CG: deliver proof of god existence please?
-
I have a better plan, instead of insulting believers (which appears to be ineffective) I'll just 1-vote them and hope they go away. That's a better plan because while my discussion with CG started out alright, it just got boring when the quicksands of "offering proof to the willing individual"-arguments were reached.
-
The fact that Hitler did what he did proves there isnt a god. Or the Serbs, or Stalin, or the English in Ireland. Or pol pot. Fact is believing in god weakens man. It deludes him intio believing he is looked after. He isnt. The sooner people realise it is up to them to create a better life on earth the sooner we will get on and do it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
So you believe the existence of evil proves there is no good? Fact is, believing in a Mom weakens man. It deludes him into believing he is looked after. Christianity teaches me that, while God may touch the world super naturally, in most cases He wants people to do it. So, knowing what I do, I try and make it a better place.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
The Higgs-boson is a different case, if it exists it could provide the mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking, which is an observed phenomenon. The existence of god would not fix the laws of nature. The existence of the Higgs-boson is also not stated as a fact, but as "probable" and people are trying very hard to prove or disprove the theory - unlike religion, which just states that god exists and that's the end of it.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Question: Why does his belief system offend you so much? In all the time I've known Christian, I've never known him to ram it down others throats, so why worry about it?
Religion offends me, Christian is alright, merely misguided :)
harold aptroot wrote:
The existence of god would not fix the laws of nature.
Neither would the Higgs boson. It just gives us more confidence in our approximation of the laws. Actually, what about the laws needs to be fixed? And what created them, in the first place? And why are they the way they are? If you have no proof, but have beliefs, I hope you don't take a bite out of your own ass. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I think Occam's Razor applies
Maybe it does. I was actually steering towards this being an other case of "something that merely lacks a proper explanation - for now" One god may be simpler than several, but.. Whatever explanation there may be for "Speaking in Tongues", I wouldn't care much if people called it god by definition. But then that same god would probably not be responsible for anything else. Or maybe it would. We'll see.
Christian Graus wrote:
The Bible says so
CSS could write a book, that could grow into a religion as well.. And how about this. For a couple of hundred of thousands of years there had only been humans who, if they believed in any higher being at all, didn't believe in the god you believe in. Why was "the real god" suddenly found about 2k years ago? Is this again a case of god being illogical merely because I think he is? Or is it actually (partly) the same god? edit: /thread. I lost interest.
modified on Saturday, May 22, 2010 6:08 PM
harold aptroot wrote:
Why was "the real god" suddenly found about 2k years ago?
Where do you get this? Is that Jesus? Concurrent documentation of God goes much further back than that. We only started discussing and documenting plate tectonics in the last hundred years or so, but it was there the whole time. While the Bible does not give details, it does document to the creation of the universe. Argument abounds as to how long ago that was, but whatever the value, it goes back to it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Why was "the real god" suddenly found about 2k years ago?
Where do you get this? Is that Jesus? Concurrent documentation of God goes much further back than that. We only started discussing and documenting plate tectonics in the last hundred years or so, but it was there the whole time. While the Bible does not give details, it does document to the creation of the universe. Argument abounds as to how long ago that was, but whatever the value, it goes back to it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
So maybe 5k years. Whenever those stories were first made up. It doesn't matter when it was exactly, it wasn't 400k years ago so there is still a huge period of time where there were people but no god (or different gods). However, the first part (the creation) is all a lie anyway, and for that there is proof. Like C14 dating, and the light coming from distant stars that are older than the bible claims. It got the time scale all wrong, but the order is pretty much OK. edit: oh and, /thread. Darn. You tricked me.
-
Before the modern bible many Greeks, and latter Romans, followed the Stoicism philosophy. It emphasized thinking and moral virtues, without need for belief in a higher being. Many of the teachings found in the bible appear to come straight out of that philosophy. Therefore, it is not only possible to lead a moral life, without religion, it is not uncommon today or in the past. I first learned about Stoicism, years ago, when a friend said I was a Stoic; after I explained to him that I did not know if God existed, but that it was not necessary to be a good person that knows the difference between right and wrong. Commandments: Murder, Stealing, Lying, etc. are all bad – Well no kidding, I never would have realized that on my own. ;) INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra "I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
I had a recent conversation with a Seventh Day Adventist who talked as if the 10 commandments must have been given to Adam and Eve, b/c how else could they have known that murder was wrong ? Every society understands the same moral principles, including ones who could have never previously had access to the Bible. Anyone who suggests that only a Christian can have morality is plainly very wrong.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
That's a very loaded statement, and I think it's unfair of you to target CG because he's a committed Christian. There are many things that are accepted without proof of existence, but we do not target those who avow to them. For instance, many reputable scientists accept the Higgs-Boson as a reality, but there is no proof it exists. Do you issue this challenge to them as well? Question: Why does his belief system offend you so much? In all the time I've known Christian, I've never known him to ram it down others throats, so why worry about it?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
*grin* this started in the lounge and I said that if he wanted more specifics, the lounge was the wrong place for it. So, it wasn't a random shoutout, he named me b/c I'd invited him to ask.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
In the Bible
Starting from that premise made me wary, I'm afraid. If your belief in God is based in part on the legends of nomadic herdsmen from 3000 years ago, then I don't understand how you can also discount the truth of Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, Jain, Norse, Greek, Roman, Native American, Aborigine, Aztec, Inca, Maya, Olmec, Celtic or any other religious myths.
Well, if there's no starting point, then we're just making God up. I guess you think I'm doing that anyhow, and that's your call to make, but, if I have a 'revelation' and there's no book or other reference to back me up, then it's plain I am not accountable to anything but my imagination.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The fact that Hitler did what he did proves there isnt a god. Or the Serbs, or Stalin, or the English in Ireland. Or pol pot. Fact is believing in god weakens man. It deludes him intio believing he is looked after. He isnt. The sooner people realise it is up to them to create a better life on earth the sooner we will get on and do it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The fact that Hitler did what he did proves there isnt a god. Or the Serbs, or Stalin, or the English in Ireland. Or pol pot.
No, it proves free will, AND that there isn't the God that you'd like there to be. But, if there WAS a God who constrained our actions, and forced us to live a certain way, you'd probably not like that, either.
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is believing in god weakens man. It deludes him intio believing he is looked after. He isnt. The sooner people realise it is up to them to create a better life on earth the sooner we will get on and do it.
I would agree that some people are happy to destroy the earth because they think God will fix it. I don't think that's a correct way of looking at things. But hey, there's nothing wrong with the earth anyhow, right ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, if there's no starting point, then we're just making God up. I guess you think I'm doing that anyhow, and that's your call to make, but, if I have a 'revelation' and there's no book or other reference to back me up, then it's plain I am not accountable to anything but my imagination.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, if there's no starting point, then we're just making God up. I guess you think I'm doing that anyhow, and that's your call to make, but, if I have a 'revelation' and there's no book or other reference to back me up, then it's plain I am not accountable to anything but my imagination.
I do think so. I think all "revelations" are personal, and that the Biblical myths upon which you are building your belief were also personal, to the people who originally made them up. It is personal "revelation" built upon personal "revelation", with no basis in a common deity. If you base the existence on God on the Bible, and as God exists the Bible must be true, you have a circular argument. Unless God's existence is verifiable by someone who doesn't believe in Him, then all the writings in the world can't back up your claim that he exists.
-
I had a recent conversation with a Seventh Day Adventist who talked as if the 10 commandments must have been given to Adam and Eve, b/c how else could they have known that murder was wrong ? Every society understands the same moral principles, including ones who could have never previously had access to the Bible. Anyone who suggests that only a Christian can have morality is plainly very wrong.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Anyone who suggests that only a Christian can have morality is plainly very wrong.
Thanks for saying that. I've seen too many posts from right-wing fundie Christians (which I know you aren't!) in the US implying that atheists have no moral guidance to prevent them murdering, which is plainly stupid.
-
So maybe 5k years. Whenever those stories were first made up. It doesn't matter when it was exactly, it wasn't 400k years ago so there is still a huge period of time where there were people but no god (or different gods). However, the first part (the creation) is all a lie anyway, and for that there is proof. Like C14 dating, and the light coming from distant stars that are older than the bible claims. It got the time scale all wrong, but the order is pretty much OK. edit: oh and, /thread. Darn. You tricked me.
harold aptroot wrote:
Whenever those stories were first made up.
Written down. Made up is judgement on something you can not prove.
harold aptroot wrote:
it wasn't 400k years ago so there is still a huge period of time where there were people but no god (or different gods).
Again, you are mixing up when they were written down with when they either happened or were created. You have no proof of when it happened, only the latest date it could have, anything else is no more than a matter of faith to you.
harold aptroot wrote:
However, the first part (the creation) is all a lie anyway, and for that there is proof. Like C14 dating, and the light coming from distant stars that are older than the bible claims. It got the time scale all wrong, but the order is pretty much OK.
If you are a strict creationist, I agree. But God spent only a little bit of time describing it, and did not go to much detail. If He had hard described the mechanism that led to the Big Bang, I doubt it would have remained in the Bible in a decipherable manner, and God is smart enough to know that. The time scale thing is BS, and I'm not pointing it at you, but at the people who propagate it. If you go through the steps, the only part of the description that doesn't match is that the plants are created before the sun ignites. While it is possible, I don't understand it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Anyone who suggests that only a Christian can have morality is plainly very wrong.
Thanks for saying that. I've seen too many posts from right-wing fundie Christians (which I know you aren't!) in the US implying that atheists have no moral guidance to prevent them murdering, which is plainly stupid.
I think you might be misreading some of them. If someone says morals come from God, that is not the same as saying only Christians have morals. But I am only saying that some of them can't articulate the thought well. Others can't, or won't, understand it themselves, let alone express it. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Whenever those stories were first made up.
Written down. Made up is judgement on something you can not prove.
harold aptroot wrote:
it wasn't 400k years ago so there is still a huge period of time where there were people but no god (or different gods).
Again, you are mixing up when they were written down with when they either happened or were created. You have no proof of when it happened, only the latest date it could have, anything else is no more than a matter of faith to you.
harold aptroot wrote:
However, the first part (the creation) is all a lie anyway, and for that there is proof. Like C14 dating, and the light coming from distant stars that are older than the bible claims. It got the time scale all wrong, but the order is pretty much OK.
If you are a strict creationist, I agree. But God spent only a little bit of time describing it, and did not go to much detail. If He had hard described the mechanism that led to the Big Bang, I doubt it would have remained in the Bible in a decipherable manner, and God is smart enough to know that. The time scale thing is BS, and I'm not pointing it at you, but at the people who propagate it. If you go through the steps, the only part of the description that doesn't match is that the plants are created before the sun ignites. While it is possible, I don't understand it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, you are mixing up when they were written down with when they either happened or were created. You have no proof of when it happened, only the latest date it could have, anything else is no more than a matter of faith to you.
I am not. Regardless of what date the bible has in mind for the creation (it doesn't actually set a data, but whatever), fact (the bible isn't over 400k years old, humans are) is that it was written much later than when there were first humans walking the earth. For thousands of years people were roaming the earth, praying to other gods, and then one day the christian god decides to make his presence known. Ok, fine (we can't understand his actions and all that*), but that's also what other gods did (or such is claimed by their believers). How is this one any different? Is he any more believable than the other gods, just because he's the newest? That, is what I meant. Or let me put it this way, why do you not believe in any other gods? * which is clearly a way to wiggle out from underneath "god didn't do X so he doesn't exist" arguments, even if does turn out to be true. (who knows, right?) But that argument was never a strong one anyway.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Whenever those stories were first made up.
Written down. Made up is judgement on something you can not prove.
harold aptroot wrote:
it wasn't 400k years ago so there is still a huge period of time where there were people but no god (or different gods).
Again, you are mixing up when they were written down with when they either happened or were created. You have no proof of when it happened, only the latest date it could have, anything else is no more than a matter of faith to you.
harold aptroot wrote:
However, the first part (the creation) is all a lie anyway, and for that there is proof. Like C14 dating, and the light coming from distant stars that are older than the bible claims. It got the time scale all wrong, but the order is pretty much OK.
If you are a strict creationist, I agree. But God spent only a little bit of time describing it, and did not go to much detail. If He had hard described the mechanism that led to the Big Bang, I doubt it would have remained in the Bible in a decipherable manner, and God is smart enough to know that. The time scale thing is BS, and I'm not pointing it at you, but at the people who propagate it. If you go through the steps, the only part of the description that doesn't match is that the plants are created before the sun ignites. While it is possible, I don't understand it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Written down. Made up is judgement on something you can not prove.
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course. But someone wrote it down and there is no guarantee that he did so correctly, in fact even the claim that it was inspired by god in the first place is in the text itself, making it a circular argument. This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made. I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, you are mixing up when they were written down with when they either happened or were created. You have no proof of when it happened, only the latest date it could have, anything else is no more than a matter of faith to you.
I am not. Regardless of what date the bible has in mind for the creation (it doesn't actually set a data, but whatever), fact (the bible isn't over 400k years old, humans are) is that it was written much later than when there were first humans walking the earth. For thousands of years people were roaming the earth, praying to other gods, and then one day the christian god decides to make his presence known. Ok, fine (we can't understand his actions and all that*), but that's also what other gods did (or such is claimed by their believers). How is this one any different? Is he any more believable than the other gods, just because he's the newest? That, is what I meant. Or let me put it this way, why do you not believe in any other gods? * which is clearly a way to wiggle out from underneath "god didn't do X so he doesn't exist" arguments, even if does turn out to be true. (who knows, right?) But that argument was never a strong one anyway.
Datum is singular, data is plural - not hassling you about it, correcting you. But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out. And you are still showing that you are mistaking: ..the date of the writing with ..the date when the stuff written about happened. The Bible implies that it was written well after what happened in most of the Pentitude, which was most likely written by Moses. It talks about revelation prior to it's writing. It talks about revelation to Adam and Eve, Noah and others, well before Moses. It contains oral history, I understand you take that with a pound of salt. But if it does go back to Adam and Eve, then it goes back to the origins of humanity. Which I believe was a mutation that allowed some form of spirituality, and which explains how there were others out there for Adam and Eve's children to marry. The gene may have been dominant, once mutated, and spread rapidly through the hominid population. So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC. Why do I think He is different from other Gods? He was not created, He is creator. That is a big one for me, as it has to do with how the universe got here, because why I'm here has to be contained in that. Zeus, for instance, had a creator, and was created within the confines of space time. This also washes out most purported gods and minor spirits. Consistency over time (though I bet you don't believe that :) ) something 'larger' than space-time, who is able to view all of space-time at once, can not change during space time. Though I do see some contradictions (election and choice, which I don't understand, but can sort of rationalize), I have not found inconsistencies that happen over time that are unresolvable with some analysis. I also know I don't know the whole thing, and may have missed parts. High standards - requires perfection, which is something that happens to resonate with my personality, even though I know I can not be. Not positive why I think the creator should demand perfection, but I do. Could be cultural, could be my Dad's influence, could be a faulty gene. A willingness to take the hard road, to be willing to met out correction in this world to guide us to the right answer for the long haul. All the bad stuff that can happen to us here on earth is squat c
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Written down. Made up is judgement on something you can not prove.
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course. But someone wrote it down and there is no guarantee that he did so correctly, in fact even the claim that it was inspired by god in the first place is in the text itself, making it a circular argument. This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made. I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
harold aptroot wrote:
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course.
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth. The neutral argument, the one that doesn't require proof, is 'I don't know if it is true or not'.
harold aptroot wrote:
This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made.
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not. :laugh: No, point not made.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
I've known people who claim to take it entirely literally, but it usually does not take a long time for them get to the point where 'a week means seven years', or something else. :laugh: I find this is usually not taken well. I know argument does not convince people, and proving someone wrong just ticks them off. But it is so much fun!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Datum is singular, data is plural - not hassling you about it, correcting you. But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out. And you are still showing that you are mistaking: ..the date of the writing with ..the date when the stuff written about happened. The Bible implies that it was written well after what happened in most of the Pentitude, which was most likely written by Moses. It talks about revelation prior to it's writing. It talks about revelation to Adam and Eve, Noah and others, well before Moses. It contains oral history, I understand you take that with a pound of salt. But if it does go back to Adam and Eve, then it goes back to the origins of humanity. Which I believe was a mutation that allowed some form of spirituality, and which explains how there were others out there for Adam and Eve's children to marry. The gene may have been dominant, once mutated, and spread rapidly through the hominid population. So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC. Why do I think He is different from other Gods? He was not created, He is creator. That is a big one for me, as it has to do with how the universe got here, because why I'm here has to be contained in that. Zeus, for instance, had a creator, and was created within the confines of space time. This also washes out most purported gods and minor spirits. Consistency over time (though I bet you don't believe that :) ) something 'larger' than space-time, who is able to view all of space-time at once, can not change during space time. Though I do see some contradictions (election and choice, which I don't understand, but can sort of rationalize), I have not found inconsistencies that happen over time that are unresolvable with some analysis. I also know I don't know the whole thing, and may have missed parts. High standards - requires perfection, which is something that happens to resonate with my personality, even though I know I can not be. Not positive why I think the creator should demand perfection, but I do. Could be cultural, could be my Dad's influence, could be a faulty gene. A willingness to take the hard road, to be willing to met out correction in this world to guide us to the right answer for the long haul. All the bad stuff that can happen to us here on earth is squat c
IIRC the Greek gods were descendants of Gaia, who "just exists" (like god, I guess)
RichardM1 wrote:
But what you are saying is sort of the same as saying General Relativity wasn't an apt description of space-time until after Einstein wrote it. It was, and would continue to be, even if no one ever figured it out.
Yes, and I'm saying it to make it sound ridiculous. God was not known to man until, well, choose your year - before that we were simply wrong? It's not entirely impossible.. just weird. It's a god we're talking about, he could have made his presence known at any moment.
RichardM1 wrote:
So, He clearly is not the newest, even by your measure, as Allah was not written about until the 7th century, IIRC.
So be it. Why don't you believe in Allah then? He's the "newer insight", maybe he is the real god? (why wouldn't he be?)
RichardM1 wrote:
So, why are you so vehemently opposed to there being a God, when you do not, can not, know if it is true or not? Up until you die, and maybe not then. It is not a very skeptical way to approach it. Skepticism requires it be applied to both unprovable arguments.
I never claimed to be a skeptic.. I am especially opposed to the christian god, you know, the one who created man after his own image and is supposed to care about what people do down here. I think this is a highly arrogant notion, ascribing far too much importance to our species, probably out of a sense of self-importance. We're not all that special. And I'm opposed to a non-physical magical being cable of thought. How would that work? It can't have a brain. And magic, if it exists at all, can not violate the laws of physics, because nothing can - how did god what he did? I am not so much opposed to calling something else "god" just to give it a name, for example "the thing that makes the quantum choices" (if there is such a thing - it's just an example) or "time itself" I also believe that everything is irrelevant - everything. Suppose you destroy the entire universe, so what? It doesn't actually matter. That is a belief, of course (and therefore bullshit), but I got there through thought-experiments and not by taking the contents of a poorly translated book seriously.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You can not prove that it wasn't made up, either. It was definitely written down, of course.
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth. The neutral argument, the one that doesn't require proof, is 'I don't know if it is true or not'.
harold aptroot wrote:
This post was inspired by god as well. And that's the truth - because I was inspired by god. Point made.
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not. :laugh: No, point not made.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm glad that you don't take the bible completely literally though, for such people there isn't much hope.
I've known people who claim to take it entirely literally, but it usually does not take a long time for them get to the point where 'a week means seven years', or something else. :laugh: I find this is usually not taken well. I know argument does not convince people, and proving someone wrong just ticks them off. But it is so much fun!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you are able to collect a set of literature that is internally consistent, and consistent with reality, and written by many authors over the space of 2000 years, I may start to believe it was inspired, whether you knew it or not.
It is not internally consistent, there are even whole sites[^] about that. Also, they could have made it so that it was consistent. Making something consistent with reality is easy enough, just mix history with some "impossible to prove" things.
RichardM1 wrote:
Claiming it was made up requires just as much proof as saying it is truth.
Actually no. This is why scientific experiments have to be repeatable - if something is not verifiable, it has no value. The existence of god is (so far, anyway) not verifiable. Try submitting a paper about a non-repeatable experiment for review, and tell them that they can not prove that you were wrong.. Anyway, by your logic you (and me) would have to be agnostic yourself, and apparently you aren't, so what's up with that?