Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Falvlun]

Falvlun, thanks for pointing out this post, I had in fact missed it. Or I would have responded to it earlier.

Thanks for responding.

It is a part of the human condition that we can't be certain of anything we think we know to be true. We are not omniscient, and so we can never be sure how what we don't know would change what we think we know if we could know it all. This why we can't have proof of God's existence, or non-existence. Proof of this kind of an idea would require omniscience.

I agree that we currently have no objective proof in the matter, either for or against. I don't think, however, that we must be omniscient in order for this proof to exist. If God came down in a cloud of thunder and made it very clear that he was God, I would consider that solid proof of God's existence, even though I still might not know the number of sand grains in the world.

Again, we have to go with what we get, as we will never get absolute proof. When we test an idea out by applying it to our world, and find that it works as it claims it will work, we tend to take that idea as valid, or accurate (and rightly so) until circumstances show it not to work, anymore.

I see what you mean. I just think you have extrapolated this one step further than it can rightly go.

Religion "works" for many people. Belief in God "works" for many people. I do not contest these facts, and I do think they attest to the fact that religion can be, in fact, a good thing for humans. But those statements are saying something different than "God works for people." God could be the reason religion works for people, but the simple fact that it does work, does not point exclusively to God's existence.

The example I gave earlier in the thread, using a religious prescription for spiritual healing, was not any form of "prophesy" or mental trickery. It was a well used and well reasoned path of human behavior modification that has been offered by many religions throughout the centuries, is still being widely practiced today, and is still working for the vast majority of people who practice it.
I agree. But once again you are looking for proof, and I am only offering evidence. If God does not exist, then why does this prescription work at all?

Religion is a powerful motivator. Strongly held beliefs tend to be equally as strongly acted upon.

Around Christmas time, kids tend to be on their best behavior. Why? Because Santa might not bring them that particular present if they aren't good. Their (erroneous) belief in Santa Claus causes a very real change in behavior.

Heaven's Gate cult members all committed suicide in a belief that the Earth was soon to be destroyed and leaving it through death was the only way to assure survival in the next "level". Here is another erroneous belief shown to effect behavior.

Keep in mind that to be evidence, all that must be shown is the possibility. Even though some else might have killed Bob's wife, if I can show that it is possible for Bob to have done it in spite of his alibi, then I have produced real evidence.

This is an interesting thought. Does plausible possibility = evidence? What do other members think?

I'm not sure. In the Bob example, you claim that if you can show it is possible for Bob to have killed his wife, then that possibility is evidence that Bob killed his wife, even if Bob did not in fact kill his wife. It's that last bit that gets me: can you call something evidence if it does not in fact support acuality?

Yes, but with this order comes the inevitable questions: Is there a purpose in that order? If so, what? Where did it come from?

If you answer the latter question as "inherrent in nature", then the answer to the former follows: "no".

For some folks, who are truly frightened by that mystery, "God" becomes an "answer", or at least something to which they can run when afraid. To others, like myself, "God" becomes a symbol and label we put on that mystery, to make it more palatable. To anthropomorphize the mystery so that we can live with it easier.

That's an interesting and rather unique way of looking at it. Thanks!

It's part and parcel of the "it works" argument. Also, it's a reminder that the mystery IS REAL. That thing that people are so frightened of, and that the human species in general wants to eliminate, the big mystery of life (and death), is real. It deserves to be called "God". And it hasn't gone away.

I agree that the mystery is real, insomuch as it has been created by our minds, and is likely a natural expression of an iniquisitive nature.

I'm not so sure why, however, that simple ignorance (of answers to those traditional existential questions) should be deified or worshipped.

 

[Commoner]

Around Christmas time, kids tend to be on their best behavior. Why? Because Santa might not bring them that particular present if they aren't good. Their (erroneous) belief in Santa Claus causes a very real change in behavior.

What?!

If Santa doesn't exist, who brings the gifts?!

Come on, it's simple logic. You can clearly see the gifts, who brought them? Well, that's the ultimate mystery - some people call it Santa. You a-santaists offer no answers! None at all. What, are you saying they came from my parents, the "monkeys"?! Ok, but where did my parent's get the gifts? You don't even have a clue. Unless you offer proof that Santa doesn't exist, I'll keep the cookies and milk on the table.

Oh, and you're going to have to work in a Santa factory for minimum wage for all eternity after you die unless you come with me and do these things I've written down on these papers!

 

[Vile Atheist]

What?!

If Santa doesn't exist, who brings the gifts?!

Come on, it's simple logic. You can clearly see the gifts, who brought them? Well, that's the ultimate mystery - some people call it Santa. You a-santaists offer no answers! None at all. What, are you saying they came from my parents, the "monkeys"?! Ok, but where did my parent's get the gifts? You don't even have a clue. Unless you offer proof that Santa doesn't exist, I'll keep the cookies and milk on the table.

Oh, and you're going to have to work in a Santa factory for minimum wage for all eternity after you die unless you come with me and do these things I've written down on these papers!

You'll be getting many lumps of coal this year, mister.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, bullsh*t PureX is quite dishonest and ignorant, willfully so I might add. It's another thing to propose something with good intentions, it's another thing to continue to propagate something you know as false, regardless of the intentions. (this includes Santa Clause).

Isn't it willfully ignorant to refuse to be willing to see things from the other person's shoes? (this includes Santa Claus)

 

[Willamena]

The word "create" has some baggage attached to it, in my opinion. To "create" something, it implies intent to create.

Rocks are formed. Not created.

Formation is creation; one form to another.

 

[Copernicus]

Formation is creation; one form to another.

Yes, assembly is a type of creation, but that kind of creation is not what Abrahamic 'creatio ex nihilo' doctrine is about.

 

[Commoner]

Isn't it willfully ignorant to refuse to be willing to see things from the other person's shoes? (this includes Santa Claus)

Ok, leave Santa (and Britney) alone!

I think there's a limit to our "willingness".

 

[Vile Atheist]

Formation is creation; one form to another.

Changing from one form to another is creation? Then explain the following sentence:

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another." (1st Law of Thermodynamics)

That implies there is a difference between creation and changing forms.

 

[Commoner]

Changing from one form to another is creation? Then explain the following sentence:

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another." (1st Law of Thermodynamics)

That implies there is a difference between creation and changing forms.

Still, what's "created" here is the "new form" - not energy itself.

But that's just semantics.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Isn't it willfully ignorant to refuse to be willing to see things from the other person's shoes? (this includes Santa Claus)

Yes and I try, but I just cannot see through the eyes of someone so close-minded. But seriously I am trying, but he is yet to present evidence of god in any form (unless a subjective concept) and he continues to be willfully dishonest when corrected.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, assembly is a type of creation, but that kind of creation is not what Abrahamic 'creatio ex nihilo' doctrine is about.

But it is what the Abrahamic 'creatio ex deo' and 'creatio ex materia' are about.

 

[Willamena]

Changing from one form to another is creation? Then explain the following sentence:

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another." (1st Law of Thermodynamics)

That implies there is a difference between creation and changing forms.

It is poorly worded. The "energy" that "changes form" does not actually change form at all. The more current wording is:
"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Isn't it willfully ignorant to refuse to be willing to see things from the other person's shoes? (this includes Santa Claus)

You tell me.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It is poorly worded. The "energy" that "changes form" does not actually change form at all. The more current wording is:
"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

Yes but this does not entail creating.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Okay but seriously, the discussion has strayed so far from the title and OP. No evidence what-so-ever has been posted on this thread.

 

[Willamena]

You tell me.

It's not about me. PureX does believe in the ideas he presents, he has a particular philosophy and world view that support his ideas, and to disguise them as propagating "something you know as false" is ad hominem, something that will always get my goat.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes but this does not entail creating.

It does sound more like a type of displacement to me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's not about me. PureX does believe in the ideas he presents, he has a particular philosophy and world view that support his ideas, and to disguise them as propagating "something you know as false" is ad hominem, something that will always get my goat.

Perhaps we have different definitions of "willfull ignorance."

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It's not about me. PureX does believe in the ideas he presents, he has a particular philosophy and world view that support his ideas, and to disguise them as propagating "something you know as false" is ad hominem, something that will always get my goat.

No, it's fine to have your beliefs but if you make a claim and someone points out that the claim is obviously false and provides you with evidence and reason to show that your claim is false than you should stop pushing that claim as truth or even implying that it could be.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It does sound more like a type of displacement to me. The atoms that were already there were not created, they just got arranged differently or started vibrating faster resulting in the heat. But I am not an expert on this. I might be wrong?

Yeah, that's still not creating.