Fighting Two Fronts

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell me Proffesh, what is the difference between the "Belief that God does not exist" and the "Lack of belief that God exists?" There is hardly a difference. To admit the possibility that God does exist, you are either a different Atheist or I doubt that are an Atheist. And Agnostic maybe.

You still don't seem to understand what an atheist is, nor do you seem to understand what an agnostic is, and that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

The absence of a belief in something is different than the belief that something doesn't exist - one is a claim, the other is a reaction of disbelief with regards to another claim.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements: "I do not believe a God exists" and "I believe God does not exist"?

I understand about the olive branch you meant to exhibit. I saw the movie and I do understand what you mean. But regarding the faith you claim one needs to believe what the Bible says, I compare to the faith Atheists need to believe in scientific theories long before they are proved into facts. And when they are changed because they have been proved inaccurate, I compare to the faith the faithful of Jim Jones died for.

And you clearly don't understand science either.

Theories never become facts. Theories are explanations of facts. Case in point: gravity, as a force, is a fact. It is quantifiable and observable. The theory of gravity explains how gravity functions and builds a framework based on observation, testing and predictions that we can use. It doesn't take "faith" to believe these things, because the only way something can be regarded as scientifically valid or viable is if there is evidence in support of it. Since it requires evidence, no faith is required.

 

[Ben Masada]

"believing something isn't" and "Not believing something is" are similar, I agree, but they are not the same statement one is definitive and one is not.

I am definately agnostic, agnostic means not to know, but I lean towards not believing in God because the only evidence I have seen is, in my opinion, clearly man-made, there are people who think god may exist but are not certain as well, hence I consider myself an agnostic athiest. I can't see your title as I write this but as I recall it was simply Jewish, that does not describe whether you are orthodox or not, whether you believe in a literal or figurative interpretation and so on.

What theories have I shown my self to believe without proof?

I think you may be confusing me with someone else or making assumptions about me. As someone who comes from a scientific background I always question any theory or law so it makes sense to me. Scientific reasoning should always involve doubt even with things that are considered more or less certain. Mankind's understanding of the nature of the universe is growing exponentially and theories can and have been dis-proven.

My whole point of responding to your post was to say that it is ok not to know something and that your requirement of not being able to use that as response gave the appearance of small-mindedness and was not conducive to open debate.

----------------------------

So, you can't believe in God because the only evidence you have ever seen is clearly man made. Is the universe man made? If it is not, what evidence is it of? The Psalmist in Psalm 19:1 says that the universe is evidence of God's handiwork. You cannot believe it because it is man made. What is man made here, the universe or God?

 

[PolyHedral]

---------------------

From natural phenomena.

No natural phenomena is that selective. The plagues involve killing the first born, and only the first born of every Egyption family, for instance.

. Is the universe man made? If it is not, what evidence is it of?

It's not evidence of anything, other than that the universe exists.

 

[Ben Masada]

You still don't seem to understand what an atheist is, nor do you seem to understand what an agnostic is, and that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

The absence of a belief in something is different than the belief that something doesn't exist - one is a claim, the other is a reaction of disbelief with regards to another claim.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements: "I do not believe a God exists" and "I believe God does not exist"?


And you clearly don't understand science either.

Theories never become facts. Theories are explanations of facts. Case in point: gravity, as a force, is a fact. It is quantifiable and observable. The theory of gravity explains how gravity functions and builds a framework based on observation, testing and predictions that we can use. It doesn't take "faith" to believe these things, because the only way something can be regarded as scientifically valid or viable is if there is evidence in support of it. Since it requires evidence, no faith is required.

------------------

So, what evidences do you have that the universe is composed of millions of gallaxies? Think hard because faith is the belief in things that cannot be seen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

------------------

So, what evidences do you have that the universe is composed of millions of gallaxies? Think hard because faith is the belief in things that cannot be seen.

Because we have seen them:

In any case, faith doesn't mean "belief in things that aren't seen". It means "belief in something without any evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary". Evidence doesn't have to be visual. For example, we don't have to see the oxygen in the air in order to be able to demonstrate that it's there, observe its effects and test for it.

 

[Ben Masada]

No natural phenomena is that selective. The plagues involve killing the first born, and only the first born of every Egyption family, for instance.

It's not evidence of anything, other than that the universe exists.

---------------

So, natural phenomena cannot be that selective, right? Why then Katrina happened in New Orleans and not in New York?

And how can something exist without being the evidence of anything? Are you going to produce the Magician or make up a reason for the existence of things?

 

[Ben Masada]

Because we have seen them:

In any case, faith doesn't mean "belief in things that aren't seen". It means "belief in something without any evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary". Evidence doesn't have to be visual. For example, we don't have to see the oxygen in the air in order to be able to demonstrate that it's there, observe its effects and test for it.

--------------

I remember to have asked about millions of gallaxies in the universe. Your response
above is going to cause a dent on your reputation, because you know you have not seen them.

And then, evidence does not have to be visual to be believed, isn't it what you mean? I understand that I don't have to see oxigen to believe that it is in the air. But you demand that God be seen in order to be believed, in spite of the esoteric evidencial feeling of Theists who have observed its effects in their lives. Where is it written that we should be all of the same kind? And if you agree with me, why must
Atheists put so much of a struggle to persuade Theists to change their minds? Do they constitute a threatening to your disbelief or is it something else too embarrasing to confess?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

--------------

I remember to have asked about millions of gallaxies in the universe. Your response above is going to cause a dent on your reputation, because you know you have not seen them.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You asked "what evidences do you have that the universe is composed of millions of gallaxies?". You did not ask for me to provide you with my personal observations of millions of galaxies. If you want to see other hubble telescope images taken of the millions of galaxies we have observed, you need only type in "hubble images" into google and see for yourself. Here are a couple to get you started:

http://www.physicstogo.org/images/features/hubble_deep_field-large.jpg
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0406a.jpg

And then, evidence does not have to be visual to be believed, isn't it what you mean? I understand that I don't have to see oxigen to believe that it is in the air. But you demand that God be seen in order to be believed, in spite of the esoteric evidencial feeling of Theists who have observed its effects in their lives. Where is it written that we should be all of the same kind? And if you agree with me, why must Atheists put so much of a struggle to persuade Theists to change their minds? Do they constitute a threatening to your disbelief or is it something else too embarrasing to confess?

I've never once demanded for God to be "observed". All I ever ask for is evidence, which can be logical, deductive, testable or whatever form you like provided it isn't a) a subjective personal experience, b) based on false logic or c) completely false.

Instead of putting words in my mouth and moving goalposts around, could you please, just once, deal with the arguments people are actually making?

 

[PhAA]

Ah.. This will never end. It's like the question, "If god created the universe, who created god?"

The big bang theory is a good start. We CURRENTLY don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but some scientists now believe it was not the first, it's just an endless cycle.

 

[Ben Masada]

Now you're moving the goalposts. You asked "what evidences do you have that the universe is composed of millions of gallaxies?". You did not ask for me to provide you with my personal observations of millions of galaxies. If you want to see other hubble telescope images taken of the millions of galaxies we have observed, you need only type in "hubble images" into google and see for yourself. Here are a couple to get you started:

http://www.physicstogo.org/images/features/hubble_deep_field-large.jpg
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0406a.jpg


I've never once demanded for God to be "observed". All I ever ask for is evidence, which can be logical, deductive, testable or whatever form you like provided it isn't a) a subjective personal experience, b) based on false logic or c) completely false.

Instead of putting words in my mouth and moving goalposts around, could you please, just once, deal with the arguments people are actually making?

-------------

How can an esoteric experience be collective instead of subjectively personal? How can it be logical to observers who are unable to experience it? And it is possible that it be completely false but only in the eyes of the scheptical beholder. Now, I am going to let you stay for a while in the corner of the room, at least till the paint is dry.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ah.. This will never end. It's like the question, "If god created the universe, who created god?"

The big bang theory is a good start. We CURRENTLY don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but some scientists now believe it was not the first, it's just an endless cycle.

------------

Or it never happened at all, as I have read and watched Scientists confess on the History channel that the Big Bang could even vanish without ever being proved into a fact.

 

[PhAA]

------------

Or it never happened at all, as I have read and watched Scientists confess on the History channel that the Big Bang could even vanish without ever being proved into a fact.

Yeah, nothing is forever true in science, it is dynamic. The laws are true until they are proven false. That is something religion doesn't have. Theists only have one beginning and one end. They try to impart the new discoveries in order to survive, always trying to say that it's misinterpreted. That's why they have no credible and permanent stand. But they have to prove that there's a god in the beginning, and in the end.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

-------------

How can an esoteric experience be collective instead of subjectively personal? How can it be logical to observers who are unable to experience it?

This is exactly why personal or emotional experiences never count as substantial evidence for anything.

And it is possible that it be completely false but only in the eyes of the scheptical beholder.

Sure it is. But experience and history has taught us that the more evidence something has in favour of it, the more likely it is to be true - and that, if something can be considered true, it should have evidence to support it.

I understand you base your beliefs on personal experience. The question is can you justify that belief logically to anyone but yourself? Can you demonstrate the truth value of your claims to any extent, and if you cannot do that does that not worry you? If you care whether or not your beliefs are true, then surely you must care about your beliefs being based on something more substantial than subjective personal experience.

------------

Or it never happened at all, as I have read and watched Scientists confess on the History channel that the Big Bang could even vanish without ever being proved into a fact.

Do yourself a favour: find a more reliable and relevant source for your science information than the History channel.

The big bang is a theory. Theories never become facts, and nothing in science is ever "proven".

 

[Ben Masada]

Yeah, nothing is forever true in science, it is dynamic. The laws are true until they are proven false. That is something religion doesn't have. Theists only have one beginning and one end. They try to impart the new discoveries in order to survive, always trying to say that it's misinterpreted. That's why they have no credible and permanent stand. But they have to prove that there's a god in the beginning, and in the end.

---------------
Wow! That's the first time I hear that the opposite of truth is dynamic. But the dictionary still says that the word is "a lie." And if the laws are true until they are proven false, Astrophysics is full of false laws.

If one beginning is birth and one end is death, do you mean Theists don't have a life in between? What are you talking about? The misinterpretation is in the method. The majority go literal with it; the learnt ones go metaphorical. And where is the credibility of false theories? I think that Science itself will surprise us withe the proof for the existence of God.

 

[Ben Masada]

This is exactly why personal or emotional experiences never count as substantial evidence for anything.


Sure it is. But experience and history has taught us that the more evidence something has in favour of it, the more likely it is to be true - and that, if something can be considered true, it should have evidence to support it.

I understand you base your beliefs on personal experience. The question is can you justify that belief logically to anyone but yourself? Can you demonstrate the truth value of your claims to any extent, and if you cannot do that does that not worry you? If you care whether or not your beliefs are true, then surely you must care about your beliefs being based on something more substantial than subjective personal experience.

Do yourself a favour: find a more reliable and relevant source for your science information than the History channel.

The big bang is a theory. Theories never become facts, and nothing in science is ever "proven".

-----------

If the proof of anything comes through evidences, to quote yourself above, and nothing in Science is ever proven, how can you ever show evidences for believing in scientific theories?

 

[LuisDantas]

---------------
Wow! That's the first time I hear that the opposite of truth is dynamic.

You misunderstood Riverwolf. The operative word is "forever".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If the proof of anything comes through evidences, to quote yourself above,

I never said anything about "proof". All I said was that the more evidence we have of something, the more likely it is to be true.

and nothing in Science is ever proven, how can you ever show evidences for believing in scientific theories?

Once again, you've completely missed the point I was making by erroneously asserting that I said anything whatsoever about "proof" being a requirement. What I talked about was evidence. Read my post again and respond to the points I actually made.

 

[Ben Masada]

I never said anything about "proof". All I said was that the more evidence we have of something, the more likely it is to be true.


Once again, you've completely missed the point I was making by erroneously asserting that I said anything whatsoever about "proof" being a requirement. What I talked about was evidence. Read my post again and respond to the points I actually made.

--------------

No, you never said anyting about "proof." You said something about the more evidence we have of something, the more likely it is to be true. Since proof is the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, proof is not necessary to be spelled within the context. That's the natural result of evidences. Oh yes, I recall to have read you say that everything in Science is never proven. I knew proof was there somewhere, only that it never operates in the scientific realm. How could I ever exchange my esoteric conception of a Creator for the uncertainties of a science that cannot prove anything?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

--------------

No, you never said anyting about "proof." You said something about the more evidence we have of something, the more likely it is to be true. Since proof is the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, proof is not necessary to be spelled within the context. That's the natural result of evidences. Oh yes, I recall to have read you say that everything in Science is never proven. I knew proof was there somewhere, only that it never operates in the scientific realm. How could I ever exchange my esoteric conception of a Creator for the uncertainties of a science that cannot prove anything?

Because you clearly don't understand the function of science.

"Proof" means "a singular fact that demonstrates the truth of a given supposition". In science, no such thing exists because, quite simply, nothing is ever that simple. Science can demonstrate, it can produce evidence, it can predict and it can explain facts - but proof is never used because such a concept would prevent science from evolving, and if you assert that a singular fact "proves" a given hypothesis it prevents that hypothesis from being further investigated, and if that "proof" were wrong then science comes to a full stop. "Proof" is not used in science, and nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for the reasons why you should "exchange" your conception of a creator for the "uncertainties" of science, firstly I would start by saying that you don't have to and nobody is telling you to. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God while still accepting scientific facts and science in general. Secondly, you should accept science because science demonstrates itself every day as being the best possible method we currently have for determining what is true and what isn't, which is why you can thank the advancement of science for almost all the comforts and utilities you use in your day-to-day life.

 

[Ben Masada]

Because you clearly don't understand the function of science.

"Proof" means "a singular fact that demonstrates the truth of a given supposition". In science, no such thing exists because, quite simply, nothing is ever that simple. Science can demonstrate, it can produce evidence, it can predict and it can explain facts - but proof is never used because such a concept would prevent science from evolving, and if you assert that a singular fact "proves" a given hypothesis it prevents that hypothesis from being further investigated, and if that "proof" were wrong then science comes to a full stop. "Proof" is not used in science, and nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for the reasons why you should "exchange" your conception of a creator for the "uncertainties" of science, firstly I would start by saying that you don't have to and nobody is telling you to. It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God while still accepting scientific facts and science in general. Secondly, you should accept science because science demonstrates itself every day as being the best possible method we currently have for determining what is true and what isn't, which is why you can thank the advancement of science for almost all the comforts and utilities you use in your day-to-day life.

------------------

Theists can use the same method about God. We can never prove the essence of God but improve our knowledge through His acts of Creation. That's why I do not consider Theology a concept opposite to Science, as I believe that Science could turn out to be of a great help in the study of God.

But then again, you are back with another statement that Science demonstrates itself everyday as being the best possible methot we currently have for determining what is true and what isn't.

Another definition of proof is the demonstration of an evidence to be true. If Science is the best method we have to proof what is true from what isn't, how is it that Science can never prove anything? I am sorry but I can't help detecting contradiction in your opinions. The only instance you are free of contradiction is with regards to the advancement of Technology.