Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[IndigoChild5559]

It was not about what I believe, but what I don't believe. And, I don't believe things without good reasons. If all people would do the same, and not believe things without good reasons, I think world would be much better.

You have far more than just some good reasons. You have incontrovertible proof. Look, I fully realize that when something is this obvious and someone still refuses to accept it, it's because their emotional investment is simply to high for anything I say to make a difference. So I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to reason with you. I simply stand by my comment. We are doomed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It was not about what I believe, but what I don't believe.

They both are relevant to the choices you make, which is what affects you and others.

I don't believe things without good reasons.

What you call good reason is not what is considered good reasoning. You have your own rogue logic that confirms your faith-based assumptions (confirmation bias).

There's a saying: "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm citing this only to say that claiming reason for oneself is the compliment unreason pays to reason. In the first statement, what is being said is that pretending to be virtuous while not that (hypocrisy) is the non-virtuous person complimenting virtue and the virtuous despite lacking having or being that.

Just as people of poor character want to be thought of as good people as when people who commit crimes want others to think that they were justified and just in their choices, people who believe by faith want to present themselves as using reason to arrive at those beliefs, which is paying homage to reason without drinking from that cup oneself.

If all people would do the same, and not believe things without good reasons, I think world would be much better.

Agreed, but we'd have to agree on what constitutes good reasoning. Rogue logic is not good reasoning and doesn't get one to sound (correct) conclusions and thus doesn't generate knowledge - just what are essentially guesses.

We believe what we want to believe so we can do what we want to do

Not everybody. What you describe is common, but one can learn to do better. It is possible to discipline thought and apply ONLY dispassionate, critical thinking to any matter, and to base choices on reason rather than rationalizing after the fact to support choices made impulsively.

You might not believe that, which is also common. We see that when people assume that critical thinkers are indoctrinated by propaganda because they assume that everybody is susceptible to it, and since were all exposed to attempts at indoctrinating us from church doctrine to advertisements to political propaganda, it's assumed that we're all defenseless and therefore indoctrinated whether we like it or not just for being there and having the ideas enter our heads.

Critical thought is a test of such ideas to decide whether they justified by academic standards as seen in law and medicine, and it is possible to make subjecting all ideas to that process as much an infallible habit of thought as looking both ways before crossing a street or saying please and thank you. One simply learns to never believe ideas that don't clear that hurdle.

Such a person's beliefs are NOT arrived at to justify behavior. Behavior is driven by belief and desired outcome, and if one is wise, one's immediate desired outcome is determined by long term desired outcomes, that is, by knowledge of what brings lasting satisfaction.

But nobody starts there.

 

[PureX]

They both are relevant to the choices you make, which is what affects you and others.

What you call good reason is not what is considered good reasoning. You have your own rogue logic that confirms your faith-based assumptions (confirmation bias).

There's a saying: "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'm citing this only to say that claiming reason for oneself is the compliment unreason pays to reason. In the first statement, what is being said is that pretending to be virtuous while not that (hypocrisy) is the non-virtuous person complimenting virtue and the virtuous despite lacking having or being that.

Just as people of poor character want to be thought of as good people as when people who commit crimes want others to think that they were justified and just in their choices, people who believe by faith want to present themselves as using reason to arrive at those beliefs, which is paying homage to reason without drinking from that cup oneself.

Agreed, but we'd have to agree on what constitutes good reasoning. Rogue logic is not good reasoning and doesn't get one to sound (correct) conclusions and thus doesn't generate knowledge - just what are essentially guesses.

Not everybody. What you describe is common, but one can learn to do better. It is possible to discipline thought and apply ONLY dispassionate, critical thinking to any matter, and to base choices on reason rather than rationalizing after the fact to support choices made impulsively.

The problem, here, is that one must WANT to do better. And to BE better. And that's rare.

Because no one wants to see themselves as not doing what's right, no matter how wrong their idea of righteousness is. Thieves, rapists, and murderers nearly always find a way to justify their crimes so they don't have to be the bad guy in their own mind.

You might not believe that, which is also common. We see that when people assume that critical thinkers are indoctrinated by propaganda because they assume that everybody is susceptible to it, and since were all exposed to attempts at indoctrinating us from church doctrine to advertisements to political propaganda, it's assumed that we're all defenseless and therefore indoctrinated whether we like it or not just for being there and having the ideas enter our heads.

More silly anti-religious blather.

Critical thought is a test of such ideas to decide whether they justified by academic standards as seen in law and medicine, and it is possible to make subjecting all ideas to that process as much an infallible habit of thought as looking both ways before crossing a street or saying please and thank you. One simply learns to never believe ideas that don't clear that hurdle.

Everyone thinks they are "critical thinkers". Almost no one ever is. Especially those who have to keep proclaiming it for themselves.

Such a person's beliefs are NOT arrived at to justify behavior.

Of course they are, nearly always.

Behavior is driven by belief and desired outcome, and if one is wise, one's immediate desired outcome is determined by long term desired outcomes, that is, by knowledge of what brings lasting satisfaction.

But nobody starts there.

It all starts with "I want ...". And everything we think and do next follows from that. But I guess your "critical mind" can't grasp that fundament of human (and all other life forms) nature.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem, here, is that one must WANT to do better. And to BE better.

Agreed. Self-improvement is active:

"self-actualization, in psychology, a concept regarding the process by which an individual reaches his or her full potential."

I would modify that. That's actualization, which isn't necessarily self-directed, as with "Be all you can be in the Army," where you submit to somebody else's direction. For me, self-actualization differs by being directed by the self, as when - and here's metaphor you can relate to - the artist is both the painter and the canvas or both the sculptor and the block of marble.

More silly anti-religious blather.

It was neither blather nor about religion. Read it again. It was about assuming that everybody is defenseless against indoctrination and name three types of that, only one referring to religion:

"people assume that critical thinkers are indoctrinated by propaganda because they assume that everybody is susceptible to it, and since were all exposed to attempts at indoctrinating us from church doctrine to advertisements to political propaganda, it's assumed that we're all defenseless and therefore indoctrinated whether we like it or not just for being there and having the ideas enter our heads."

Did you want to try to rebut that this time?

Everyone thinks they are "critical thinkers"

Many that aren't do, but many people have no idea what that is or what critical thought does for those engaging in it. This is the Dunning-Kruger set, and why they think that their opinions are as valid as informed opinions. They are unaware that they exist, because they are unaware that it is possible using that method to arrive at correct conclusions and know that they are correct unlike their D-K counterparts.

Almost no one ever is. Especially those who have to keep proclaiming it for themselves.

Yes, I consider myself a critical thinker, but when I refer to critical thinkers, it is to a class of people, not me referring only to myself or even explicitly including myself. But yes, it's a minority that develop the skill, but not "almost no one."

I'll assume that that's a dig at me. Once you open that door, my demeanor in responding to you changes. Behold. Compare how you were treated in those two comments (deferentially and respectfully) compared to my now modified tone, which is now indifference to how my words make you look or feel. My considerations when responding to you have gone from was it kind, true, and constructive to was it true and constructive.

So let's proceed:

Do you consider yourself a critical thinker? I don't.

Have you learned what an atheist is and believes yet? You've made the same mistakes there for years. A critical thinker notices evidence that he is wrong when he is wrong and the evidence presented to him. That hasn't happened for you yet.

Of course they are, nearly always

That was a response to, "Such a person's beliefs are NOT arrived at to justify behavior." I'll assume that you are projecting here and unaware that people can do better than that.

It all starts with "I want ..."

Yes, but not in the short-sighted, impulsive, self-centered sense that you probably mean. Early in life it is that and only that in all of us, but with time, some evolve noble aspirations. What they want is to be happy, and if they are observant, analytical, and decent, they discover what does that and use their critical thinking skills to acquire it circumstances permitting.

But once a person develops a sense of decency and critical thinking skills, his "I want" can be noble - exemplary, even. Were you aware of that possibility in others?

I guess your "critical mind" can't grasp that fundament of human (and all other life forms) nature.

Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you say isn't simplistic or simple to understand, although I wonder how much of my comment above, which can be understood as a nuanced rebuttal of that claim before you made it, will be meaningful to you.

If you can ever learn emotional continence and good manners, we can return to the more mutually respectful form of communication. So far, you keep taking personal shots.

 

[PureX]

It was about assuming that everybody is defenseless against indoctrination ...

Did you want to try to rebut that this time?

You "critical thinking" atheists make this assumption all the time. And it's always wrong.

Propaganda only works on those that want to believe it. Critical thinkers are only critical of everyone else's thinking. These are easily observable axioms that become invisible when experienced from within. Much the same way bigotry is invisible to the bigot even though it's obvious to anyone else. Or how obvious a cult is from the outside while being extremely difficult to recognize from within it. Ad why this discrepancy? Because people choose their own truths from among the many being presented to them. And they are choosing based mostly on desire. Often deep, subconscious desire. The desire to feel oneself to be a 'superior being'. Or the desire to have special access to some great insight, or the desire to be the judge in their own personal "kangaroo courtroom".

Many that aren't do, but many people have no idea what that is or what critical thought does for those engaging in it.

That's because it's mostly BS when it's viewed from without. Critical thinkers are only critical of everyone else's thinking. Never their own. If they were capable of honest self-criticism, they would not label themselves "critical thinkers". They would understand that all thought is flawed and biased.

Yes, I consider myself a critical thinker, but when I refer to critical thinkers, it is to a class of people, not me referring only to myself or even explicitly including myself. But yes, it's a minority that develop the skill, but not "almost no one."

I hate to tell you, but you are not much of a "critical thinker" as you are never critical of your own thinking.

I'll assume that that's a dig at me. Once you open that door, my demeanor in responding to you changes.

Of course. because when YOUR thinking is criticized, your only reaction is to auto-defend. This is not the reaction of a critical thinker.

Do you consider yourself a critical thinker?

No. I am a multiplicitous thinker. I'm more interested in the various pathways of thought then I am in achieving the "one true path". I think the "one true path" is just an ego-delusion.

Have you learned what an atheist is and believes yet?

An atheist is anyone that is espousing atheism. Have YOU figured this out, yet? Or are you still blindly pretending that atheists are defined by what they don't espouse or believe in? Or their pink shoes. Or whatever else has nothing to do with atheism.

You've made the same mistakes there for years. A critical thinker notices evidence that he is wrong when he is wrong and the evidence presented to him. That hasn't happened for you yet.

Blah, blah, blah, .... just more meaningless 'kangaroo court' pronouncements. Judge ANS presiding.

That was a response to, "Such a person's beliefs are NOT arrived at to justify behavior." I'll assume that you are projecting here and unaware that people can do better than that.

People CAN do lots of things. But they nearly always do the same things over and over, anyway.

Yes, but not in the short-sighted, impulsive, self-centered sense that you probably mean. Early in life it is that and only that in all of us, but with time, some evolve noble aspirations.

Well, they THINK they do. But really, aren't they just now calling their desires "aspirations"? And pretending that they're rising above their own selfishness? (This is what a critical thinker would contemplate.)

What they want is to be happy, and if they are observant, analytical, and decent, they discover what does that and use their critical thinking skills to acquire it circumstances permitting.

If I were already blue, I would want to pursue blue goals. But wait, isn't this what I was saying all along???

But once a person develops a sense of decency and critical thinking skills, his "I want" can be noble - exemplary, even. Were you aware of that possibility in others?

"Develops a sense of decency" ... how do you imagine this happens if not by a determined desire? And wait, wasn't that what I was saying all along???

Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you say isn't simplistic or simple to understand,...

I know. But that is my gift to you ... the gift of a glimpse at the multiplicitous thought paths that we humans have available to us at any given moment ... to choose our "truth" from.

although I wonder how much of my comment above, which can be understood as a nuanced rebuttal of that claim before you made it, will be meaningful to you.

I am not here searching for any big righteous truth. Which s why I don't care about what you or anyone else thinks the "evidence proves". Or disproves. Or justifies. Or negates. So none of it will be meaningful to me in that way. It's only of use to me to the degree that it reveals yet another one of those multiple thought paths that we humans seem to constantly be tangled up in, that I was not yet aware of.

If you can ever learn emotional continence and good manners, we can return to the more mutually respectful form of communication. So far, you keep taking personal shots.

Your expectations regarding "manners" are not my responsibility to meet. Sorry. I am not being rude. I am simply being honest and direct. It saves us both a lot of time and energy. You can choose to appreciate this, or you can whine about it, or you can disparage it, or you can use it to justify dismissing any thoughts I offer, or you can appreciate it, ... or you can do whatever else. That's your choice. (And I bet you will make that choice based on a deep seated desire as we all nearly always do.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Propaganda only works on those that want to believe it.

Not so. It works to a greater or lesser extent on anybody not equipped to recognize and reject it.

Critical thinkers are only critical of everyone else's thinking.

It sounds like you're excluding yourself as a critical thinker.

Critical thinking is about evaluating claims. From AI:

Me: "Define critical thinking skills"

AI: "Critical thinking skills refer to the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in a logical and coherent manner to make informed decisions and solve complex problems. Key aspects of critical thinking include reasoning, objectivity, open-mindedness, evidence-based judgment, and effective communication. These skills involve the ability to question assumptions, identify biases, weigh evidence, and consider multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions. By honing critical thinking skills, individuals can enhance their problem-solving abilities, boost their creativity, and make well-informed decisions in various aspects of their personal and professional lives."

Critical thinkers are only critical of everyone else's thinking. Never their own. If they were capable of honest self-criticism, they would not label themselves "critical thinkers". They would understand that all thought is flawed and biased.

You're wrong. Many critical thinkers are quite adept at it. One can overcome irrational bias and learn to think flawlessly more often than not - perhaps never.

An atheist is anyone that is espousing atheism.

That's a pretty useless tautology.

I doubt that you could accurately reproduce what I alone have espoused to you about what an atheist is and what an atheist believes. If you could, then you wouldn't have to resort to empty words instead

Your expectations regarding "manners" are not my responsibility to meet.

Correct. You have no obligation to be respectful of others.

But you should expect to be judged for you choices - what you call kangaroo court.

I am not being rude.

This an example of lack of self-examination on your part and an inability to see oneself as others see them. Look at how you define critical thinkers. It's an offensive definition intended to demean those who think critically. It reeks of sour grapes. You might want to think about who your words actually demean.

 

[Sargonski]

Yeah. Proves nothing about abiogenesis. This is just a red herring. And you made too many errors providing bogus information.

That should end this conversation. Ciao.

I made no errors .. provided no bogus information .. your post a big bag of strawman fallacy .. nor do you have any idea what a red herring is nor about the subject of abiogenesis. This however need not end the convo .. no need to engage the thought stopping trigger .. because you don't understand the importance of "self replication" in evolution.

The ability to have a baby is a major step along the evolutionary path Brother Fire .. .. no need to run away in a huff... surely you understand the importance of babies .. progeny .. offspring in the evolutionary process .. Right !

 

[Sargonski]

Ok, I have difficulties to believe that, because by what I know, viruses don't last in nature on their own.

It was not stated that they do last in nature on their own .. so you difficulties matter not. You are not understanding the idea that viruses have been with us .. all along .. ..and are part of the evolutionary process .. but your gapping on the idea that ... we are not talking the virus TODAY .. we are talking the proto virus like entity interacting with the proto nucleic acids .. in a symbiotic relationship from the beginning .. like you and your bacteria .. remember .. more of them than you .. and possibly .. they built the house in which you live ..rather than the other way round .. your human cells built the house in which the bacteria live. .. as for certain .. there wre bacterial cells before there was such thing as a human cell ... plasmids .. and Prions .. before humans came round .. and proto viruses .. were extant in conjunction with other cells ... prior to jumping on to human cells .. species transfer of which they are very adept ..

So what are you calling "Nature" ? as that is where viruses come from .. never heard of the Swine Flu .. or the Bird Flue ? Viruses indeed last in nature .. we have these proto-viruses surviving just fine in nature .. small chains of nucleic acids .. in a membrane ...

but what part of ... why are you looking for a virus that survives outside the host to begin with ??? thats not what we are looking for .. .. we are looking for little packets of nucleic acids that self replicate .. very similar to a plasmid .. a proto plasmid .. and you have to understand what that is for this to make any sense .. you keep going off page. these are short chains of self replicating nucleic acids .. the plasmid is a short chain of DNA .. in a lab we have created RNA .. a self replicating nucleic acid .. that can hook up with another RNA .. to form DNA ..

A Plasmid is very close to what we are creating in a lab... .. as these chains get more complex . the cell function increases .. When the bacteria takes in these plasmids .. their cell function increases.

 

[firedragon]

I made no errors .. provided no bogus information .. your post a big bag of strawman fallacy .. nor do you have any idea what a red herring is nor about the subject of abiogenesis. This however need not end the convo .. no need to engage the thought stopping trigger .. because you don't understand the importance of "self replication" in evolution.

The ability to have a baby is a major step along the evolutionary path Brother Fire .. .. no need to run away in a huff... surely you understand the importance of babies .. progeny .. offspring in the evolutionary process .. Right !

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Another red herring.

Ciao.

 

[Sargonski]

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Another red herring.

Ciao.

Your lack of understanding of the relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is not my red herring Brother Fire - hearken to project the Fish out of own eye rather than project your fish into another ... and do not expect a fish to swim out of the lab .. fully evolved as this - while not a red herring - a ridiculous and absurd assumption ... putting the evolutionary cart before the abiogenesis horse.

 

[firedragon]

Your lack of understanding of the relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is not my red herring Brother Fire

Evolution begins with life. You didn't know that? Very good.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[1213]

....You have incontrovertible proof. ..

..for that life and this world needs creator to exist. All that can be seen in nature indicates that things are atrophying, eroding, disintegrating, if nothing prevents it. Without God, we would just have atoms spread equally in space, and likely not even that.

 

[Sargonski]

Evolution begins with life. You didn't know that? Very good.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Let us not pretend to have understanding of things which you do not Brother Fire ... Evolution began long before life .. but even if your random made up nattering was true .. it would not mean abiogenesis and Evolution were not related nor connected. Non Sequitur fallacy on your part.

 

[McBell]

... Evolution began long before life ...

Please explain how life evolved before life existed.

 

[firedragon]

Evolution began long before life .

You are absolutely wrong. Give me one book on evolution that says what you say. Just one book.

I will give you a book to support by a new Atheist. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

 

[Sargonski]

Please explain how life evolved before life existed.

You are absolutely wrong. Give me one book on evolution that says what you say. Just one book.

I will give you a book to support by a new Atheist. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

I care not the theology or lack there-of of the author. .. I like Richard Dawkins .. .. as a Chemist and Microbiological specialist .. I care about the biochemistry .. and go find any biochemistry text .. which will explain to you that "Evolution" is a function of mutations buy self replicating molecules .. This is how all living organisms came to be .. and no one said life evolved before life existed doornob .. Evolution on the other hand existed prior to life .. the process of evolution .. molecules getting more and more complex .. evolving and changing as the process goes .. changes to the nucleic acid in a human cell = evolution changes to the nucleic acid in a virus = evolution changes to nucleic acid in a plasmid = evolution .. changes to the nucleic acids further down the chain = evolution .. its what Puts the Nucleic Acid in RNA ..

and .. speaking of Richard Dawkins .. what part of "Evidence for Evolution" did you think was not being explained to you ? Richard is going to tell you the same thing as I have... and chuckle at you as I have .. for expecting a fully formed and evolved bacteria to walk out of the Lab..

 

[IndigoChild5559]

..for that life and this world needs creator to exist.

That's an assumption, not a given. Do I personally think there is a Creator? Yeap, I sure do. But that is my belief. It is not a fact.

 

[firedragon]

I care not the theology or lack there-of of the author. .. I like Richard Dawkins .. .. as a Chemist and Microbiological specialist .. I care about the biochemistry .. and go find any biochemistry text .. which will explain to you that "Evolution" is a function of mutations buy self replicating molecules .. This is how all living organisms came to be .. and no one said life evolved before life existed doornob .. Evolution on the other hand existed prior to life .. the process of evolution .. molecules getting more and more complex .. evolving and changing as the process goes .. changes to the nucleic acid in a human cell = evolution changes to the nucleic acid in a virus = evolution changes to nucleic acid in a plasmid = evolution .. changes to the nucleic acids further down the chain = evolution .. its what Puts the Nucleic Acid in RNA ..

and .. speaking of Richard Dawkins .. what part of "Evidence for Evolution" did you think was not being explained to you ? Richard is going to tell you the same thing as I have... and chuckle at you as I have .. for expecting a fully formed and evolved bacteria to walk out of the Lab..

You can do any kind of workout and gymnastics mate but evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

 

[Sargonski]

You can do any kind of workout and gymnastics mate but evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Do you know what a naked claim is Brother Fire ? -- that is a claim without support.
Do you know what an argument is Brother Fire ? .. consists of 2 things 1) claim 2) support .. showing claim is true.

Your missing an argument What is your definition of evolution ..does it not include how life evolved
I know science may not be your strong suit .. but it appears English is the problem .. surely how life arose is part of evolution of life on the planet -- and... working out and gymnastics is not going to help your complete lack of understanding of both the science and the English language by which that science is contextualized.

Evolution = mutation .. Do you know what a mutation is Brother Fire .. let us focus on the science part .. please demonstrate your understanding of the term "evolution" from a scientific perspective and tell us what role mutations play ... and answer whether or not these mutations happen in non living systems

 

[Sargonski]

You are absolutely wrong. Give me one book on evolution that says what you say. Just one book.

I will give you a book to support by a new Atheist. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins.