How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)...

[Willamena]

That really depends if I am seeing the impossible happen or not.

Then you are seeing the impossible.

 

[Quiddity]

Being able to see, hear or feel it for myself is important to me. I can't take anything for granted on simple faith alone.

Good or warm feeling in the heart, when you pray, is not very meaningful to me, because I can interpret this in many possible ways.

Of course you can. Nor would I take such approaches. Everyone is different. Even in regards to evidence it is taken differently by different people. Some may think it's remarkable, while others can care less. Religion and faith is no different in that aspect.

Look, Victor. Before your church can make a saint out of someone, I have been told that certain people have to investigate saint-candidate for some performance of miracles. Does that mean that they have to find proof of such miracle, critically and questioning? Or do they just accept the miracle as hearsay?

If they accept it as hearsay, and was already set to believe in the miracles, without questioning, then that's not a critical examination, is it?

But if the saint investigators critically investigate miracle, then how am I different?

I will believe in a miracle if it is genuine, but I am not going to accept the words of prophet, saint, priest or anyone who is already a believer. What good is my faith if it is only based on the bible or prophet? My faith or belief would to my mind be worthless.

It is like me breaking a priceless vase, and a friend of mine apologise for me to the owner, even if I am not sorry. What is that apology worths? Not much at all. So unless I myself apologise to the owner, there is no resolution.

At one point, I would have been baptised and followed a church, which my sister belonged to. If I join the church only because I am following my sister, and not any belief of mine, then what is whole point? I can't simply follow any religion because of someone else's belief or because it is fashionable to follow certain crowd.

It has to be done in my own determination and in my own term, and not because your bible say so or someone claiming to be a prophet. So unless, I see some real miracles, I will continue questioning religion about this or that.


That really depends if I am seeing the impossible happen or not.

This kinda went off topic if you are truly interested see:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011bt.asp

 

[s2a]

Hello Bookoo,

After I said:
Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

You said:
I

don't know how you could either prove or disprove the existence of a deity, but then I'm agnostic about my theism anyway.

I have put forth my modest and considered proposal that I would deem as acceptable "proof" of an existent divine entity throughout this thread, and will reference it yet again for your own consideration both for the OP, and the ensuing challenges/rebuttals within that thread:
"How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)..."

Your contributions to that particular referenced thread are invited and most welcome.

If you disproved the validity of the Messenger, that would go a long way, though.

I long ago disposed of any interest or motivation in attempts to "disprove" faith-based claims and beliefs.
How does one factually "disprove" a claim that is not predicated on empirical fact as foundation?
How does one disprove the existence of a "ghost" to someone that truly believes in both ghostly existence and their effect upon both themselves and others? Such claims do not rely upon ANY empirical evidence or objective measure/test as substantiation of any given claim. At best, all skeptics may offer "believers" is an utter lack of any compelling or substantiative evidence in validation of their claim as being either verifiable or veritable.
"Eyewitness testimony" is often the very worst sort of "evidence" (alongside individualized accountings of anecdotal "evidence") available in efforting to substantiate any spurious claim or singular "event".
A lack of evidence does not constitute any solid disproof of any claim...but a continual lack of any credible, (repeatedly) testable, or measurable evidence of any kind may likely lead to a most reasonable doubt as conclusion amongst folks that expect (demand?) extraordinary evidence in/as support of extraordinary claims.

You claim some amorphous and randomly appearing (i.e. "visbile") apparitions of dead people? OK. I might believe...but..."Don't tell me, show me".

I said:
It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith"...
You replied:

It is?

Yes. I would concede that matters of semantics are readily applicable to an admittedly unsubstantiated observation lacking proper footnotes and references; and that a "crisis of faith" to one believer might differ in meaning and substance from another. One might even fairly assert that I utilized a broad generalization in my commentary.

If you question the merit of my lent commentary, I'll be pleased to indulge you with the referenced sources upon which my summary conclusion is predicate. The trends regarding the "decline" in both numbers of adherents and their participation within organized religions/faiths are veritable, and well documented. If you doubt my assertion, and you are unwilling to research such an assertion for yourself to personal satisfaction, I'll indulge your skepticism with all accordingly due references, in reply as necessary.

Uh, would you like to start another thread to discuss this? I'd find it interesting to look at this topic in more detail.

Not really, no. While I would encourage more folks to abandon mysticism, mythology, supernaturalism, and religion in favor of reason and critical thinking, I am not especially interested in the "numbers game" of which religion/practice/belief/faith is either "winning" or "losing" a given number of present/former adherents. It's all (faith-based claims) bunk to me, and I have no faith-based "favorites" or mythology/religion/superstition to either root for, or rally against.

Uh, my religious beliefs include the existence of life in places other than earth, so that wouldn't disprove much.

OK.

When I posed/inquired:
Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

You said:

The problem with this is, you can always take it one step further back and claim that it was God that created the spark, set up the rules of physics, decided mutations were a fine idea as a creation mechanism, and so forth.

The problem with that supposed conundrum, lies in the fact that claims alone present neither fact nor evidence as credibly evaluative support. Many religions offer a multitude of varying claims and/or "explanations" of otherwise observable naturalistic phenomena as being directly/indirectly attributable to supernaturalistic forces or entities.

Claims alone (whether held in earnest, constantly repeated, or perpetually manifested) do not constitute fact, evidence, or truth.
Faith is evidence of faith itself, and nothing more.
Some adherents of the HIndu faith claim that the cosmos was spawned from the belly-button of Vishnu, after and from which grew a lotus flower containing Brahama, who was commanded (by Vishnu) to "create the world" from the sea within which Brahama was floating about. Brahama separated the lotus flower into three parts, from which he created the heavens, earth, and skies.
That's one faith-based claim of "creation" as recounted in Hindu mythology. Needless to say, there's no scientific evidence or findings to support such a faith-based claim, but there are literally millions of faithful adherents that regard such faith-based stories as immutable fact...beyond any question or inspection. Yet, strangely enough, there are those that refuse to accept the Hindu claims of "creation" as being either undeniable fact or "truth".

Are any such faith-based claims (being either acceptable, evidenced, or "believable) either "proved" or "disproved" by any scientifically-derived methodology? Nope. I wonder why...

I can neither "prove" nor "disprove" the faith-based claims tendered by the pious adherents of such faith-based claims, since there is no presented physical evidence of such an "original" lotus flower (how Vishnu came to have a "belly-button" in the first place is another claim I await evidenced as estimable fact--or even logical--explanation thereof).

You can always take the physical one step back into the metaphysical, so I don't think you'd have much luck with this as any evidence in the non-existence of the supernatural.

You can...but abstract and evidentially unsupported rationales/explanations ("metaphysics") differ little from faith-based "explanations" of naturally observable "cause and effect" phenomena. Metaphysics is nothing more than an undisciplined, undemanding, and uncritical philosophy that admits any claim as "possible", and efforts to neither discredit nor validate any wild or insubstantial assumption. Metaphysics offers such profundities as "God is Dog--Dog is God", and "Cheeseburgers are the source of ultimate truth". etc. Metaphysics not only defies the questions of "who knows", but personifies the more pertinent inquiries of "who cares"? There may be yet another solar system and entire cosmos swirling about in one atom of my index finger, and you may earnestly believe that such a possiblity is valid and worthy of insightful self-introspection. Fine with me that you might follow your metaphysical proclivities in search of any validating/supportive evidence regarding such a claim...but be prepared for skeptics to interject their ugly and persistent qualifiers of burdened reasoanble doubts.

I would submit that no seriously cognizant, rational, critical, nor free-thinking person lends any credence or value to any aspect of "metaphysics". Pseudo-philosophy is just as empirically/evidentially bankrupt as any pseudo-science. "Metaphysics" is little more that non-denominational, faith-based claims of unmeasurable/unquantifiable/unverifiable claims borne of lazy and uncritical philosophies mumbled as "anything's possible" punditries.

 

[s2a]

In referenced example, I offered...
Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

...and subsequently observed...
If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

You offered:

Unfortunately, faith is a complicated enough thing that a dictionary definition probably can't do it much justice.

I invite you to render a more credible or suitably justified definition, provided by yourself, at your leisure. Would it be easier to define what is not "faith" instead? I invite you to define/quantify/qualify what "faith" is most assuredly not, if you prefer.

I'll satisfy myself in quoting my own REF signature...
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
-H.L. Mencken

Faith relies on all epistemological tools in various measures: reason, empiricism, tradition (history) and intuition. What complicates it more is, the measures in which these tools are used vary from one person to the next.

But these various "tools" only serve to validate established faith, not fact.

One person who relies heavily on intuition in life will consider an intuitive proof. Another who relies on traditions (all those people couldn't be that far off!) will take another route. And those that rely more heavily on reason will study theology in its many aspects. And those who favor empiricism will consider evidence of a pattern in human existence, even though admittedly that evidence is far fuzzier than it would be if one were studying,say, bond strengths in saturated hydrocarbons.

OK.

Science has a fairly clear and simple method of investigating the physical universe.

I know. Aint that cool? No bias or prejudice imposed or inferred regarding any rendered, fact-based assumption/conclusion.

In metaphysics, though there are some common threads, the methods are unique to each person when you look at the details.

Which may make some individual's derivative conclusions somewhat interesting (or disturbing), but hardly do such provide any estimable or compelling fact.

I posed:
Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

You replied:

Hey, I'm a theist now, and I *still* get asked this question. It's like a few fellow theists who believe something else have a difficult time believing that I actually believe what I believe, and can't fathom I could possibly come to a somewhat different conclusion.

That's kinda interesting, but in keeping with the OP of this thread...what (evidence, event, circumstance) would it take (or you would require) for you to not believe or adhere to your faith-based beliefs?

Is there ANY "disproof" that you can imagine or propose that would ultimately unshackle you from any and all adherence to a faith-based perspective?

If so, please share.
If not, then I will assume that you are entrenched within your beliefs beyond any provided and satisfactory disproof...a place where reason has no hope of taking any hold or prominence in light of any empirical evidences and acceptable facts.

As I noted in many previous posts within REF...every valid scientific theory presents a methodology of falsification...a veritable way to "disprove" theoretically-proposed/proffered assumptions/conclusions. Does any major religion/faith-based set/system of adherent beliefs either welcome--much less propose or present--ANY methodology of prospective falsification?

Should faith-based beliefs be exempt from such a simple standard of applicable/demonstrable reasonable doubt...or simply accepted as claimed, predicated upon belief alone to be acceptable and universally applicable immutable "Truth"?

 

[Booko]

I long ago disposed of any interest or motivation in attempts to "disprove" faith-based claims and beliefs.
How does one factually "disprove" a claim that is not predicated on empirical fact as foundation?

I should be replying to the rest of this as well, but let me at least start with this. It may be your position that religious claims are not predicated on empirical data, but I would dispute that.

There are claims in religion that are falsifiable. That's why I suggested it would be possible to show, empirically speaking, that a claimed prophet was in fact no such thing.

I don't think you can do that with God, though. The existence of God is not falsifiable.

However, if you can falsify the claims to prophethood of a religion's founder, it calls into question the claims made by said prophet.

How does one disprove the existence of a "ghost" to someone that truly believes in both ghostly existence and their effect upon both themselves and others? Such claims do not rely upon ANY empirical evidence or objective measure/test as substantiation of any given claim. At best, all skeptics may offer "believers" is an utter lack of any compelling or substantiative evidence in validation of their claim as being either verifiable or veritable.

I agree.

"Eyewitness testimony" is often the very worst sort of "evidence" (alongside individualized accountings of anecdotal "evidence") available in efforting to substantiate any spurious claim or singular "event".

Very true. But is that a criticism that can be made only of religious claims, or does it extend to the social "sciences" generally?

A lack of evidence does not constitute any solid disproof of any claim...but a continual lack of any credible, (repeatedly) testable, or measurable evidence of any kind may likely lead to a most reasonable doubt as conclusion amongst folks that expect (demand?) extraordinary evidence in/as support of extraordinary claims.

Of course. The problem here to me appears to be that you wish to use a hammer to drive in a screw. That is, you insist on using *solely* the methods common in science. Except...we're not dealing with a scientific subject here.

It is possible to have a rational discussion about theism without resorting to airy-fairy notions. I know it may be more difficult, especially to find someone to discuss in this manner, but it's not impossible.

There is another problem when examining religion, though. There is simply a great deal of chaff to wade through. When I undertook my study of comparative religion, after a bit I decided to toss away everything that others had said about a religion, and just see what the founders had to say themselves. Commentary can be useful, but a great percentage of it seems to inhibit understanding rather than enhance it.

You claim some amorphous and randomly appearing (i.e. "visbile") apparitions of dead people? OK. I might believe...but..."Don't tell me, show me".

I don't do dead apparitions. Nor miracles. And much of what I "believe" about religious myths is metaphorical, not literal. It is not necessary to fall into the trap of literalism in order to examine religion. In fact, I would submit that's a very dangerous thing to do, and likely to produce some outlandish and possibly dangerous results.

If you question the merit of my lent commentary, I'll be pleased to indulge you with the referenced sources upon which my summary conclusion is predicate. The trends regarding the "decline" in both numbers of adherents and their participation within organized religions/faiths are veritable, and well documented. If you doubt my assertion, and you are unwilling to research such an assertion for yourself to personal satisfaction, I'll indulge your skepticism with all accordingly due references, in reply as necessary.

You mistake me entirely. I not only accept this trend, but the scriptures of my religion speak of this rising trend and claim that we should expect to see the trend continue for some time. The texts that I'm referring to would have been written sometime in the mid-to-late 1800s, though there are later comments along those lines as well. Others have been there long before you.

I view this as a transition period. And looking back at the nature of transition periods in human history, they are always times when some ideas or institutions are in decline while others are rising. It's always easier to see the decline during the transition, though, just as it's easy to see the wildfire, but very difficult to notice the pinecone has opened up to release the seeds of the next forest.

Not really, no. While I would encourage more folks to abandon mysticism, mythology, supernaturalism, and religion in favor of reason and critical thinking, I am not especially interested in the "numbers game" of which religion/practice/belief/faith is either "winning" or "losing" a given number of present/former adherents. It's all (faith-based claims) bunk to me, and I have no faith-based "favorites" or mythology/religion/superstition to either root for, or rally against.

Now I will have to go back and see what I said that you're replying to, but I can assure you of this. The numbers game can be quite deceiving at any rate, when it comes to adherents of religions. Whatever I was interested in pursuing, it wasn't that. Nor was I particularly interested in asserting any particular religion over another. I'd prefer to look at the entire phenomenon of religion.

 

[s2a]

Hello Booko,

You said:

It may be your position that religious claims are not predicated on empiracal fact, but I would dispute that.

OK then . Please present the most compelling empirical facts (three would suffice) that you feel support religious claims (beyond datum of religious claims themselves accepted by pious adherents as "fact"). Faith-based beliefs are evidence of faith itself, but such beliefs [no matter how earnest or sincere] serve as neither confirmation nor validation AS fact in and of themselves regarding such extraordinary claims. In essence, you may be able to produce one billion people that believe that Jesus "healed" a blind man into restored sight, but that belief alone does not constitute either verifiable evidence or compelling account of indisputable fact. Such a testimonial only evidences that one billion people believe the claim to be true, which is a lovely testament of faith...but not fact.

There are claims in religion that are falsifiable. That's why I suggested it would be possible to show, empirically speaking, that a claimed prophet was in fact no such thing.

Cool.

How--or by what suggested methodology of test, measure, and objective validation/confirmation--might someone like myself falsify the claims of (or the very claimed existence of) an organized religion's professed "prophet"?
In the case of Christianity fer instance, what specific prospective presented evidence would utterly falsify the claims of His existence? What source, object, or literary text (as yet remaining) undiscovered would definitively "disprove" the existence of the mythological Jesus of Nazareth? What presentable "empirical evidence" could achieve such an unequivocal conclusion? Please be specific.

I don't think you can do that with God, though. The existence of God is not falsifiable.

Agreed, with apropriate caveats...

Though some might argue that there is no concrete nor credible evidence to support such a claim (beyond the existence of adherent's faith itself)...there is much more empirical evidence readily available and produceable to suggest the veritable existence of scientifically theorized "black holes", than can be readily produced to suggest that any "god" is veritably existent.
Why would any "god" be so reticently shy in revealing their unapparent visibility and presence whilst manifesting intelligent and sentient critters like ourselves...in seeking to impose/orchestrate their ultimate will and design upon us? Some gods of myth and legend were quite visble and apparent whenever it suited their interests or concerns. Is unrevealed/unaccountable secrecy and subterfuge to be the only "proof" upon which a claimed existent "god" demands of his/their adherents to ultimately accept (at their reward or peril)--on faith--as immutable truth?

"The very lack of any empirical evidence of my existence, therefore proves my existence, and thusly demands/commands your devoted deference/worship"?
- Quote: Any claimed invisible/omniscient diety-at-large

Does that rationale make any sense at all?

However, if you can falsify the claims to prophethood of a religion's founder, it calls into question the claims made by said prophet.

That is easily done, in the sense that "unfulfilled prophecies" are numerous and accountably discounted/discredited as such. Yet..."believers" continue to believe.
I submit that illustrating such failures of "prophetic revelation" are insufficient in any fruitful attempts to "disprove" claims regarding either a given religion's prophet, or that given prophet's claims of personal divinity (or of divine inspiration/conscription).
Beyond directly illustrating clearly unfulfilled prophecies made by the claimed "prophet themselves (especially those contained within adherent religious texts/dogma), what other means/methods/evidence do you suggest would irrevocably and undeniably invalidate and disprove any given prophet's claimed divine inspiration/revelation as a matter of adherent fact? If a believer's own prophet can be demonstrably shown as failing in their own divinely-inspired prophecy, what prospective evidence or demonstation would be deemed as more compelling or persuasive argument in refutation of such faith-based claims?

I said:
"Eyewitness testimony" is often the very worst sort of "evidence" (alongside individualized accountings of anecdotal "evidence") available in efforting to substantiate any spurious claim or singular "event".

You athen cknowledged and inquired:

Very true. But is that a criticism that can be made only of religious claims, or does it extent to the social "sciences" generally?

Different standard/burden of proof.

"Social sciences" do not deal in (nor proffer) "absolutes", nor do they suggest affirmative proclamations of undeniable/immutable "truth". Religious claims do not invite, nor do they pleasantly suffer the affordable/applicable scrutinies of methodological science or critical logic. Religious (faith-based) claims are typically rendered as "absolute truth", beyond equivocation, revisitation, or revocation. Not very "scientific"...

When I said:
A lack of evidence does not constitute any solid disproof of any claim...but a continual lack of any credible, (repeatedly) testable, or measurable evidence of any kind may likely lead to a most reasonable doubt as conclusion amongst folks that expect (demand?) extraordinary evidence in/as support of extraordinary claims.

You offered:

Of course. The problem here to me appears to be that you wish to use a hammer to drive in a screw. That is, you insist on using *solely* the methods common in science. Except...we're not dealing with a scientific subject here.

Special pleading. You wish to argue that religion deserves an exception in explanation as to it's foundations and claims. To accept your metaphor, I would only ask that you define the appropriate tool which may best deliver the said binding screw to it's ultimate function. If I see a screw that best accepts a phillips #2 drill bit, I would be pleased enough to employ both tool and appropriate bit to drive home the intended target. But don't ask the willing carpenter to "put this screwy thing into that wooden thing", whilst keeping him blindfolded and improperly equipped. If you see me wielding a hammer with no hope of successfully driving the screw, then at least describe the proper tool needed for the task, and delineate the hole to be filled. Don't blame the carpenter for assembling an unacceptable residential abode, when no blueprints are provided to work from.

It is possible to have a rational discussion about theism without resorting to airy-fairy notions. I know it may be more difficult, especially to find someone to discuss in this manner, but it's not impossible.

Okay. I'll allow you to begin. How do we engage a rational discussion (absent any "airy-fairy notions") about god-beliefs, whilst disposing with (or affirming) the claims of invisible, unmeasurable, untestable, or empirically unverifiable deities? Is there a rational and serious discussion to be had regarding the "true" existence of the Easter Bunny? Is there a "reasonable" middle-ground of mutually acceptable verity to be acheived between someone who resolutely insists that the Easter Bunny is "real", and someone who demands more that unevidenced belief as acceptable proof of claim?

There is another problem when examining religion, though. There is simply a great deal of chaff to wade through.

Ya think? ;-)

When I undertood my study of comparitive religion, after a bit I decided to toss away everything that others had said about a religion, and just see what the founders had to say themselves. Commentary can be useful, but a great percentage of it seems to inhibit understanding rather than enhance it.

How does--or more specifically, which--"-commentary" inhibit(s) understanding? This rationale strikes me as chillingly similar to those that would suggest that criticism of a given presidential administration's foreign policy is tantamount to treason, and therefore lending aid and comfort to an enemy.
If I state that chocolate ice cream is not my favorite kind of ice cream, this sentiment should not preclude others to assume that I hate chocolate ice cream; or that I think that chocolate ice cream should be avoided or abstanied from in general consumption; or that I believe chocolate ice cream (or partaking thereof) is immoral, unethical, or evil; or that those that favor chocolate ice cream as the best ice cream, are therefore malevolent folk intent on destructive behavior.

My commentary is simply lent to suggest that (metaphorically) chocolate ice cream is not the only flavor available to those with openly willing and discriminating tastes. After some trials and and alternate experiences, you too may find chocolate ice cream to be lacking and limiting in comparison...

I'll readily grant that lent criticism (in and of itself) can be weak and devoid of any substantial merit, but this is more a matter of a failure to compellingly elucidate alternative views/perspectives, than an incisive accounting of the legitimate questions/criticisms of policy/direction might invite/contemplate. It's when people equate criticism with condemnation that extremism and righteous intolerance rear their ugly and unforgiving heads...

 

[s2a]

I said
You claim some amorphous and randomly appearing (i.e. "visbile") apparitions of dead people? OK. I might believe...but..."Don't tell me, show me".

You offered:

I don't do dead apparitions. Nor miracles. And much of what I "believe" about religious myths is metaphorical, not literal. It is not necessary to fall into the trap of literalism in order to examine religion.

Excuse me, but scientific methodology (when executed in an unbiased fashion) merely presents testable hypotheses, which can only be verified/validated by multitudinous objective falsifications/verifications thereof. "Literalism" is confined within a consciously-driven realm of actualized "absolutism", in which a "belief" is predicated upon an immutable (presumably a divinely or supernaturally ordained/commanded) "truth".

Whatever you "believe" is "true"--whether (by nature) metaphorically or literally-- is self-actualized and personally preserved within your own apt adherence (albeit subject to possible revision/enhancement at any time). While I might be moved by your willingness to accept other faith-based beliefs as being equally justified/rationalized in their practice and execution, your purposed removal from more circumspect evaluations of any/all religious claims renders you as poor critic and biased representative of religious claims as a whole. I am of the position that religious claims can be demonstrably illustrated as utter bunk, unworthy of any reasonable acceptance or adherence. If you choose to position yourself in a more accomodating fashion, that all religious claims are due equal deference and consideration as potentially valid, that's your own albatross to bear. I find my motor skills enhanced in shedding the encumbrances of ill-fit adornments.

In fact, I would submit that's a very dangerous thing to do, and likely to produce some outlandish and possibly dangerous results.

Agreed. Examples of religious fundamentalism and theistically-derived righteous motivations color our world history, and our present day lives. I would only inquire of you as to whether or not you believe ambivalent acceptance of any/all religious perspectives/beliefs either promotes the overall human condition, or inhibits it's potential progress/evolution in any prosperous/enlightening/progressive way?
Is there ANY religious dogma that actually promotes acceptance of any/all religious beliefs/perspectives? I'm not talking about religious "tolerance" here (ie."You can believe and practice what you like, and that's OK,...but I know I'm right...and you're wrong about the real and true god that I know"), but about a concept that might actually transcend faith-based beliefs and wishful-thinking itself; the idea that understanding, tolerance, and respect for the very human condition itself might be (instead) predicated upon reason, fact, logic, and estimable extrapolations/conclusions borne of compelling evidence and naturally available explanations. Hope and optimism (both in oneself and the overall human condition) are not the exclusive domain of faith-based adherents and theists...but indeed the methodology (and underlying motivations) in actualizing those hopes/dreams do differ...often in the extreme.


I said:
If you question the merit of my lent commentary, I'll be pleased to indulge you with the referenced sources upon which my summary conclusion is predicate. The trends regarding the "decline" in both numbers of adherents and their participation within organized religions/faiths are veritable, and well documented. If you doubt my assertion, and you are unwilling to research such an assertion for yourself to personal satisfaction, I'll indulge your skepticism with all accordingly due references, in reply as necessary.

You offered:

You mistake me entirely. I not only accept this trend, but the scriptures of my religion speak of this rising trend and claim that we should expect to see the trend continue for some time. The texts that I'm referring to would have been written sometime in the mid-to-late 1800s, though there are later comments along those lines as well. Others have been there long before you.

My bad if I misinterpreted the thrust of your inquiry regarding my assertions. I'm pleased that you concur with my lent (albeit unreferenced) conclusion. Note that I claim no originality in substance, argument, or thought. I am but one voice amongst many that have preceded me, and others of like mind will undoubtedly follow whence my mortality claims me.

I view this as a transition period. And looking back at the nature of transition periods in human history, they are always times when some ideas or institutions are in decline while others are rising. It's always easier to see the decline during the transition, though, just as it's easy to see the wildfire, but very difficult to notice the pinecone has opened up to release the seeds of the next forest.

Every generation envisions themselves as especially (uniquely?) vital, important, and essential to the overall human condition. ;-)
Cultures/civilizations rise and fall as history reflects...but not always for the better, nor in any purposed consideration of advancing either enlightenment or knowledge in promotion of that condition.
Theistic religions, when lent deference/mastery of/to the human condition, have (almost without exception) always sought to supress/modify/eradicate any knowledge/insight/discovery/enlightenment that might challenge/threaten the authority of established rigid dogmatic principles and entrenched theocratic rule.

There is no inevitability to the pendulum's swing, except for those that fear introducing a halting hand in impeding it's reciprocating motion. Who (or what) ordains that historical precedents of (willfull) ignorance, intolerance, injustice, and fear MUST repeat themselves over and over again? Is mankind so pathetic and fearful that it must perpetually rely upon myth, legend, superstition, and faith-based beliefs, beyond any and all hope of eventually (and more purposefully) embracing rationality, critical evaluation/consensus, and humanistic compassion as foundational principles of morality/ethics? Is mankind forever doomed to fear what it doesn't understand or can't instantaneously explain; restrained by utter reliance of folklore and myth to somehow assuage that ingrained fear with tales of (invisibly and inevidenced) divine reward/retribution in some unseen and mortally unavailable external realm to come?

I hope not...really I do.

[PS. Have you no comment/rebuttal to lend within this thread (or of/to the thread I have referenced upon multiple occasions) regarding my initial proposal of my (or to many others) acceptable incontrovertible proof of an existent (and non-denominational/creedal) supernatural deity? I have lent answer for what I would deem acceptable proof of such an entity. Do you offer either palpable or merited discredit/discount of my referenced proposal, or can you offer any "specific" quantafiable/qualifiable acceptable (empirically evidential) disproof of your personally accepted/chosen/claimed deity/prophet? Is is rational to believe/accept that only an unprovable/unfalsifiable claim is to be deemed as sole measure of a "universal truth" as acceptable fact?
Evolution theory would be completely upended if fossilized human remains were found within the belly of a fossilized T-Rex. That's a "specific" example of a direct refutation/falsification of an accepted scientific theory. Is there anything that specific and qualified that would utterly refute/falsify the foundational belief in your chosen deity? Anything?]

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

You know Cal, I'm a bit hurt here. Was it not you who quoted to me

Ecclesiastes 7:8

;-)

s2a/Cal

and later stated

For better or worse, due reply is owed and forthcoming (most especially to SoliDeoGloria)...

Don't we have unfinished business? Then I catch you carrying on in the thread that started our last conversation. I'm sure you know what I am referring to here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33948 . Looks like I've got to throw Ecclesiaistes 7:8 back at you.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[s2a]

You know Cal, I'm a bit hurt here. Was it not you who quoted to meand later stated
Don't we have unfinished business? Then I catch you carrying on in the thread that started our last conversation. I'm sure you know what I am referring to here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33948 . Looks like I've got to throw Ecclesiaistes 7:8 back at you.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Your feigned injury is noted, and rest assured that you remain neither ignored nor ill-considered. My personal accountabilities of late have altered my priorities, amongst which you have been left victim in lessened degree. Take heart in the knowledge that my composed response to our "tete a tete" debate is predisposed only by matters of immediate convenience and expediency (on my part), and should not be inferred/interpreted on your part as some indifferent slight or insult in your own regard. My "answer" to your "challenge" is a work in progress, that respects, and aspires to furnish, substantially documented and topically footnoted references as support in lent rebuttal.

I do not wish to cheapen either the content, context, or sincerity in my most recently submitted commentaries/replies to the threads in which I have have chosen to engage (most immediately his one, albeit amongst others)...but such endeavors have elicited no extraneous nor undue efforts (on my part) in matters of more immediate substantiation or pertinence in reflexive reply.

You could fairly judge me as "lazy" (or disengaged) in this more recent regard, as my more pointed (and most deliberate) retorts in deliberation of your presented broad premise is due a more qualified evisceration (in referenced substantiation) than these "easier" topical threads might otherwise ordinarily present.

Instead of inferred umbrage or conjured injury, you should take small comfort in the knowledge that your challenge has focused my special attentions in more apt detail, and that while Ecclesiastes 7:8 instructs that:
"The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride."

Recall that Ecclesiastes 7:9 follows with:
"Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools."

Do not be so earnest as to think that your exhibited patience has garnered you a prideful victory in (as yet) unfulfilled deliberation betwixt us, neither should you exclaim either injured hurt, nor some inordinate forbearance. Rest assured that you retain both my attention and deliberative concerns (if not rendered as immediate as you would prefer, or as I would wish to contemporarily satisfy).

As many friends and casual acquaintances have often acutely observed of me, I am both an unreliable and inconsistent correspondent in matters of either personal or public exchange, and I have but my own failings and otherwise benign moderations in such incumbent and self-enjoined responsibilities as I choose and care to more expediently partake as a matter of convenience.

To lend reminder absent rebuke, I would also tender from most recent favored passage within Ecclesiastes 7:20;
"There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins".

I ask only of your patience alone, in hopes that you might spare me any of your unrighteous indignations.

Inasmuch that degrees or measures of patience are purely subjective, I will remind you that you have yet to provide any substantive and specific-laden reply to the OP of this thread itself...

"What would it take for you to not believe in (a) god(s)?"

If your "belief" or faith (in God) relies solely upon extrapolative "first cause" rationales derived from philosophical ruminations and fallacy-laden syllogisms, I would tender that your current faith dangles from a tenuous thread indeed...and I caution that you should avoid any man who wields even a dull pair of scissors in relative proximity of such a temerarious tightrope of balanced measure...recall that it's not the fall that kills ya...it's that sudden stop at the bottom.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Recall that Ecclesiastes 7:9 follows with:
"Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools."

Do not be so earnest as to think that your exhibited patience has garnered you a prideful victory in (as yet) unfulfilled deliberation betwixt us, neither should you exclaim either injured hurt, nor some inordinate forbearance. Rest assured that you retain both my attention and deliberative concerns (if not rendered as immediate as you would prefer, or as I would wish to contemporarily satisfy).

My previous post was not a claim at victory at all, which should've been evident by the lack of request for your acknowledgement of defeat. On the contrary, I hoped to get an explaination as to what I percieved to be an inconsistency with previous statements made on your part. Besides that, I don't really consider waiting as long as I have for the fullfillment of previous statements to be in the context of Ecc. 7:9. You have posted in other threads that I have not responded to in such a way.

To lend reminder absent rebuke, I would also tender from most recent favored passage within Ecclesiastes 7:20;
"There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins".

I ask only of your patience alone, in hopes that you might spare me any of your unrighteous indignations

Do you trully feel that me reminding you of your previous statements grants such accusations?! I didn't make any such claim to the "unrightiousness" on your part or mine.

Inasmuch that degrees or measures of patience are purely subjective, I will remind you that you have yet to provide any substantive and specific-laden reply to the OP of this thread itself...

"What would it take for you to not believe in (a) god(s)?"

Not only did I provide a response to this thread that granted satisfactory reply on your part, bringing about the other thread, But I also gave further explaination of the context of my response in the other thread being refferred to earlier. The only thing I will add to that is an accusation of a misunderstanding on your part of what ontology is:

*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Ontology \On*tol"o*gy\, n. [Gr. ? the things which exist
(pl.neut. of ?, ?, being, p. pr. of ? to be) + -logy: cf. F.
ontologie.]
1. That department of the science of metaphysics which
investigates and explains the nature and essential
properties and relations of all beings, as such, or the
principles and causes of being.
[1913 Webster]

For you to ask the question in this thread and then complain as you did

asking if any definitive and evidential disproofs were [are] available/possible to cause a believer to reject (or otherwise recant) their faith-based beliefs. I asked for no ontological "disproofs" of any kind (beyond those of a personalized perspective).

Begs the question of whether or not you truly understand ontology and if you do, then what were you truly looking for here. Did you want someone to state "well, when elephants start flying, then I will recant my beliefs"? But wait, being as how ontology concerns "the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings", that probably wouldn't work either would it? All you have done in that respect is find a way of sidestepping a qualified and genuine answer instead of giving it it's proper respect and dealing with it as it deserves in hopes of making faith look like this intellectually lacking emotion as you have done in your signature and are continuing to do using subjectively based, psychological definitions from people I could really care less about, which is part of why I decided to start the other thread.

If your "belief" or faith (in God) relies solely upon extrapolative "first cause" rationales derived from philosophical ruminations and fallacy-laden syllogisms, I would tender that your current faith dangles from a tenuous thread indeed...and I caution that you should avoid any man who wields even a dull pair of scissors in relative proximity of such a temerarious tightrope of balanced measure...recall that it's not the fall that kills ya...it's that sudden stop at the bottom.

When you are trully ready to deal with the facts, I will consider your, as of yet, baseless accusations that could be turned back on you.

Besides that, I appreciate the explaination. I guess time will trully tell how genuine it is.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[s2a]

*bitty bump bump*

 

[Sir Doom]

Step 1: Complete all the steps in your previous thread with the slight modification that god actually appears in some manifestation as the 'miracle' proposed.

Step 2: Kill him.

Then I'll be done believing.

 

[Breathe]

Nope.

 

[s2a]

Step 1: Complete all the steps in your previous thread with the slight modification that god actually appears in some manifestation as the 'miracle' proposed.

Step 2: Kill him.

Then I'll be done believing.

Sounds kinda cool (if you obviate the fact that I am morally opposed to killing as a general rule...generally speaking mind you )

Ok, that caveat now a given... how does one do away with an invisible and (otherwise) non-existent entity that retains no (claimed) physicality?

Heck fire, even zombies "die" when ya shoot em in the head.

Tell ya what, in abject fairness ya know...

You bring your "god" to any "hall of justice" or before a firing squad, and let's test that theory once and for all, ok?

Maybe a dunking competition in a water well?

If he drowns, he's not a witch... (ignore the carrot strapped to his nose),

If he survives, he's the creator of the cosmos!

When may we begin?

 

[Sams0n]

You can not disprove God as the concept of God is unfalsifiable. I just don't see the need to disprove God as that shifts the burden of proof. I would rather just believe things where there is good evidence to support that belief. The number of unfalsifiable things that you could believe is limited only to your imagination. No one here can disprove that I existed during the big bang and watched it all happen but no one is going to believe it because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Sir Doom]

Sounds kinda cool (if you obviate the fact that I am morally opposed to killing as a general rule...generally speaking mind you )

That's okay, I'll take the moral hit for ya. God would be expecting this from me, anyway. Its how I'll know the real deal if it ever decides to show itself.

Ok, that caveat now a given... how does one do away with an invisible and (otherwise) non-existent entity that retains no (claimed) physicality?

That's why I specified that the miracle would be a direct manifestation of the deity.

Heck fire, even zombies "die" when ya shoot em in the head.

It should take a bit more than that, unless I miss my guess. But who knows really? Maybe all it takes is a well-placed spear-wound.

Tell ya what, in abject fairness ya know...

You bring your "god" to any "hall of justice" or before a firing squad, and let's test that theory once and for all, ok?

If the cowardly wretch ever decides to show itself, I'd be happy to. Seems to be terrified of me, however.

Maybe a dunking competition in a water well?

If he drowns, he's not a witch... (ignore the carrot strapped to his nose),

If he survives, he's the creator of the cosmos!

I'd prefer to build a bridge...

When may we begin?

Whenever god stops quivering in its boots, I suppose.

 

[Sir Doom]

You can not disprove God as the concept of God is unfalsifiable.

Some are. Some aren't. And besides, it is a hypothesis that is generally supposed to be falsifiable, not a concept specifically. Thus, one can present billions of falsifiable claims in reference to God or any other concept for that matter.

I just don't see the need to disprove God as that shifts the burden of proof.

What?

I would rather just believe things where there is good evidence to support that belief.

Can you describe the literal difference between 'good' evidence and 'not good' evidence?

The number of unfalsifiable things that you could believe is limited only to your imagination.

So is the number of falsifiable things.

No one here can disprove that I existed during the big bang and watched it all happen but no one is going to believe it because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, but if you are following the queues of the OP, then what you should be doing is presenting a scenario within which you would stop believing that you were here for the big bang.

 

[Me Myself]

I didnt come to my belief in a logical way so I cannot get out of it in a logical way.

If I stop feeling it is true, then I wont believe it is true.

That's it.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE MAN IN THE BOX
© by blandoatmeal. Publish at will.

There once was a man in a box. He had never seen a box from the outside, and didn't know what a box was. He wanted proof that he was indeed in a thing called a "box".

In the box was a slip of paper, saying, "You are in my box". The man wanted proof that this was indeed a box, and that someone owned it. He demanded of the box, that the words "I am a box" appear on the inside of the box. This didn't happen.

The man fell asleep; and when he awoke, he found himself outside the box. He recognized this as the thing he had been in. He searched the outside of the box, looking for the words "I am a box". Instead, all he saw were the words "THIS SIDE UP".

The man was frustrated. He had read the note, saying, "You are in my box"; yet he did not know whether the note was real; and he had no PROOF that what he was in was indeed a box.

Then he looked at his feet, and found another note, saying, "You are in my world". It was all too confusing. He crawled back into the box and fell asleep. When he awoke, all he saw was the inside of the box.

The note beside him now said, "I tried to show you, but you wouldn't believe me". Since the man knew that he was the only one there, and that there was obviously nothing beyond the box (which he didn't believe was a box), he believed that the note had written itself.

The man was satisfied, that he had explained the world around him. Then he covered himself with the note beside him, and fell asleep.

THE END.

 

[Sir Doom]

THE MAN IN THE BOX
© by blandoatmeal. Publish at will.

There once was a man in a box. He had never seen a box from the outside, and didn't know what a box was. He wanted proof that he was indeed in a thing called a "box".

In the box was a slip of paper, saying, "You are in my box". The man wanted proof that this was indeed a box, and that someone owned it. He demanded of the box, that the words "I am a box" appear on the inside of the box. This didn't happen.

The man fell asleep; and when he awoke, he found himself outside the box. He recognized this as the thing he had been in. He searched the outside of the box, looking for the words "I am a box". Instead, all he saw were the words "THIS SIDE UP".

The man was frustrated. He had read the note, saying, "You are in my box"; yet he did not know whether the note was real; and he had no PROOF that what he was in was indeed a box.

Then he looked at his feet, and found another note, saying, "You are in my world". It was all too confusing. He crawled back into the box and fell asleep. When he awoke, all he saw was the inside of the box.

The note beside him now said, "I tried to show you, but you wouldn't believe me". Since the man knew that he was the only one there, and that there was obviously nothing beyond the box (which he didn't believe was a box), he believed that the note had written itself.

The man was satisfied, that he had explained the world around him. Then he covered himself with the note beside him, and fell asleep.

THE END.

How does this disprove God to you?