Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

No God

Goto page Previous 1, 2

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Atheism

Author

Message

RevJP
Moderator

Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886

Location: USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:40 am Post subject:

P123 wrote:

I'm NOT derailing this thread. Evolution is only an EXAMPLE in a much broader point I'm trying to make, and that point is right-smack-on-topic.

You have no reason to argue. The topic of the thread is the existence of God, not evolutionary theory - take it somewhere else.

Quote:

I'm talking about faith in something which has been demonstrated to be false, which is EXACTLY what you were talking about.

What you have failed to demonstrate is God's existence being demonstrated to be false.

Quote:

True, but a massive group of the best experts we have (we call them the scientific mainstream) sure can.

Then you should say that. One can only respond to what you actually write, not what you intended to write.

Quote:

Sure; I agree. But science is all about skepticism, so a scientific world-view implies a default disbelief in God until sufficient evidence is provided to warrant a belief in His existence.

I thought science was all about study and observation - the search for knowledge...

Quote:

sci·ence (sī'əns) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Quote:

sci·ence
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.

I would refer you to the bolded portion of the definition which clearly is the most concise, applicable, definition.

Nothing in science is designed to investigate or render judgments about that which is out of, or beyond, the natural (physical) world. So how then would you be able to suggest that science, or by extension, scientist are equipped to render a judgment on the existence of God?

Quote:

But what does this have to do with the original question,

Quote:
So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously?

Quote:

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance.

The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.

As I replied early in this thread:

The two are not necessarily inconsistent.

Faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false would indeed infringe upon intellectual honesty, but faith in itself, or faith in that which is unproven (either true or false) does not.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553

Location: BC

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:25 am Post subject:

RevJP wrote:

What you have failed to demonstrate is God's existence being demonstrated to be false.

RevJP wrote:

I thought science was all about study and observation - the search for knowledge...

Quote:

This is both a straw man and a derailment, since according to the OP, we're looking for proof, rather than disproof, of God's existence. Unless you're saying it is not possible to scientifically prove God's existence.

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

But what does this have to do with the original question,

Quote:
So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously?

Oh I see. You can take a stab at this but if P does, or if he dares disagree with you, he's 'derailing the thread'.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.

Pete
Tiger

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 873

Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: Re: No God

P1234567890 wrote:

Pete wrote:

fancypants wrote:

I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real?

Why bother, your mind is already made up.

Not true. If God exists, then He could EASILY prove to any atheist that He is real.

How easy do you want it? All you have to do is open your eyes, and look around you.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: Re: No God

Pete wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Pete wrote:

fancypants wrote:

I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real?

Why bother, your mind is already made up.

Not true. If God exists, then He could EASILY prove to any atheist that He is real.

How easy do you want it? All you have to do is open your eyes, and look around you.

Whenever I do that, all I see is a universe in which there isn't any evidence for God's existence.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:56 am Post subject:

RevJP wrote:

P123 wrote:

I'm NOT derailing this thread. Evolution is only an EXAMPLE in a much broader point I'm trying to make, and that point is right-smack-on-topic.

You have no reason to argue. The topic of the thread is the existence of God, not evolutionary theory - take it somewhere else.

It's a good thing, then, that I'm not discussing evolutionary theory, isn't it?

Maybe I can remind you of the discussion which is going on in this thread which YOU responded to:

RevJP wrote:

Quote:

So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously?

The two are not necessarily inconsistent.

Faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false would indeed infringe upon intellectual honesty

My post addressed EXACTLY this point which YOU brought up. I am NOT derailing this thread by trying to discuss evolutionary theory. I'm responding DIRECTLY to what you wrote. I pointed out two very important things:

1. NOBODY has faith in anything which they *know* to have been falsified.

2. YOU yourself are guilty of believing things which have been falsified by science.

If that's not on-topic, then I don't know what is.

As for intellectual honesty, where does ignoring VALID arguments and falsely appealing to those arguments being off-topic fit in? Intellectual honesty indeed.

I very quickly got to the heart of the matter: Who decides when something has been falsified? This question really shouldn't be ignored.

You clearly don't believe that special creation has been falsified, even though it most certainly has, and you continue to have faith in it. Your simple answer to this is that it hasn't been falsified, but unfortunately the entire scientific community disagrees with you (and they have good reason to, because they have many compelling arguments on their side, which I won't go into because I don't want you accusing me of derailing this thread again).
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Pete
Tiger

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 873

Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: No God

P1234567890 wrote:

Whenever I do that, all I see is a universe in which there isn't any evidence for God's existence.

There are only two possible avenues of thought on the subject: Either the sophisticated, reliable, interdependent
universe and world that we see around us is the result of carefully orchestrated design and planning, or it is the result of wildly unpredictable, thoughtless random process, eminating from a vacuum that ultimately leads to perfection.

Which concept would be more scientific? Does scientific research rely on consistent and reliable laws of physics, and an organized, well thought out creative policy in the lab, or a random, mindless, helter-scelter, uncontrolled, devil-may-care approach to its basic research policy?

I don't have to suggest which is the proper answer. If it's true in the lab, it is absolutely true in the universe.

Ana
King of the Jungle

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553

Location: BC

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: No God

Pete wrote:

P1234567890 wrote:

Whenever I do that, all I see is a universe in which there isn't any evidence for God's existence.

WARNING! STRAW-MAN ALERT! WARNING!

Oops, too late. Carry on.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064

Location: Memphis

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject:

More like false dichotomy alert with a healthy helping of straw-man on the side.

Pete wrote:

or it is the result of wildly unpredictable, thoughtless random process, eminating from a vacuum that ultimately leads to perfection.

Ignoring for the moment the straw-man that makes up most of this statement, what perfection?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

ragman13
German Shepherd

Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject:

Hey you evil guys P123, and FFT im sorry if I have ever come across as rude, I read through some of these other posts and it makes me sick. I enjoy arguing with you and respect you very much, (even though you havn't a clue) Very Happy

Have a blessed day, I will pray that you can see God's hand in creation.

P123 wrote.

Quote:

Not true. If God exists, then He could EASILY prove to any atheist that He is real.

So that your admited skepticism could find a reason to explain it away? The only thing I havn't seen you be skeptic about are your views of science. Or are you skeptic of that too?

Have a good day
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle

Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist!

Pete
Tiger

Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 873

Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject:

The old "straw man " cop-out again when you can't come up with an answer.

RevJP
Moderator

Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886

Location: USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject:

Ana wrote:

Oh I see. You can take a stab at this but if P does, or if he dares disagree with you, he's 'derailing the thread'.

I don't understand your meaning.

The OP said:

Quote:

I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real?

and the author followed with this:

Quote:

So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously?

Clearly I addressed this point. Faith and intellectual honesty are not in diametric opposition. I was even very careful to not divert the focus from the existence of God in any way.

If you feel that is somehow a derailment of this thread then I apologize, I don't see it - perhaps you could explain it, maybe in a PM or another thread so we don't 'derail' this one?

P123... perhaps you could start a thread explaining how compelling arguments = fact. Definitively and connotatively this just does not wash.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064

Location: Memphis

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject:

Pete wrote:

The old "straw man " cop-out again when you can't come up with an answer.

How many times a day do you walk your chimpanzee?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject:

ragman13 wrote:

P123 wrote.

Quote:

Not true. If God exists, then He could EASILY prove to any atheist that He is real.

So that your admited skepticism could find a reason to explain it away?

No, my skepticism is reasonable and well-adjusted. When someone gives a compelling argument or shows me compelling evidence, then I can be won over. If God exists, then it would be a relatively easy matter for him to convince me.

ragman13 wrote:

The only thing I havn't seen you be skeptic about are your views of science. Or are you skeptic of that too?

Sure, that's the whole point of science. Science demands skepticism. Whenever I see a new scientific claim, I probe it and attack it to see if it stands up to scrutiny. All scientists do this. It's part of the job.

That being said, there are differing levels of skepticism. Some people have virtually no skepticism. Good examples of this includes people who believe that alien abductions have happened, that fortune tellers can predict the future, and that the fantastic, miraculous claims in the Bible are all true.

At the other end of the spectrum are people who have WAY too much skepticism. Good examples of this include those who believe that the moon landings were faked, or that evolution didn't happen.

It's a trivial matter to be over-skeptical. If you saw someone rob a corner store and then you had to testify as a witness in court, the defense attorney could always say, "You didn't actually see my client. You saw an android which looks exactly like my client which was built to frame him." Technically speaking, he's got a point. Your abilities as a witness are not sufficient to be able to distinguish between a real person and an android which looks and moves identically. But is it reasonable?

Similar situations come up on this discussion board all the time. I'll be debating the age of the Universe with a Young Earth Creationist, and invariably I'll bring up the point that there are stars in the sky which are billions of light-years away whose light has reached us. Without missing a beat, the YEC will respond that God created the light already in transit, or something like that. Technically speaking, it IS a possibility, but again it just isn't reasonable.

The trick is to have an 'honest' level of skepticism. This is what scientists endeavor to do, and they do so *very* well. This is one of the reasons why science has been so enormously successful.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

ragman13
German Shepherd

Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:04 am Post subject:

P123 wrote

Quote:

That being said, there are differing levels of skepticism. Some people have virtually no skepticism. Good examples of this includes people who believe that alien abductions have happened, that fortune tellers can predict the future, and that the fantastic, miraculous claims in the Bible are all true.

So I guess that I have virtually no skepticism since I believe the miraculous claims in the Bible are true!

Quote:

At the other end of the spectrum are people who have WAY too much skepticism. Good examples of this include those who believe that the moon landings were faked, or that evolution didn't happen.

And I have way too much skepticism becouse I dont believe in evolution? So I'm (A and non A) is this your nice way of telling me I'm irrational Smile

? Thanks!

There is only one world view that reasonablly answers the question of why there is anything here. That is a theistic world view. I have been skeptic of my world view and compared it with all other world views. I agree with you that we must question things but when truth is found why doubt? Doubt is unhealthy.
Anyway, you said that God could prove Himself to you. So what would be a reasonable thing that God could do to prove Himself to you?
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle

Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist!

P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559

Location: Victoria, Canada

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:58 am Post subject:

ragman13 wrote:

So I guess that I have virtually no skepticism since I believe the miraculous claims in the Bible are true!

To be clear, I'm not saying that you *generally* lack skepticism, but rather that you lack it in the very specific area of religion. I'm sure that in most (if not all) other areas of your life, your thinking is quite logical. I'll bet that you don't believe in alien abduction stories and that you roll your eyes in the supermarket checkout line when you read the tabloid headlines. I'll bet you think that astrology is a load of crap and whether or not Jupiter was aligned with Mars at the time of your birth has no bearing on your life. I don't really know you, but judging by your posts, I'll put money on you being perfectly reasonable in almost all areas.

ragman13 wrote:

And I have way too much skepticism becouse I dont believe in evolution? So I'm (A and non A) is this your nice way of telling me I'm irrational Smile

? Thanks!

No, once again, I DON'T think that you're irrational in any general sense. You're DEFINITELY making a mistake with your reasoning about evolution, but I'm sure that in most areas your level of skepticism is perfectly reasonable. I'll bet that when you go to the doctor and he prescribes some medicine to you, you don't automatically assume that he's just doing it because he owns shares in a certain pharmaceutical company. I'll bet that you don't believe that the moon landings were faked. You've just got one specific area in which you are not thinking in the same way as in all of the other areas. Call it a blind spot.

ragman13 wrote:

There is only one world view that reasonablly answers the question of why there is anything here. That is a theistic world view.

Even if I were to concede that this is a reasonable argument, there's a massive gulf between claiming the existence of SOME creator, and coming to the conclusion that this creator is the Christian God and that the Bible explains everything about Him that anyone needs to know.

ragman13 wrote:

I have been skeptic of my world view and compared it with all other world views. I agree with you that we must question things but when truth is found why doubt?

I agree with this statement, but I disagree that a bunch of people living in the desert thousands of years ago figured out the truth.

I also want to point out that you DON'T agree with what you just wrote here, because you do doubt at least one thing for which truth has been found: Evolution.

ragman13 wrote:

Doubt is unhealthy.

Excessive doubt is unhealthy. A good level of skepticism is very healthy. So the question really becomes: Who decides what level of skepticism is unhealthy.

The best I can do to answer this is point out two things:

1. The level of skepticism inherent in science seems to be pretty good. Otherwise science would not have been so outrageously successful.

2. People's reasoning and skepticism should be the same right across the board. Logic is logic, regardless of what you are using it for. So people who have a 'blind spot' (for example, in the area of religion) and use drastically different standards of skepticism and credulity for reasoning about religion than they do for reasoning about almost everything else are making a mistake because their reasoning is inconsistent.

ragman13 wrote:

Anyway, you said that God could prove Himself to you. So what would be a reasonable thing that God could do to prove Himself to you?

I can think of a million examples. Here's one: God simultaneously and telepathically announces to every man, woman, and child on Earth that in 4 days He will make the planet Mars disappear forever. In 4 days we point a thousand telescopes at Mars, and see it disappear. Suddenly Mars' two moons fly off in straight paths. That would be pretty good and convincing evidence, and it would probably make a believer out of me. It wouldn't make me a Christian, of course, but it would make me believe in God.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Atheism	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2