Flonks: Let me put it this way, those things which you consider evidence for God WOULD STILL EXIST EVEN IF NO GOD EXISTED. Humanity’s pattern-recognition is such that we will “find” these sorts of evidence even for patently false existential claims.
That is why it is important to have objective evidence. This is the only way one can rationally rule out mundane explanations such as wishful thinking, self-deception, misinterpretation, misunderstanding etc… To posit that God is unknowable/unobservable/immeasureable is a dodge… a failsafe that works to support the existence of everything from God to shoe-cobbling elves.
godzillatemple, GodlessSkeptic - No. These things cannot be explained with anything else. Humanity’s pattern recognition may search causes where there aren’t, but there are things which are too well correlated, and here I am not even talking about personal experiences.
Ratinality is a tool which served us well through history and will still continue to server us well. But it is not the ultimate tool for the search of truth.
You know when I see these threads i am always reminded of the movie “Contact”. Where Matt tells Jodi he didnt vote for her because “I couldnt vote for someone who honestly thinks 94% of the world is delusional”. In response to the fact that Jodi was an atheist.
I truly wonder if somewhere as another Aethist is posting in this thread if they are shaking their heads and thinking “what a bunch of dumbasses”?
First, you posited that god cannot be proven, now you make claims that are testable by science. If these people can indeed do these tricks, in an environment where cheating and trickery has been prevented, then they will get one million US dollars from James Randi.
Please read this sentence and try to comprehend the meaning: There is a difference between “proof” of something, and an “argument” for it. It looks like you’re in another country, and I suspect English is not your first language, so I can understand that this wasn’t clear to you at first. But it’s already been pointed out multiple times, so please don’t say, yet again, that we’re trying to prove the nonexistence of god.
I saw earlier that you recommended a book about yogi, which someone else derided. Now you’re recommending a book that I’ve read. The Tao of Physics is one of the most carpulous wastes of paper that I’ve ever actually taken the time to read. Mr. Capra takes several hundred pages just pointing out parallels between QM interpretations and ancient eastern mysticism, but these parallels are strained at best. Anyone who actually understands the physics involved thinks this book is a joke.
Hmmmm… Let’s see. There are, last I checked, somewhere in the vincinity of 1 billion people living in China, most of who do not hold any belief in God. That by itself would seem to discount any notion of 94% of the world believes in God, don’t you think?
Personally, I don’t think that the majority of the world’s population is delusional. Ignorant, perhaps. Overly credulous and gullible, most certainly. But not delusional.
This is a bald assertion (and one I hear all too often!). Can you not cough up a single example of something which cannot be explained by anything other than God’s existence? I will bet my freaking house, life savings and all the digits on my right hand that you cannot.
Another unsupported assertion. Describe a truth which can be known and verified by some means other than rationality.
Whether one holds an irrational belief in an extraordinary existential claim is not an indicator of overall intelligence or soundness of mind. ANYONE, regardless of I.Q. can be fooled. I know of atheists who think critically about the claim that God exists but throw rationality out of the window when it comes to Bigfoot or UFOs. I know people who rationally dismiss accounts of alien abductions and conspiracy theories and yet will not even question the existence of ghosts.
At one time or another we ALL have our irrational convictions.
Then I guess James Randi, whoever that is, should go there and check.
I know the difference. My point is: There is no proof neither for his existance nor his non-existance. There are arguments, but these arguments are debatable. They are convincing for some, not convincing for others. They don’t convince me and I said why.**
[/QUOTE]
That is, at best, debatable. I enjoyed his book very much, as well as “Turning point” by the same author.
Fact is, the inter-relationship between the observer of an experiment and the experiment itself is a fundamental change in physics, which will change the way we regard proofs.
James “The Amazing” Randi is a former stage magician turned professional skeptic who HAS “gone there and checked”. HE is easily able to debunk htese claims because, as a professional magician, he can readily demonstrate the tricks these alleged indian gurus perform. FOr over a decade now he has had a standing offer of $1 million dollars for anyone who can demonstrate proof of the supernatural/paranormal under controlled conditions.
There can be no proof for his non-existence, anymore than you can prove that Santa Claus does not exist. That is why the burden of proof is upon the claimant and not the skeptic.
The arguemnts will not convince you regardless of how sound they are because you have decided that no such arguments will ever convince you. To put it scientifically, there are NO grounds for falsification of your claims.
I don’t buy this argument. If this were so then we could not know anything about the universe we live in and there would be no consistency to our reality. One person would see a skyscraper where a fire breathing dragon stood and vice versa.
That is most certainly NOT another story. I consider the notion that one must first believe in god before he will reveal himself as the single most flawed premise in the argument for his existence and central to the whole debate.
It is interesting that you use the words cause and effect. The language that describes this fundamental principle of the Universe is called logic.
Arguments for the existence of a god that is not constrained by cause and effect (he moves in mysterious ways) or that require an ad hoc application of logic (he is benevolent but don’t try and understand his will, we are too simple) I find especially unconvincing.
While we cannot prove the non-existence of god, I would say the best argument against him is Occam’s Razor. God is not necessary to explain anything, so it is unreasonable to add him/she/it to the equation.
The only one who can prove god, if he exists, is god. Surely an omnipitent being could convince even the sternest skeptic that he is real.
Yes, I realize that. That’s why I only mentioned the communist Chinese who don’t believe in any “higher power” other than the government and didn’t bother mentioning the billion hindus who believe in a polytheistic system bearing little resemblance to the Judeo-Christian notion of “God”. Either way, saying that 94% of the world’s population believe in a god of some sort is pure nonsense. It’s usually not a good idea to get your knowledge of world affairs from science fiction movies…
[Of course, many Chinese, while they don’t believe in god, do believe in all sorts of other, equally improbable things such as astrology, acupuncture, etc. So maybe the quote would be meaningful if Jodi’s character were a skeptic and not just an atheist.]
Well, that is where I don’t agree. Things you can’t feel, can’t measure and can’t see, can still exist.
I didn’t say they can’t exist. I believe in God. My point was your only verifiable point of reference is yourself and the conclusions you can come to. That’s not an irrational viewpoint. That just is what is.
I don’t believe in the cartesian philophy that only things we can experience with our senses can exist.
Neither do I and I think everyone would agree. But we don’t know about them, until they somehow invade one of our senses.
**Btw, I am not my only point of reference - I know people with the same “reference” and I read books written by people with the same reference. **
You are always your only point of reference. The other people may provide validation for what you know or feel, but the assessment of that validation comes from what you know. You can tell people what you know, then it’s up to them, but probably not much point to it on a thread asking for arguments for no god.
I’d like to know what they are. Are they correlated because they are real, or because they reflect social conditioning. In the middle ages people with night terrors thought they were meeting succubi and incubi, now they think they are seeing aliens. They are correlated too - do you believe in alien abductions?
Well, mainland Chinese, at least. A good communist can’t believe in God, you see. At least, that’s what my wife (who is from mainland China) heard all her life. Any type of religious proselyting is also forbidden, so conversion is not a big factor.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that no Chinese believe in God, but if my wife is any indication, most aren’t even particularly familiar with the concept.
The stats I read said 53% of Chinese were now Budhist, 16% Christian, 18% no religion and the rest Taoism and other religions. That was in 2000. My friend who came from China 7 years ago says there’s lots of religion, used to be hard, easier now.
