http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
– Is there an Artificial God?
Douglas Adams’ speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge U.K.
Outside of religion one can avoid the trap, in other words, one is an atheist. Were is the faith there?
Dale the . . .
Nonsense. Atheism is a non-religion to anyone who emphasizes the root origins of the word or accepts at face value the stated elements of the world-view. You appear to confuse “Dale thinks” with “It is so”.
More nonsense. I know many Christians who understand the distinction between the facts underlying their faith and the faith itself. Some Christians even make finer distinctions between the elements of their faith, the aggregate of those elements as their personal faith, and the social/cultural/historical trappings that intermingle with their faith to create their religion. (And we haven’t even started talking about churches yet!)
No. Some people consider their ideas to be ideas. Some ideas are factual, others are likely conclusions or possible explanations or expressions of desire or whimsical fancies.
Or empty certainties, of course. We musn’t forget empty certainties.
Only if your set of religions includes the null set. As has been discussed on this board before, words like faith can have vastly different connotations and implications. One of the reasons I object to the characterization of atheism as a religion is because it cheapens the faith of many good people by equating it with something so pale as my own sense of phenomenological continuance. When people tell me about their faith in God, I understand that they mean something more important to them than the faith that the chair they are sitting on has a physical existence external to their perception.
I disagree. Have you a reasoned presentation to support such statements, or is this simply an element of your faith?
No, it doesn’t.
More to the point, it takes no faith at all to find no inherent relationship between existence and reason.
re the OP
If you will define for me, exactly, which God you are concerned with, then I will tell you whether I can accomplish the proof you seek. (Most likely not, but it will depend upon the specific elements in your definition of God.)
If you are asking whether I can prove that no possible conception of God could exist, then the answer is obviously “no”.
Poly
As usual, you are the epitome of class and grace. Thank you.
S’okay, I’m sorry if it sounded like I was looking for an apology, I knew it was probably a typo and wasn’t offended in the least…I have just noticed that it seems that some posters go out of their way to not capitalize and I think mean it as some sort of slight. Not a big deal.
Ah…yes, I can now see how the IPU is non-contradictory. Hadn’t thought of it like that. 
I’m not sure how you read the OP, andros, but I read it as saying that atheists are fond of asking for proof when a theist attempts to convince them that God exists. Perfectly legitimate request. I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that Cyrin is merely asking an atheist trying to convince him that God does not exist to return the favor.
But you are right, most atheists simply say there’s no proof so I’m not going to believe and leave it at that. However, if an atheist is actively trying to change a theists mind then the atheist should be expected to bear the same burden of responsibility that they would expect from a theist trying to change their mind. That’s the point I’m making here.
Speaking of straw-men…Waverly, who has made that argument on this thread? I, personally, never said that God exists…and I certainly never said that he exists because atheists can’t disprove his existence.
I’m simply saying that as most Christians define God, his existence cannot be proven, just as it cannot be disproven either. I’m saying the two stances are equal. If it is unfair to ask an atheist to prove the unprovable then it is just as unfair to ask a theist to prove what is unprovable as well.
I have never said that either side was correct on the issue, nor did I say that lack of evidence on either side proves the other side correct. Please actually read my posts and look at what I am arguing if you are going to attack me.
It’s all in the use of the words.
believe:
- accept as true
- think, suppose
- have faith / trust / confidence
- have (religious) faith
faith:
- complete trust or confidence
- firm belief, especially without logical proof
- system of religious belief
- duty or commitment
- supposed ability to cure by faith rather than treatment
OK, I believe (meaning 1) in an invisible permanent force exerted by all masses. Let’s call it gravity. I don’t know why it works, or who created it, but it’s there all right.
I even have faith (meaning 1) in gravity.
Since there is no comparable evidence for God (and which one? Protestant Christian / Catholic Christian / Jewish / Buddhist / Islamic / Hindu / Norse etc), I’m currently confident that God doesn’t exist. I’m an atheist.
Without evidence, a religious person is a believer (meaning 4) with faith (meanings 2 and 3).
Correct. If you believe in the IPU (as explained to me by Frodo earlier in the thread) then if I wish to change your mind I am shouldering the burden of proof.
Also, it would be impossible for me to disprove the IPU.
However, since I don’t really care whether you are belive in the IPU or not (and from the tone of your post, I am under the impression that you think I do) and am not attempting to change your mind about it, it’s not something I really worry about.
I call it a reasoned conclusion that there is no God, which is why I am a “weak/pragmatic/soft atheist”.
You could, but you would be wrong (or at least embarrassingly incomplete). Christianity is characterized by a number of very specific beliefs which do not generally require us to express them in double negatives.
Generic theism is the non-specific belief that a God exists.
Of course, this entire line of discussion ignores the point, which several people have already referenced, that “absence of faith” and “faith of absence” are not identical concepts. The commutative property does not hold for English.
Way back when, we posted on a message board some of the proofs for God’s existence. I forgot the link, but I did save some of my favorites:
15 Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God
-
Cosmological Argument
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists. -
Ontological Argument
(1) God exists.
(2) Since God exists, God must be perfect.
(3) That which is perfect must exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists. -
Modal Ontological Argument
(1) God exists.
(2) God, existing, is either necessary or unnecessary.
(3) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(4) Therefore, God exists. -
Teleological Argument
(1) Check out that tree. Isn’t it pretty?
(2) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument from Intervention
(1) I say God causes things to happen.
(2) Those things happen.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Moral Argument
(1) If God didn’t exist, everyone would kill each other.
(2) Not everyone kills other people.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Unintelligence
(1) Okay, I don’t pretend to be as intelligent as you guys – you’re obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you’ll just ask him into your life.
(2) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Numbers
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Miracles
(1) A train crashed killing 143 people.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Possible Worlds
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From the Unknown
(1) Things happen that we can’t explain.
(2) There is only one reason these things occur.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Fear
(1) If you don’t believe in God, you’ll burn in hell.
(2) You don’t want to go to hell, right?
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument from the Bible
(1) The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
(2) This verse says so.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Mysticism
(1) If God exists, then I should experience Him.
(2) I’ve had an experience that I will attribute to God.
(3) Therefore, God exists. -
Argument From Fideism
(1) I want God to exist.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Well, if the burden of proof rests upon the accuser, in this case it rests upon Cyrin, right?
I thoroughly enjoy when people respond to one of my early posts without reading my retraction later.
Anyway, I think the whole point of the OP was to show that there is just as much evidence that there isn’t God as there is evidence that there is a God. Someone sees the sunrise and thinks they are seeing evidence of God, another person sees the same sunrise and says there isn’t a God. It all comes down to your perspective. It isn’t stupid or ignorant to follow either set of beliefs (Atheism vs. Theism), but it is stupid to follow a belief without fully examining what the other believes.
That leaves me with a question for atheists. Now, please don’t think I’m being stupid, because I seriously want real feedback and thoughts on this. If there is no God, what is the point of us being here, living, eating, sleeping, working, pooping, exploring, etc.? Why do we exist? Do not go into details of how, but why.
From the point of view of the universe, there is no why. We just are, and and some point (We do something stupid? Sun blows up? Heat death ends the universe?) we will go away and then we aren’t.
That gives us a really cool freedom. We get to choose our own why. Sure, it’s a little tougher than obeying the Big Guy, but hey, the universe didn’t guarantee us an easy time of it. Personally, I think it’s pretty magnificent.
Es posible, but I’m not sure what you mean. How is Cyrin the accuser and not just the person asking for proof from the accuser?
Yeah, poor Çyrin. All those atheists knocking on his door on Saturday night, trying to convert him to their futile nihilistic belief system.
Oh wait, we were just sitting here and Çyrin challenged us.
Nevermind.
That must have been what he meant by, “It seems to me that atheism is a self defeating principle.” I don’t know how I missed it the first time-it’s so clear.
Oooops…you are quite correct. I completely missed that little blurb. I feel like such an ass defending the OP when I completely misunderstood it.
I still stand by my points about the fairness of asking for evidence if someone is attempting to change your mind about your beliefs though. I just no longer apply them to Cyrin’s OP.
Does there have to be a point? I can’t understand why some (or most) people feel the need for an ultimate “meaning of life”. Dig the mystery, man.
OTOH, I’m not impressed by the traditional Christian MOL. Yahweh’s Eternal Choir Member #4,459,977,102 doesn’t appeal to me as a worthy final state. The idea that our ultimate purpose is to worship/serve/please an infinitely powerful being is depressing, not to mention tyrannical.
Easy there, Neurotik, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth (nor am I out to get you). If you will bear with me a moment and look back, you will see that after making the statement on the impossibility of disproving an unrestricted negative (which if I read correctly, you agree with), I simply go on to show how this does not imply existence by default. I didn’t mean to suggest that you personally were making this error, though IMHO the OP is barking up this tree.
I disagree with your second sentiment, however. I believe it is fair to make the theist attempt to prove the unprovable when they leave the realm of faith and start making assertions as if they were fact. This is also something I tried to convey in my previous post, perhaps unsuccessfully.
Your retraction of “atheism==religion” had not been posted when I began my reply. Shall I assume that you also retract the other bits of nonsense which I mentioned?
Just as much? Evaluated how? Number of atoms? Testable axioms? Reliability of explanatory principles as guides to future events? Can you rephrase that statement in a more specific syntax (especially given your earlier statement that all visible matter is direct evidence for teh existence of God)?
I answered this in an earlier post. I do not thoroughly enjoy repeating myself. Shall I assume that you failed to read it?
Can you disprove the existence of God? Certainly you can’t disprove all possible gods. On the other hand, you can make positive arguments against specific definitions of God, going beyond just “there’s no evidence”. Since this isn’t geometry, “disprove” is probably too strong a word.
For example, I can argue against the Invisible Pink Unicorn on the grounds that for an entity to be both invisible and pink is a contradiction in terms. To be sure, perhaps sometimes She is pink, and sometimes She is invisible. But, if she is defined as being always and simultaneously both perfectly invisible and entirely pink (rather as Christ is defined in classical theology as being both wholly human and entirely divine), I would say there is a logical contradiction in the definition of the IPU.
One can make similar arguments against a being who is both perfectly omniscient and has entirely free will. If God has perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future, he must also have perfect knowledge of his own decisions, actions, or decrees, such knowledge having been his for all eternity. I don’t see how such a being could have “free will”, or even “will” at all–to such a being, everything would always be an eternal and unchanging now, and there would never be any occasion to make any sort of decision or exert one’s will in any meaningful sense.
To claim that such a being furthermore became entirely human, without giving up any of its essential divine attributes, strikes me as even more logically absurd.
None of this of course addresses the possibility that the Universe has or had some sort of intelligent designer(s).
Yes you are correct, I agree with you, but I thought you were implying that I was saying that I was implying existence when I wasn’t. If that’s not what you meant, then no harm no foul.
I agree with you there as well. If the theist is attempting to prove the unprovable by leaving the realm of faith and asserting them as fact, then by all means call them on it. But I was simply making the point that atheists should not leave the realm of their non-belief and start making assertions regarding the non-existence of God as fact, rather than as their dissatisfaction with the lack of evidence.
I suppose my point is that if either side starts claiming facts then they both have an equal responsibility to back it up with proof. Often, when an atheist makes the initial challenge and is asked for proof that God doesn’t ask, the atheist will then say that it is up to the believer to give the proof. I say that’s crap. Whoever makes the challenge needs to provide the proof.
In any case, I suspect that we are having a non-argument and that I have inadvertently hijacked the thread due to my misunderstanding the OP. Lo siento.
[Edited by Czarcasm on 10-02-2001 at 09:23 PM]
D’oh!!! Messed up the vB…if someone wants to rid my post of the excess bold in between the quotes, that would be wonderful.