No Evidence of God?

Ephemeral888

Greetings all,

The claim there is no evidence that God exists is most often cited as a justification to disbelieve, or at least lack belief in the existence of God. I don’t have any qualms with folks who (with open minds) look at the evidence pro and con and come to the conclusion there isn’t enough evidence to justify belief in God, however the claim there is no evidence in favor of the existence of God is clearly false.

What is evidence?


1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


From this definition evidence is nothing more than facts that agree or are helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. A broken window for example is evidence that a burglary has taken place. It isn’t proof that a burglary took place and was it the only evidence available it probably wouldn’t convince anyone. Nonetheless evidence is merely facts that agree with a hypothesis and nothing more. The more facts one can find in favor of a hypothesis the stronger the hypothesis becomes.

In a civil case a mere preponderance of evidence is enough to satisfy a case.

Quote:
Evidence which is (even minimally) of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it . This is the standard by which a plaintiff must prove his/her case in a civil suit.
Note there is no ‘you can’t prove a negative’ defense. If something isn’t true, there should be evidence it isn’t true. If there isn’t any evidence against a belief, then the belief is justified. After all a belief is merely what one thinks is true minus conclusive evidence.

The burden of the theist is simply to provide more convincing evidence in favor of the existence of God than what is offered in opposition. Of course that doesn’t tell us which side is true; it only reflects which side provided the preponderance of evidence.

One other caveat, the plaintiff need not convince the opposition of the merit of their claim. It’s a given no amount of evidence is going to persuade the opposing pleader. The fact any evidence I produce isn’t going to persuade my opponent is irrelevant. It is only up to impartial triers of fact to determine the merit of any case…

With the above in mind I’d be happy to make a case in favor of the existence of God defined very simply as belief in the existence of a personal agent who caused the universe to exist. I take it all theists no matter how ‘weak’ decline to believe such an agent exists and believe there is no evidence such an agent exists.

Any takers?

nesf

Really, this is not a philosophical argument. You are making a statement of position, nothing more. Though, honestly I think you are begging the question with your final paragraph.

Dades

Ephemeral888 wrote:

With the above in mind I’d be happy to make a case in favor of the existence of God defined very simply as belief in the existence of a personal agent who caused the universe to exist. I take it all theists no matter how ‘weak’ decline to believe such an agent exists and believe there is no evidence such an agent exists.

I would have thought all theists believe there is evidence for such an "agent". The fact that different theists call this agent by different names is irrelevant.

Intelligent design, which I'm assuming is what you wish to prove, is assumed when you believe in any major god.

bonkey

Ephemeral888 wrote:

In a civil case ...

You seem to be suggesting that the question as to whether or not God exists should be judged by the same standards as a civil case.

Why?

Why not judge it by the standards of a criminal case?
Why not judge it by the standards of science?

It would seem that what you are arguing is that if we select a sufficiently weak definition of what constitutes evidence and how that evidence should be used, then we can conclude something about God.

Unfortunately, what you also seem to be forgetting is that by adopting such a weak standard, we also make it simple to prove that God doesn't exist. The very things that you allow as evidence in the sense of "is not contradictory to the claim" will generally also support the claim of non-existence in exactly the same way, to exactly the same extent.

If something isn’t true, there should be evidence it isn’t true.

So if it isn't true that God does not exist, there should be evidence to this effect.

The burden of the theist is simply to provide more convincing evidence in favor of the existence of God than what is offered in opposition.

In general terms, I'd accept that....but not after you've defined evidence in such loose terms that "something which doesn't contradict the assertion" can be construed as evidence.

Of course that doesn’t tell us which side is true; it only reflects which side provided the preponderance of evidence.

And in a civil case, that might be useful....but the existence of God is somethign a bit weightier.

One other caveat, the plaintiff need not convince the opposition of the merit of their claim. It’s a given no amount of evidence is going to persuade the opposing pleader. The fact any evidence I produce isn’t going to persuade my opponent is irrelevant.

And similarly, anyone who disagrees with you will enter the discussion knowing that you will believe you've achieved your aims regardless of what argument they present. Let us remember, should you ever present a case, that your own insistence that it is a strong argument should not therefore be given any wright.

With the above in mind I’d be happy to make a case in favor of the existence of God defined very simply as belief in the existence of a personal agent who caused the universe to exist.

I'd be happy to see you make this case, distinguishing it from the case in favour of the universe having appeared randomly from chaos but in a manner identical to that which it would have had were it to have been created by a personal agent.

Until you are making said distinction, I think we agree that all evidence you provide will equally support both cases. Given that both cases are diametrically opposed, it will mean that until and unless you can make this distinction you will be supplying evidence which both supports the existence and non-existence of God equally. The best-case scenario is that you show both are equally probable, thus leaving us in the situation where no conclusion is possible.

I take it all theists no matter how ‘weak’ decline to believe such an agent exists and believe there is no evidence such an agent exists.

I take it, in this quoted statement, that you mean atheists, not theists.

Any takers?

Not until you offer a justification for setting the bar so low (i.e. "proof" as defined in a civil court) for a matter so weighty.

johnnyskeleton

By the legal definition of evidence, a mere assertion is not enough. If a lawyer suggests in his argument that there is a personal agent behind everything, that is an assertion. However, if a person with actual knowledge of the personal agent were to be brought into court and asked questions about the agent's existence, this would be evidence.

Furthermore, if it were proven that there is belief in this personal agent, this is only evidence insofar as it proves that people believe in that personal agent. It does not go to show that said personal agent exists.

To give an everyday example, lets look at a hypothetical case where a plaintiff slipped on a spillage in a supermarket. The defendant here wants to prove that the plaintiff poured the spilled liquid themself and manufactured their slipping. It is not enough that the defendant's lawyer says to the plaintiff "You poured the liquid, didn't you". That is not evidence. However, if the plaintiff admits pouring the liquid, or if a member of staff from the supermarket is called and he says that the plaintiff poured the liquid, this is evidence.

So while I do not assert either way whether there is evidence of the existance of God or not, I can categorically state that in the normal meaning of the word evidence, it must be something more than a mere assertion.

Scigaithris

It is unfortunate that reference was made to legal systems of proof, as opposed to a reliance on a scientific method? Admittedly, that there are limitations in any method used (including scientific), but it is my understanding that legal proof is greatly bounded by precedent, which may in some way restrict findings (and legal opinions) of what is considered fact?

I am also concerned by the adversarial nature of legal debate. To what extent does it function to limit our perceptions and findings?

Rigourous scientific methods have limitations, too. This is why there is a convention to not scientifically "prove" anything, but rather that it is "suggested" by an analysis of the data? (see Earl Babbie, or Isaac and Michael, on reporting results from scientific studies)

But then again, we are discussing a belief? Do beliefs have to be grounded in some legalistic or scientific method to exist for people? Sociologist W.I. Thomas observed "If people believe something to be real, it will be real in its consequences." Does it follow that it will be real for these believers in a god, and that they will act upon their perception of reality as if real? That in essence, this is a social construction of reality, which may, or may not stand the test of time or methods of inquiry? (see Peter Berger)

johnnyskeleton

The Original Poster claims that there is evidence (by a legal standard) that God exists. They have not produced this evidence yet but as a preliminary point wants to know if people will accept some basic rules first.

scigaithris wrote:

This is why there is a convention to not scientifically "prove" anything, but rather that it is "suggested" by an analysis of the data?

That is, for all intents and purposes, how something is legally proved.

Precedent is something completely different, and relates to what the law is, as opposed to how facts are proved in a court. The only way that law would restrict fact is if the fact is irrelevant or unreliable.

The discussion has not even started yet

Scigaithris

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Precedent is something completely different, and relates to what the law is, as opposed to how facts are proved in a court. The only way that law would restrict fact is if the fact is irrelevant or unreliable.

Isn't the legal concept of precedent a bit more complex, and in fact, in its complexity, establishing boundaries that can serve as a limitation when establishing a legal proof? For example, the limitations associated with long established customs?

"Long-held custom, which has traditionally been recognized by courts and judges, is the first kind of precedent. Customs can be so deeply entrenched in the society at large that it gains the force of law" (citation).

For comparisons purposes, just imagine the differences between long established custom that "gains the force of law" (i.e, precedent) used by judges in Saudi Arabia or Ireland when deciding what facts will be admissible in a case, or when rendering a legal opinion on that case? To use your term, what might be considered relevant in Ireland, might be "irrelevant" in Saudi Arabia? Granted, these are extremes, but are there not subtle distinctions even between jurisdictions in western countries including Ireland? Appeals arise from such differences?

Can such differences serve as boundaries that limit our ability to perceive what constitutes fact before proceeding to discuss the "No Evidence of God" case? Concerns such of these were raised, suggesting that a legalistic approach to the establishment of God would be problematic as a method of inquiry? (see Max Weber regarding problems of "value free," method, custom, and law)

johnnyskeleton

Yes it is fairly complex, but what you need to understand is the difference, in a legal setting, between what is law and what is fact.

Lets say I saw person x commit murder by talking person y to death. I want to give evidence that I saw x talking to y and that y ended up dead. Doctor z wants to give evidence that y medically died from being talked to death.

The precedent of cases says that murder is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment.

However, there has never been a case where someone was talked to death (in Ireland anyway).

Precedent binds legal decisions, so unless there have been previous cases where murder was a criminal offence, it will not be a criminal offence here.

Precedent does not bind fact, so even though there are no previous cases where evidence was given that someone died by being talked to death, it is still admissable in court.

However, the law would exclude evidence from me if I were to say "I saw x talking y to death" because it is not within my knowledge to say if the taking was the cause of death. It is irrelevant and inadmissable because I would be stating to be fact what I can't know is true. If some other countries use evidence that is irrelevant in the sense that we can't know it is true, then that's their look-out.

There are problems with any kind of set of rules. The Original Poster has offered to prove the existance of God to the civil law standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. If the Original Poster states as fact something which could not be true, or which does not further his/her argument, then it is irrelevant. For example, I'm not going to say anymore about standards of proof etc until the OP states his/her case, because all this talk about law has gone beyond irrelevant.

But so far we have not had any facts whatsoever...

Scigaithris

johnnyskeleton wrote:

But so far we have not had any facts whatsoever...

We both agree here. If the OP will state facts, we could proceed with the No Evidence of God case?

Seloth

People Shouldent use the Bible to prove God dosent exist as the Bible was Written by Man,Not by God or Jesus.

I no most people wont take this as evidense but there have been some intresting studies.

They basically Got a certain portion of people to pray for one group of sick people,The people who were prayed for got better much quicker than those who had no one pray for them

Also Before some one say's this,Because when seeing The Messages people sent in When Richard Dawkins was on the Late late show such as "Has no one heard of Evolutinon!"

People can belive in God and Science such as my self,For instancely I do belive in in the story of Noahs Ark,Bit not the whole world being Flooded and bla blah blah.But they have found that this has happend.The Black Sea used to be much much smaller,A glacier inbetween the Mediteranian and the Black sea melted,The Black Sea expanded.100's of towns,villages and citys were destroyed.3 months after a Turkish king was walking along a port in a city.He saw a large boat coming in,When it arrived he found it was full of animals.

Same with Mosses Miracles,It seems most of his miracles were a result of a large volcanoe that went off on a Greek Island.If there is a God then chances are if he does interveen its Through nature or things we would see as Miralces.

Sorry for the Spelling errors but I'm rushing.

Scigaithris

Seloth wrote:

They basically Got a certain portion of people to pray for one group of sick people,The people who were prayed for got better much quicker than those who had no one pray for them

If this was a study that you are citing in giving evidence, should you also provide us with a citation for support (or link)? Without more information as to the conduct of this study (i.e., its design, operational definitions, controls, population and sampling methods, data collection techniques, analytic methods, and limitations), how can we assume its validity and reliability? There can be many alternative explanations for why people "got better much quicker" (dependent variable) than as a result of prayer (independent variable), depending upon the conduct of this study mentioned by you. Citation for support?

5uspect

Scigaithris wrote:

If this was a study that you are citing in giving evidence, should you also provide us with a citation for support (or link)? Without more information as to the conduct of this study (i.e., its design, operational definitions, controls, population and sampling methods, data collection techniques, analytic methods, and limitations), how can we assume its validity and reliability? There can be many alternative explanations for why people "got better much quicker" (dependent variable) than as a result of prayer (independent variable), depending upon the conduct of this study mentioned by you. Citation for support?

You'll find a BBC story on this work here and I've attached the PDF report below. Contrary to what Seloth has said they found that prayer had no effect on patient recovery and may have actually lead to further stress.

EDIT: I've attached several other papers. Intercessory prayer.txt and A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer.txt need to be renamed to Intercessory prayer.pdf (max pdf upload is 150k )

Link to one report that goes against the grain, however I find this paper highly biased.

5uspect

here are the rest

Seloth

That actualy is not the article I was on about,It was in the Magzine BBC foucus and I did not say the prayer thing was in the article.

5uspect

Seloth wrote:

That actualy the article I was on about,It was in the Magzine BBC foucus and I did not say the prayer thing was in the article.

you said:

They basically Got a certain portion of people to pray for one group of sick people,The people who were prayed for got better much quicker than those who had no one pray for them

Your claim is that prayer results in faster recovery for patients. While you acknowledge that this won't be considered by others as evidence for God's existence (more likely a placebo effect) you seem to accept it as such.

However there is no evidence that improved recovery as a result of intercessory prayer is happens. The papers that seem to support your claim were not carried out under double blind conditions and are subject to bias on behalf of the experimenters, the doctors and the patients.

The double blind trials (the kind of trial any real medicine must undergo) show that there is no effect on patient recovery for those prayed for unknown to themselves and those prayed for and informed about it showed a slight increase in complications which was explained by a resultant increase in stress levels experienced by the patient.

P.S. I know the feeling about poor spelling, I'm always doing it too. Firefox 2.0 has a built in spell checker! I can't live without it.

Seloth

Why are you trying to start a fight over this?

My facts are wrong,What I am say is that that is not the article in question,the one I am talkinf about was in the magazine,Not the Website.

5uspect

I'm not starting a fight.
You said in your reply:

That actualy the article I was on about

You didn't say thats not the article, I can't read your mind so I answered your post by saying what I thought was wrong.

Please type more carefully and re read your posts before posting, it only takes a second.

Tho I see you've edited it while I'm writing this post :rolleyes:

Scigaithris

Seloth...
Would it be useful to provide a complete citation for the source of your information regarding the affects of prayer on recovery (i.e., Publication name, article title, author, date of publication, page numbers), or a link to the study? Without this citation, would this be "heresay" in the No Evidence of God case?

Seloth

Scigaithris wrote:

Seloth...
Would it be useful to provide a complete citation for the source of your information regarding the affects of prayer on recovery (i.e., Publication name, article title, author, date of publication, page numbers), or a link to the study? Without this citation, would this be "heresay" in the No Evidence of God case?

I have already said my sources were wrong,and the article I am on about is in a Science and Technolagy Magazine.Science Journal and it didint menton the Study of prayer.

finlma

Seloth wrote:

People can belive in God and Science such as my self,For instancely I do belive in in the story of Noahs Ark,Bit not the whole world being Flooded and bla blah blah.But they have found that this has happend.The Black Sea used to be much much smaller,A glacier inbetween the Mediteranian and the Black sea melted,The Black Sea expanded.100's of towns,villages and citys were destroyed.3 months after a Turkish king was walking along a port in a city.He saw a large boat coming in,When it arrived he found it was full of animals.

That is one of the most ludicrous proofs of Noahs Ark I've heard. Whose to say this Turkish King was telling the truth? There are floods the whole time - nothing to do with god smiting the planet due to a few sins. Why does he not do this kind of thing any more and tell people to build arks again?

If you believe this story to be true what other Old Testement stories to be true? The ones where Yaweh tells people to rape, murder, incite racism, incite homophobia????? If anyone follows what is written in the Old Testement we'd be living in a horrible place.


And to answer the original posters question: Yes, there is zero scientific evidence in the existence of a supernatural god of any kind.

Seloth

Actualy there are ancient records of this happening,

And I am not saying that a God like eing or what ever told him to do so,I am merley saying that things in the Bible that sound ludicrouse happend but on a much lower perspective.

And What gives you the idea that I find the Bible to be true,On most parts its full of bull **** but as I said above,Sometimes they are not.

Sure there are Roman Rcords of Jesus,Yet there were many people perfomring Miracles at this time but Jesus becamse the most popular and powerful.

finlma

Seloth wrote:

Sure there are Roman Rcords of Jesus,Yet there were many people perfomring Miracles at this time but Jesus becamse the most popular and powerful.

Sounds like some sort of Pokemon tournament. What was it about this particular era and miracles? We don't see them (apart from those moving statues of course, note sarcasm) any more and evolution tells us we should be getting better at these things.

Seloth

Actualy if you look at the modern world things like this happen still but they are not preached about or put on the media.

But meh,

finlma

Seloth wrote:

Actualy if you look at the modern world things like this happen still but they are not preached about or put on the media.

But meh,

Oh yeah - I remember that time my friend missed his flight to England so he just walked across the Irish Sea and this other time we were at a party and we ran out of drink but luckily there was this guy there who could turn water into wine. I couldn't believe our luck!!!!

Care to share some of the miracles you've heard of??

Seloth

Heh no,

What do you get by being sarcastic,In all fairness I didint think any one in Ireland would try and act like this,Im proven wrong.Please get a life and have proper debates instead of saying no to everything.

And no,Take example of Padre Peo,Variouse healers all over the world,Granted they are mostly Frauds but there have been one found that actually do work.

Tell me,What are your views of Telepathy,Do you know that it's actually becoming more accepted.It was even in the British Association Annual Festival of Science.

Or would you belive that Nearly half of all scientists belive in God,The more the remaining Majority are Agnostic with the Minority Atheist.

I guess not,Why because you are Small minded,You think that if there is a God he could be shown by Scientific or logical means.

johnnyskeleton

What has happened to the original poster's theory. I was expecting a reasoned argument which gave evidence of the existance of God.

Now, I admit that I am more curious to see how this will be done than I am to actually hear it (because I am a devout atheist), but where is his or her theory?

Seloth

Should be on the First page,But people were saying that the evidense claims were ones that are used in Court of Law,But if there is a God like being it would be more than likely that you couldent not prove it to exist through any known Logic or Science.

One thing Which I thought could thought is this,

The Universe has Infinite Possibility's ,So why couldent there be a God.

5uspect

Seloth wrote:

And no,Take example of Padre Peo,Variouse healers all over the world,Granted they are mostly Frauds but there have been one found that actually do work.

You see this is the problem. You make statements about how there is evidence to prove your point and then don't even bother to offer us a link or an inkling of a direction of where to look for such evidence. If there is such a healer that could cure people supernaturally then I'm sure James Randi would love to meet him.

Seloth wrote:

Tell me,What are your views of Telepathy,Do you know that it's actually becoming more accepted.It was even in the British Association Annual Festival of Science.

Finally something resembling a reference.
The work presented at the conference was lacking scientific rigor and the BA has been severely rebuked for including it. I have no problem with looking at such areas, the problem is that I find telepathy to be mostly wishful thinking. The people looking for it want so hard to believe it that they forget about good science on the way. Creationism is another classic example. There is no evidence to suggest that the suggested telepathic phenomenon exist but yet there are reams of definitions and descriptions of believed "powers" none of which have an ounce of proof. This is not science this is faith.

There are however interesting developments in our understanding of the electro chemical workings of the brain that can allow primitive control of computers etc through thought.
This work is scientific, rigorous and unlike the paranormalists grounded in reality.

Seloth wrote:

Or would you belive that Nearly half of all scientists belive in God,The more the remaining Majority are Agnostic with the Minority Atheist.

I guess not,Why because you are Small minded,You think that if there is a God he could be shown by Scientific or logical means.

I wouldn't consider myself to be small minded. I'm very open to various ideas that are presented. They must however remain rational. That is why I'm an atheist. God doesn't explain anything because the God hypothesis is unexplained, and indeed cannot by its general definition of being supernatural.
I find this often quoted statistic of nearly half (40% I think) of scientists believing in God interesting. The problem I have with this is it doesn't elaborate about what scientists think God actually is. Einstein is a classic example that people have used to justify their belief. Many scientists when pressed resort to a form of a vague deistic god that resembles nothing in Christianity or any major religion. Its a sort of atheism with a sort of mystical hopefulness.

There are however many die hard religious scientists. This I cannot understand. The way they can approach their scientific work with an open mind and then go to church on Sunday and be a fully functioning believer. Its a form of hypocrisy TBH. Maybe we engage in a form of this all the time as we assume the Earth is flat for everyday purposes, since we don't calculate orbital trajectories very often. Its something we can choose to ignore.

Seloth

I was actualy just calling Finlma small minded

Also what you said about what scientist idea of God would be,

Well for starters Id Like to say that you can belive in God and Science,Im not using this to insult but I dont get why allot Atheists all ways presume that If you belive in God you belive in Intelligent design and basicaly all things in the Bible.

Most people in Ireland that belive in God think the Bible is full of ****,As it was written by man and not some "Higher Power" or what ever you want to call it.For instance,I belive in God in some way,I Think the Bible is full of **** mostly except for some points which I said early I dont have a link for them as It was on a documentry.I Do think Evolution happend,I don't think we are the only life in the universe Intelligent or not and so on and fort.And I dont go to Church every Sunday.

But it wouldent really be call it a Atheism,More like agnosticism to Organised religion.Atheism is when you do not belive in a God or after life full stop were as Agnosticism is when you are open to the idea but not to sure si thats how it would fit in.

And when you think about it,It's not really odd that there are Full blown Christian scientists.It depends on what Science you are in.

Scigaithris

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What has happened to the original poster's theory. I was expecting a reasoned argument which gave evidence of the existance of God.

A reasoned argument that addressed the No Evidence of God case would be refreshing in this philosophy forum? OP?

finlma

Seloth wrote:

I guess not,Why because you are Small minded,You think that if there is a God he could be shown by Scientific or logical means.

Of course it should be shown by scientific or logical means. I could tell you that I've met a talking dog and its true. You'd be stupid to accept my word for it and not question it. A talking dog is more logical than some dude in the sky looking over us all and listening to every person's little prayers.

I'm far from small minded. I've expanded my horizons, studied a lot of religions and science and come to the conclusion that there is absolutley feck all chance of there being a supernatural God of any kind - the idea of it (if you apply logic) is totally illogical and ridiculous.

Maybe its you who is small minded and scared to find out the real truth. Open your mind buddy - try reading the God Delusion.

Seloth

Actualy I do always think of The Prospect of No God,

And how can you apply logic to a begin that is not logical.And You just added to me view of you being small minded as you assume I believe in a God which sits on a cloud in the sky.

Scigaithris

Since when do personal attacks (the "small minded" comments between posters) substantiate or refute the "No Evidence of God" case? Ephemeral888, the OP, introduced the notion of a civil case proof as an approach to this thread. We have had a few comments regarding the merit of such an approach, some critical, citing limitations or offering alternatives (e.g., scientific method). Does anyone at this point have any factual evidence to submit, along with supporting citations (or links)?

bonkey

Seloth wrote:

if there is a God like being it would be more than likely that you couldent not prove it to exist through any known Logic or Science.

One thing Which I thought could thought is this,

The Universe has Infinite Possibility's ,So why couldent there be a God.

How has it been established that the universe has infinite possibilities?
How have the boundaries of said possibilities been determined?

Seloth

It has been stated many times,Ask most Astronamers,Phyascists and Even the most famouse atheist,Richard Dawkins.

5uspect

Once again Seloth you have failed in providing a single reference.

johnnyskeleton

Scigaithris wrote:

Does anyone at this point have any factual evidence to submit, along with supporting citations (or links)?

I don't think so, it's time to put this thread to sleep. In the spirit of the courtroom, this case can be struck out with costs to the non-believers.

As for the scientific proof, no basis for a finding in either direction.

Scigaithris

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I don't think so, it's time to put this thread to sleep. In the spirit of the courtroom, this case can be struck out with costs to the non-believers.

Humour! If you be the judge, then you are dismissing the case? As a member of the jury, I fully agree.

johnnyskeleton

I didn't mean to suggest that I'm the judge, but I might deign to ask the judge to dismiss the case for want of prosecution on the part of my learned friend, who appears to be engaged in another court.

5uspect

As an outsider shouting from the public gallery I think this case should be binned.

(Although I do seem to be the only person to have offered any evidence.)

Seloth

5uspect wrote:

Once again Seloth you have failed in providing a single reference.

Ok,Go to youtube and Type in Richard Dawkins,the late late show.

5uspect

Seloth wrote:

Ok,Go to youtube and Type in Richard Dawkins,the late late show.

Where exactly does he say that the universe is infinite? I haven't seen it.
He does discuss an infinite regress which results when you try to explain God's existence.
Suggesting that the universe is infinite is a huge assumption for a scientist to make. And no scientists make it.

There is a big difference in saying that the universe is infinite and that the universe is enormous. Because no matter how enormous the universe infinity is infinitively larger than that again. :rolleyes:

We know the amount of stars in the universe is extremely large.
Hence the number of planets is very probably just as large. We're finding more and more extrastellar planets all the time.
The Drake equation suggests that no matter how conservative you stack the odds, the chance of life existing on other planets is ridiculously high. The chances of intelligent life occurring is open to debate but it still remains a probable outcome.

For the umpteenth time Seloth, unless you are going to provide accurate and meaningful references and evidence to support your notions don't bother posting.

bonkey

Seloth wrote:

It has been stated many times,Ask most Astronamers,Phyascists and Even the most famouse atheist,Richard Dawkins.

I asked how things had been established and determined. I did not ask whether or not someone had stated it to be the case.

Even if I were to believe your claim - which I don't - you still haven't answered the question which basically boils down to asking how these claims are more than someone's empty words....how they are backed up with science.

Incidentally, telling me to go and ask people is nothing but a lazy attempt to shift the burden. You've yet to establish that there is any reason to believe you. Show me one source where one reputable scientist has made a claim of infinite possibility within the universe and explained why such a claim is justified. Just one.

I'm not asking for you to back up your assertion that most astronomers and physicists say it...just that at least one has said it, and explained why they believe it to be true.

Seloth

Watch it again or else there is footage missing as he does say it.

And Most of the time what I say come from Tv documentrys ,Books or even websites which I have long since Forgotten.

Anwser me this please,Do ye think I am making this up or just thinking of somthing but not getting it Out fully as of a bad memory?

Zillah

Seloth wrote:

Same with Mosses Miracles,It seems most of his miracles were a result of a large volcanoe that went off on a Greek Island.If there is a God then chances are if he does interveen its Through nature or things we would see as Miralces.

Don't you find it a bit suspicious that God chooses to intervene in a fashion that would look exactly like he hadn't intervened at all?

Sorry for the Spelling errors but I'm rushing.

It would seem you're always in a rush...


As for Noah's Arc, I saw the same documentary a few years ago. There was indeed a gigantic cataclysm where the mediteranean burst through a narrow valley and flooded hundreds of square miles in sea water. But thats not a shred of evidence for any God, be it theistic or Biblical. In fact, its an argument against God, because we have now forwarded a very reasonable, evidence backed explanation for what happened, and that explanation does not require the inclusion of God.

You apply this sort of scepticism everyday in your life. If I said I had a blue alien from Alpha Centauri in my car you'd demand evidence before you believed me. If I said I was the son of the Devil you wouldn't believe me unless I could provide evidence of some sort.

If you believe in God just because he's not impossible, then there should be an infinite number of things that you believe in just as much, like every God any human has ever worshipped. And theres been thousands of them. Every single claim, from my blue alien to Vishnu can be defended the way you're defended your own beliefs, so I will very wisely absolutely reject your argument.

5uspect

Seloth wrote:

Watch it again or else there is footage missing as he does say it.

I've watched it about three times since it was first broadcast two of which were for your benefit. I'm not watching it again unless you give the the minute and second Richard Dawkins says "the Univese is infinite". There is mention of an infinite regress about who created god and who created the creater etc etc...ad infinium but nothing about the universe itself being infinite. And even if it was infinite didn't God make the universe? If he did then this has nothing really do do with his existence as the universe if a function of God. If the universe was infinite and as such there is the potential for anything including a god, that god would be a properity of the universe, i.e. the universe created God. So its a pointless circular arguement.

Seloth wrote:

And Most of the time what I say come from Tv documentrys ,Books or even websites which I have long since Forgotten.

The problem with this is that I see no way to qualify a single thing you say because its all a jumble of anecdote, wishful thinking, and plain rubbish.
You need to get your facts straight.

Seloth wrote:

Anwser me this please,Do ye think I am making this up or just thinking of somthing but not getting it Out fully as of a bad memory?

I don't think you've thought about it fully. I find your posts very difficult to follow, and as Zillah has pointed out you seem to be always in a rush. As a result I get the impression that you don't listen to what we're saying to you clearly. So please Seloth, stop, take a deep breath and think about what's been said here. Perhaps pop over to the Agnosticism/Atheism forum and start a thread there. I'm sure this thread is begging to be binned. The kindly folk there will try to answer your questions but you need to stop the hyperactive Vicki Pollard "no, but yeah, but no, but yeah" routine. Think about what you are going to say and listen to whats been said.

I'm sorry if I've come across as a pr!ck talking down at you but I'm getting tired of trying to decipher your posts.

bonkey

Seloth wrote:

And Most of the time what I say come from Tv documentrys ,Books or even websites which I have long since Forgotten.

But you seem to rule out the possibility that you are misremembering?

What you are saying is "I can't remember where I've read this stuff, exactly who it was who said it, quite what they said, nor how they backed up their argument.....but I know this is an accurate synopsis and want you to believe me".

Anwser me this please,Do ye think I am making this up or just thinking of somthing but not getting it Out fully as of a bad memory?

I think there are a number of possibilities. I'm not willing to make assumptions or guesses as to which it is. Thats why I'd like you to clear it up for me.

In general, expecting someone else to put the effort into finding out the details of your point when you're not willing to do so yourself isn't going to get you far...especially when by making the point so vaguely you more-or-less also manage to phrase it in a way that cannot be effectively disproven.

For example...if it were true that most physicists and astronomers side with your claim of infinite possibilities, then you'd really have a strong argument. But I can't prove that most don't. I could trot out hundreds of names and references of physicists and astronomers who say otherwise, and you can still just say "yeah, but most still agree with me". I can't prove that wrong without an impossible amount of work. But you've never provided any evidence that they do agree with you. You just want us to accept that you've read and seen stuff which supports this claim, but won't give us details of what that stuff is so we can verify it for ourselves and/or challenge your interpretation of it.

Its a bit like people who post links to hour long youtube videos with a "this backs up what I'm saying" comment and then expect someone to offer a detailed rebuttal to said hour-long work.

At the end of the day, if you're unwilling / too lazy to make your point properly, its unreasonable to expect anyone to do anything more than dismiss it with the same amount of effort.

Seloth

The Problem with the Internet is that you cant show expresions or say things in gaps,

Now If I were talking to ye personaly Then things would be better,But As I've seen on other forums people often act hostile.This Conversation would have had a better out come if we talked about this personaly.Well depending on the type of person.

There is one guy That I know that if you say anything,he is right and you are wrong.For Instance,Apparently if you attend a religiouse service regulary You can live 5 years longers as it relaxes the Mind.Something to do with the Brain anyway.I Said this to him,his straight out awnser is "Thats Total bull ****",Another such insadent was when he claimed Fusion was already created and that they are using it in A satelite at the moment,He claims this is true because his father told him.Now Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying that you guys are like this,I'm just stating an example for the above.He's one of those Idiots basicaly That Think they are inteligent.

And Zillah I probaly put it in the wrong Cortex when I said it but I ment to say that things in the Bible that seem totaly untrue have been show to have happen,What I went on to say is that if there is a God then it would show he acts n Certain ways and Only when he needs to.

And I see ye said I throw stuff together,I have to say sorry,I'm just trying to get make Point through,As I said above it would b better if you talk in person.

And I have no problem with Atheists agnostics and the Likes,The only thing I don't like is when there is an Atheist who thinks every one who believes In God is an Idiot or believe that the 7 days thing happed and not evolution.As well as the Extremists types who believe everything and think you are evil or something if you don't a.k.a. Americans j/k You get what I mean when I say that though,The basic extremists with them in Churches running around making stupid and funny noises and faces.

I hope this has changed some disapproving faces,It's just last time I debated this matter and a veriouse numerouse topics on the net even when I provided evidense the guy((Not on this Forum,Totally diffrent Website)) started calling Highly credited,Respected and Know Scientist idiots and said he could find no proof of other things yet I showed him articles and so on.He was definately not open minded.

Hopfully this topic can end in peace

5uspect

Seloth wrote:

The Problem with the Internet is that you cant show expresions or say things in gaps,

Thats why we have emoticons! There's some very good at being expressive online.

Seloth wrote:

There is one guy That I know that if you say anything,he is right and you are wrong.For Instance,Apparently if you attend a religiouse service regulary You can live 5 years longers as it relaxes the Mind.Something to do with the Brain anyway.I Said this to him,his straight out awnser is "Thats Total bull ****",Another such insadent was when he claimed Fusion was already created and that they are using it in A satelite at the moment,He claims this is true because his father told him.Now Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying that you guys are like this,I'm just stating an example for the above.He's one of those Idiots basicaly That Think they are inteligent.

You see this is one of those time a link to a reference is necessary. Your arrogant friend simply had to provide a link and if he couldn't or wouldn't then he's talking rubbish. If he does then the debate can move on and you can take apart his reference if its bogus. (Always lots of fun)

Seloth wrote:

And I see ye said I throw stuff together,I have to say sorry,I'm just trying to get make Point through,As I said above it would b better if you talk in person.

Even in person it wouldn't help. You need to structure your argument. keep each to each point without jumping back and forward. Keep it simple.

Seloth wrote:

And I have no problem with Atheists agnostics and the Likes,The only thing I don't like is when there is an Atheist who thinks every one who believes In God is an Idiot or believe that the 7 days thing happed and not evolution.As well as the Extremists types who believe everything and think you are evil or something if you don't a.k.a. Americans j/k You get what I mean when I say that though,The basic extremists with them in Churches running around making stupid and funny noises and faces.

Most Atheists say that they just don't know (often followed by a hopeful "yet"). But you don't know either, either does the pope or the dog down the street. And its okay to say that. Often a debate with an Atheist is an exercise in pointing this out. Also most theists tend to be scientifically minded so you better keep the facts inline and be wary of the nonsense.

Everyone happy now?

Zillah

Baffling.

Seloth, try re-reading what you've typed before you post, its really like pulling a tooth while reading your posts. Try paying attention to sentence structure and stop putting random capital letters in the middle of sentences. I know this must sound condescending but you'll be much better received if its not an uphil struggle to understand you.

Seloth wrote:

And Zillah I probaly put it in the wrong Cortex when I said it but I ment to say that things in the Bible that seem totaly untrue have been show to have happen,What I went on to say is that if there is a God then it would show he acts n Certain ways and Only when he needs to.

Ok, there is often a basis in reality for any given legend, true. The deluge was a geological event. The curses of Egypt were caused by a volcanoe etc. But thats already known and understood; people rarely just make things up, but they do very often blow things out of proportion and completely misunderstand them. But most importantly, they have a habit of presuming an intelligence is behind strange events.

So if God is working his will through natural events, and natural events only, then a world with a God, and a world without a God ,look exactly the same. So its quite irrational to presume there is a God causing these things as we know very well they could happen without such a massive bridge in logic.

There is one guy That I know that if you say anything,he is right and you are wrong.For Instance,Apparently if you attend a religiouse service regulary You can live 5 years longers as it relaxes the Mind.Something to do with the Brain anyway.I Said this to him,his straight out awnser is "Thats Total bull ****",

He's right, that is complete bullshit. When someone reacts like that you should go double check your sources. I think you'll find that people who have low stress levels tend to live longer, and some people find religious ceremonies lower stress, but to say that relgious service adds five years to one's life really is a ridiculous thing to say.

Another such insadent was when he claimed Fusion was already created and that they are using it in A satelite at the moment,He claims this is true because his father told him.Now Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying that you guys are like this,I'm just stating an example for the above.He's one of those Idiots basicaly That Think they are inteligent.

A fusion powered sattellite is leagues more likely than a God of the type most in the West believe in. Its a far far more rational thing to propose.