Dr. Dino's Challenge Accepted... again
Offline http://web.archive.org/web/20060526053859/http://ne-plus-ultra.net/pubs/kisby_hovindarticle_rev2.pdf
Unfortunately, my stupid little copy of Acrobat won't let me cut and paste this article. Can someone else do it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Jeffrick wrote:You need a leap of faith because you can't know anything if the world is an illusion. But since you can't prove rationally that the world is real since your rationality may also be an illusion, you need to make the leap of faith that at least your rationality does work really and is not an illusion.Why would I need a "Leap of Faith" that the world is "Not an illusion"?Jeffrick wrote:After that 'if god created the universe' what is your evidence? And yes "seeing the world has [natural] order and that free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind is TRUE!!!!!!!!!! How can you call yourself a theist with such things springing forth from your fingertips?I don't understand this part of your reasoning. I may just comment before you instruct me on this that as a theist, I don't have limitation. The world could have been made randomly or by spontaneity and God could still have caused those thing. God could exist even if his existence could be completely non-apparent.
................ What kind of medications does your psychiatrist have you on, and why aren't you takeing them?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
- Login to post comments
Offline No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.
Facts are not facts if not by a statement of faith that the world is real.
We don't need to prove God can't create the universe.
You need to prove it in order to tell God believers that they are naive and irrational. If not, they are no more naive than you are.
We can show in trivial ways that order definitely does not require a God, a mind.
You can't show though that order can't permit the existence of God.
Free will is a misconception - the perception of having free will exists, but in no way establishes that any choices are not ultimately determined by the immediately preceding state of your mind and the environment.
There's no point in trying to convince anyone then. We're just executing the processes were determined to do and no one is brighter than anyone to believe this or this. Why try to convince believers then. There is nothing brighter in the belief that you've been determined to believe in.
It has been shown that a Universe originating from non-supernatural causes is definitely possible, so it is NOT necessary to show that the universe cannot be made by a supernatural mind, merely that we have better explanations, that are more consistent with the actual evidence, such as it is.
I don't think you've better evidences. And since the belief in God or in any other cause doesn't change anything in our life either by making us richer or more intelligent, then there is no proof why I should care about what you think are better evidences.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Because you equate your faith with knowledge while lacking evidence to support it.
You equaly have no evidence of the contrary.
jcgadfly wrote:You claim that you know a mind created the universe because you believe it. However, you can't articulate any basis for your belief than "It makes me feel good"It's not the case, but if it was, what would be wrong with it. If there are no evidence of anything that may give a purpose to life, that doesn't prove it would be bad that I live in that illusion. Don't you like living in the illusion that God doesn't exist?
jcgadfly wrote:How about this instead - instead of imagining another God, why don't we put our time and energy toward making society better for the people who are actually here? Have you thought about that or are you too heavenly minded to be of earthly good?There's nothing contrary here. Christianism for example, if you read the Gospel, is all about making society better. Examples such as Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Brother André (he has just been canonized) are very good examples of people making society better. This, we've never seen such things among atheists.
jcgadfly wrote:No, an atheist is a person who holds no belief in gods period. It is a standard of belief. Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge and is as you claim. Belief and knowledge are not the same things. If you have knowledge of something, you don't need a belief in that something as well. Do you know 2+2=4 or do you just believe it but haven't proved it yet?You need to explain what is the difference then between someone that have never heard about God, therefore holding no belief in a God and an atheist which is more like a person which has heard about God, but hold a belief in a non-God cause for the Universe. There is a difference between both which you don't seem to see.
jcgadfly wrote:Faith may be irrational. However, the definition I used included a need for evidence. I notice you bypassed that one to crush the straw man you built. congrats.Faith is not irrational it is the basis on which you build every reasoning. Every premises, assumptions in a deduction are statements of faith. You always need a statement of faith to make any reasoning. To have no statement of faith (no premises) render impossible reasoning. Therefore, reasoning without faith is irrational. Your need for evidences need to prove, if faith is irrational, that these evidences are really evidences. Why shouldn't they be illusion of reality. What evidence is there that your reason, the process by which you comprehend evidences really works?
1. Yes, and I don't claim to have knowledge that a god doesn't exist. I do have evidence (given to me by the writers of the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah - thanks guys) that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. You claim that you know the God of the Bible solely because you have faith (despite the evidence that science and observation gives you).
2. Don't know the other two but saying that Mother Teresa made society better by gathering up people to die in one place while traveling the world collecting money to not help these people is a large stretch. Read Hitchens' information about her. You don't see atheists' doing good for society because there are fewer attention whores in the atheistic ranks.
3. Simple - The person who has never heard about God hasn't heard the BS that theists pass of as knowledge of God. The atheist has heard it and realizes that it's BS. There is no belief in a non-God just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. I see the difference quite well - you're the one with vision problems.
4. You don't know the difference between a premise and an assumption? This explains much.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Anyway, isn't that all what life is about.
I'm not dishonest I am an atheist. I have a complete disbelief in all gods. Your so called proof of your god is no different then any other proof of any other god, since you do NOT believe in any other god you must be an atheist also, except I disbelieve in one MORE god then you. Life is so much calmer without a dogma to dog my days. Thank you Richard Dawkins.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Because you equate your faith with knowledge while lacking evidence to support it.
You claim that you know a mind created the universe because you believe it. However, you can't articulate any basis for your belief than "It makes me feel good"
How about this instead - instead of imagining another God, why don't we put our time and energy toward making society better for the people who are actually here? Have you thought about that or are you too heavenly minded to be of earthly good?
No, an atheist is a person who holds no belief in gods period. It is a standard of belief. Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge and is as you claim. Belief and knowledge are not the same things. If you have knowledge of something, you don't need a belief in that something as well. Do you know 2+2=4 or do you just believe it but haven't proved it yet?
Faith may be irrational. However, the definition I used included a need for evidence. I notice you bypassed that one to crush the straw man you built. congrats.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The problem with you atheists is that you don't understand what is the meaning of evidence. An evidence is something irrefutably true. If we make the leap of faith that this world is not an illusion, then after this, to prove that God can't have created the Universe, you must see an observation through your senses in the world that shows order and free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind. This is impossible to show. So, believing that God can't exist on that basis is clearly irrational.
Another straw man or did I miss this one from earlier?
We have evidence that the world is not illusory. No one has claimed that the world is an illusion. This may shock you but The Matrix is fictional.
If the leap of faith is that God didn't create the universe you must have something to show that your position is legitimate.
Where is it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
You said mutation cannot generate new information. That HAS been disproved.
The point of the teacup (from famous philosopher Bertrand Russell), is that the common argument we get that tends to rely on statements like we "can't show that God is impossible", or we "can't prove God doesn't exist", is silly, since it can with equal logical validity be applied to such fanciful ideas as the possible existence of a porcelain teacup in orbit around some body in the Solar System.
I said that identifying that first cause with a mind simply makes no sense - it would require us to assume the existence of a mind utterly different in so many ways from any we have any experience of as to be without any serious justification. You would not only have to believe in disembodied minds, you have to believe in magic abilities, such as the ability to 'will' something into existence...
And that all the evidence is that minds are dependent, emergent phenomena, not primary elements of existence. So it is clearly impossible in my mind, or as close to impossible as makes no practical difference.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.
We don't need to prove God can't create the universe.
We can show in trivial ways that order definitely does not require a God, a mind.
Free will is a misconception - the perception of having free will exists, but in no way establishes that any choices are not ultimately determined by the immediately preceding state of your mind and the environment.
It has been shown that a Universe originating from non-supernatural causes is definitely possible, so it is NOT necessary to show that the universe cannot be made by a supernatural mind, merely that we have better explanations, that are more consistent with the actual evidence, such as it is.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Evidence is something measurable. Height, length, breadth, circumference, chemical analysis, radiation, electromagnetic properties - if you can measure it in some fashion, it exists in reality. We can measure radiation that we can not see - x-rays, infrared, ultraviolet - agreed? And we can see the results of over (or under) exposure - sun burns, pictures of our bones, heat, radiation sickness - agreed? So they exist. Emotions exist - we can create pictures of our brain's response to emotions (PET, fMRI, etc) and we can analyze and measure the chemical changes in hormone composition in our brain and blood stream as a result of emotions.
So where is god/s/dess? How do you measure him/her/it/them? What impact do they have on reality?
Saying that god/s/dess kicked off the big bang is not evidence. Proving it (or not) using some philosophical argument is not evidence it happened. Get some videos, get some physical or chemical evidence. Until then, I choose not to believe your "evidence" since it is no such thing. Honest scientists say they don't have that evidence, but they are exploring ways to discover it.
Oh, and flagellum? Even Answers in Genesis says not to use that argument anymore as it has been demonstrated how flagellum evolved. The guys going around doing no research, making tons of money doing the speaker circuit, talking to audiences composed of people who want to believe, keep repeating it as they don't want to lose their income. If they stopped lying about flagellum, they wouldn't be able to make the payments on their mcmansions and luxury cars.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Show them to me if you have evidence. Show me the proof that what I see is not illusory and that the rationality by which I comprehend the reality is not illusory also. If you say that the evidence is that I can doubt, but it could be that even our doubting is something all predetermined and illusory. In fact, Bob would agree with me since there is no real freedom to his view. One could say that at least the illusion is real, but even this could be only an illusion. This may not sound logical, but no one has ever proved that logics must be logical.
No, the leap of faith is believing that our reason really works and that the observable reality is real also. After this, there are no need for a leap of faith. We follow the best evidence. I don't have to show why my position is legitimate. Basing myself on the faith that my reason works well, I came to the conclusion that God exists. I didn't ask you to believe me. I asked atheists for proofs that they can really call them atheists and not only agnostics. It's not because atheists are asking for evidences that they are somehow more rational. I've never seen Australia, yet I believe it does exist. Am I irrational to believe such a thing? Sometimes asking for evidences is what becomes irrational. As for example, Should you ask your wife for evidence that she loves you? In this case, asking such a thing would be madness. If a lot of people were running away from some place and would tell you that they are running because there is a cloud of insects that bite people to death that is heading towards you, would you go to look at the evidence directly or would you run and get special clothes on before heading to the cloud of insects? It's the same thing for the idea of God. If you've nothing to lose to believe in a God, why should you anger him with insults if there is even a slightest possibility that he exists. The answer is that you should be as careful with God as you should be with the cloud of insects if he is really your creator. Because if you don't, you might wake-up without anything gained from your life and everything lost.
I don't understand this part of your reasoning. I may just comment before you instruct me on this that as a theist, I don't have limitation. The world could have been made randomly or by spontaneity and God could still have caused those thing. God could exist even if his existence could be completely non-apparent.
You don't need a leap of faith that the world is not illusory, it is the default position, so it is the simplest working assumption until proved otherwise.
OTOH, if you assume the Universe is under the control of a sentient super-being, that is when you have to logically admit you can know nothing, since such a being can change anything at a whim, could make you see or believe anything, and you could have no way to detect his deceptions.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You equaly have no evidence of the contrary.
It's not the case, but if it was, what would be wrong with it. If there are no evidence of anything that may give a purpose to life, that doesn't prove it would be bad that I live in that illusion. Don't you like living in the illusion that God doesn't exist?
There's nothing contrary here. Christianism for example, if you read the Gospel, is all about making society better. Examples such as Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Brother André (he has just been canonized) are very good examples of people making society better. This, we've never seen such things among atheists.
You need to explain what is the difference then between someone that have never heard about God, therefore holding no belief in a God and an atheist which is more like a person which has heard about God, but hold a belief in a non-God cause for the Universe. There is a difference between both which you don't seem to see.
Faith is not irrational it is the basis on which you build every reasoning. Every premises, assumptions in a deduction are statements of faith. You always need a statement of faith to make any reasoning. To have no statement of faith (no premises) render impossible reasoning. Therefore, reasoning without faith is irrational. Your need for evidences need to prove, if faith is irrational, that these evidences are really evidences. Why shouldn't they be illusion of reality. What evidence is there that your reason, the process by which you comprehend evidences really works?