U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2011, 02:01 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,748,074 times
Reputation: 1333

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Well, Christians have been saying that they have proofs that God exists.

But atheists have been saying that Christians don't have proofs.


Now, who is going to decide, do Christians have proofs or are atheists correct that Christians don't have proofs that God does exist.


How do we prove that something exists in objective reality?

Once we can agree on how to prove something exists in objective reality, then we don't need others to decide for us whether Christians have proofs God exists, or atheists are correct Christians don't have proofs that God exists.


What do you say, atheists, how do we, as both of us are human beings, as human beings prove something to be existing?




Ryrge
Mainly, it is dependent on common experience and communication.

to prove a concept that is less "sensory" we use thinking (often logical reasoning) and communication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2011, 03:27 AM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default Is that the law with you, a natural law, that God cannot be proven to exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You really do not get it do you? Only the natural can be proven. Since God is not a part of nature it cannot be proven by anyone...If god should exist only god can prove itself, man cannot.

I repeat...You are just wasting time with any efforts to prove any gods...Which one of the thousands are you attempting to prove....Let me guess...The god that Christians worship, am I right?


Is that the law with you, a natural law, that God cannot be proven to exist?


Please don't bring in thousands of gods, I am interested in the God of the Christian faith, the Islamic faith, and also the Judaic faith.

And to some extent the God of the ethnological faith of Hindus like Luminous_Truth which God is related to by way of (just a moment I have to look up how many 'persons' with the Hindu God), ah here:

Quote:
Hindu views on monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monotheism in Hinduism is set in the views of the spiritual world are broad and range from monism, pantheism to panentheism, aptly termed as monistic theism and even open monotheism by some scholars, but are not polytheistic as outsiders perceive it to be. Hinduism has often been confused to be polytheistic because one leading denomination, Smartism, which follows the Advaita philosophy of absolute monism, and includes worship of all kinds of personal forms of God. Absolute monists see one unity with all personal forms of God as different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colors by a prism. Thus Smartas consider all personal forms of God as equal including Devi, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh and Skanda but generally limit the recognized forms to be six. Other denominations of Hinduism, don't adhere to the Smarta viewpoint, but are quite unlike Western perceptions of monotheism. Additionally, like Judeo-Christian traditions which believe in angels, Hindus also believe in less powerful entities, such as devas.[1]
I was going to tell you that the one God in Hinduism is the same identical God of Christians, Muslims, orthodox Jews, and Hindus -- we all, all of us have proofs that God exists.

And all agree that God is the maker of everything that is not Himself.

So you see, many many thinkers from the dawn of man's conscious intelligence to the present do not agree with you.

And we all have proofs but you will not listen to the proofs because you insist that only natural things can be proven to exist.

Pray, give an example of a natural thing that you can prove to exist, but before anything else, what is it to prove that something exists independent of our mind in the realm of reality?




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:04 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Is that the law with you, a natural law, that God cannot be proven to exist?


Please don't bring in thousands of gods, I am interested in the God of the Christian faith, the Islamic faith, and also the Judaic faith.

And to some extent the God of the ethnological faith of Hindus like Luminous_Truth which God is related to by way of (just a moment I have to look up how many 'persons' with the Hindu God), ah here:



I was going to tell you that the one God in Hinduism is the same identical God of Christians, Muslims, orthodox Jews, and Hindus -- we all, all of us have proofs that God exists.

And all agree that God is the maker of everything that is not Himself.

So you see, many many thinkers from the dawn of man's conscious intelligence to the present do not agree with you.

And we all have proofs but you will not listen to the proofs because you insist that only natural things can be proven to exist.

Pray, give an example of a natural thing that you can prove to exist, but before anything else, what is it to prove that something exists independent of our mind in the realm of reality?




Ryrge
Come on, chum, let's stay on topic. This ought not to turn into a debate on empirical evidence. It is simply explaining Russell's graphic explanation of the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Succinctly, it is not not for others to disprove all sorts of unverified claims but for the persons making the claim to provide the verification, evidential support or proof for them.

And I suppose that does bring your point into the topic, Ryurge, because the question quickly arises of what is good or sound evidence and what isn't.

'I can prove God exists. I hear Him talking in my head.' This is not good evidence. But a hell of a lot of theists seem to think it is.

'Millions of believers all over the world hear God talking in their head.' This might, on the face of it, provide corroborative evidence but the problem there is whether the phenomenon of hearing voices in the head (which is an empirically verified phenomenon) is actually the voice of God.

When the things this voice or voices say so often turn out to be contradictory, it is clear that they cannot be from a single origin outside of the human head and the evidential conclusion is that these are individual voices in individual heads and cannot be the voice of a god.

So, while explaining how what is good evidence and what is not is explained to you, Ryurge, it also answers the question or point you are making.

There is no valid reason to suppose that the 'God' which you perceive in your head exist outside of your head and, in fact is nothing more than your imagination.

There is no more evidential reason to accept the reality of the 'god' in your head than the hypothetical teapot in orbit around the sun.

In fact, my dear fellow the teapot has more going for it, because one cannot actually disprove the teapot. The evidence we have actually tends to disprove the 'god' in your head.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 04:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:11 AM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default For things less sensory according to Luminous, we use thinking and communication to prove their existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Well, Christians have been saying that they have proofs that God exists.

But atheists have been saying that Christians don't have proofs.


Now, who is going to decide, do Christians have proofs or are atheists correct that Christians don't have proofs that God does exist.


How do we prove that something exists in objective reality?

Once we can agree on how to prove something exists in objective reality, then we don't need others to decide for us whether Christians have proofs God exists, or atheists are correct Christians don't have proofs that God exists.


What do you say, atheists, how do we, as both of us are human beings, as human beings prove something to be existing?


Mainly, it is dependent on common experience and communication.

to prove a concept that is less "sensory" we use thinking (often logical reasoning) and communication.


I agree wholeheartedly with you, Luminous.

Things which are 'sensorial' are proven to exist by way of our external senses and also our internal senses of consciousness.

For example, a hamburger is accessible to our external senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, and that it exists is proven from each person's experience and also confirmed from the common experience of mankind.

Now as regards things which are internal to each one of us, for example, we each one can and do experience ourselves thinking, that is done with our internal consciousness faculty; another example we each of us can have the awareness of sorrow, joy, envy, etc. of emotional states.

Then also the internal bodily conditions and sensations like for example a headache, a stomachache, dizziness, etc. they are also accessible and present to us by our internal consciousness faculty.

All the above examples inside our each one's person and body, they are known to exist from the experience of each person; and which let each person compare among themselves and thus they have proof that such sensations and things exist within each person, again, from the internal consciousness of our whole physiology and our nervous system, and of course our brain which is the organ of our mind.


Now with regard to things like God the maker of everything that is not Himself, and also the law of physics on causality, I agree also with Luminous, "[we] prove a concept that is less "sensory" [as] we use thinking (often logical reasoning) and communication."


Thinking in human beings and communication, that is the way to prove the existence of God.

So, everyone must think and communicate with each other, the whole of mankind, that is a human enterprise, and think and communicate not by any way but constructively, otherwise if we indulge in ridicules like celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, and all such genres, that is not thinking and not communicating productively.

And of course, certainly, the burden of proof is the one with an idea, but the duty of the denier is to listen and to occupy himself also with thinking and communicating, productively.


Dispense with figures of speech when an idea is lucidly clear without and best without the figures of speech, which are then only distractions at their least harm or at their worst evil, obstructions to clear thinking and communication, common knowing, and thus proving.


Take the name ufos, they mean unidentified flying objects, specifically space vehicles not known to be from human sources.

If deniers call them celestial teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, what do you think, will such a kind of speech contribute to constructive proving of their existence or serve only to obstruct clear thinking and viable effective communication.

So also just call God uac (unidentified all creator), then the proof is very easy and quick to come about for all men that do engage in clear thinking and in viable honest communication.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:24 AM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Default Yes, everyone knows and accepts the party with the burden of proof, but what do we know about evidence?

Well, Areq, who is denying at all that the one with an idea must be the expositor and demonstrator of the idea.

And that is what theists have been doing since the dawn of conscious intelligence, proof of that is the monumental writings testifying to their work.


Now, about evidence, that is my greatest sorrow, that we cannot complete our exchange of thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and what is the mechanism by which evidence operates.

Some people say that it is all complete the whole matter of evidence, only I don't accept it.

Okay, with all due respect, please show me the synopsis from all the writings on evidence by scholars of the most keen intellect and learning.



Our best minds in the halls of congress, they are the ones who draft laws to rule us toward peace, order, and security that each man can and will and does come to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we should appeal to them to produce rules of evidence that will enable us theists and atheists to work together to the complete unimpeachable certainty of God's existence, or contrariwise that everything is from randomness which randomness is random, and therefore let no man seek at all to do any science and work out any engineering technology for the construction of just a bycycle, or a small bridge men and animals walk on to cross the tiny brook.



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:27 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,748,074 times
Reputation: 1333
That is merely because of an old rule of (scholarly Western) logic Ryrge,

http://stores.homestead.com/BCABookstore/Detail.bok?no=1273

From Wikipedia ~>
Quote:
Philosophical logic
Main article: Philosophical logic
Philosophical logic deals with formal descriptions of natural language. Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic. Philosophical logic is essentially a continuation of the traditional discipline that was called "Logic" before the invention of mathematical logic. Philosophical logic has a much greater concern with the connection between natural language and logic. As a result, philosophical logicians have contributed a great deal to the development of non-standard logics (e.g., free logics, tense logics) as well as various extensions of classical logic (e.g., modal logics), and non-standard semantics for such logics (e.g., Kripke's technique of supervaluations in the semantics of logic).
Logic and the philosophy of language are closely related. Philosophy of language has to do with the study of how our language engages and interacts with our thinking. Logic has an immediate impact on other areas of study. Studying logic and the relationship between logic and ordinary speech can help a person better structure his own arguments and critique the arguments of others. Many popular arguments are filled with errors because so many people are untrained in logic and unaware of how to formulate an argument correctly
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

I doubt many scholarly philosophers could tell you today, with a straight face (after Dr. Hawking's work in the realm of cosmological science), that something cannot come from nothing. Although that is the common sense.
like I've said before, I don't believe as much in logic as I believe in agnosticism. I also don't believe that common sense is anything other than democracy of subjective being imposed and supposed as objective.

To be under a tyrany of definitions from our... any Congress, much less our Democratic-Republican one (not fully representational), is not something I would wish upon even the least of us.
It would dwinle our diversity in thought by restricting our freedom to communicate effeciently. I will most asuredly tell you, that our best minds are NOT in the halls of Congress; our "most popular people who run for office in their designated areas and win" are in the halls of Congress.

Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-14-2011 at 04:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:33 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
Ryurge posted and concluded "So also just call God uac (unidentified all creator), then the proof is very easy and quick to come about for all men that do engage in clear thinking and in viable honest communication."

What you are arguing here is First cause - or maker of everything or Goddunnit. As you say the NAME or identifying label which one attaches to the concept is not too important.

While there is some validity in arguing for an intelligent creative entity which 'made everything' (but not IT's self) it is very far from being proven or even evidentially supported whereas I have to say that not only a natural causative event looks substantiated but matter from nothing is looking a lot more feasible.

However, the logical position is that we don't know whether the universe was created by an entity or not or even whether the basics of matter are eternal. Where we don't know we logically have to be agnostic - we don't know. and what we don't know we logically don't believe until we do know. An atheist is someone who does not believe in what they do not know.

Turning to the other thing you argued "[we] prove a concept that is less "sensory" [as] we use thinking (often logical reasoning) and communication."
Thinking in human beings and communication, that is the way to prove the existence of God.
So, everyone must think and communicate with each other, the whole of mankind"

I don't know whether this is an attempt to argue the leap of Faith (from a postulated creator of some sort to the feelings people get in their heads)
or an appeal to all think the matter through.

I think that the argument IS the 'Leap of Faith' and you are handling the objection about people having different gods.

The argument that they are really talking about the SAME god is not a new one. All one has to do is use the fallacious argument of biased sample.

Here it is.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position (Wiki)

Biased sample or cherry - picking or counting the hits is a way of proving a case by picking the elements which support the argument and ignoring the elements that don't.

In the 'They are all talking about the same god' argument one ignores the differences and simply looks at the similarities. It is thus easy (but wrong) to argue that they are all in fact talking about the same 'God'. (they may be talking about the same delusion but that is another matter).

However, even if one were to accept (for the sake of argument) that they WERE all talking about the same god, the question is, which one?

I think I'll leave that question open and it would be wrong to pre- empt. It is possible that our Christian and Hindu posters might agree that they are both perceiving the same divine entity (and I'd agree, but just say that there was not good evidence that it existed outside their heads and was no more than a common human sensation) and see where that left them as regards doctrines and holy books.

Now Ryurge, I have out of consideration for you explained logically and fully this matter so I hope you will do me the politeness of reading and comprehending it and won't complain that's too long or is taking up too much of your time. I have reasoned the way through a possible 100 plus posts to some pretty sound logical positions, I'd say.

I'm always open to any refutations, but they have to be succinct, logical and relevant.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 04:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:48 AM
 
2,854 posts, read 1,531,470 times
Reputation: 348
the point is that it is unreasonable to believe there is a teapot there.

there is no reason to believe that a teapot could be there.

anything violent enough to send a teapot there would destroy it.

it is unreasonable.

then the question becomes how reasonable is the existence of a God?

the question also becomes how reasonable is it to assume that the universe simply popped into existence on its own?

And finally, the question also becomes by what process do we determine how reasonable an idea is?

Last edited by granpa; 08-14-2011 at 05:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:01 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
Now that's actually a reasonable point.

While we recognize that Russell was merely illustrating a logical point, one might well argue that what we know of reality would make the existence of a teapot in orbit around the sun so unlikely that it didn't bear thinking about.

However the need for the universe to have a consciously engineered origin is far from logically invalid and some would say that it is logically necessary. Well done, granpa. That was a nice point.

However if a teapot is absurd one could easily think up a number of less absurd examples. Let's say an alien mother ship in orbit or an alien civilization on another planet. Far from impossible or even unfeasible. But does that mean that we should believe in them?

Not without evidence. THAT's the point. In fact the lack of any evidence for alien civilizations or mother ships within our solar system, at least, should be taken as strong reasons to disbelieve them. In the case where we know where to look 'Absence of evidence' DOES mean 'evidence of absence'.

It is easy to think up ad hoc excuses (the well - known 'theology on the hoof' or making scripture up as you go along or 'well, maybe...') "Well, maybe they are hidden below the surface and maybe they don't need air, water or food or...hey maybe they manufacture it all in tanks..I saw an episode of Star Trek where..."
And "Maybe the mother ship is hidden on the other side of the sun all the time or maybe it's disguised as an asteroid or maybe they have a cloaking device... I saw in an episode of Star - Trek where.."

This is not evidence or proof. It is just inventing speculations to explain away the inconvenient lack of evidence where there ought to be evidence.

This is relevant to the God - debate. God ought to be here (a deist - god or one at the other end of the universe is of little interest or relevance to us) and the lack of any convincing evidence that a god is showing its hand here and plenty of indication that it isn't doing so where it darn well ought to be should be taken as the strongest evidence that there ain't no god and we are on our own.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 05:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:05 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,236,080 times
Reputation: 4113
This is what Bertrand Russell wrote:


Celestial teapot:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top