuff out and I am not one to pick and choose theories just because they are there. And the science part is irrelevant anyway. I don't require science to back me up. It is of course nice that science is consistent with my atheistic views in the sense that researchers have yet to find any hints of a superior being or whatever, but that's just a bonus, not the basis for my lack of belief.

Yes, we atheists do get to look at the litany of discoveries and the plethora of theories and appreciate that none of them threaten our view of reality. But that's a bonus, and I would be an atheist with our without science, unless science happened to prove that there is a god. At which point I would (I assume) cease to be an atheist.

I've been an atheist since I was 11, and it is safe to say that my scientific background wasn't all that impressive at the time. Rather I reached my conclusions based on comparisons I made between the reality I lived in and the claims of the church. Nothing matched up, so I stopped believing. It was as simple as that.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1260
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #74 on: June 28, 2013, 01:13:34 AM »
But the vast majority of humanity doesn't agree that those are good reasons to think the vast majority are wrong do they?
Of course not, that would be engaging in doublethink and KNOWING that they were engaging in doublethink.

funnily enough, the vast majority of people who think there is a god do think that the vast majority of people actually is wrong on the subject of this god thing.

I agree there is zero material/empirical evidence for God, which puts it neck and neck with any other explanation for the universe doesn't it?

Nope, Big Bang, the Multiverse and others at least have some basis in reality. They take a bunch of known facts about the universe we live in and extrapolate from there. This god label you've brought up is based on ... "well it sort of looks like something made it".
How did this god thing create the universe?
Why did this god thing create the universe?
When did this god thing create the universe?
Who created the god thing?
Is this god thing still around? Or did he lose interest and wander off?

The instant you try to say anything at all about god beyond "Well,  that's the thing that made the things that seem to have been made" you run into a brick wall. In fact, all you've done is relabel the phrase "I don't know"

What's not even for me are other forms of evidence; the power of explanation, predictive ability

Ok, fair enough, let's hear it. Complete the sentence: "Stuff seems to have been made therefor ..."
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1413
  • Darwins +25/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence
« Reply #75 on: June 28, 2013, 01:44:57 AM »
Quote from: epedemic
God can theoretically see all things, everywhere , past, present, future and he has the power to change all things.

A theory is not always the sum of the truth.  Can he make a rock so large that he can't pick it up?  Can he make a world that he cannot rule?  Can he love someone too much?  Can he sin?  Because he is all powerful does not mean he acts without wisdom.

Quote from: epedemic
I am not sure this leaves room for someone who feels the need to be worshipped.

What does worship mean to God?  He has asked us to do no more than love him and love each other and to fill the earth and subdue it.  God does not desire vanities.

Quote from: epedemic
Can one be disappointed in a outcome they absolutely knew would happen by design?

God will not be disappointed at the outcome.  He will delight in it.

Quote from: Jag
It developed over time into what you find today, and that development was influenced by many, many people, some of whom had motivations that had nothing to do with concerns over moral behavior. Some of them were sh!theads who abused their power and influence. Why, you ask? Because some people simply ARE sh!theads and that's the way it is. The end.

I understand.  That when we see these things we are not deceived is why Jesus said, "You will all fall away,for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'"" (Mk 14:27 NIV)
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #76 on: June 28, 2013, 02:54:06 AM »
Because he is all powerful does not mean he acts without wisdom.
Stuck a dangerous tree in the middle of the garden that would poison EVERYTHING!
Why not chop it down or at least put a fence around it, or an angel to guard it! 
Sent his only son to the Jews - not to any of the more civilized populous or influential nations at the time.
Waited many decades after the death of Jesus to release an already thoroughly 'chinese whispered' marketing copy of his plan to save the world! ... and into a communication technology environment that would further distort and modify the story.
Sorry, God is a git!

What does worship mean to God?  He has asked us to do no more than love him and love each other and to fill the earth and subdue it.  God does not desire vanities.
He commanded us to make the Sabbath holy. 
And not to worship other gods.
"...hallowed be thy name ..."
Quote
John 4:23 “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.

God will not be disappointed at the outcome.  He will delight in it.
So it was all high fives in heaven when Jesus was crucified?  :?


Git mit uns

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #77 on: June 28, 2013, 03:30:46 AM »
'I think this is a bad thing so God is bad (or doesn't exist)

I understand that point of view, as in the title of this site, and usually the biggest test of anyone's faith is reconciling seemingly pointless tragedy. It's oversimplifying of course, but is a parent only a good parent if they just do only what the child understands as good?
A couple problems with this. First, a child's ability for thinking through the consequences of something are negligible compared to an adult's ability to do the same so the analogy fails there. Secondly, Xians go on and on about man being made in god's image yet when it becomes a question of understanding a seemingly pointless tragedy we suddenly are not made enough in his image to understand why the tragedy happened. A bit of a contradiction there.

Eliminating the contradiction: either we are made in his image and can understand why such things would happen, OR god is not in control of such things and there is no reason. (There is a third possibility: god is malevolent and such tragedies are him showing us his love - of our pain and suffering.)
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #78 on: June 28, 2013, 04:37:46 AM »
Quote from: Anfauglir
Quite.  "we're really just left guessing on what they saw or what happened"  And so the best response, surely, is to say "I have no opinion as we cannot say", or "we can't prove it - but it sounds SO outlandish, and has never been seen since, and we can't recreate the event - so best assume it wasn't caused by gods and spirits".  Why land on the side of "we can'r prove it one way or the other - so I will accept the explanation that requires the most stretching of what we know exists and adds the largest possible amount of unknown"?

To a Christian there is more to it.  It is their relationship with God that pushes them into belief.  They use the Bible to try and figure out the meaning of it all.

Sorry, who mentioned the Bible?  I've not even got to that point yet - I'm still at why when "something happens", people immediately jump to "goddidit" rathar than any more prosaic explanation.  What you are intimating seems to be a deliberate choice to go with the supernatural explanation, and then look for confirmation that that supernatural experience happened.

Perhaps more to the point, how is this "relationship with god" something that happens BEFORE using the Bible for confirmation?  And - frankly - can you please explain what you mean by "relationship" in this context?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #79 on: June 28, 2013, 04:43:49 AM »
I'd say there is a pretty strong case to be made for all three is there not?
1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

The observed signs in Life, Earth, & the universe, have helped the vast majority of humanity that has ever lived come to the same particular conclusion; that they are observing the work of a creative intelligence. You may disagree with that conclusion of course, but the definition is satisfied here is it not?

Is it?  Even without talking about shades of the majority, use of the term implies that there is a minority - in fact, quite a sizeable one - for which there are NO signs of creative intelligence.

Can we really label something as "evidence" when two people looking at it come to diametrically opposed conclusions?  On that basis, isn't every single thing evidence of everything that could possibly be?  And if that is the case, then "evidence" becomes a useless and meaningless term.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #80 on: June 28, 2013, 07:48:28 AM »
'I think this is a bad thing so God is bad (or doesn't exist)

I understand that point of view, as in the title of this site, and usually the biggest test of anyone's faith is reconciling seemingly pointless tragedy. It's oversimplifying of course, but is a parent only a good parent if they just do only what the child understands as good?
A couple problems with this. First, a child's ability for thinking through the consequences of something are negligible compared to an adult's ability to do the same so the analogy fails there. Secondly, Xians go on and on about man being made in god's image yet when it becomes a question of understanding a seemingly pointless tragedy we suddenly are not made enough in his image to understand why the tragedy happened. A bit of a contradiction there.

Eliminating the contradiction: either we are made in his image and can understand why such things would happen, OR god is not in control of such things and there is no reason. (There is a third possibility: god is malevolent and such tragedies are him showing us his love - of our pain and suffering.)

You don't think our ability to think through consequences would be negligible compared with our creator?
No analogy is perfect but I'd think that part is fairly parallel. Also like the child, our understanding grows, we learn to accept good and bad consequences and the vital part they play in our lives.

Take meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes: 100 years ago I'd have to concede that atheists had a pretty good point back then, what greater good possibly comes from such pointless random destruction? Now of course we know these things are utterly essential to the formation, support and renewal of our habitat. Some other 'tragedies' may still appear pointless from our perspective. But isn't pointing only to those as yet unanswered an atheism of the gaps argument?

I don't see the contradiction in the analogy here- our own children are very much made in our image are they not? Are they then born with all our understanding or do they have to figure it out themselves with our guidance?

I think the analogy also holds for your last point; many children feel a similar sense of injustice and persecution because they have to stay in and do homework instead of playing all day.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #81 on: June 28, 2013, 07:59:09 AM »
Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them!


Absolute certainty is a rare thing in science; theories are always provisional. That said, the materialistic explanations for the origins of the universe can be proven; currently the Big Bang has the most going for it. That is, it fits the available evidence far better than any other, most definitely including the creation stories of any religion.

That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Just to be clear, you aren't calling atheism a "faith" in the religious sense, are you? Because that would be like calling a hard vacuum a solid.

Neither is believing in naturalistic explanations over supernatural ones. You said yourself:

What's not even for me are other forms of evidence; the power of explanation, predictive ability

The Big Bang Theory certainly has those. No religion's creation story to date does.

for most of the early 20thC the vast majority of academia supported the static/eternal model, (no creation = no creator) They rejected and ridiculed the priest Lemaitre's 'primordial atom' theory explicitly for it's overt theistic implications. 'Big Bang' was a term coined by Hoyle to mock the idea, which he never accepted in his life.

I'm calling atheism a faith as in an unproven belief, the same faith many of those academics had and still have. Only theirs led them to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the entire universe. Lemaitre's didn't.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence
« Reply #82 on: June 28, 2013, 08:18:28 AM »
Why not call it an unproven belief, rather than deliberately using a term with so much religious baggage?

Oh wait, I know why.  It's so that you can shove in all that religious baggage.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #83 on: June 28, 2013, 08:20:39 AM »
It is a vast majority that have, as I said, come to the same conclusion that the world around us is the work of a creative intelligence. Obviously you have subsets within that majority, down to any two people standing next to each other in any church who will find something to disagree on.

Similarly atheists have had countless versions of static, eternal, steady state, multiverse, M theory, string theory creation stories to debate and none of us can prove any of them! That's why I acknowledge my faith, do you yours?

I certainly agree consensus is not science, although a consensus of 'mankind' is the only non partisan one!

Ah, you seem to have science and atheism mixed up. I am an atheist. I don't believe there are any gods. My views on the universe have nothing to do with my atheism. Especially since I'm not a scientist, (nor do I play one on TV). I don't read science stories and say "Oh, that must be true because I'm an atheist and it ties together with my lack of belief". Rather, I read something and say "That's interesting. I wonder how accurate it is? I wonder if the scientists involved are barking up the right tree or not?

So what I acknowledge is my lack of faith. Science is still sorting stuff out and I am not one to pick and choose theories just because they are there. And the science part is irrelevant anyway. I don't require science to back me up. It is of course nice that science is consistent with my atheistic views in the sense that researchers have yet to find any hints of a superior being or whatever, but that's just a bonus, not the basis for my lack of belief.

Yes, we atheists do get to look at the litany of discoveries and the plethora of theories and appreciate that none of them threaten our view of reality. But that's a bonus, and I would be an atheist with our without science, unless science happened to prove that there is a god. At which point I would (I assume) cease to be an atheist.

I've been an atheist since I was 11, and it is safe to say that my scientific background wasn't all that impressive at the time. Rather I reached my conclusions based on comparisons I made between the reality I lived in and the claims of the church. Nothing matched up, so I stopped believing. It was as simple as that.

I didn't include the Big Bang, because as above, that was not an atheistic theory, quite the opposite.
atheist theories as listed explicitly strive to support atheism- usually in some form of 'no creation= no creator' Whereas the concept of a specific creation event was heresy to academics 100 years ago- explicitly for the obvious theistic implications, they overwhelming preferred static models - and were forced to move to cyclical and infinite ones, none have yet stood up to the rigors of science 

I understand where you're coming from, but by that same rationale I could say I have no faith either, no assertions that require being backed up by science, because I simply lack faith in atheism through lack of evidence for it- I'll believe in a spontaneous/ automated/ purposeless/ unintelligent universe creating mechanism when sufficient evidence is provided, till then I default to a work of creative intelligence

But I do not say this because I freely admit my assertion,  I am quite happy to provide what I think are good reasons to believe in God, not just good reasons to be skeptical of atheism.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #84 on: June 28, 2013, 08:34:55 AM »
But the vast majority of humanity doesn't agree that those are good reasons to think the vast majority are wrong do they?
Of course not, that would be engaging in doublethink and KNOWING that they were engaging in doublethink.

funnily enough, the vast majority of people who think there is a god do think that the vast majority of people actually is wrong on the subject of this god thing.

I agree there is zero material/empirical evidence for God, which puts it neck and neck with any other explanation for the universe doesn't it?

Nope, Big Bang, the Multiverse and others at least have some basis in reality. They take a bunch of known facts about the universe we live in and extrapolate from there. This god label you've brought up is based on ... "well it sort of looks like something made it".
How did this god thing create the universe?
Why did this god thing create the universe?
When did this god thing create the universe?
Who created the god thing?
Is this god thing still around? Or did he lose interest and wander off?

The instant you try to say anything at all about god beyond "Well,  that's the thing that made the things that seem to have been made" you run into a brick wall. In fact, all you've done is relabel the phrase "I don't know"

What's not even for me are other forms of evidence; the power of explanation, predictive ability

Ok, fair enough, let's hear it. Complete the sentence: "Stuff seems to have been made therefor ..."

As I posted in other answers here, the only major cosmonogical theory that ever held up to scientific scrutiny, was the one presented by a priest and ridiculed by academia for it's overt theistic implications. They preferred static (no creation=no creator) models. 'Big Bang' was coined by Hoyle to discredit the idea, and he never accepted the truth.

Once the static model was disproven, many other atheistic theories followed, steady state, big crunch, all claiming to make God redundant and all being disproven by observation. No coincidence that leading atheist theories now reside inherently beyond any inconvenience of scientific scrutiny.

Let's put those questions to both sides

How did this 'thing' create the universe?
Why did this 'thing' create the universe?
When did this 'thing' create the universe?
Who/what created the ' thing?
Is this  thing still around? Or did it lose interest and wander off?

We have the same apparent paradoxes either way don't we? yet here we are, but what I do not see as even is the ability of creative intelligence v. blind chance to create our universe.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence
« Reply #85 on: June 28, 2013, 08:42:18 AM »

I didn't include the Big Bang, because as above, that was not an atheistic theory, quite the opposite.

First of all, you aren't allowed to make generic statements like this, expecting us to roll over and play dead after reading them, without adequate explanation as to where you are coming from. Abbreviated lists that sound like they came out of a Wikipedia article don't count.

Quote
atheist theories as listed explicitly strive to support atheism- usually in some form of 'no creation= no creator' Whereas the concept of a specific creation event was heresy to academics 100 years ago- explicitly for the obvious theistic implications, they overwhelming preferred static models - and were forced to move to cyclical and infinite ones, none have yet stood up to the rigors of science 

I have never heard an atheist adhere to any "atheist theories". Nobody here in the many years I've been around has ever said "because of theory A or theory B, we have proof that there is no god." Never. We don't think like that. Reasoning, by definition, requires a lot more flexibility that you are giving us credit for.

Quote
I understand where you're coming from, but by that same rationale I could say I have no faith either, no assertions that require being backed up by science, because I simply lack faith in atheism through lack of evidence for it- I'll believe in a spontaneous/ automated/ purposeless/ unintelligent universe creating mechanism when sufficient evidence is provided, till then I default to a work of creative intelligence

You could say that, but you'd probably get a queazy feeling in your tummy. Your religion demands faith. I'm pretty sure you aren't going to rely on anything else to the exclusion of that.

Quote
But I do not say this because I freely admit my assertion,  I am quite happy to provide what I think are good reasons to believe in God, not just good reasons to be skeptical of atheism.

You might concentrate on that part. You are don't too well making up why we are atheists, because the only thing you are responding to is your version of us, not the real thing.

Added is the reply I was typing up when you submitted the above. There is some repetition of content. Live with it:

I'm calling atheism a faith as in an unproven belief, the same faith many of those academics had and still have. Only theirs led them to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the entire universe. Lemaitre's didn't.

You're not allowed to redefine atheism for your own nefarious purposes. We don't believe. Our reasons are many, but do not require a specific scientific position. Again, you are too big on the frickin' science part.

You guys are the ones that can't prove that there is a god. And then you define me as a person of faith (of the negative variety) because you and I don't agree and because the word "faith" is of so much importance to you. You see it as universal, apparently. It isn't.

I retreated from religion because the concept of "faith" in the context in which you use it is silly. All god concepts require "faith" and "belief". Why does your god use the same strategy as the sky god "Igwekaala", worshipped by the Alusi? And don't go saying that they were just calling your god by a different name, because they also worshipped Ikenga, the god of fortune, Idemmili, (a mother goddess), Agwu, god of medicine, Njoku Ji, the god yams, etc. They are believed in by people who have faith.

It's an almost universal tendency, yes. Almost in the sense that atheists don't have any. So you can't say all people have it.

So, leave the science out of the discussion and accept that there are lots of reason for being an atheist. Unlike you and the one god concept, we don't need one overarching reason. That is not a component of what atheism is. Yes, many of us think that science supports our stands. But not at the faith-belief level.

And a suggestion: don't knock science too much. If it ever ends up proving there is a god, you'll have to reverse positions on the subject and that will be kind of awkward.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +1/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence
« Reply #86 on: June 28, 2013, 08:47:40 AM »
Why not call it an unproven belief, rather than deliberately using a term with so much religious baggage?

Oh wait, I know why.  It's so that you can shove in all that religious baggage.

But it's you who attaches the baggage, I think faith is a very good thing. I think denying faith, claiming supreme knowledge, intellectual superiority is where it gets dangerous when applied to any belief, theistic or atheistic?-