Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Perfect Circle]

Any one of those possibilities would be reasonable. If the original idea didn't work, it's likely to be flawed in some way. So we change the idea and try again. It's SIMILAR to a scientific experiment in that it involves some of the same 'trial and error' steps as the scientific process. It's different in that the outcomes are judged subjectively, and are not likely to be quantifiable.

Ok. Well that's exactly why people are atheists. Time and time again, these actions did not result in a positive or predictable outcome, and often times ended up negatively. I'm not throwing stones at theists.. nor am I trying to argue that god doesn't exist. I simply don't see a reason for a god (at least in the traditional sense) to exist. And seeing as how there has been no convincing evidence in this thread that points to the contrary, I'll probably just keep my original position of "I don't know".

 

[Commoner]

I know what an argument from ignorance is. But if we are truly ignorant, then any proposal we make will be an argument from ignorance. But to make SOME proposal, and then follow it through, will at least tell us what works, or appears to work. That's better than proposing nothing. And doing nothing. My point is that in this case an argument from ignorance is all we have.

Who's saying we are "truly ignorant"? Where is this coming from? If we were truly ignorant, there would be no point in having any kind of discussion at all.

It is an argument from ignorance, because you claim ignorance ("I don't know") and then have the arrogance to draw conclusions from that. Not because, in the end, we are all just ignorant - if you think that, then that's your problem.

You seem to have a problem accepting that you don't know everything. Does a wrong answer suit you better than no answer at all?

But what a ridiculous "job". The atheist's statement: "I'm just gonna stand here and throw stones at anyone who imagines that any kind of deity is the answer to a question that I don't know the answer to, myself." Does that appear logical to you? Does that appear like a course of action that would gain anyone respect or friendship among his piers? Yet this seems to be very near the atheist's position.
That's the abuse of theology. Any philosophy can be abused, has been abused, and will likely be abused in the future. This has nothing to do with the validity of the philosophy itself, however.

You started a thread suggesting you have some evidence for the existance of god and didn't expect to be criticized? I think that you'll find both atheists and theists that disagree with you strongly. You can believe what you want to believe, I'll even fight for your right to have that belief. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't have that same right, and it does not mean I'm just going to ignore your claims. Our beliefs inform our actions.

You are incorrectly making a connection between my arguements and the fact that I'm an atheist. It's the other crazy philosophies I follow that are to blame. :areyoucra

You are also incorrectly making a connection between your views and other theistic views. I find some much more plausible than others. You do not represent all of them and I do not represent every atheist. In fact, I represent only one.

Well, I really don't understand why people would rail against the existence of God when they have no idea if God exists or not, and when following the idea that God exists gives other people a positive course of action. I really don't get it.

The "abuses" of philosophies come from propagating irrational ideas. "Using condoms is a sin" - is an irrational belief. It is harmful. It is based on the irrational idea that there is such a thing as "sin" and that is based on another irrational idea that the bible is the word of god and that god is infallible.

If you don't know what the answer is, don't claim to.

 

[themadhair]

It's SIMILAR to a scientific experiment in that it involves some of the same 'trial and error' steps as the scientific process.

Only if by ‘similar’ you mean ‘different to the point of stripping all of the rigor from which science derives its strength’. The funny thing about you use of this argument is that you really don’t see how holding up a flawed methodology to a workable methodology only helps to highlight the flaws in that flawed methodology. It is also peculiar that you are not even applying the trial and error you are claiming to – since if you had you would have already rejected the original hypothesis due to lack of evidence and unfalsifiability.

It is this point where you ignore these criticisms, usually trying to redefine certain terms to conflate to very different methodologies.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The ancient Greeks believed in "logos". It's a difficult term to define in todays language, but it basically referred to a kind of divine blueprint, or logic, that governed the behavior of all matter. Incidentally, they also came up with the idea of a basic bit of matter and called it the "atom". Anyway, from their perspective, this "logos" existed first. It was a kind of idea without material expression. Like the idea of a flat surface upon which we could rest things so as to use them more easily. As the logos came in contact with a human mind, it generated the concept of a table, and from that concept the human could then build one.

Likewise, the ideal blueprint or "logos" for a tree comes into contact with the right worldly conditions, and a real tree grows there. The believed that the idea had to precede the object, because something had to govern the way matter and energy expressed itself. Otherwise they could only express randomness, or chaos.

As we study the nature of energy, trying to figure out what it is and why it behaves as it does, one thing is apparent. That is that something is governing the behavior of energy, causing it to express itself in some ways, but not in other ways. And this control, whatever it is, is responsible for the character and nature of all that exists. The ancient Greeks would surely call this mysterious control, the "logos". The divine ideal that's being expressed throughout all material existence.

I don't know that I could call that "logos" a form of universal consciousness, though. But once expressed, it certainly attains consciousness through us.

Well, I know when I'm trying to understand the nature of matter and energy, I don't look toward modern research into quantum mechanics. I look to the ancient Greeks. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Great flakey pastries.....great grasp of subatomic physics.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I'm still not seein' any evidence... maybe if I had some bullsh*t colored glasses.

 

[PureX]

Ok. Well that's exactly why people are atheists. Time and time again, these actions did not result in a positive or predictable outcome, and often times ended up negatively. I'm not throwing stones at theists.. nor am I trying to argue that god doesn't exist. I simply don't see a reason for a god (at least in the traditional sense) to exist. And seeing as how there has been no convincing evidence in this thread that points to the contrary, I'll probably just keep my original position of "I don't know".

Actually, I appreciate your posting this. I'm sorry that you didn't find a god-concept that worked for you, but if you didn't then I can see why you would have dismissed the idea.

 

[PureX]

I'm still not seein' any evidence... maybe if I had some bullsh*t colored glasses.

And your posts are still contributing nothing to this discussion. Congratulations, you're consistently blind and useless.

 

[Commoner]

And your posts are still contributing nothing to this discussion. Congratulations, you're consistently blind and useless.

I think we have a "pot calling the kettle black" situation here.

Temper, temper.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

And your posts are still contributing nothing to this discussion. Congratulations, you're consistently blind and useless.

And your posts seem to have nothing to do with the topic as to which you started! You claimed to have evidence of god, yet you haven't presented anything of the like! Congratulations, you're consistently false and misleading.

 

[PureX]

Who's saying we are "truly ignorant"? Where is this coming from? If we were truly ignorant, there would be no point in having any kind of discussion at all.

We are all truly and profoundly ignorant regarding the fundamental questions being discussed: why does existence exist as it does.

It is an argument from ignorance, because you claim ignorance ("I don't know") and then have the arrogance to draw conclusions from that.

What conclusions? I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm merely stating that in the face of our profound ignorance regarding these fundamental questions, it's better to speculate, and to act on the speculation, then to do nothing.

A lot of people speculate that "God" is the answer to those questions, and then when they try to live by that god-concept, they find that it "works" for them. I think this is a good course of action to take in the face of this mystery. That's all I'm saying.

Not because, in the end, we are all just ignorant - if you think that, then that's your problem.

Well, the truth is that we are completely ignorant regarding the most fundamental questions there are.

You started a thread suggesting you have some evidence for the existance of god and didn't expect to be criticized?

Hey, I'm enjoying myself! You must have noticed by now that I'm no stranger to a debate.

I think that you'll find both atheists and theists that disagree with you strongly.

That's great! Now if we could find some that could articulate exactly WHY they disagree, instead of just tossing around vailed insults and blind pronouncements. (*snickering*)

You can believe what you want to believe, I'll even fight for your right to have that belief. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't have that same right, and it does not mean I'm just going to ignore your claims. Our beliefs inform our actions.

C'mon, Dude, bring it on! (*shadow boxing at the computer screen*)

You are incorrectly making a connection between my arguements and the fact that I'm an atheist. It's the other crazy philosophies I follow that are to blame. :areyoucra

Woah, one debate at a time.

You are also incorrectly making a connection between your views and other theistic views. I find some much more plausible than others. You do not represent all of them and I do not represent every atheist. In fact, I represent only one.

I'm actually working hard at not being too specific, so that I can discuss the god-concept in general. I have noticed that around here, there are a number of folk who use specificity like a lead anchor. They don't have any real argument to pose, so they just tie you up endlessly with trivial specifics. They "win" by fatigue.

The "abuses" of philosophies come from propagating irrational ideas. "Using condoms is a sin" - is an irrational belief. It is harmful. It is based on the irrational idea that there is such a thing as "sin" and that is based on another irrational idea that the bible is the word of god and that god is infallible.

I agree, but I think this is a separate subject. Theologies are often flawed. So are scientific theories. And both can become dangerous. But this is part of the human condition (there's our ignorance again).

Right now there are billions of religious people on the Earth, and not one of them is killing anyone for religious reasons. Be careful not to over-emphasize the problems with religion in your mind. The truth is that a whole lot of people use religion and "God" to help them find peace, and happiness, and forgiveness, and wisdom, and healing, and love for each other.

If you don't know what the answer is, don't claim to.

I wasn't claiming to have the answer. My "God" is still mostly a mystery. I was only claiming to know what works for a lot of folks.

And I believe that stands as evidence.

 

[PureX]

And your posts seem to have nothing to do with the topic as to which you started! You claimed to have evidence of god, yet you haven't presented anything of the like! Congratulations, you're consistently false and misleading.

Are ya havin' fun, yet?

 

[PureX]

I think we have a "pot calling the kettle black" situation here.

Temper, temper.

I don't like snipers.

And I HARDLY think this is the pot calling the kettle black! It takes a lot of effort to keep up with all these posts, and you can't accuse me of not at least trying to articulate my position.

 

[PureX]

Well, I know when I'm trying to understand the nature of matter and energy, I don't look toward modern research into quantum mechanics. I look to the ancient Greeks. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Great flakey pastries.....great grasp of subatomic physics.

What I find interesting is how they seem to be converging on the same image.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Are ya havin' fun, yet?

Are ya makin' a good argument yet?

Are ya presentin' any evidence to support your claim yet?

Are ya understandin' what "evidence" is yet?

Are ya even tryin'?

 

[Commoner]

Let me give you a couple of examples of arguments from ignorance:

Keep in mind that we have no idea what energy is. Maybe it's oscillating loops, or strings. Maybe it's something else. But made of what? We can't say because it's not "substance", yet how can it exist if it's not substance? It's phenomena, but it's not random phenomena. It has "rules" in the form of limitations that dictate how that energy can and can't express itself. These limitations are the "first cause" in that they become the blueprint through which the big bang goes bang. What explodes into being is not random and chaotic, anymore, because of these inherent limitation built into the nature of energy itself.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random.

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example)

Energy expresses itself as matter, as motion, as space and time. The combination of these expresses consciousness.

Although I'm sure you'll disagree.

I'm actually working hard at not being too specific, so that I can discuss the god-concept in general. I have noticed that around here, there are a number of folk who use specificity like a lead anchor. They don't have any real argument to pose, so they just tie you up endlessly with trivial specifics. They "win" by fatigue.

You're certainly succeeding in being vague.

Right now there are billions of religious people on the Earth, and not one of them is killing anyone for religious reasons. Be careful not to over-emphasize the problems with religion in your mind. The truth is that a whole lot of people use religion and "God" to help them find peace, and happiness, and forgiveness, and wisdom, and healing, and love for each other.

That must have been a joke, right?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Right now there are billions of religious people on the Earth, and not one of them is killing anyone for religious reasons.

Wow. I have never encountered a more profound ignorance of the world we live in.

- The Crusades
- The Reconquista
- French Wars of Religion
- Muslim Conquests
- Thirty Years War
- Taiping Rebellion
- Boxer Rebellion
- 2nd Sudanese Civil War
- Indo-Pakistani Partition of 1947
- Indian Rebellion of 1857
- Yellow Scarves Rebellion
- Five Pecks of Rice Rebellion
- White Lotus Rebellion
- Sri Lankan Civil War
- Jewish-Roman Wars
- Sikh Uprising
- The Saxon Wars


Substantiate your claim by demonstrating each and every one of these to not be religious conflicts.

 

[Copernicus]

This is not true. There are many god-concepts that do not include god acting on a "supernatural" level.

If you do not consider God a "supernatural" being, then I have no idea what you think the word means.

 

[Alceste]

Pardon me for butting in. I haven't read this whole thread, but is it safe to assume PureX's "evidence" pretty much boils down to the fact that he, personally, believes in God, padded out with a few empirically unsubstantiated generalizations and non-empirical musings about the meaning and purpose of life?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Pardon me for butting in. I haven't read this whole thread, but is it safe to assume PureX's "evidence" pretty much boils down to the fact that he, personally, believes in God, padded out with a few empirically unsubstantiated generalizations and non-empirical musings about the meaning and purpose of life?

Have you done this before? :beach:

 

[Alceste]

Have you done this before? :beach:

Not with PureX I don't think, but certainly with many other theists who claim to be able to present evidence of god.