Many atheists use the book 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins as a supposedly 'evidence based' foundation for their belief that God does not exist. In it Dawkins argues that you can measure the probability that God exists and that it is close to zero. However, his entire argument rests on assumptions about what the world would be like if God really did exist. It is a lengthy and convoluted, though no less juvenile version of the familar argument 'if God exists, why do bad things happen.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is an argument for the improbability of the existence of God. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 "Why there almost certainly is no God" of his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins offers it as a counter-argument to the modern form of the argument from design.

Contents [hide]
1 Context and history of the argument
2 Dawkins' statement of the argument
2.1 Dawkins' response to criticism
3 Assessment and criticism of the argument
3.1 On the simplicity of God and materialist assumptions
3.2 On the necessity of external explanations
4 References



[edit] Context and history of the argument
Richard Dawkins begins The God Delusion by making it clear that the God he talks about is the Abrahamic concept of a personal god who is susceptible to worship. He considers the existence of such an entity to be a scientific question, because a universe with such a god would be significantly different from a universe without one, and he says that the difference would be empirically discernible. Therefore, Dawkins concludes, the same kind of rational reasoning can be applied to the God Hypothesis as to any other scientific question.

After discussing the most common arguments for the existence of God in chapter 3, Dawkins concludes that the argument from design is the most convincing. The extreme improbability of life and a universe capable of hosting it requires explanation, but Dawkins considers the God Hypothesis inferior to evolution by natural selection as explanations for the complexity of life. As part of his efforts to refute intelligent design creationism, he redirects the argument from complexity in an attempt to show that God must have been designed by a superintelligent designer, and then goes on to present his probabilistic argument against the existence of God.[1]

Dawkins' name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. This is an allusion to Hoyle's fallacy. Fred Hoyle reportedly stated that the "probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."[2] The basic argument against empirical theism dates back at least to David Hume, whose objection can be popularly stated as "Who designed the designer?", but according to Daniel Dennett the innovation of Dawkins' argument is, first, to show that where design fails to explain complexity, evolution by natural selection succeeds and is the only workable solution, and, second, to argue how this should illuminate the confusion surrounding the anthropic principle.[3]


[edit] Dawkins' statement of the argument
Dawkins summarizes his argument as follows.[4] The references to "crane" and "skyhook" are ideas from Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.
We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.

We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
A central thesis of the argument is that evolution by natural selection is a simpler and more parsimonious explanation of the complexity observed in the biosphere than the God Hypothesis. He cites a paragraph where Richard Swinburne reasons that theism is parsimonious because it only invokes a single substance, God, as a cause and maintainer of every other object. This cause is seen as omnipotent, omniscient and totally free. Dawkins believes postulating such an entity doesn't explain anything and usurps the role of science. He suggests that an entity that controls every atom and listens to all our prayers cannot be something simple, and his existence would require a "mammoth explanation" of its own.[5]

Dawkins then turns to a discussion of Keith Ward's views on divine simplicity to show the difficulty "the theological mind has in grasping where the complexity of life comes from." Dawkins writes that Ward is sceptical of Arthur Peacocke's ideas that evolution is directed by other forces than only natural selection and that these processes may have a propensity toward increasing complexity. Dawkins says that this scepticism is justified, because complexity doesn't come from biased mutations. Dawkins writes:

[Natural selection], as far as we know, is the only process ultimately capable of generating complexity out of simplicity. The theory of natural selection is genuinely simple. So is the origin from which it starts. That which it explains, on the other hand, is complex almost beyond telling: more complex than anything we can imagine, save a God capable of designing it.[6]


[edit] Dawkins' response to criticism
Dawkins writes about his attendance at a conference in Cambridge sponsored by the Templeton Foundation,[6] where he challenged the theologians present to respond to the argument that a creator of a universe with such complexity would have to be complex and improbable.[7] According to Dawkins, the strongest response was the objection that he was imposing a scientific epistemology on a question that lies beyond the realm of science. When theologians hold God to be simple, who is a scientist like Dawkins "to dictate to theologians that their God had to be complex?"[8] Dawkins writes that he didn't get the impression that those employing this "evasive" defence were being wilfully dishonest, but were "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."[8]

The theologians, he writes, demanded that there must be a first cause, which can be given the name God. Dawkins responds that it must have been a simple cause, and he contends that God is not an appropriate name for it, unless God is divested of its normal associations. Dawkins wants the first cause to be a "self-bootstrapping crane" that slowly lifts the world to its current complexity. Postulating a prime mover that is capable of indulging in intelligent design is in Dawkins' opinion "a total abdication of the responsibility to find an explanation." He says that he doesn't require a narrowly scientific explanation, but what any honest theory that accounts for the complex phenomena of the natural world requires is a crane and not a skyhook.[9]


[edit] Assessment and criticism of the argument
Theist authors have presented extensive opposition, most notably by theologian Alister McGrath in The Dawkins Delusion?, and philosophers Alvin Plantinga[10] and Richard Swinburne.[11] Some atheists have stated that they are not impressed by the argument, most notably physicist Lawrence M. Krauss,[12] biologist and critic of intelligent design H. Allen Orr,[13] and atheist philosopher of religion Graham Oppy.[14] The review by Allen Orr has irritated certain atheists. Norman Levitt doesn't appreciate the need to defend religion, asking why theologians are assumed to have the exclusive right to write about who "rules" the universe.[15] Daniel Dennett also took exception to Orr's review and the two had an exchange of open letters.[16] The agnostic philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny also considers this argument to be flawed.[17]





[edit] On the simplicity of God and materialist assumptions
Both Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne raise the objections that God is not complex. Swinburne gives two reasons why a God that controls every particle can be simple. First, he writes that a person is not the same as his brain, and he points to split-brain experiments that he has discussed in his previous work, thus he argues that a simple entity like our self can control our brain, which is a very complex thing. Second, he argues that simplicity is a quality that is intrinsic to a hypothesis, and not related to its empirical consequences.[11]

Plantinga cites Dawkins' definition from the The Blind Watchmaker that something is complex when it has parts that are arranged in way that's unlikely to happen by chance. He argues that since God is a spirit and not a material object, He has no parts, and is simple by Dawkins' own definition. Dawkins is therefore assuming materialism, Plantinga argues, and since it immediately follows from materialism that God does not exist, he considers the argument to be question begging.[10]


[edit] On the necessity of external explanations
There are many variations on how to express this objection. Allen Orr writes that just because a hypothesis seems unsatisfactory to a scientist and fails to provide an explanation outside itself, it does not settle the truth-value of the issue. He says that the kinds of explanation that one finds satisfying is a subjective matter that "says more about us than about the explanations", so he asks why Dawkins is not troubled by the assumptions that the scientist is making, namely that matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given, and why this is not seen as equally question-begging.[13]

William F. Vallicella holds that organized complexity as such does not need explanation, because when in search of an ultimate explanation, one must in the end accept an entity whose complexity has no external explanation.[18] And Plantinga writes that when not in search for an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, it is perfectly fine to explain one kind of complexity, that of terrestrial life, in terms of another kind of complexity, namely divine activity.[10]

Alister McGrath suggests that the leap from the recognition of complexity to the assertion of improbability is problematic, as a theory of everything would be more complex than the theories it would replace, yet one would not conclude that it is less probable. He then argues that probability is not relevant to the question of existence: life on earth is highly improbable, and yet we do exist. The important question in his view is not whether God is probable, but whether God is actual.[19] On the point of probability, Alvin Plantinga says that since according to classical theism, God is a necessary being, He is by definition maximally probable, and thus to show the improbability of God, one has to present an argument showing that there is no necessary being with the qualities attributed to God.[10]


[edit] References
^ Michael Shermer (2007-01-26). "Arguing for Atheism". Science 315 (5811). Retrieved on 2007-03-15.  Also available here, second review on page.
^ The God Delusion, p. 113
^ Daniel Dennett (2006-10-16). "Review of Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion". Free Inquiry 27 (1). Retrieved on 2006-12-05.  
^ The God Delusion, p. 157–8
^ The God Delusion, p. 147–149
^ a b The God Delusion, p. 151
^ The God Delusion, p. 153
^ a b The God Delusion, p. 154
^ The God Delusion, p. 155
^ a b c d Alvin Plantinga (2007). The Dawkins Confusion — Naturalism ad absurdum. Books & Culture, a Christian Review. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
^ a b Swinburne, Richard. Response to Richard Dawkins’s comments on my writings in his book The God Delusion. Retrieved on 2007-03-22.
^ Lawrence M. Krauss. Sermons and straw men.. The Official Richard Dawkins Website. Retrieved on 2006-11-06. Krauss believes that instead of attacking religion and telling people what to believe, one should focus on "positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful".
^ a b H. Allen Orr (January 2007). "A Mission to Convert". New York Review of Books (54.1). Retrieved on 2007-03-03.  Throughout his book reviews on the topics of science and religion, he defends the principle of non-overlapping magisteria. His own view is a modest atheism: "I don't pretend to know whether there's more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins's general conclusion is right."
^ Graham, Oppy. Amazon blog post. Retrieved on 2007-03-22.. Oppy shares Dawkins' view that the probability of God is close to zero, but he doesn't think any of the current arguments can "persuade everyone else on the planet to assign the same (very low) credence to that claim."
^ Norman Levitt (2007-01-31). What a Friend We Have in Dawkins. Retrieved on 2007-03-19.
^ The full exchange of open letters is in Edge
^ Anthony Kenny 2007 Presidential Royal Institute of PhilosophyAnnual Lecture, Published in Philosophy Volume 82 number 321 July 2007 pp381-397
^ Vallicella's discussion with Wielenberg is here
^ The Dawkins Delusion?, pp. 24–25

For most atheists it is this simple:

1 Theist makes a positive claim that god exists.

2 Atheist ask for evidence

3 Theist provides unconvincing evidence

4 Atheist rejects the positive claim

Thus untill such time convincing, unemotional, objective evidence is provided, an atheist will lack belief in the god concepts put forward by religion.

scatterbrains :- Thanks for the succinct abbreviation.
Well done.

According to my dictionary

1/  Athiest - Disbelief in the existance of a diety

2/ Agnostic - Of the view that nothing is or can be known of a God or anything but material phenomena

Oxford pocket dictionary

What happened to your post Sprint?

Welcome to OzPolitic Scatterbrains. Good to see you getting stuck into it.

I think Sprint is right. What you describe is agnosticism, not atheism.

thanks FD, I must have leaned on the enter button.

I have more time for athiests than agnostics.

Athiest have taken a stand, made a decision.
agnostrics are all logical/theoretical and boring. Really sitting on the fence.

Don't you think that theists have a better risk management policy?

I got no idea what you mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

I generally don't go to links or read huge amounts of cut and pastes either.
Tell me in your words

If you believe in God and are wrong you lose nothing, if you are right you gain everything. If you don't believe you either gain nothing or lose everything.

That's a nice thought.  

I see it another way but sure do see your point of view.

Ah, I suppose there is a HUGE difference between "believing in God" and becoming a christian/jew/hindu/muslim.


If someone does not believe in God, they have it easy.
"You will be judged by what you have been given"
The disbelievers were not given faith.  Will be judged on that basis.
They are probably still "good" people.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 15^th, 2007 at 12:15pm:

That's a nice thought.   I see it another way but sure do see your point of view. Ah, I suppose there is a HUGE difference between "believing in God" and becoming a christian/jew/hindu/muslim. If someone does not believe in God, they have it easy. "You will be judged by what you have been given" The disbelievers were not given faith.  Will be judged on that basis. They are probably still "good" people.

however if you were shown the truth and amply rejected it most probly due to selfishness then your own self inflicted fate will be worse than anyones.

Sometimes I'm really not sure what kind of atheist Dawkins is. In his "God vs Science" debate with Francis Collins he seemed to make a concession:


Quote:

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed. (emphases added)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-9,00.html

Dawkins is mainly anti-religion. Note the second bold portion of his statement. "If" there is a God? Maybe he's more open to this than some of us think. He just doesn't like the Christian God.

Ray - that's a great posting.
In ways I agree with Dawkins and yourself.  
God is bigger than a "religion". God is Spiritual.

He is ... bigger than a "religion."


"He replied, "Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding."
Judges 13:18

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 15^th, 2007 at 10:44am:

I have more time for athiests than agnostics. Athiest have taken a stand, made a decision. agnostrics are all logical/theoretical and boring. Really sitting on the fence.

What about Atheists who happen to be Agnostics?  :P

An Atheist has taken a position on his personal belief, but can still be an agnostic in that he doesn't know for sure that his belief is correct or not. To know and to believe are two different things. I can believe that somebody has sent a cheque in the mail, but I won't know it for sure until I get some evidence.

Strictly speaking you can get Agnostic Christians too.  That would apply to most of them, except for loud mouthed American TV Evangelists, who are probably Atheists.

wrote on Feb 19^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

What about Atheists who happen to be Agnostics?  :P An Atheist has taken a position on his personal belief, but can still be an agnostic in that he doesn't know for sure that his belief is correct or not. To know and to believe are two different things. I can believe that somebody has sent a cheque in the mail, but I won't know it for sure until I get some evidence.

There are agnostic-atheists, and agnostic-theists. There isn't really a contradiction here. Agnostic-atheists are not so sure there isn't a God. Agnostic-theists believe, or are open to belief,  to some degree, but without evidence. Mostly, they don't believe there's enough evidence to support God, but for their own reasons they remain open on this question.

Congratulations guys. Excellent work, you have taken the total posts for the Spiritualituy thread past the 1000 mark  !!

Just for clarification, my dictionary says
Agnostic :- is of the view that nothing is or can be known of God  or of anything but material phenomena.

Athiest :- Disbelief in the existance of a diety.


So, I'ld agree there could well be athiestic athiests.  yes, after some brain work, could see an Agnostic-theist. Not so sure on an agnostic christian/hindu/muslim/jew.


Take care  and again, thanks for the 1000 barier posting breaking !!!

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has a different definition:

ATHEISM
is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

I find that 'interesting' to put it mildly, and I'm not sure if I agree with it. (But they're atheists, so I guess they ought to know how to define themselves) By that definition you can actually have a Christian Atheist. A Christian who accepts that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, but believes in God through faith. (Faith is defined as belief without evidence.)

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/

If you really get into semantics, I certainly believe that God exists as a psychological phenomenon. If you get into even more semantics, I don't find the concept of 'God of the Gaps' or Deism to be totally at odds with my worldview, but there are just two many historical errors, contradictions and revisions in traditional Abrahimic religions to give them any kind of credibility for me. As I tried to explain before, I've put the whole concept of atheism behind me, because it's something that will never be resolved. What's important for me is rational clear thinking, striving for good health, peak fitness, self improvement, getting along with the rest of humanity, and trying to see both sides of the argument.  

What's also important is that other people are different from me, because variety is the spice of life, and we can learn from differences if we just open our minds.  

That atheist foundation are a very strange bunch. The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are broadly accepted and can be found in just about any dictionary, so you'd think they'd know. Yet they define atheism the way everyone else defines agnosticism. I went on their forum a while back and gave my views on atheism and the difference between atheism and agnosticism did come up. I suspect they have put up that difinition since then. Either that or it just didn't accur to me that they had it so wrong. At first one of the moderators and a few members encouraged me to express my views on the issue, but then some of them got quit upset about it all and tried various underhanded techniques to get me to leave. They resorted to invading my privacy to the extent it was possible for them to do so. This wasn't just the members, it was a moderator who insisted there was nothing wrong with it. When I pointed this behaviour out to a few of the other members, they banned me without explanation, even though they had been posting what they thought was personal information about me where all of those members could see what they were up to. Any website owner who thinks it is reasonable to seek out personal information about users or make it publicly available against their wishes has a few screws loose. Using it to try to censor people is just nasty.

Do not go to the atheist foundation website unless you agree with everything they say or you know how websites can gather information about you and are prepared to have it made public.

Musician -  Our word definitions are getting a bit confusing for me.
I agree that you could have a christian who believes there is no scientific or factual proof of God.

From my vague memory, that is what is said in the Bible.  God is unproveable, a mystery.

"getting along with the rest of humanity" sounds a winner to me.



freediver - I have had a similar experience in another room recently.
They are openminded, if we agree 100% with them.  Very scary and quite disappointing.

In a court of law all you need is witnesses to prove something, and there is ample proof of the existence of god through eye witness accounts.

food for thought.

For that matter, there is ample proof that Elvis still lives, but I doubt if you could prove either in a Court of Law.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 8:29pm:

For that matter, there is ample proof that Elvis still lives, but I doubt if you could prove either in a Court of Law.

significantly more for god though :)

This is an interesting thread. I still disagree with Musician's contention that no firm distinction can be made between atheism and agnosticism. I will concede that agnostics may lean towards deism or atheism in varying degrees; and all may fall within the broad category of atheists insofar as they reject the views of the theists, who claim to know at least something of the nature of the God they worship. But true atheists are as fundamentalist in their beliefs as the most rabid Islamists, Christians or Jews. Agnostics, on the other hand, remain forever open to alternative views.

Sprintcyclist prefers people who don't sit on the fence. Well, OK. Coming down firmly on one side or the other saves us the trouble of thinking about things, I guess. Personally, I quite like to think about things.

It is reassuring to learn from Ray_A that Dawkins is not so fundamentalist an atheist as I thought, though from what I have read of him he seems to be. I heard him on radio not long ago putting forward one of his straw-man arguments in favour of his devotion to evolution theory. Moths are attracted to a candle and burn, he said, because moths have existed longer than candles. Hello? Moths evolved before fire, Richard? Pull yourself together, Sunshine.

Freediver's risk management policy is an amusing concept. It raises the question, though, as to what kind of God would be impressed by devotion based on such self-serving motivation. Whatever the nature of the God who might have created us, He built into us powers of reason, and propensity to doubt. That is what separates us from the animals. Is truer devotion not reflected in our exercising our powers of reason?

Only the nature of the God of Abraham can be reflected in Pender's response to Sprintcyclist's interpretation of scripture. If that is God's attitude, He can go and get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.

For those open to the idea of deeper truths being found in fiction, consider the short story from Franz Kafka, about dogs (I can't remember its name). It is a story from the dogs' point of view. In it, the dogs are unaware of the presence of people, except by the results of their actions. They cannot see people at all. Food for them to eat appears out of nowhere. The lap dogs among them are suspended in mid-air, a couple of feet from the ground. The dogs' existence in the world is an unfathomable mystery to them; but they go about their doggie business unperturbed.

Perhaps that story's dogs enjoy a relationship with their people in some way equivalent to the humans' relationship with God.

That's not a strawman crac.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

Your post would be a bit easier to follow if you quoted some of the comments you are responding to. I have no idea which of pender's comments you mean.

Cracticus wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 2:48pm:

It is reassuring to learn from Ray_A that Dawkins is not so fundamentalist an atheist as I thought, though from what I have read of him he seems to be. I heard him on radio not long ago putting forward one of his straw-man arguments in favour of his devotion to evolution theory. Moths are attracted to a candle and burn, he said, because moths have existed longer than candles. Hello? Moths evolved before fire, Richard? Pull yourself together, Sunshine.

Dawkins tends to speak to his audience. He made a concession to Francis Collins that the idea of God is a "noble one", but in other places he ridicules the idea.

So he bends like a reed in the current?

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 3:28pm:

So he bends like a reed in the current?

Not necessarily "like a reed", but he does bend somewhat. Why would anyone call a book The God Delusion, and make God out to be a tyrant, and proactively encourage atheism, then in the next breath say that "the idea of God is a noble one"?

I wouldn't call him a hypocrite - just has flaws and inconsistencies like all of us. And maybe at 3am he does ask himself some searching questions.

I've never read the book, but does he really "make God out to be a tyrant" ? I didn't think he believed in God. I always thought he was one of those miltant atheists. Maybe I should read it.

wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 7:04am:

I've never read the book, but does he really "make God out to be a tyrant" ? I didn't think he believed in God. I always thought he was one of those miltant atheists. Maybe I should read it.

I'll just quote you page 31:


Quote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, magalomaniac, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

You have to bear in mind that three world religions sprang from the Old Testament, or an OT basis: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This isn't entirely fair. Proverbs, Psalms and Ecclesiastes aren't violent books, nor are many of the major prophets. Most of the violence is confined to the early books, and Isaiah is considered by many scholars to be "the fifth gospel". The New Testament isn't violent, yet its primary basis lies in the Old Testament. Most of the teachings of Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. Consider Leviticus 19:18:


Quote:

'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Or 19:34:


Quote:

The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 2:59pm:

That's not a strawman crac. http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman Your post would be a bit easier to follow if you quoted some of the comments you are responding to. I have no idea which of pender's comments you mean.

Yes it is, Freed. the straw man argument in this case is in setting up a hypothesis of (Dawkins') own making, attributing it to opponents of his own hypothesis, and then demolishing it to lend weight to his own argument. That is a classic example of the straw man argument.

The explicitly straw man part of his argument is the challenge (supposing it was ever mounted) to his interpretation of evolution theory: namely that a moth is drawn to its own specie's detriment to a candle flame. The hypothesis itself is silly; and his demolishment even sillier. Moths and other insects are drawn to light for a reason consistent with evolution theory, and there has been firelight in the world far longer than there have been either moths or candles. Nature, God, whatever, is demonstrably profligate, not micro-efficient.

The Pender comment to which I alluded is to the effect that those who have been exposed to Holy writ and have chosen not to accept it deserve all the suffering coming to them. I would have thought my comment clear enough, in the context of what Pender wrote, which is there for anyone to read. Cluttering up posts with multiple quotes doesn't appeal to me, so I won't be doing that.

So Dawkins' argument wasn't a strawman, but if someone used it to criticise evolution that would be a strawman. Is that what you're saying?

Ray_A wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 7:29am:

wrote on Feb 27th, 2008 at 7:04am: I've never read the book, but does he really "make God out to be a tyrant" ? I didn't think he believed in God. I always thought he was one of those miltant atheists. Maybe I should read it. I'll just quote you page 31: Quote: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, magalomaniac, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

OK. In other words, he's talking about the character of God as portrayed in the Old Testament.  I guess it sells books, but it seems a bit over the top. There is no need to insult other people's religion.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 11:54am:

So Dawkins' argument wasn't a strawman, but if someone used it to criticise evolution that would be a strawman. Is that what you're saying?

No. Dawkins' argument IS a straw man one. I read your article, so I can see you know what a straw man argument is.

in respect of the current question, I will spell it out for you.

a) Dawkins SAYS  his opponents point out to him that moths destroy themselves in candle flames, that behaviour does not contribute to the survival of their species, therefore evolution theory must be wrong.

b) Dawkins then points out that the argument (which he himself put forward, attributing it to others) is specious because moths evolved long before candles were invented. Therefore challengers of evolution theory must be wrong.

As I said, the classic straw man argument.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks. I thought the candle argument was Dawkins', which I guess doesn't make sense anyway.

Musician - he's picking the worst, biased and incorrect parts of Gods character of the OT.

There's no need to insult anothers religion, hoever one should be permitted to if one disagrees with it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 1:05pm:

Musician - he's picking the worst, biased and incorrect parts of Gods character of the OT. There's no need to insult anothers religion, hoever one should be permitted to if one disagrees with it.

One should be permitted to, sure. The problem is that it's faith. I don't see why Christianity (and recently Islam) should be the only religions to be criticised. There are thousands of other faith based religions, including one that worships Prince Phillip. The way I look at it, people should be given space to practice their religion as they see fit, unless it engages in human sacrifice or other harmful activities.

You just can't use a logical argument against faith, just as you can't use a logical argument against love. You can have two people who are totally unsuited for each other, but they are in love. Nothing anyone says will break that bond. If anything it will grow stronger.

Even Martin Luther made the famous comment -  "To be a Christian, you must "pluck out the eye of reason"

and;

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

So Dawkins is basically wasting his time. I have a concern that religion will become endangered in years to come. In my view, religion is a resource that needs to be conserved. It's a link with the past, and it enrichens our cultural heritage. (That might seem strange coming from a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural, but I think we need religious people to keep on the tradition.)

I read somewhere that Dawkins makes the comment that faith is basically belief without evidence, and then focusses on the negative aspects of action without supporting evidence. That may be strictly true, but it doesn't make it a bad thing. I know from life and sporting activities that when you're trying to achieve a personal goal, the last thing you want is evidence that says that you just can't do it. As another example, many cancer patients have totally refuted medical evidence that the are going to die in six months, and have gone into remission as a result of 'faith' either in themselves or their religions. So faith can be a very positive thing.

To me, it's the mind at work, but even if I'm right and it's just that, the mind is extremely powerful.  

The major point that Dawkins makes, in my opinion, is that there isn't a shred of evidence supporting the existence of God. Dawkins is also very critical of the Christian religion and the Bible. The Bible claims that people go to heaven or hell after they die but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that either.

How would you prove that elation exists in another person? - or depression for that matter?

Substitute God. Exactly the same deal - you'd have to take their word for it.

Maybe God is like a recession. All it takes is to believe.  ;D

Human feelings and emotions aren't proof that God exists. Belief in God isn't an emotion it's a belief. You may be able to get emotional about that belief, but it's still just a belief that doesn't have any evidence to support it.

And where's the proof that heaven and hell exists?

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

Human feelings and emotions aren't proof that God exists. Belief in God isn't an emotion it's a belief. You may be able to get emotional about that belief, but it's still just a belief that doesn't have any evidence to support it. And where's the proof that heaven and hell exists?

Revenant,

Believers [in God] are at a tremendous disadvantage.
.....the material world is apparent to all.
.....but the spirit world is not apparent to the material world.

Also, science [rightly] says,
......"If something is not apparent, then it does not exist. That is science!"




Yet those dumb Christians,
.....they still believe in God.

Duh!



Why?

I am certain that some believe, because they read the bible, and it just makes sense to them, and they have come to trust in God [and his existence].

Some believe, because he has revealed his presence to them.
[...theme from, 'The Twilight Zone', plays in the background]

Can these ppl prove this experience to others?

No.

Why not?

It is, 'the nature of the beast' [i.e. the spirit world is unprovable, in the material world].



In my experience, there is much more 'going on' in our lives, than what we can 'plainly' see.

For me, is my 'imaginary friend' [i.e. God] real?

I say, "Absolutely!"



++++++

Example.....

For some reason God revealed himself to this woman...
....[and my own experience leads me to believe her account here.]


Search for Yasmin's name in this timesonline news article.

And, don't Yasmin's *circumstances*, demonstrate her conviction, in relating this account?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article510589.ece




Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Spirit world?

Where is this place?

Just because people believe in something doesn't make it true.
A lot of people believed that Geelong was going to win the grand final

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

Human feelings and emotions aren't proof that God exists. Belief in God isn't an emotion it's a belief. You may be able to get emotional about that belief, but it's still just a belief that doesn't have any evidence to support it. And where's the proof that heaven and hell exists?

But belief in human emotions is a belief.

Are we discussing the existence of God or the existence of emotions?

We are discussing methodologies.

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:41pm:

Spirit world? Where is this place? Just because people believe in something doesn't make it true. A lot of people believed that Geelong was going to win the grand final

".......Just because people believe in something doesn't make it true."

True.



Likewise, if i experience something, and you do not, does that prove that my experience is irrelevant, or invalid???



Watch this YOUTUBE presentation....
....this is not evidence, it is just an explanation of perhaps how, ppl cannot 'sense' another dimension / reality.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4






Because you have not seen, or experienced something, is that proof, that such a reality / experience, does not exist, or is not valid???

Duh!


If you want to believe that, if you want to hold that type of position, go ahead.

:)

Yadda wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

Revenant, Believers [in God] are at a tremendous disadvantage. .....the material world is apparent to all. .....but the spirit world is not apparent to the material world. Also, science [rightly] says, ......"If something is not apparent, then it does not exist. That is science!" Yet those dumb Christians, .....they still believe in God. Duh!

I wouldn't say dumb, but certainly the belief isn't rational.


Yadda wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

I am certain that some believe, because they read the bible, and it just makes sense to them, and they have come to trust in God [and his existence].

Some people have a variety of things that "make sense to them" that does not make them credible or believable.


Yadda wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

Can these ppl prove this experience to others? No. Why not? It is, 'the nature of the beast' [i.e. the spirit world is unprovable, in the material world].

The problem is that not only is there no way to prove it, but personal experience is a poor guide to things we have no comparison mechanism.


Yadda wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

Example..... For some reason God revealed himself to this woman... ....[and my own experience leads me to believe her account here.] Search for Yasmin's name in this timesonline news article. And, don't Yasmin's *circumstances*, demonstrate her conviction, in relating this account? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article510589.ece

People will stand up for what they believe, but that doesn't make it fact.  



Yadda wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:19pm:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

How very convenient that you must first surrender reason before you can find the truth  ::)

Kytro wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

People will stand up for what they believe, but that doesn't make it fact.

true.



Kytro wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

Yadda wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 1:19pm: Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. How very convenient that you must first surrender reason before you can find the truth  ::)

Kytro,

In my experience, looking for, searching for, TRUTH is not irrational, or a surrender of reason.



For example....

Evolutionists says [claim] that creation is a fable.


But the so-called 'science' of evolution is built on a foundation of sand.....

For many decades science has *taught* that petrification [mineralisation of organic material] takes millions of years.

But it has been proved, that petrification of organic material can take place, in less than 20 years.
http://hissheep.org/evolution/proof_of_rapid_petrification.html
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5179/

Google,
rapid petrification
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=rapid+petrification&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Think of the consequences of this *fact*, on our understanding of the age of [dinosaur] fossils.


'Scientific' dating of geologic layers is a fraud....

In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome......
The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
.....the [dating] results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why?
.....the results from the different samples of the *same rock* disagree with each other.
It is clear that radioisotope dating is not....proof for millions of years of Earth history.
When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp

Google,
fossil dating a fraud
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=fossil+dating+a+fraud&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Don't you consider it perverse that [some] scientists do suppress, or ignore, evidence which could be viewed as contradictory to 'mainstream' hypothesises [e.g. evolution]?

Or that sometimes scientists will falsify evidence, because there are grants of $$$$$$, at stake.



The theory of 'Evolution' is a belief [system], er aka,  .....religion, a fable???

Every field of study has it's own set of standards for what is acceptable evidence. This does not somehow make them more or less valid, or more or less important.

Stephen Jay Ghould wrote an interesting series of books on the issue. His last one - the Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister's Pox - is an interesting account of the supposed conflict between the arts and the sciences, and the competing claims for validity.

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:41pm:

Spirit world? Where is this place?

It's on the Gold Coast, between Dreamworld and Movie World. You can get a carton of Jack Daniels for $79.99

Well Dawkins is right - for Dawkins. Like me, he doesn't believe in God. He obviously thinks that's a good thing.

I just feel a sense of loss. I envy them. Religious people seem to have a lot of fun with these round bell things er....tambourines and guitars and stuff. I have this strange urge to shave my head, put a vacant smile on my face and dance around the streets singing Hare Krishna. Of course I'd get bored with it after a day or so.

- but you've got to ask the question. For an Atheist, why is he so interested in the Christian God? Maybe he has a sense of loss too.

It's probably something that happened in his childhood.

Kytro wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

People will stand up for what they believe, but that doesn't make it fact.

True.




Kytro, i don't believe in "the fossil record",
....NOT AS PRESENTED BY 'SCIENTISTS' TODAY.

Yes, there *are* fossils being dug up.

But how can science be certain that those dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago?

All of the 'science' which supports such a hypothesis, is just another form of religious belief.
i.e. the dating of fossils, being hundreds of millions of years old, is an unproven science [it is another 'religious' belief system]

And the high priests of this 'religion' are scientists.




My contention is that, dinosaurs lived with man, before the flood.

Kytro, i concede that my assertions are just a hypothesis.


+++++


What about this 'science'?.....

"A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD THIGHBONE, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation."




Soft tissue taken from a 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD THIGHBONE of a T-rex???

Poppycock!

Google....
soft tissue t-rex
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=soft+tissue+t-rex&btnG=Google+Search&meta=


Item at the National Geographic Society site....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html


According to science, SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS.

And if you believe that, do you also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden????

What ya gonna believe???


+++++

Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 3:39pm:

Every field of study has it's own set of standards for what is acceptable evidence. This does not somehow make them more or less valid, or more or less important. Stephen Jay Ghould wrote an interesting series of books on the issue. His last one - the Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister's Pox - is an interesting account of the supposed conflict between the arts and the sciences, and the competing claims for validity.

Yeah. I'm sure there've been a great many things written by theists trying to justify why God exists despite any evidence. Man made God not the other way around and I'll continue to accept that as being a fact until I'm shown otherwise.

The debates that theists engage in about what constitutes evidence is an admission on their part that there is no evidence to support the existence of God. So therefore they actually agree with the atheists. They just don’t know it.   :D

I reminded of the saying "most Catholics don't believe in God, but they're too scared to admit it."

Ghould is not a theist and was not trying to justify anything about God. He's the guy who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibria.

I didn't say that Ghould was a theist.  

Neither did I. I guess we have something in common now.

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

The debates that theists engage in about what constitutes evidence is an admission on their part that there is no evidence to support the existence of God. So therefore they actually agree with the atheists. They just don’t know it.   :D

LOL

Yadda


:D

I didn't notice that bit. Agnostics are the ones who get hung up on evidence. Atheists have a belief that is equally lacking in evidence. That doesn't mean they 'agree' with theists.

This thread has reminded me of a post I came across awhile back. Check it out:

Too often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing a particular equivalency: theists cannot prove that god does exist and atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Frequently this comes after the theist's attempts at proof have failed and a new tactic is required.

Just frequently, this is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is something like faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

Unfortunately, the above claim is more often false than true. It relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively disproven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is indeed true that some cannot really be disproven - for example, the claim *"a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a *swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and quite conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if this is so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these proposition entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is essentially the same as disproving them.

Similarly, if someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven in the exact same way. Many atheological arguments are based upon exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

Another means of disproving propositions is a bit more complicated - it involves careful observation and testing. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both proposition can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven in theory if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and they found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is currently not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the important and specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise specific tests to look and see if such an object exists. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and that the proposition has been disproven. Note that this would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it simply means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it can be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it can exist. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then that god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

An example of this would be the common Argument from Evil - an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist at the same time as a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Thus, it is possible to prove that a god does not exist - but obviously this depends upon getting an adequate description of just what this god is and what characteristics it has. We need that in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. What happens when we don't get an adequate description?

Well, obviously atheists cannot prove that it does not exist and theists cannot prove that it does exist. However, in such a case believers have abandoned too much in the attempt to find a god which is immune to disproof. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer will have to provide substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no particular reason for anyone else to care.

Part 2

It should also be noted that arguing about how atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon a misunderstanding about atheism itself. It seems to be generally predicated upon the assumption that the atheist claims "God does not exist" and so should be expected to prove that. It should be pointed out to the theist in such cases that atheists merely fail to accept that their claim that "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer.

If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of this god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to try and construct a proof that it does not exist - or even care very much about the claim in the first place. Such an expectation is only reasonable when the atheist in question has specifically claimed that this or that god does not or cannot exist.

* I would’ve written white crow not black swan.

Source: http://boards.historychannel.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/You-Cannot-Prove/558

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology.

No it isn't. It would depend on the claimed mass.

If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and that the proposition has been disproven.

Wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, it would depend on the claimed mass. It's like saying there is an elephant in the room, prove me wrong. BTW the elephant is only 1mm high.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it can be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it can exist. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then that god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

This is basically what Dawkins did. He created a strawman then knocked it down. It is not a proof that God does not exist. It is just a proof that Dawkins' strawman definition is absurd.

Thus, it is possible to prove that a god does not exist - but obviously this depends upon getting an adequate description of just what this god is and what characteristics it has.

A God is by definition something that is ultimately unknowable. Otherwise you would be disproving the existence of a phenomenon, or a set of them. You can only disprove the existence of a god by defining that god as something ungodly. This little exercise is philosophically valueless. It is changing the definition of something to prove that it doesn't exist, like saying you can prove elephants don't exists if you define elephants as situations where 1+1=3.

It should be pointed out to the theist in such cases that atheists merely fail to accept that their claim that "God exists"

That's an agnostic. Again, he is changing the definitions tp help create an argument.

If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of this god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to try and construct a proof that it does not exist

I have only seen atheists claim it is reasonable to expect someone to prove or disprove the existence of God. They then try to construct this proof by layering rhetorical fallacies. This is the author basically saying, 'OK, I admit I cannot disprove God, but I didn't really want to anyway. Theists must now prove he does exist.'

So you admit that there's no evidence to support the claim that God exists?

My objective evidence as proof of God's existence is,
....the existence of Gods 'chosen' ppl, and the existence today of the modern state of Israel,
....and the Bible prophecies, which have directly [and accurately] described the unfolding history of Gods 'chosen' ppl.


The history of the people of Israel, has actually played out, exactly as was predicted - thousands of years ago.

This history of the people of Israel, is directly foretold in many books of the Bible, including Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and more.

Deuteronomy was written, circa 1400 BC

The promise to scatter Israel, for dishonouring their covenant with God....


Deuteronomy 28:64
"And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other;",


Deuteronomy 28:37
"And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee."

NOTE: "And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword....."
....er, heard of the expression, 'the wandering jew', the nationless ppl???


++++

And there is a promise [for Gods own purpose] to regather the people of Israel again, to their land....


Deuteronomy 30:3
"...the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee."


Isaiah 11:12
".....and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

NOTE: The specific mention of Judah [named in the verse above], which was just one of 12 tribes.
Is it significant, or just a co-incidence, that the Jews are the only 'identifiable' tribe of Israel today?


Jeremiah 31:17
"Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.......And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border."




The existence of the modern state of Israel - IS AN 'OBJECTIVE' FACT.

Does this count as 'evidence' of God???
....[i can hear the howls from here!!]
;)
;)
;)


p.s.
Many Christians today believe in 'Replacement Theology' [Google it].

I believe that 'Replacement Theology' is a false doctrine.

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:

So you admit that there's no evidence to support the claim that God exists?

The only proofs you'll find of anything are in mathematical equations that may or may not reflect our perception of reality.

Cosmologists are a bit like like the guy who listens to an orchestra and tries to whistle the sound they make.  He doesn't have a hope of getting it right.

It's totally irrelevant to try and prove that your atheist worldview is any more valid that a theist world view.

Revenant, God is a working hypothesis that Jews or Deists believe in (for example.) For faith, just read 'working hypothesis'. Same thing, different terminology.

We don't understand cosmology, but we have  current working hypotheses like String theory, Superstring theory, M-theory, F- Theory and the rest.

In reality, we're just comparing our whistle against the orchestra to see how closely it matches.   So is Stephen Hawkings, but he's a better whistler than me.

In the end, does it really matter what paradigms other people cling to in order to get through this absurd series of adventures called life?

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:

So you admit that there's no evidence to support the claim that God exists?

There is plenty of evidence. Unfortunately not everyone interprets it the same way.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:36pm:

Revenant wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 5:42pm: So you admit that there's no evidence to support the claim that God exists? There is plenty of evidence. Unfortunately not everyone interprets it the same way.

 

Just like the Bible, aye?  ;)

So what evidence is there?

Think of something.

Okay. I'm thinking of David Lynch. Now what?  Or were you supposed to guess what I was thinking?

Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! For his creation David Lynch, made in His own image, has been put here to entertain us. Surely God is most powerful if he can create such wonders from a lump of clay.

Now think of something else.

Where's the evidence to support the claim that God created David Lynch from a lump of clay?

Speaking of evidence, if I was standing on a football field (I know you love your sports metaphors) and a guy came up to me with a footy in his hand and said "I can kick this ball 100 meters" Would it be reasonable of me to expect him to provide a demonstration or would it be more reasonable for him to expect me to disprove his claim, by showing him himself not kicking the ball 100 meters?

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:46pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 8:36pm: Revenant wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 5:42pm: So you admit that there's no evidence to support the claim that God exists? There is plenty of evidence. Unfortunately not everyone interprets it the same way.   Just like the Bible, aye?  ;) So what evidence is there?

The evidence, if that is the word you isnsist on, is that you cannot think about 'existence' without the idea of god intruding into your thoughts. And this is culture unspecific.

One clue is in the OT where god is given the line: " I am that I am." What could that mean?

It means that god is being. God is a verb. God is existence, being. God - thee  am that I am - is not noun like the word God is a noun.

How can one talk about this? Being is the white noise, the buzz of all, this is the feet of the turtle going all the way down. There is nothing else to be said beyond being. Thought does not go beyond being. So god is the limit of thought.
And then we die. And so we are always hovering there with our thoughts, at that limiit of hope of I am that I am.


Try thinking the limit of being. Whatever is waiting for you at the end of that thought of Being is being that is 'am'ness.

I should preface my comments by saying that I have never read any of Dawkins works, but I have seen him interviewed a few times, and all I have heard said by him, has been self evident to myself and hundreds of thousands of people before me, certainly nothing revolutionary, but he has promoted it well.

As for the title, god delusion, well that is perfect, because all who claim a personal relationship with god, as if he is some separate sentient being, are delusional.

All you need do to verify this fact is change the word god, to "my invisible master".

Dawkins has no problem with god, for how can you have a problem with an imaginary concept?

Dawkins has a problem with people who claim to believe in god, not because they make that claim, but because of what they demand, because they make that claim.

Now like most atheists, I could not care less if they want to hang around staring at statues of some old hippie being tortured, but I do care that they think they have the right to demand I respect their beliefs.

Well sorry to disappoint, but as they say, it will be a cold day "somewhere?", before that happens.

I am disgusted at their notions that morality is only available through religion.

I am repulsed by their assertion that if you don't join their club you will be tortured for all eternity.

But the thing I most dislike about religion, is that it seeks to diminish the value of human life.

All the talk of life as just your entrance exam to heaven is what saddens me most, to see people devalue their one and only existence, as if this life, and this world, are unimportant, and I think this fact is why we witness so much evil done in the name of religion, for they have lost the true connection to their lives, and their fellow humans, and instead chosen to follow a delusion.

Do you want evidence that God exists.

Here you go....

http://www.innovationwatch.com/deepchange/books/bks_1402735227.htm

The divine proportion...there is no way that the numerous occurances of this occuring in nature and science, could of possibly occurred by chance?

It is evidence that the universe was created...by a creator.

Wanna see me pull a rabbit out of my hat?

No!

Well what about a hare(hair) out of my..........., you know the rest.

I am more impressed by mountain tent pegs, thanks all the same.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 10:18pm:

Wanna see me pull a rabbit out of my hat? No! Well what about a hare(hair) out of my..........., you know the rest. I am more impressed by mountain tent pegs, thanks all the same.

"This is the Book; in it is guidance sure without doubt to those who fear Allah.
Who believe in the Unseen are steadfast in prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them.
nd who believe in the Revelation sent to thee and sent before thy time and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
They are on (true) guidance from their Lord and it is these who will prosper.
As to those who reject Faith it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" but they do not (really) believe.
Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe but they only deceive themselves and realize (it) not!
In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease and grievous is the penalty they (incur) because they are false (to themselves).
When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth" they say: "Why we only want to make peace!"
Of a surety they are the ones who make mischief but they realize (it) not.
When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe" they say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" nay of a surety they are the fools buy they do not know.
When they meet those who believe they say: "We believe" but when they are alone with their evil ones they say: "We are really with you we (were) only jesting."
Allah will throw back their mockery on them and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will wander like blind ones (to and fro).
These are they who have bartered guidance for error: but their traffic is profitless and they have lost true direction.
Their similitude is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness so they could not see.
Deaf dumb and blind they will not return (to the path)."

So if I have a black out, then I should ring Allah?
I usually just call the energy company.
But you make sure you keep those 15 watts burning.
Sorry Lestat, you are brainwashed. (On the "delicates cycle")

Lestat wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 10:03pm:

Do you want evidence that God exists. Here you go.... http://www.innovationwatch.com/deepchange/books/bks_1402735227.htm The divine proportion...there is no way that the numerous occurances of this occuring in nature and science, could of possibly occurred by chance? It is evidence that the universe was created...by a creator.

There are plenty of occurrences of other constants in science and nature that are independent of Phi,
http://www.ebyte.it/library/educards/constants/ConstantsOfPhysicsAndMath.html

Assuming that they are there not by chance then they evidence that there were many independent creators. Either that or the assumption of non chance is wrong the same as with Phi.

Looking for meaning in life is like looking for patterns in clouds or sand grains. Some people are good at it. They can look at a cloud and see a hand. They can look at some sand grains and see a cow. They can 'look at the stars' and see Jehovah or Allah. It's part of being human.

We all need meaning in life.

Roll up roll up, get yer religion here!
We have 42 delicious flavours to choose from. Each one guaranteed to quench your thirst for spirituality.

Why not choose the one you know? The one your ancestors chose? At least you're familiar with it. Best to keep with the ancestors. In some cases it might be dangerous to do anything else.

Crazy isn't it? Unless you're one of the initiated ones.

The way of a materialist is to look at clouds and see the weather patterns, to look at sand and see zircon, rutile and concrete, to look at stars and to see Helium 3 and places to colonise.
Is it practical and earthly or idealistic and divine?

Where's the evidence to support the claim that God created David Lynch from a lump of clay?

David Lynch is the evidence. Like I said, it's not the eivdence that people differ on, but the interpretation of it. You cannot dissect one paradigm with the contructs of another.

Dawkins has no problem with god, for how can you have a problem with an imaginary concept?

Then why would he embarrass himself with his absurd little 'proof' that God does not exist? He would have to really want to prove that God doesn't exist to go that far out on a limb. It's like he thinks his ideology is worth lying for.

What is the word for being anti-religious?

Personally, I couldn't care less that people have a perception of what God is or isn't. I'm even interested to know their perceptions on the subject.
What does bother me though, is that some people think that they know what he (it's usually referred to as "he" isn't it?) said, and they also profess to know the instructions that he gave mankind.
I hear this type of talk practically every day, and I see different religions and their sects arguing about God's truth.
So if an theist doesn't believe in deities, a theist does, and an agnostic is open to possibilities, then what do you call somebody who doesn't believe in religion?

I found an interesting concept of the beliefs in Gods in a book called:
"The origins of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind, by Julian Jaynes".

I haven't read this book in it's entirety; it's a mighty big read, and not an easy one at that.

In a nutshell, it concerns the rise of consciousness over the past few thousand years and an ever diminishing requirement for direction from Gods due to the way in which we use our minds.

There are plenty of reviews around on this book as it still remains to be a controversial one.
Here's a few comments on it:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22478.The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind

it concerns the rise of consciousness over the past few thousand years

You mean like, since the flood?

I'm still waiting to hear about the evidence that supports the claim that God exists. Either present the evidence or admit that there isn't any.

Quote:

You mean like, since the flood?

What flood?  :-?

I was just having a jibe at you over your statement about consciousness arising over the last few thousand years.

I know  ::)

Revenant wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 10:16am:

I'm still waiting to hear about the evidence that supports the claim that God exists. Either present the evidence or admit that there isn't any.

There is no conclusive evidence that supports the claim that God exists as there is no conclusive evidence that supports the claim that God does not exists. This is like two opposite sides of the same coin.
But what is the real value of such coin, what can you buy for it? TITQ  

If there's no evidence to prove the existence of God and therefore no evidence to prove what "its" will for you is, then how is it relevant?

Revenant wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 11:34am:

If there's no evidence to prove the existence of God and therefore no evidence to prove what "its" will for you is, then how is it relevant?

It's not the evidence of existence that "will" something for you but the belief. On another hand the evidence of non existence aren't any better then other side of coin but what is practical use of disbelief?

tallowood wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 11:52am:

Revenant wrote on Oct 18th, 2008 at 11:34am: If there's no evidence to prove the existence of God and therefore no evidence to prove what "its" will for you is, then how is it relevant? It's not the evidence of existence that "will" something for you but the belief. On another hand the evidence of non existence aren't any better then other side of coin but what is practical use of disbelief?

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say, Tallowood.

I did respond to you revenant.

What? That line about David Lynch being evidence of God's existence?

Yes. And the bit about trying to analyse one paradigm with the constructs of another.

I just got the Dawkins book, but I might wait for the audio book to come through - 'cause I'm lazy  ;D

Nevermind

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Yes. And the bit about trying to analyse one paradigm with the constructs of another.

So what constructs do you analyse the God paradigm with?

Revenant wrote on Oct 18^th, 2008 at 10:16am:

I'm still waiting to hear about the evidence that supports the claim that God exists. Either present the evidence or admit that there isn't any.

The plain and empirical evidence of god's existence is the existence and vitality of the jews in the face of deep hatred from all quarters and from the start.

Christians may doubt the existence of Christ or they may think of him as symbol of Man who has now disappered from the world but they cannot doubt the existence of the jews. Their existence is surety, in a way and to some extent, for the truth of Christianity

When Frederick the Great of Prussia asked his pastor for proof of god's existence and the truth of Christianity, the pastor argued conclusively when he answered: "Your majesty, the Jews!"

Revenant wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 11:41am:

freediver wrote on Oct 18th, 2008 at 6:13pm: Yes. And the bit about trying to analyse one paradigm with the constructs of another. So what constructs do you analyse the God paradigm with?

You don't 'analyse' a paradigm. You try it out and see how it works. Even in science that's what happens. There is no objective measure of the value of competing paradigms, except for the number of people who prefer it.

It beats me why militant Atheists keep asking this inane question in Internet forums. "Show me proof that God exists?"

OK First define God.

Now would that be the God of the Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Synod Lutherans....Tannaists ?

Or will any God do....?

OK I choose the God of the Tannaists. I can probably prove that he exists. I have actually shaken his hand when I was younger.

WRONG QUESTION.

An Atheist "doesn't believe in gods". ie gods have no relevance for his or her life.   A person who doesn't believe that God exists is a subset of Atheist, but does not account for all atheists.

Now I have absolutely positive proof that God exists -  and I don't believe in him. OK - get over it.

Let the flock peacefully graze. There is further nothing of interest in this topic.

---

Okay FD. So you believe in God because.......

Revenant wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 3:55pm:

Okay FD. So you believe in God because.......

You left off the end of your sentence. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard?

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 3:58pm:

Revenant wrote on Oct 19th, 2008 at 3:55pm: Okay FD. So you believe in God because....... You left off the end of your sentence. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard?

No. I was blinded by a bolt of lightening.

;D

I think FD was trying to say that the evidence for a creator is the totality of creation, including human beings. It's as valid an argument as any.

The alternative hypothesis is that there are an infinite, or large number of universes and this one is right for life to appear, which happens to be the one we in.  If the universe were different even in a subtle way, no human beings could exist.

See this eloquent article for the various anthropic principles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Logically, I can buy the idea of a Deist God, but I have problems with the Judeo Christian tradition with the personal God concept, but that's just me.

All I can say is that personally I don't believe in God or gods. I just can't bring myself to be convinced by the idea.

It has nothing to do with logic. It has nothing to do with choice.
It's just what I believe. Maybe I'll change my mind, but I don't see that happening. The point is that while I can see why it might be worthwhile for theists to shout it from the rooftops, I don't see why an atheist would want to do the same. It just seems slightly puerile.

It's like when I was a kid, my siblings would play games. One would emerge from the cellar. "There's a Ghost down there!".  I'd go down there and emerge and with the same expression, I'd shout "There's no ghost down there!", and everybody would laugh. Why? Because making such a forceful statement about the fact that there was no ghost was bordering on ludicrous.

In the same way, I find the statement "God doesn't exist!" to be ludicrous. To me, it's a nonsensical statement to somebody who doesn't believe or understand the concept of God. How do you define God? - and what does exist mean? Does "exist" apply to supernatural entities? and what does Supernatural mean anyway?  How do you measure it? For that matter, can you apply natural laws to the supernatural anyway?

Well as usual, the theists have it all arse about face.

If I go to a lunatic asylum, and a guy comes up and tells me he is jesus, I cannot prove he isn't, but I do not believe him, and I do not use what he tells me to form a framework to control my life and the society I live in.

If theists did not want the power to impose their religiously inspired standards onto society as a whole, I would not care less if they worshipped mother goose.

When religions stop demanding special consideration for their delusions, I will stop caring about religion.

If I go to a lunatic asylum, and a guy comes up and tells me he is jesus, I cannot prove he isn't, but I do not believe him

Why not? There are plenty of lunatics called Jesus. Why would you assume that because he is a lunatic there must be a religious angle?

Make that, "I am Jesus Christ, your lord and saviour"(pedant) ;)

muso wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 5:23pm:

It's like when I was a kid, my siblings would play games. One would emerge from the cellar. "There's a Ghost down there!".  I'd go down there and emerge and with the same expression, I'd shout "There's no ghost down there!", and everybody would laugh. Why? Because making such a forceful statement about the fact that there was no ghost was bordering on ludicrous.

Bad example. Your siblings knew there wasn't a ghost down there, but theists are serious when they say they believe in God. In fact some of them are so serious about it that they're willing to kill people who don't comply with their God's will.

I sort of know that you are right, revenant, but when I see those evangelical preachers, I think "shonky used car salesman", and I think that they could not possibly believe the guff that they spout.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 19^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

... If I go to a lunatic asylum, and a guy comes up and tells me he is jesus, I cannot prove he isn't, but I do not believe him, and I do not use what he tells me to form a framework to control my life and the society I live in. ....

What if he is from M$oft? Is it ok then to "to form a framework to control my life and the society"?

;D If he tells me he is Bill Gates then I will hit him up for a loan.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459

By Bob Unruh

A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.

After Jesse's death, Keith Kilgore learned of the book assignment from two of his son's friends and a relative. He searched Jesse's room and found the book under the mattress with his son's bookmark on the last page.

A WND message seeking a comment from Dawkins or his publisher was not returned today.

The first inkling of a reason for the suicide came, Keith Kilgore told WND, when one of Jesse's friends came to visit after word of his son's death circulated.

"She was in tears [and said] he was very upset by this book," Keith Kilgore said. "'It just destroyed him,' were her words.

"Then another friend at the funeral told me the same thing," Keith Kilgore said. "This guy was his best friend, and about the only other Christian on campus.

"The third one was the last person that my son talked to an hour before [he died,]" Keith Kilgore told WND, referring to a member of his extended family whose name is not being revealed here.

That relative, who had struggled with his own faith and had returned to Christianity, wrote in a later e-mail that Jesse "started to tell me about his loss of faith in everything."

"He was pretty much an atheist, with no belief in the existence of God (in any form) or an afterlife or even in the concept of right or wrong," the relative wrote. "I remember him telling me that he thought that murder wasn't wrong per se, but he would never do it because of the social consequences - that was all there was - just social consequences.

"He mentioned the book he had been reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins and how it along with the science classes he had take[n] had eroded his faith. Jesse was always great about defending his beliefs, but somehow, the professors and the book had presented him information that he found to be irrefutable. He had not talked … about it because he was afraid of how you might react. ... and that he knew most of your defenses of Christianity because he himself used them often. Maybe he had used them against his professors and had the ideas shot down."

He then explained to Jesse his own personal journey of seeking "other explanations of God's existence" and told of his ultimate return.

"I told him it was my relationship with God, not my knowledge of Him that brought me back to my faith. No one convinced me with facts. ... it was a matter of the heart."

Keith Kilgore believes it was a biology class that raised questions for his son, and a biology professor at Jefferson Community College in Watertown, N.Y., where his son was attending, who suggested the book.

A school spokeswoman told WND that the "God Delusion" was not a part of the biology curriculum, and several of the professors she contacted said they had not even read the book. However, the spokeswoman was unable to contact all of the professors in the department and could not state that none of them had suggested the book to Jesse.

Local police also did not respond to WND inquiries about the investigation into the death.

"One of his friends, and his uncle (they did not know each other) both told me that Jesse called them hours before he took his life and that he had lost all hope because he was convinced that God did not exist, and this book was the cause," Keith Kilgore told WND.

Keith Kilgore, a retired military chaplain who has dealt with the various stages of grief and readily admits he's still in the "anger" stage over his son's death, said his son apparently had checked the "Delusion" out of the college library.

"I'm all for academic freedom," Keith Kilgore said. "What I do have a problem with is if there's going to be academic freedom, there has to be academic balance.

"They were undermining every moral and spiritual value for my [son]," he said. "They ought to be held accountable."

He suggested the moral is for Christians simply to abandon public schools wholly.

That's a sad posting.

He obviously didn't have real faith, and while Dawkin's book provides no real evidence as to the non-existance of God, it seems to have been enough to tear down the reasons to hold him to his "faith".

Sprint, previously you said that you prefer Atheists to Agnostics because Atheists had made a stand. But I think the true Agnostic holds a difficult position as well. All beliefed up and nowhere to go.

For instance whether I want to or not, I simply do not believe in the existance of God. It doesn't require an effort on my behalf to do that because it is simply an extension of my impirical view of the world. Doesn't mean I do not have feelings that I can't wholely explain, like Love. But I don't have feelings for something that I don't believe exists, God, dragons, fairies, honest politicians etc.

But IF I believed in God I would still be an Agnostic because I doubt if I could believe in selective revelation. The divine blessing certain people/groups from certain times with direct knowledge and not all others. It all sounds to convieniently exclusive and political. And most importantly I could not accept that humans or any mortal could comprehend the mind of such a creature. I think that being would be unfathomable.

There is a fine line between an atheist and somebody who is not a theist (an atheist). We're really not that different when it comes down to it. Anybody that says any different is full of themselves. We are all 'God's(s') Children'  ;)

All theists struggle with their faith at some stage or another. I'd suggest that most theists are agnostic, but believe in God/ gods through faith. Some people change their belief at different times on their lives. It's as reasonable to be an atheist agnostic as a theist agnostic.

Even Mother Theresa struggled with her faith, and may have died an atheist agnostic.

For most of us it is easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world. But damned if MT didn't put her whole self into humanity. What a gal! What a hero!

locutius wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 1:57pm:

Doesn't mean I do not have feelings that I can't wholely explain, like Love.

oxytocin and vasopressin. You want buy love?  I get you numba one price.  Only $20 for a millilitre. What else you want? Viagra ?

;D


http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/

---

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:

locutius wrote on Nov 25th, 2008 at 1:57pm: Doesn't mean I do not have feelings that I can't wholely explain, like Love. oxytocin and vasopressin. You want buy love?  I get you numba one price.  Only $20 for a millilitre. What else you want? Viagra ? ;D http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/

Nice picture but what are those yellow blobs? Are they Good or Evil? :-?

The yellows are Sulphur er.... that's brimstone to you.

locutius wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 1:57pm:

[the suicide guy in USA] obviously didn't have real faith, and while Dawkin's book provides no real evidence as to the non-existance of God, it seems to have been enough to tear down the reasons to hold him to his "faith".

There must have been something else going on here [the suicide guy in USA], that has not been revealed?

But, it is indeed sad, that something pushed this person, over the edge.




Quote:

.....whether I want to or not, I simply do not believe in the existance of God. It doesn't require an effort on my behalf to do that because it is simply an extension of my empirical view of the world. Doesn't mean I do not have feelings that I can't wholely explain, like Love. But I don't have feelings for something that I don't believe exists, God, dragons, fairies, honest politicians etc. But IF I believed in God I would still be an Agnostic because I doubt if I could believe in selective revelation. The divine blessing certain people/groups from certain times with direct knowledge and not all others. It all sounds to convieniently exclusive and political. And most importantly I could not accept that humans or any mortal could comprehend the mind of such a creature. I think that being would be unfathomable.

locutius,

Some ppl's eyes are 'opened', others are not.

You say,

".....It all sounds to convieniently exclusive and political."

You say, "I simply do not believe in the existance of God."

I reply, I don't believe that there is a God.
.....my experience is, that there is a God.

"Prove it!"

I can't.

I know that i cannot convince you, or another person.
.....it seems that only God does that [reveals himself], himself.

Why that would be, i am not sure.

But in my experience, God is just, and merciful.
....but above all he is just.
....and i am confident, that, that will be revealed to all of us, eventually.



If you desire a relationship with God, go to the source.

John 4:24

If you want to find God, then God's advice [within the Bible] is very simple.
Seek him.
....i.e. read the Bible, and pray to him.

Deuteronomy 4:29
Psalms 119:2
Jeremiah 29:13
Romans 3:11
Acts 17:27






You speak of your empirical view of the world....

Dictionary,
empirical = = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.


locutius,

Why do some ppl experience OBE's, while others do not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience

Do you deny the validity of the experience of OBE's?
.....[i know a similar experience can be induced with hallucinogenic drugs.]

A lot of scientists, and other who have not experienced them, suggest they are just a 'mind bend', an illusion, and something which is not real.

Do they mean anything?
....in my experience, they have always been 'personal'.

I have experience waking OBE's occasionally.
.....[you can experience OBE's from within dreams, it is also possible to experience 'waking' OBE's. i've experienced both.]

No-one [especially those who have not experienced one,] a waking OBE can convince me, that they are an illusion, a 'mind bend'.

A waking OBE, feels much, much, real-er than this 'reality', believe me.

[And I am a person who is not on any medication, and i do not take recreational drugs.]





But, can i convince you, or another person, who has not had such an experience, of their reality?

No.

Does that invalidate the experience [for myself, and others]?

Absolutely not.

I have explored this problem [of personal experience] a little further, here....

All Aboard the Athiest bus
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225016818/10#10




OBE's....

2 Corinthians 12:1
It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2  I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3  And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/sadness.htm

The Sadness of Professor Richard Dawkins
Religion is Irrational?

Professor Dawkins' first opinion is that religion is irrational, whereas science is rational. The first problem with this argument is that although science may be rational, scientific theory (such as the Theory of Evolution) is not necessarily rational at all - it is, after all, merely a theory. For instance, as regards the question of how the Universe began and developed, there are a great many ever-changing scientific theories and a great deal of disagreement among scientists. Among scientists, it almost seems as if today's certainty often becomes tomorrow's ridicule. So what can be said of the value of mere theories, reflecting ever-changing human knowledge?

It also seems irrational to say that God does not exist, when you cannot prove it, - as irrational as to suggest that the Universe made itself. How rational is it to say that the fact that every snowflake is different from every other snowflake proves that the Universe came into being by itself? How rational is it to say that something so tiny and yet so complex as the human eyeball came into being through an unproven series of mysterious and unknowable developments? How rational is it to use the Hubble telescope to observe galaxies billions of light years away and still deny the possible existence of a Creator? How rational is it to claim definitively that God does not exist, when there are thousands of highly-qualified, 'rational' scientists all around the world who believe the opposite? Why jump to dogmatic conclusions about the Universe ('there is no God'), when we know so infinitely little about it? Such claims, frankly, seem arrogant.

More here:
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/sadness.htm

athos wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

......Why jump to dogmatic conclusions about the Universe ('there is no God'), when we know so infinitely little about it? Such claims, frankly, seem arrogant.

Absolutely.

;D




Mankind are clever.

I think that we have proved that we are clever, and resourceful.


I don't think that we can lay any claim yet, to being wise.

:(

Yadda wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 4:41pm:

locutius, Why do some ppl experience OBE's, while others do not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience Do you deny the validity of the experience of OBE's? .....[i know a similar experience can be induced with hallucinogenic drugs.]

p.s.

I would not 'go there' [recreational drugs].



Aliens (1986) [movie]

Newt: My mommy always said there were no monsters - no real ones - but there are.
Ripley: Yes, there are, aren't there?




In the spirit world, in the darkness, there are 'monsters'.

I think crocodiles make pretty good monsters. They are scarier than the Alien ones.

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 3:25pm:

The yellows are Sulphur er.... that's brimstone to you.

The stinking stone ... I knew it.
So Oxytocin have to go on the list of alternative Satan's names.  :o

Let read this:

Eyedea and Abilities - Lyrics

[Eyedea]
If someone grew up in a cubicle as Plato once suggested
They would only know the cubicle and not the world outside it
And they wouldn't view the cubicle as something geometric
We only know it's a cubicle because we live outside it

Now the one inside the cubicle can't comprehend his measurements
Because measurements are models made up for and by observers
Relative to their position on the outside of the cubicle
Though understand objectively so they can study further

If I grew up in a cubicle the walls are in my universe
I have no knowledge of the entirety like the outsiders do
If you follow what I say and can swallow the powdered water
Close your eyes and open your minds, this one's for you

And the brain equals a cubicle we'll never think outside it
Now inside wanna try to tie a diagram to modify them
I'm there as a hybrid of a body of a pirate
Of a soul that can fly without control

Realizing the brain ticks at six billion signals per second

And most of hidden and not given to the senses
Whether to do a few futile primitive tools to perception
livin in a universal pool of first hand deception

The mind's job is to receive the signals
And block the ones out that coincide with imprinted symbols
That way the information you obtained is recognized
Reality is thinkable and comparable to space and time

It makes a map of the territory that gives us the gives us
The topic of the Copenhagen interpretation of modern quantum
Physics which states we don’t know the meal
We only know the menu that our brains tell us is real

We don’t know the rules of our heads
From inside these cubicles we can’t see the truth
No one really knows exactly what happens when we think
Therefore we can never really ever know anything

This is the consciousness revolution
You got the right to think
Don't think about it just do it
(repeats stanza til fade out)

For those of you that are not good at receiving information in lyric form, here’s the point: reality comes from within the brain, not without. The information coming to us from the eyes and other sense organs is first reconfigured in the brain as information, and then realized by us. The pathways that have already been established in our brain determine what new information we can process –the brain is always looking to relate the new to the old. There is no way for us to receive information without having that information altered by our own perception. According to quantum physics (dumbed way down a la What the Bleep do we Know?): The reality outside of us is formed and altered by what is already inside of us. Our POV as an observer determines that reality.

I could stop here, because what I’ve just proved is that we can’t really know anything. However, it is not what we know that I dislike, it is what we think we know.

have to put brain on the list too  :o

But Yadda I don't expect you or anyone to try to prove in the existence of God. It cannot be proven and visa versa regardless of what Dawkins has to say about probability. Simply put, you either have faith or you don't. I do not, but I accept without any cost or animosity to my postion that you do believe. The only time I am ever likely to clash with a believer is when it impacts on my lifestyle, my society etc. My wife is a believer. She has a very strong faith.

I think it was Descartes that came up with an argument that I thought was the coolest of all and really appealed to me. It sounds good but is purely Metaphysical, and goes something like this. (Forgive me but it has been at least 15 years since I came across it)

"We are imperfect beings that inhabit an imperfect world, and yet we can concieve of a quality called perfection. That image is like a residue of the divine touch on everything. It allows us to know God'.

Something like that anyway.

I see the imperfect world as acting perfectly in accordance with the governing laws of the Universe. So a blemish is not flawed just different. It is us that provide the judgement that is based purely on an objects utility to us.

I reserve the word proof for simple things that are easy to define - preferably in terms of mathematical expressions.

The word 'proof' has been bandied around by everyone from snake oil salesmen to Climate Change contrarians. Many happy customers have testified that snake oil works, and you cain't prove that it don't.   The standard of 'proof' is just not available for any complex system.

I can definitely prove that God exists for Sun worshippers or Moon worshippers, but I don't think either the Sun or the Moon are Gods. Of course I can't prove the latter assertion.  

For the Judeo/Christian tradition, proof of the existence of God is something that's non scriptural anyway. Faith comes with the territory. If you had proof you couldn't have faith. That's also common sense.

For such complex systems we have to use our personal judgement, and that varies significantly between individuals.  

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.

athos wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 8:44pm:

Let read this: Eyedea and Abilities - Lyrics [Eyedea] If someone grew up in a cubicle....... For those of you that are not good at receiving information in lyric form, here’s the point: reality comes from within the brain, not without. The information coming to us from the eyes and other sense organs is first reconfigured in the brain as information, and then realized by us. The pathways that have already been established in our brain determine what new information we can process –the brain is always looking to relate the new to the old. There is no way for us to receive information without having that information altered by our own perception. According to quantum physics (dumbed way down a la What the Bleep do we Know?): The reality outside of us is formed and altered by what is already inside of us. Our POV as an observer determines that reality. I could stop here, because what I’ve just proved is that we can’t really know anything. However, it is not what we know that I dislike, it is what we think we know.

athos,

Interesting.

Talking of cubes, got me thinking.



I hope you enjoy this YOUTUBE mind-snapper....

:D

Dr Quantum - Flatland
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Yadda wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

athos wrote on Nov 25th, 2008 at 8:44pm: Let read this: Eyedea and Abilities - Lyrics [Eyedea] If someone grew up in a cubicle....... For those of you that are not good at receiving information in lyric form, here’s the point: reality comes from within the brain, not without. The information coming to us from the eyes and other sense organs is first reconfigured in the brain as information, and then realized by us. The pathways that have already been established in our brain determine what new information we can process –the brain is always looking to relate the new to the old. There is no way for us to receive information without having that information altered by our own perception. According to quantum physics (dumbed way down a la What the Bleep do we Know?): The reality outside of us is formed and altered by what is already inside of us. Our POV as an observer determines that reality. I could stop here, because what I’ve just proved is that we can’t really know anything. However, it is not what we know that I dislike, it is what we think we know. athos, Interesting. Talking of cubes, got me thinking. I hope you enjoy this YOUTUBE mind-snapper.... :D Dr Quantum - Flatland http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Good staff. Thanks mate.

If we can't know anything , then how is it that we can send satellites into space, build nuclear reactors and find the root causes of disease etc?

And if Athos believes he can't know anything , how is it that he knows this? : ;)

Well, you can't know anything with absolute certainty, but there are some things that we think we know extremely well, and whether we're right or not, it all seems to hold together very well - until some bright spark comes along and tells us that we were only 99.9% right, and that he can get it 99.999% right by looking at it differently.

Fortunately we don't all suffer from Alice in Wonderland Syndrome.

Quote:

The first problem with this argument is that although science may be rational, scientific theory (such as the Theory of Evolution) is not necessarily rational at all - it is, after all, merely a

*Face Palm*

I was going to have a go, but decided you're far too ignorant to reason with.  Go look up the word 'theory' in wikipedia.