Atheists and gods

[shmogie]

So it's inherently impossible to justify belief in God?


I think you're misrepresenting the science.

No, I am not. Research it, I have, in depth. No, it is easy to JUSTIFY my belief in God. It is impossible to provide irrefutable proof of God. Just as it is impossible to provide even reasonable proof of abiogenesis. Most of those who accept abiogenesis by faith come to it because they discount any other possibility. "There is life, it could only come about by a natural process, ergo, it had to have created itself."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I am not. Research it, I have, in depth. No, it is easy to JUSTIFY my belief in God.

Okay... then justify it.

Be sure to also justify the method you use to establish your justification without "the laws and techniques used within the universe for providing proof."

It is impossible to provide irrefutable proof of God.

I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God. I'm just asking for a lack of hypocrisy on your part: whatever bar of evidence you've set for abiogenesis to say that it doesn't clear it, show that the god you believe in clears the same bar.

Just as it is impossible to provide even reasonable proof of abiogenesis. Most of those who accept abiogenesis by faith come to it because they discount any other possibility. "There is life, it could only come about by a natural process, ergo, it had to have created itself."

You say you researched abiogenesis?

 

[Quintessence]

"Comfort zones" is precisely that: being in or stepping out of your proper or desired character.

I guess that's not at all how I would frame it. What I speak of is coming from the vantage point of virtue ethics, and I don't agree with framing upholding one's chosen set of virtues or character as being about "comfort zones." Certainly isn't how it is for me.

 

[Cephus]

Not really. The existence of God can never be proven, he is outside the universe and thus outside the laws and techniques used within the universe for providing proof. Abiogenesis is within the universe, and subject to being proved by the scientific method. It has not, There are a myriad of problems with it, problems that to this point make it an impossibility. Genetic information, creation of genes and gene strands, proper ordering of gene strands, chemical composition hostile to gene strands forming, but supporting genes, compositions allowing gene strands, but hostile to viable genes, it goes on and on and on.

How do you know any of that? How did you rationally make the determination that something that you claim can never be proven exists? It sounds like you're just making stuff up, or at least buying into something that someone else made up. That is not a rational way to evaluate the world.

 

[shmogie]

Okay... then justify it.

Be sure to also justify the method you use to establish your justification without "the laws and techniques used within the universe for providing proof."


I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God. I'm just asking for a lack of hypocrisy on your part: whatever bar of evidence you've set for abiogenesis to say that it doesn't clear it, show that the god you believe in clears the same bar.


You say you researched abiogenesis?

Apples and oranges, as I have explained. Abiogenesis is an alleged natural process that took place on earth at a given point in time. The God I believe in exists outside of all that is natural. So natural attempts at proving him are doomed to failure. (Although some cosmologists, like Michio Kaku, have identified equations for creation that only work with a God factor) It is a very simple concept, I am surprised you can't grasp it. The absence of proof for abiogenesis leaves few options for an explanation of life, you can accept one, or if you are particularly non curious, say "I don't know" Yes, I have researched abiogenesis, I was taught it as a fact in high school and college, and in the last 30 years read many books and papers on it. Actually, as the science advances, it's possibility becomes more and more remote. The existence of God most likely will never be proven by scientific methodology, it doesn't need to be. Proving God isn't the issue, the issue is proving a naturalistic creation of life by scientific methods. Since neither are provable, both are equally valid.

 

[shmogie]

How do you know any of that? How did you rationally make the determination that something that you claim can never be proven exists? It sounds like you're just making stuff up, or at least buying into something that someone else made up. That is not a rational way to evaluate the world.

I am not trying to convince you that anything exists. If God existed before time, space, anything, outside the bubble of the universe, and we are trapped forever inside that bubble, the answer is self evident. Cosmologists say that the BB in retrograde can only be understood till a tiny portion of Planck time ( I don't recall the exact number now) after the BB. After that, all physical laws cease to exist. Without physical laws as tools proof of anything cannot be provided. Cosmologists posit a "singularity" as the source of the BB, a tiny speck at infinite density. In this speck was ultimately everything that exists. Can they prove it, nope, will they ever be able to, nope, do they know it's composition, nope, they literally know nothing about it, and never will. It is before the BB, we are after, we can't go there.

 

[Cephus]

I am not trying to convince you that anything exists. If God existed before time, space, anything, outside the bubble of the universe, and we are trapped forever inside that bubble, the answer is self evident. Cosmologists say that the BB in retrograde can only be understood till a tiny portion of Planck time ( I don't recall the exact number now) after the BB. After that, all physical laws cease to exist. Without physical laws as tools proof of anything cannot be provided. Cosmologists posit a "singularity" as the source of the BB, a tiny speck at infinite density. In this speck was ultimately everything that exists. Can they prove it, nope, will they ever be able to, nope, do they know it's composition, nope, they literally know nothing about it, and never will. It is before the BB, we are after, we can't go there.

Which doesn't answer the question I asked. You're just inventing emotionally-comforting nonsense out of whole cloth without any way of demonstrating that what you believe is factually true. The only answer we currently have that holds any weight for what came before the Big Bang is "we don't know". Not knowing is not a license to make something up. So I ask again, how do you know any of these things you claim about any god? Where did you get that information and why should anyone take it seriously?

 

[shmogie]

Okay... then justify it.

Be sure to also justify the method you use to establish your justification without "the laws and techniques used within the universe for providing proof."


I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God. I'm just asking for a lack of hypocrisy on your part: whatever bar of evidence you've set for abiogenesis to say that it doesn't clear it, show that the god you believe in clears the same bar.


You say you researched abiogenesis?

Why must I justify my personal beliefs to you ?

Which doesn't answer the question I asked. You're just inventing emotionally-comforting nonsense out of whole cloth without any way of demonstrating that what you believe is factually true. The only answer we currently have that holds any weight for what came before the Big Bang is "we don't know". Not knowing is not a license to make something up. So I ask again, how do you know any of these things you claim about any god? Where did you get that information and why should anyone take it seriously?

Hmmmm, I have invented nothing facts are facts. "We don't know what existed before the BB" Perhaps. So, you are interested in why I believe differently than you, and why I changed from a raving atheist, to an agnostic, to a believer. Well, it was a long path, not easily put into a few paragraphs. I see you two have decided you can't defend abiogenesis, kudo's for being smart enough there, but you want to flip the conversation now to focus on my beliefs. No problem, i'll give you some disciplines that I entered to establish my beliefs. Cosmology and the study of chance. i.e. a huge series of "coincidences that came about radomnly" to have a planet perfectly suited to carbon based life. As Sir Fred Hoyle asked " how many tornado's would it take in an airplane junkyard to create a perfectly functional 747 ?", philosophy, people like Des Cartes, Kierkergarrd, Pascal, et al. Biology,a greater number every year of biologists who come to the conclusion that there is no natural explanation for life.Theology, as well as using my own reason, and logic. You demand "proof" how much do you need ? As an atheist, I always demanded just a little more, just a little more. You seem to think that I must prove my beliefs to you. I don't. I can make a very strong case that the the current natural explanations for the existence are in complete harmony with what was written 3,000 years ago. A "New" discovery by Dr. Hubble in the 1920's. I can prove that macro evolution is moot because abiogenesis must create a life form, and it cannot. My beliefs are irrelevant to these subjects, the facts are the facts. Hold on to bogus scientific theories, or nothing, or substitute something else, it's all the same to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why must I justify my personal beliefs to you ?

You don't have to. Even though you claim it would be easy to do, you have no obligation whatsoever to clear up the impression of hipocrisy you've left me with.

 

[shmogie]

You don't have to. Even though you claim it would be easy to do, you have no obligation whatsoever to clear up the impression of hipocrisy you've left me with.

Hypocrisy, hmmm. Pointing out the facts makes me a hypocrite, interesting. You used the word justify. Look it up. I can easily justify my beliefs for myself, I don't need to justify them to any one else. I have pointed out the variety of disciplines that lead me to my beliefs, if you are interested in them, feel free to look into them. You want to argue, you can't re abiogenesis, so you are looking for a subject that you think will be better for you, I don't want or need to play your game. Try the science

 

[Cephus]

Why must I justify my personal beliefs to you ?

Well, you are posting in a debate forum...

Hmmmm, I have invented nothing facts are facts. "We don't know what existed before the BB" Perhaps. So, you are interested in why I believe differently than you, and why I changed from a raving atheist, to an agnostic, to a believer. Well, it was a long path, not easily put into a few paragraphs. I see you two have decided you can't defend abiogenesis, kudo's for being smart enough there, but you want to flip the conversation now to focus on my beliefs. No problem, i'll give you some disciplines that I entered to establish my beliefs. Cosmology and the study of chance. i.e. a huge series of "coincidences that came about radomnly" to have a planet perfectly suited to carbon based life. As Sir Fred Hoyle asked " how many tornado's would it take in an airplane junkyard to create a perfectly functional 747 ?", philosophy, people like Des Cartes, Kierkergarrd, Pascal, et al. Biology,a greater number every year of biologists who come to the conclusion that there is no natural explanation for life.Theology, as well as using my own reason, and logic. You demand "proof" how much do you need ? As an atheist, I always demanded just a little more, just a little more. You seem to think that I must prove my beliefs to you. I don't. I can make a very strong case that the the current natural explanations for the existence are in complete harmony with what was written 3,000 years ago. A "New" discovery by Dr. Hubble in the 1920's. I can prove that macro evolution is moot because abiogenesis must create a life form, and it cannot. My beliefs are irrelevant to these subjects, the facts are the facts. Hold on to bogus scientific theories, or nothing, or substitute something else, it's all the same to me.

I don't care about your beliefs or how you came to them, I care about your facts and whether or not you present them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So we should give belief in gods the same sort of status we give to cravings for salt and sugar?

Rather because it is abnormal not to pursue the numinous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rather because it is abnormal not to pursue the numinous.

... just as it's abnormal not to pursue salt and sugar.

 

[JustWondering]

A question of ethics and morals?

I am not sure this is answerable without a plea to values. So we ought to be receptive to the possibility of gods iff it promotes our values.

So your argument is that we should embrace gods that promote preconceived values and beliefs? No thank you. If you have beliefs, desires, and values that do not mesh with reality that you cannot live without, you can stick your head in the sand and blindly except the supernatural and live in ignorance if that's what floats your boat. Some of us don't want to live in a self constructed bubble, we value honesty and integrity, we base our beliefs off of evidence, not fairy tales.

 

[JustWondering]

As an atheist, I became receptive to the possibility of God because I was extremely curious about cosmology, then the concept of abiogenesis. Some may be comfortable with "I don't know", I was not. The Big Bang theory and related research identified a beginning of the universe, with no understanding of how or why it started. Abiogenesis, the spontaneous creation of life from non living chemicals taught to us in Jr. High school as the reason life exists, is a bogus concept. It has never been observed, never been recreated, and it's mechanism is as unknown as it was when first proposed. So I decided to look at other plausible ideas as to the beginning of everything that exists. I discovered a God creating is no more absurd than nothing creating.

You listed yourself as Christian. How did you get from believing something must have created the universe to believing the Christian god concept? Can you present your line of reasoning that got you to your current beliefs?

 

[Quintessence]

So your argument is that we should embrace gods that promote preconceived values and beliefs? No thank you. If you have beliefs, desires, and values that do not mesh with reality that you cannot live without, you can stick your head in the sand and blindly except the supernatural and live in ignorance if that's what floats your boat. Some of us don't want to live in a self constructed bubble, we value honesty and integrity, we base our beliefs off of evidence, not fairy tales.

... I'm pretty sure you missed the intention of their post there.

It sounds pretty similar to what I was saying earlier - be open to it if that is in keeping with who you are as a person (which includes your values). If not - if being open to it doesn't promote the values you want to uphold - leave it at the door and don't bother with it.

Besides, the insinuation that theists somehow don't value honesty, integrity, or evidence... and then mischaracterizing their ideologies as "fairy tales" is not exactly cool, yo.

 

[BilliardsBall]

... just as it's abnormal not to pursue salt and sugar.

No, it's abnormal to be deficient in salt or sugar and not crave it! Crave God, brother!

 

[JustWondering]

Besides, the insinuation that theists somehow don't value honesty, integrity, or evidence... and then mischaracterizing their ideologies as "fairy tales" is not exactly cool, yo.

My main beef is with claims of the supernatural. If your religion includes concepts and god/s that exist within the natural scheme of things then I'm fine with it. However, when claims are made about things that defy the natural order, evidence needs to presented to back it up. I am under no obligation to entertain made up stories as being factual. When people go into the realm of magic and make believe for entertainment, that's fine. When people want to use magic and make believe to define reality, no thank you, not interested.

Please explain how stories about a magical man who can walk on water, transform and create matter, and raise the dead (including himself) are not fairy tales? the definition of fairy tale

When the honest answers to questions that the only logical answer can be "I don't know" but theists persist that they know otherwise but cannot/will not provide logic and evidence to support themselves, I can only come to the conclusion that they do not value honesty, integrity, and evidence.

You seem to be under the impression my comments are made with only ill intent as my intention. You are wrong. I am merely calling it like I see it. If you/they can prove my insinuations wrong then PLEASE do so. However, I highly doubt anyone can resolve the cognitive dissonance suffered by those that believe in the supernatural.

 

[Curious George]

So your argument is that we should embrace gods that promote preconceived values and beliefs? No thank you. If you have beliefs, desires, and values that do not mesh with reality that you cannot live without, you can stick your head in the sand and blindly except the supernatural and live in ignorance if that's what floats your boat. Some of us don't want to live in a self constructed bubble, we value honesty and integrity, we base our beliefs off of evidence, not fairy tales.

What a hilarious miscommunication. Firstly, the question was regarding receptivity toward possibility, not embracing a God. That misinterpretation is on you. Nothing I said should have led anyone to the conclusion to which you jumped.

Now, the question of ought is based on ethics and morals. So, if you say you ought to do something you are basing that on your ethics and morals. Consequently, any answer as to why one ought to do this is going to appeal to their values. For example, one might argue receptivity based on a pursuit of truth, this would be them suggesting an inherent value in truth. Likewise, a person might argue a lack of receptivity based on a pursuit of truth. This too would be placing a value on the pursuit of truth. Thus, we see two opposing arguments are possible based on the same value.

Hopefully, you can see that such is the case regardless of what value we choose, but the constant is the promotion of a value. So, my answer was that people ought to be receptive, if and only if it promotes their values.

Cheers, hope this helps.

 

[Cephus]

You listed yourself as Christian. How did you get from believing something must have created the universe to believing the Christian god concept? Can you present your line of reasoning that got you to your current beliefs?

Of course not. It reminds me of a debate I had recently with a theist who claimed that he can prove that his particular god is the right god. Now keep in mind, he never got anywhere close to proving that here were any gods at all, but when he went from talking about generic gods to his specific god, he just kind of waved his hands and said "there you go, I proved it!" Um... no you didn't, you just claimed it. But a lot of people don't know the difference between a claim and proof.