There is no God...???

Nemi · 12-09-2010 05:17PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I gave the examples in the OP because these are things we do know.
I think you might be hard pressed to find someone who claims we don't know how a tree grows from a seed, and claims it is spontaneously pulled or pushed from the ground by a deity, as was believed many years ago.

But the next turn of the screw is that, for most people, the contention that a tree grows from a seed is something they accept in faith. They are no more able to account for the process than someone accounting for it by divine intervention.

And then, indeed, you can take it to the level of what makes the next moment 'remember' the state of things in the current moment, so it 'knows' what to do with it. I've no particular desire to go there.

In fact, we don't have to. What will a semi detached house in Swords be worth in one year's time? We haven't a clue, because we are actually moved by forces we neither understand nor have control of.

tro81 · 12-09-2010 05:25PM

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

Improbable · 12-09-2010 05:30PM

deise go deo wrote: »

Your verision of Logic.
I dont think my beleif is based on superstition.
My view is something like the Big Bang dident just happen and everything that happened since then makes for a very long list of coincidences to end up with me sitting here typing this. The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

This can be called the argument from personal incredulity and is not an argument for the existence of a god at all.

Firstly, just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean that other people who are knowledgeable in the field don't know how it works. Even in the case where nobody can explain how a particular thing happened, that does not entitle anyone to throw in any old idea for how they think it happened and hold it as an equally valid idea about how it works.

Secondly, this "long list of coincidences" is actually not as long as you might think. There are a few highly improbable events that have to happen and then the processes which are set in motion result in you. For the events that are highly improbable, the anthropic principle quite easily handles that.

Pygmalion · 12-09-2010 05:33PM

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance.

No I mustn't.

Improbable · 12-09-2010 05:36PM

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

This is the view espoused by people who do not know how common elements of scientific theories work. Even if something is unknown, that does not mean you get to use god to fill the blanks. all gods are gods of the gaps, and as science piles on the knowledge and understanding, the gaps become smaller and smaller.

Cú Giobach · 12-09-2010 05:40PM

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

Just to use your own statements and (arbitrary?) figures. If there are 150000000000 individual entities and the chances are 150000000000/1 that one will spontaneously spring into life, then the chances that one will spring into life without need of a creator are very big indeed.

eg if the chances of developing a certain cancer are 10,000/1 then out of 10,000 people you would expect 1 case.

DeVore · 12-09-2010 05:46PM

I dont believe you can say "There is no God". I believe you CAN say "there is no evidence of God."

Do atheists think it would be ok for me to say "there is no Higgs Boson" just because CERN hasnt run the experiments yet?

What we can say is that there is no evidence supporting the claim for there being a God.

Saying "there is no God" as a short cut is both allowing your personal beliefs to sabotage your critical thinking and short circuit the scientific approach.

I dont put the statement much above the old "there are no teapots in orbit around mars" all the same.

DeV.

MagicMarker · 12-09-2010 05:51PM

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

150,000,000,000 / 1 ain't so improbable when there's about a billion galaxies in the universe with a billion planets in each of them.

antiskeptic · 12-09-2010 05:53PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one.

No it's not. Statements mean something and since you have no way of establishing your statement positively, it is meaningless.

I believe it is.

Though it is impossible to prove the non existence of a god, it has never been proven he/she/it does exist (yet).
Humans used to believe a god made plants appear from the ground, we now know differently,
people used to believe a god physically formed the planet Earth, we now know differently, and so on,
There are a great number of things, all slowly eroding the claimed deeds of a deity. ie the evidence is mounting towards non existence.
There is a lot of evidence pointing towards non existence ie the non answering of prayers, scientific explanations for the supposed deeds, no sight nor sound etc,
and none pointing towards existence.

Your belief that it is is based around an idea of what God should be and in finding no evidence for what you think God should be you declare lack of evidence for God. But you don't supply any argument as to why you suppose God as you suppose he should be, should be as you suppose.

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

It's not even valid to say "there is no x until proven otherwise". There have existed all kinds of things for which there was no evidence prior to evidence for them being discovered.

Improbable · 12-09-2010 05:53PM

DeVore wrote: »

I dont believe you can say "There is no God". I believe you CAN say "there is no evidence of God."

Do atheists think it would be ok for me to say "there is no Higgs Boson" just because CERN hasnt run the experiments yet?

What we can say is that there is no evidence supporting the claim for there being a God.

Saying "there is no God" as a short cut is both allowing your personal beliefs to sabotage your critical thinking and short circuit the scientific approach.

I dont put the statement much above the old "there are no teapots in orbit around mars" all the same.

DeV.

On one hand, you're right. But on the other hand, there was that double blind experiment done which was funded by the templeton foundation about the effects of prayer. The results showed that there was no difference in the health of patients who were prayed for and those who weren't. The religious people who are have heard of it will usually say something along the lines of "god can't be disproved through science" i.e. NOMA. But if the study had showed that prayer did have an effect on the health of patients, I bet they wouldn't be saying the same thing. It's the fact that try to have their cake and eat it too that bothers me. Stuff like that is what makes me tend to say "there is no god" rather than "the likelihood of a god is quite low".

I think its a bit unfair to compare that to the Higgs boson because there is evidence supporting the existence of it from other scientific theories which are valid at this time.

Herbal Deity · 12-09-2010 06:13PM

deise go deo wrote: »

The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

So why God and not aliens or something?

Who created God? By your logic, surely he's too perfect a being to have just existed without some force guiding him, no?

If God can "just exist" why can't the universe "just exist"?

DeVore wrote: »

I dont believe you can say "There is no God". I believe you CAN say "there is no evidence of God."

Do atheists think it would be ok for me to say "there is no Higgs Boson" just because CERN hasnt run the experiments yet?

What we can say is that there is no evidence supporting the claim for there being a God.

Saying "there is no God" as a short cut is both allowing your personal beliefs to sabotage your critical thinking and short circuit the scientific approach.

I dont put the statement much above the old "there are no teapots in orbit around mars" all the same.

Define "God" in purely scientific terms.

Oh wait, you can't. There aren't any scientific hypotheses for "God".

You can say "there is no God" because there is no definition for God. You can't say "there is no Higgs Boson" because there exists a definition and a hypothesis regarding its existence.

Technically, "there is no God" is a little incorrect, but it's more like "the concept of God is not well defined and makes absolutely no sense" than "there is no evidence for God". You can't collect evidence to support the existence of something that's not defined properly. Saying that "there is no evidence for God" seems to suggest that it might be possible to collect evidence to support its existence.

But God is not even at the level of simply requiring evidence to prove his existence. It needs a proper definition, a proper hypothesis, a proper scientific model which it fits into, and it doesn't have any of this. It has hundreds of conflicting, yet equally vague, definitions, the only unifying factor being that usually there is some notion of it creating us and promoting certain morals.

Until there exists some scientific notion of what God is or how it can exist, I don't think saying "there is no God" is entirely inaccurate.

Zillah · 12-09-2010 06:22PM

deise go deo wrote: »

My view is something like the Big Bang dident just happen and everything that happened since then makes for a very long list of coincidences to end up with me sitting here typing this.

Pick a number between 1 and ten billion.

Let us say it is 7,435,765. Oh my God you had a one in ten billion chance of picking that number, it's like...destiny or magic or something. NO WAY that something with a one in ten billion chance just happens for no reason.

Suffice to say, your logic is deeply flawed. As is your spelling. Seriously, it's insufferable.

The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

What exactly do you mean by "works too well"? What would have to happen for it to count as not working so well? For example, sometimes stars get so big they collapse in on themselves and form an infinitely dense point where the very nature of space time is torn asunder. I can't really imagine something more catastrophic. The universe is also flying apart faster than the speed of light and will one day be a dark and almost entirely empty place, with each star so far away from anything else that nothing else exists for all intents and purposes.

What, pray tell, is so well designed about that?

The Mad Hatter · 12-09-2010 07:08PM

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

Shouldn't the 8 in your username be a 1?

strobe · 12-09-2010 07:12PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Want to throw this question in for discussion.
Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one.
I believe it is.
Though it is impossible to prove the non existence of a god, it has never been proven he/she/it does exist (yet).
Humans used to believe a god made plants appear from the ground, we now know differently,
people used to believe a god physically formed the planet Earth, we now know differently, and so on,
There are a great number of things, all slowly eroding the claimed deeds of a deity. ie the evidence is mounting towards non existence.
There is a lot of evidence pointing towards non existence ie the non answering of prayers, scientific explanations for the supposed deeds, no sight nor sound etc,
and none pointing towards existence.

People can claim anything they want, from the existence of a deity to a "celestial teapot" a la Dawkins.

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

Ahh but you see, you are only thinking about it empirically. There might not be any empirical evidence of god's existence but there is a whole host of personal revelations to confirm his existence. There is also lots of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Cú Giobach · 12-09-2010 07:53PM

strobe wrote: »

Ahh but you see, you are only thinking about it empirically. There might not be any empirical evidence of god's existence but there is a whole host of personal revelations to confirm his existence. There is also lots of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Hearsay is defined (from dictionary.com) "as an item of idle or unverified information or gossip" and "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Conjecture is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof" and "to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability"
Neither of which can be considered evidence in any sense of the word.

Personal Revelations, are peoples definitions of phycological experiences that have perfectly rational explanations without invoking a god ie; Hallucinations, Hysteria, Schizophrenia..... etc, some people even claim that nothing more than an "Idea" they had is a Revelation.
These cannot be considered evidence either.

As far as sceptics are concerned non empiricall evidence is not evidence.
That is the reality.

strobe · 12-09-2010 07:58PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Hearsay is defined (from dictionary.com) "as an item of idle or unverified information or gossip" and "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Conjecture is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof" and "to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability"
Neither of which can be considered evidence in any sense of the word.

Personal Revelations, are peoples definitions of phycological experiences that have perfectly rational explanations without invoking a god ie; Hallucinations, Hysteria, Schizophrenia..... etc, some people even claim that nothing more than an "Idea" they had is a Revelation.
These cannot be considered evidence either.

As far as sceptics are concerned non empiricall evidence is not evidence.
That is the reality.

Ah, not a follower of The Simpsons or Antiskeptic I see. I was being facetious man.

Cú Giobach · 12-09-2010 08:05PM

strobe wrote: »

Ah, not a follower of The Simpsons or Antiskeptic I see. I was being facetious man.

OH..woops.

Bit obvious now I see it.
Now I'm laughing at myself Thanks

I think I'll have a bottle of beer now.

MagicMarker · 12-09-2010 08:45PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are no fairies.

Am I arrogant?

Doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer to this.

MrPudding · 12-09-2010 09:09PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer to this.

Um, ok. Yes you are...?

MrP

Choochtown · 12-09-2010 09:25PM

deise go deo wrote: »

Dont be so quick to concider your self superior. My beleifes are based on my assessment of what I know about Reality and Existence. You show me a sientist who will say that God is an Impossibility.

Maybe a bit un equal terms but if you said it was what you beleived rather than something you know is a fact then I would have no problem with that.

I dont beleive in Fairys, Vampires etc.
How about something more tangible though. Aliens.
I cant show you one. I cant prove that they exist. There is no evidence that they do exist. Dose this mean they cant exist?

er... My post (which you quoted) says I believed Usain Bolt would be more likely to win the 100m final than your friend's 98 year old grandad. Read it again. I didn't use the word "know". Yes it is a superior view as it is infinitely more probable.

I'd be very interested to hear your assessment of what you "know about reality and existence". Who's being superior now?

Nemi · 12-09-2010 09:25PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Um, ok. Yes you are...?

MrP

Thanks for that post, because now I have hearsay evidence and conjecture to support the contention that Magic Marker is arrogant.

Truly, we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Dades · 12-09-2010 10:13PM

Damned atheists arrogantly not-believing the entire universe was created for them.

Cú Giobach · 12-09-2010 10:52PM

Dades wrote: »

Damned atheists arrogantly not-believing the entire universe was created for them.

I like the one about, The puddle believing the hole was made especially for it, because it fits so perfectly into it.

deise go deo · 12-09-2010 11:02PM

Zillah wrote: »

Pick a number between 1 and ten billion.

Let us say it is 7,435,765. Oh my God you had a one in ten billion chance of picking that number, it's like...destiny or magic or something. NO WAY that something with a one in ten billion chance just happens for no reason.

Suffice to say, your logic is deeply flawed. As is your spelling. Seriously, it's insufferable.

Im sorry but I dont accept your athority to judge the validity of my Logic.
As for my spelling. If you feel the need to point that out then you really are grasping for straws:rolleyes:

Things with a low probability happen all the time. However, That a system as vast and complex as the universe can come into being is not just something that I can see randomly happening for no piticular reason.

I fail to see what is so unreasonable in the belief that something had a hand in guiding it.

What exactly do you mean by "works too well"? What would have to happen for it to count as not working so well? For example, sometimes stars get so big they collapse in on themselves and form an infinitely dense point where the very nature of space time is torn asunder. I can't really imagine something more catastrophic. The universe is also flying apart faster than the speed of light and will one day be a dark and almost entirely empty place, with each star so far away from anything else that nothing else exists for all intents and purposes.

What, pray tell, is so well designed about that?

Do you know what function black holes play in the grand design of the universe? Is it not possible that they have some yet to be discovered function? As for stars colapsing in general, that is nessary for planets to be formed. Stars produce the heavy elements from hydrogen.

As for who created god, I beleive that god exists outside the physical realm of the universe and outside of time its self. As for the universe always existing in a simmilar way to god. I think the Big Bang is generally accepted as the starting point of its existence. (Except for some parts of America.)

Im not saying im right, Im just saying I have my reasons for my beleife,
reasons which are based on my understanding of the universe around me.
I dont see anyone giving anthing other than religion is bad and god is unproven as a reason for me to be wrong.

deise go deo · 12-09-2010 11:18PM

Choochtown wrote: »

er... My post (which you quoted) says I believed Usain Bolt would be more likely to win the 100m final than your friend's 98 year old grandad. Read it again. I didn't use the word "know". Yes it is a superior view as it is infinitely more probable.

To know something is more probable you do really need to be able to measure it.

Yes and as I said I have no problem with that. If you dont claim to 'Know' something that you dont then I am perfectally happy to respect your opinion as long as you respect mine.

I'd be very interested to hear your assessment of what you "know about reality and existence". Who's being superior now?

How have I claimed to be superior. I said that I have based my beleif on what I know about the Universe. Whats wrong with that?
I dont have any special insight into anything, my opinion is just that. My opinion.
I really am not going to try and list everything that I have ever heard about the universe, what would be the point?

Goduznt Xzst · 12-09-2010 11:24PM

*looks at his username, feels obliged to reply*

Nobody knows anything about God.

All the information and evidence we have to hand is purely metaphysical. When Nietzche wrote "God is dead" he did not mean that God had literally died, rather that the metaphysics that described his existence where no longer relevant. In fact, the value of metaphysics in general was questioned.

When I say "God does not exist" (in preteen txt spk to lull my prey into a false sense of intellectual superiority

) I do not mean that God cannot exist, rather, for humans, he does not exist. His existence has no value, no merit, no relevance, no weight... nothing. He is but a shrinking manifestation of the human ego that is slowly being buried under the weight of the burgeoning sense of complete self-awareness that is spreading like wildfire throughout mankind.

Like a filthy, old bandage that no longer serves its purpose by becoming putrid, peeling and now, inversely spreads infection rather than heals it, we are ripping it off and throwing God away with the thrash.

There is no God, not for humans. Slowly, each of us, has a role in slowly killing it.

deise go deo · 13-09-2010 12:09AM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

*looks at his username, feels obliged to reply*

Whos?

Nobody knows anything about God.

All the information and evidence we have to hand is purely metaphysical. When Nietzche wrote "God is dead" he did not mean that God had literally died, rather that the metaphysics that described his existence where no longer relevant. In fact, the value of metaphysics in general was questioned.

When I say "God does not exist" (in preteen txt spk to lull my prey into a false sense of intellectual superiority ) I do not mean that God cannot exist, rather, for humans, he does not exist. His existence has no value, no merit, no relevance, no weight... nothing. He is but a shrinking manifestation of the human ego that is slowly being buried under the weight of the burgeoning sense of complete self-awareness that is spreading like wildfire throughout mankind.

Like a filthy, old bandage that no longer serves its purpose by becoming putrid, peeling and now, inversely spreads infection rather than heals it, we are ripping it off and throwing God away with the thrash.

There is no God, not for humans. Slowly, each of us, has a role in slowly killing it.

God exists for me. You dont speak for everyone. You cannot claim god dose not exist for Humans. Quite alot of us would disagree with you.

Apparently now atheists are more 'Self-aware' than religious people. As you seem to be the masters of evidence based reasoning I would like to see your evidence for this argument or else I refuse to beleive it exists.

This really is getting quite tiresome. To much rethoric. To little logical argument:rolleyes:

Pushtrak · 13-09-2010 12:19AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Want to throw this question in for discussion.
Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one.
I believe it is.

I would go with there is no personal god. I don't think the deist route has any more merit, but it's a lot easier to go about challenging the personal god line. Posted some stuff that'd work as well here as in the other post.

If the belief systems posited an impersonal god, then I wouldn't really have as much confidence in refuting it as I do. A personal, caring god? No way I can buy into that nonsense, and I don't understand how anyone can.

Chrisitanity (unifying all the "I'm right" camps into one banner) is the largest religion I believe with about a third of the population. So, supposing them as right, and by extension there is a hell. So, 2/3 of the current population has gone to hell?

There was a hell of a long time homo sapiens have been around with no knowledge of Yahweh. Why should this be so? And what of the progenitors to homo sapien who are fairly close to us in evolutionary terms? Were they made in an almost god image? And their progenitors? Almost almost god like?

There were all manner of notions accepted, the earth being flat, being the centre of the universe. Humanity has a very big ego, really. When we are naught but an insignificant planet in one of who knows how many galaxies.

There is a point made about how perfect the planet is for life. Considering how many planets there are, surely some would be capable of supporting life just by sheer chance. A big song and dance is made about how much of the planet is water. Yeah, mostly undrinkable salt water. Intelligently designed, yeah right.

Religion is nothing but useful to those who wish to exploit it for power, and a sad exercise in back peddling for the rest. Oh, something is literal until it is utterly debunked, then it is metaphor.

Oh, I suppose the planet wasn't all that well designed for the over 90% of animal life that is now extinct. Are we to presume god had some manner of plan that this was good?

There are probably other stuff floating away in my head that just aren't coming to me at the moment. I'm sure the point is made well enough. Religion is the perfect answer for those who don't want the right answer, or minimum effort, maximum feel good.

Cú Giobach · 13-09-2010 12:25AM

Pushtrak wrote: »

I would go with there is no personal god. I don't think the deist route has any more merit, but it's a lot easier to go about challenging the personal god line. Posted some stuff that'd work as well here as in the other post........

I think you may have slightly missed the point of the question.

Ush1 · 13-09-2010 12:26AM

deise go deo wrote: »

Things with a low probability happen all the time. However, That a system as vast and complex as the universe can come into being is not just something that I can see randomly happening for no piticular reason.

I fail to see what is so unreasonable in the belief that something had a hand in guiding it.

So did the guiding hand you've invoked just randomly happen then? What's its explanation?

You seem to be displaying, as most theists do, an anthropocentric view. Attributing purpose and design where there is really no evidence that is the case.

There is no God...???

Comments