To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

It's difficult to ascertain what you state because you change it everyday. For example:





You've attempted to present evidence for God, which implies that you support the notion God exists. Or you wouldn't be wasting your breath with atheists whom you constantly complain "insult" you. What would be the point of creating a thread called "Let's present the evidence", if you also maintain that we cannot know anything about God?

If you maintain we cannot know anything about God, then what was the point of the "Let's Present the Evidence" thread? If we cannot know anything about God, there would be no evidence. And by extension, your beliefs would be unsubstantiated.

If you maintain we CAN know some things about God, then you have access to information that atheists like me are not privy to. And since I'm pretty interested in universal truths, could you pretty please share it with us?

Not to mention the "Religion: Taoist/Christian" right under your username would indicate that you accept a deity. What else would be the point of "presenting "evidence"" and wasting so much time and effort trying to convince atheists of your ideas, if your aim is not to attempt to demonstrate God exists?

Looks like you made a whole bunch of wrong assumptions. Maybe if you'd paid closer attention to what I actually wrote, you wouldn't have so completely misunderstood me.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Looks like you made a whole bunch of wrong assumptions. Maybe if you'd paid closer attention to what I actually wrote, you wouldn't have so completely misunderstood me.

What wrong assumptions have I made?

You call yourself Christian. A Christian by definition accepts a deity. That assumption is correct.

I didn't assume if you do or do not maintain we can know anything about God. But I did lay out the problems between claiming either position and your earlier claims.

The rest were questions.

 

[Magic Man]

God, like great music, and great art are not logically consistent.

What the hell are you talking about? You know, people tend to respect actual wisdom, not pretend wisdom. You can try all you want to sound deep, but you simply fail miserably. What is not logically consistent about music or art? What is there that could be logically consistent or inconsistent in art or music? I know this sounds really cool to you, and you think it makes you sound wise and profound to others, but you're wrong. It just sounds stupid, and worse, it sounds like you're trying too hard to sound intelligent.

You can't capture them in a test tube. And you aren't going to lessen their power by ******* and whining like a three year old that they "aren't real". They are real as hell to everyone that experiences them.

That's great. Who cares? Generally atheists only tend to have problems with gods who are supposedly real like a dog is real and who affects people's daily lives. If you have an experience that you want to call "God", go right ahead, but just remember that it's generally only real for you, not for everyone else.

The experience is real, and is usually good, and can sometimes be life-changing. Whine all you want, but you ain't gonna make the reality of a God-experience go away. And your attempts to belittle it only work for you and yours.

Who's trying to belittle anything? And who's whining? Last time I checked it was you whining about others disagreeing with you. We're not trying to make the reality of someone's god experience go away. All we're saying is that there is no intelligent being who created the world as it stands today and who constantly helps you in your daily life because you ask it to.

And why is it usually good? Where did you get that stat from?

 

[Magic Man]

Looks like you made a whole bunch of wrong assumptions. Maybe if you'd paid closer attention to what I actually wrote, you wouldn't have so completely misunderstood me.

Oh, the irony. I should keep this and just quote it to you every time you start talking about atheists.

 

[themadhair]

That's it. Start right off with the condescension, so you can pretend you're superior to me...

Now throw in the word games and sophistry ...
Throw a couple more insults in there, to maintain that air of superiority...
There they are. Now more sophistry ...
What I see is that you're frustrated because you can't find a way to take pot shots at an idea that isn't a lumbering, one-dimensional, bull's-eye.

So you have no response then, and are now you attempt to move on from the highlighted failures and conflating you have done because…well…no response?

Imagine a really beautiful and great piece of music. And then imagine trying to define WHY it's a really beautiful and great piece of music. You can't do it. Music is dynamic. It's doesn't just sit there waiting for you to figure it out. In fact, there really isn't going to be any way for you to "figure it out" because music is something that happens to you.

Music is a pretty easy to demonstrate concept, you can describe its beats, melody, rhythm, flows, emotional appeal, etc. – and none of this can be done with your god concept which, as has been noted by others, seems to change every couple of posts.

You aren't going to be able to prove a good piece of music using science.

Whether a piece of music is good or bad is subjective – but the existence of that piece of music is easily demonstrable. Again you are conflating two different things, in this case a ‘thing’ with the ‘enjoyment of that thing’, in order to again miss the point.

You aren't even going to be able to do it using logic, or reason, and we aren't all going to agree on what is a great piece of music. Yet we have virtually all experienced great music.

And yet, amazingly and apparently unbeknown to yourself, we can demonstrate such a piece of music exists.

This is how it is with the idea of "God". God is like great music.

You mean god is as easy to demonstrate as a piece of music? Oh wait, that analogy doesn’t really work.

It's impossible to define, and impossible to quantify, yet it changes your life for the better.

So it is impossible for sheet music to exist? After all, I cannot think of a better example of quantifying something than being able to write the instructions sufficient for reproducing that something.

So you aren't going to be able to take your usual easy pot shots at such a dynamic concept.

Do you not realise that, by comparing your god concept to a real thing like music, you are effectively emphasising the problem with your god concept?

And blaming and accusing me for this is stupid.

You really are determined to live your RF forum experience in perpetual martyrdom aren’t you?

Maybe you should try adopting a different one.

Or maybe, by being honest with myself, the rejection of a non-evidenced concept that is indistinguishable from non-existence is the obvious course.

Why, just because you say so?

I know you struggle with this concept PureX, but the presence of logical contradictions in an idea or concept is usually taken as strong evidence that there are problems with that idea or concept. We, yes both I and you, do this type of reasoning everyday in our lives when we evaluate claims.

God, like great music, and great art are not logically consistent.

I second mball1297’s comments here.

you aren't going to lessen their power by ******* and whining like a three year old that they "aren't real".

Hence why we aren’t doing that. Highlighting the problems and contradictions is the way to go. But you do seem to have taken on this different tactic when you cannot adequately respond to those criticisms. Fill your boots if you want.

The experience is real, and is usually good, and can sometimes be life-changing.

Like finding a coin under a pillow or presents under a tree is as real to a child. Like how any experience, when attributed to a vague ephemeral insufficiently defined concept, is an exercise in conformational bias.

Whine all you want, but you ain't gonna make the reality of a God-experience go away. And your attempts to belittle it only work for you and yours.

I like when you make comments like these. It sort of illustrates the lack of foundation you have when you resort to this type of commentary in lieu of reasonable argumentation.

 

[PureX]

So you have no response then, and are now you attempt to move on from the highlighted failures and conflating you have done because…well…no response?

There is no response for that sophic nonsense.

Music is a pretty easy to demonstrate concept, you can describe its beats, melody, rhythm, flows, emotional appeal, etc. – and none of this can be done with your god concept which, as has been noted by others, seems to change every couple of posts.

You've explained nothing about music. Instead, you mentioned a couple of words and symbols we use to transcribe it. At what point does a collection of sounds become music? At what point does it become great music? At what point does it become meaningful and moving to people? And how does sound achieve these various points?

You don't have any idea. And neither does most anyone else. Yet these points exist. Not in exactly the same place for everyone, but we all recognize that there are such conceptual divisions in music.

Whether a piece of music is good or bad is subjective – but the existence of that piece of music is easily demonstrable.

Oh, it is? How? How do you know when a piece of music begins and when it ends if the performers don't purposely clue you in?

Again you are conflating two different things, in this case a ‘thing’ with the ‘enjoyment of that thing’, in order to again miss the point.

No, I think it's you who still doesn't understand. There is sound, that you can put in your test tube and quantify. And there is music, which you can't. There is the physical universe which you can put in (a really big) test tube and quantify, and there is "God" which you cannot. There are pictures which you can document and duplicate and measure and there is art which you cannot.

Sound is not a "thing", it's a phenomena. Light and shadow and the illusion of space they can create are not things, it's phenomena. Music is not the phenomena of sound, it's a particular conceptual experience of the phenomena of sound. Art is not the phenomena of light and shadow creating an illusion of space, art is a particular kind of conceptual experience that often involves the illusion of space through light and shadow. Music has no "substance" yet it exists. Art has no material body, yet it exists. And likewise, "God" is not a thing that can be found or proven to exist physically, but can exists never-the-less. Just as art and music exist. They are all concepts that we can experience through our interactions with actuality.

And yet, amazingly and apparently unbeknown to yourself, we can demonstrate such a piece of music exists.

Only by experiencing it. Otherwise, all you have are words and symbols on a piece of paper. And that's not music, any more than words and symbols in the bible are God.

 

[themadhair]

There is no response for that sophic nonsense.

The irony.

You've explained nothing about music. Instead, you mentioned a couple of words and symbols we use to transcribe it. At what point does a collection of sounds become music? At what point does it become great music? At what point does it become meaningful and moving to people? And how does sound achieve these various points?

Good questions. And since we can demonstrate that music exists we can attempt answers at these questions. Your god-concept doesn’t get anywhere near this far. I really think you are hurting your own argument here with this comparison.

Question to the other posters – does this new line of defence by PureX remind anyone of the Chewbacca defence?

Oh, it is? How? How do you know when a piece of music begins and when it ends if the performers don't purposely clue you in?

So you have difficulty determining when music begins (that would be when the performers start playing btw) and when it ends (this usually coincides with when the performers stop playing)?????? I know you are making this up as you go along but at least put some effort into it.

No, I think it's you who still doesn't understand. There is sound, that you can put in your test tube and quantify. And there is music, which you can't.

I really genuine fail to understand how being able to transcribe music in sheet notation is doing something other than quantifying it. The instructions to replicate something is an example of quantifying it. I just do not see how else I can express what seems to be one of the most tritely obvious points I’ve ever made on this forum.

There is the physical universe which you can put in (a really big) test tube and quantify, and there is "God" which you cannot.

You cannot quantify the non-existence so I actually agree with you there.

Sound is not a "thing", it's a phenomena.

The word ‘thing’ can be clearly used to refer to a phenomena. So I used the phrase ‘thing’ as a placeholder. Sue me. I’m pretty sure its only a matter of time before I do it again.

Music is not the phenomena of sound, it's a particular conceptual experience of the phenomena of sound.

Regardless of whether you call it a ‘thing’ or a ‘phenomena’, the fact remains that it is quantifiable and demonstrable – qualities sorely lacking from that god concept you appear to have abandoned the defense of.

Music has no "substance" yet it exists. Art has no material body, yet it exists.

Sounds deep but is ultimately pointless. Music is founded upon the physical sounds that comprise it. Art is due to both the concepts and materials upon which it is founded. Both the material, and the concepts (such as love), are demonstrable. But since your god concept isn’t demonstrable this analogising is only hurting you.

And likewise, "God" is not a thing that can be found or proven to exist physically, but can exists never-the-less. Just as art and music exist.

But since I can easily demonstrate a piece of music or a piece of art, and cannot do likewise for your god concept, the analogy fails pretty miserably.

Only by experiencing it. Otherwise, all you have are words and symbols on a piece of paper. And that's not music.

Some composers were deaf so how does that fit in to your grand scheme? And, regardless of how much chaff you try to throw around here, a piece of music is easily demonstrable. You are simply attempting to conflate “a piece of music” with the “effect that piece of music has”. I have already pointed this conflation out to you.

 

[Magic Man]

At what point does a collection of sounds become music? At what point does it become great music? At what point does it become meaningful and moving to people? And how does sound achieve these various points?

At what point does this become relevant? At what point does this explain anything at all? At what point do you start making actual sense? At what point do your posts become meaningful?

Oh, it is? How? How do you know when a piece of music begins and when it ends if the performers don't purposely clue you in?

Who cares when it begins or ends? I may not know whether or not it's over, but I at least know it exists. I can at least hear the music when it's there, as can anyone else who has their hearing.

No, I think it's you who still doesn't understand. There is sound, that you can put in your test tube and quantify. And there is music, which you can't.

Why can't you quantify music? It's a collection of sounds. That's all.

There is the physical universe which you can put in (a really big) test tube and quantify, and there is "God" which you cannot. There are pictures which you can document and duplicate and measure and there is art which you cannot.

You can't measure or duplicate or document art? You should let all of the art galleries know that, especially the gift shops, which tend to have duplications of the art from the museum.

I know you're trying really hard to make this sound really cool and deep, but it's just not working. Not making sense =/= deep.

Sound is not a "thing", it's a phenomena.

First, I think you mean "it's a phenomenon". Phenomena is plural.
Second, so a phenomenon is not a thing? What is it then? Also, I thought you said above that sound was a thing, and that it could be quantified and "put in a test tube", etc. Are you saying you were wrong then, or are you wrong now?

Light and shadow and the illusion of space they can create are not things, it's phenomena. Music is not the phenomena of sound, it's a particular conceptual experience of the phenomena of sound. Art is not the phenomena of light and shadow creating an illusion of space, art is a particular kind of conceptual experience that often involves the illusion of space through light and shadow. Music has no "substance" yet it exists. Art has no material body, yet it exists. And likewise, "God" is not a thing that can be found or proven to exist physically, but can exists never-the-less. Just as art and music exist. They are all concepts that we can experience through our interactions with actuality.

That sounds great...until you actually read it with the mind of a sane adult. Again, using big words and making no sense =/= being profound. I'm sure this sounds great in your head, but it means absolutely nothing to anyone with the ability to think.

Besides, who cares? Atheists generally don't care about concepts of god like yours. The word is a+theist for a reason. If your concept of god is not theistic, it's not automatically ruled out by atheists. It's hard to tell much about your concept of god, but it doesn't seem to be theistic in nature, meaning it's not automatically ruled out by atheists. It may still be ruled out upon discussion, but it has nothing to do with being an atheist or not.

And yet, amazingly and apparently unbeknown to yourself, we can demonstrate such a piece of music exists.[/QOUTE]
Only by experiencing it. Otherwise, all you have are words and symbols on a piece of paper. And that's not music.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

PureX, what the hell are you even saying?

 

[PureX]

Sounds deep but is ultimately pointless. Music is founded upon the physical sounds that comprise it. Art is due to both the concepts and materials upon which it is founded. Both the material, and the concepts (such as love), are demonstrable. But since your god concept isn’t demonstrable this analogising is only hurting you.

This is where your argument falls flat. You think that because you can quantify sound, you can quantify music. But you can't. Because you can't define how or when or why one becomes the other. The same is true of any art form. You can quantify the stone and the metal; the height and the weight, but that tells you nothing at all about how it becomes art, or not art, because art is a concept that has to be experienced. It can't be captured any other way. It can't be defined and quantified. It has to be lived.

But since I can easily demonstrate a piece of music or a piece of art, and cannot do likewise for your god concept, the analogy fails pretty miserably.

You can't demonstrate a damn thing. Because you can't control the experience of others. You can show them what art is for you, but that may or may not translate for them. And the same goes for them. Yet most of us agree that music is real. That great beauty is real. That great art so real it can change a life.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I agree PureX, god is a completely mental concept with no physicality behind him/ her/ it/ at all.

 

[themadhair]

This is where your argument falls flat. You think that because you can quantify sound, you can quantify music. But you can't. Because you can't define how or when or why one becomes the other.

Please tell that to the following website which is doing what you declare impossible:
Sheet Music Plus - World's Largest Selection of Sheet Music

The same is true of any art form. You can quantify the stone and the metal; the height and the weight, but that tells you nothing at all about how it becomes art, or not art, because art is a concept that has to be experienced. It can't be captured any other way. It can't be defined and quantified. It has to be lived.

This is curious because I think you just shot yourself in the foot. The marble that makes up the statue is physical, but the abstract art concept is imposed with our minds based upon our knowledge and experiences. We impose it, and the marble shape would remain the same whether or not we imposed upon it. So, by this comparison, I guess god is an idea that exists solely within your mind. I can live with that.

You can't demonstrate a damn thing.

So I can’t demonstrate a piece of music? So how does this website work then?:
Sheet Music Plus - World's Largest Selection of Sheet Music

Because you can't control the experience of others.

And, yet again for the umpteenth time, you are conflating a ‘thing’ with peoples ‘perception of that thing’. Should I just put this into my signature to avoid having to reiterate ad nauseum?

 

[Commoner]

This is where your argument falls flat. You think that because you can quantify sound, you can quantify music. But you can't. Because you can't define how or when or why one becomes the other. The same is true of any art form. You can quantify the stone and the metal; the height and the weight, but that tells you nothing at all about how it becomes art, or not art, because art is a concept that has to be experienced. It can't be captured any other way. It can't be defined and quantified. It has to be lived.

I'm a amateur musician and so I share your awe of music.

But music is just a collection of sounds, nothing more. It has no inherent value that is in any way greater that the value of that sounds. We do, however, attribute some special value to collections of sounds that we find enjoyable, interesting, moving or even disturbing.

So, when we describe "music", we really just mean a collection of sounds that we like in some way. The only extra value of music comes from us, there's nothing more to it. It's not magical and it's not supernatural, but it is cool as hell.

Furthermore, we have a good understanding of how to compose the different sounds to make them sound pleasurable - to make them music. This understanding is tought in theory and in practice in music schools. We know what makes sounds into music and we know what makes "great music". Alas, as with any human endevour, some are considerably better at it than others.

You can't demonstrate a damn thing. Because you can't control the experience of others. You can show them what art is for you, but that may or may not translate for them. And the same goes for them. Yet most of us agree that music is real. That great beauty is real. That great art so real it can change a life.

You can predict the experiences of others, since we are all very alike. The music industry is actually counting on that - if we couldn't quantify music, you could pretty uch say goodbye to MTV. Which might not be a bad thing.

Great beauty is real only as a concept. It is the value that we give to something and more often than not, most of us agree - but not always.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Question to the other posters – does this new line of defence by PureX remind anyone of the Chewbacca defence?

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense#cite_note-0

 

[DarkSun]

No, it doesn't. You keep repeating yourself over and over again, while disregarding counter-arguments. Must I tell you the definition of that?

Perhaps it would help if the counter-arguments actually invalidated what I've been saying to begin with?

 

[DarkSun]

I note how you stopped at the inductive reasoning just before you equivocate the two scenarios as being, in your words, ‘equally justified’. Interesting that.

Inductive reasoning is the only form of justification through which people may believe or disbelieve in God. There is no deductive reasoning involved in either viewpoint whatsoever.

Do you disagree?

Run out of red herrings I take it?

Please elaborate.

Or, over here in reality, it's called being honest. Most theists don't believe 100% in their god all the time. I could say "God does not exist no matter what, and I am 100% sure of that", but that would not be very reasonable. Instead, many atheists say "I don't believe there is a god, but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm wrong". It's called being reasonable and honest with yourself. I know it's probably a hard concept for you to follow.

Actually. No. "I don't believe in God" is an absolute statement which says one thing. "I'm not sure whether God exists because there is no evidence either way" -- is a completely different statement which says another. Which statement do you actually mean?

Please note, if you pick the first option, then you are believing something without any evidence. According to Oxford University's English Dictionary, to then claim that not believing in God is not an act of faith, goes against the very definition of faith.

This puts you on equal standing with theists.

Now, I think this is what the real issue is. Most people posting here seemingly like to think that they are superior to theists. They think anyone who believes in God is using flawed logic because there is no proof for the existence of God. And because of this, they will vehemently deny any claim that we are equals.

Rather arrogant, don't you think?

Thankfully, not all atheists are like this. I showed this discussion to an atheist I'm really close friends with, and while agreeing with me, she found it really amusing (and ironic) that all the atheists on this thread were just as vehemently defending their right to feel superior to theists, as any theist would be with atheists.

I don’t believe god exists. I also believe that the ‘dynamic’ god concept you have attempted to present does not exist (note that this sentence is stronger than the first).

Are you really going to call me a liar on this?

Nope. But I am willing to say that you are believing something without proof.

I usually don't believe in things that I can't establish to be true. There's no conflict between "I don't know" and "I don't believe".

But you do believe something that you can't establish as true: that there is no God. How can you then claim that "you don't know" when you actually have a viewpoint?

Your consistent mischaracterization of atheists and atheism is quite tiresome.

Please elaborate on how you have been mischaracterised.

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

:biglaugh:

Frubals!!!!

 

[DarkSun]

Well, it doesn't even matter who's right and who's wrong in this case. I might have an actual invisible friend, that's not the point.

Once you've established that there is no evidence for a claim (or rather, unless you've established that there is evidence for a claim) - it doesn't take any faith to reject it, but it takes faith to accept it. You might be correct, but if you accepted the claim without any evidence, you can hardly be considered resonable.

Whether there is any evidence for a god or not (or my invisible friend), that's really another subject.

.

There is no evidence for the claim: "God does not exist", either.

 

[dogsgod]

There is no evidence for the claim: "God does not exist", either.

What would the evidence for the existence or the non existence of nothing look like?

 

[DarkSun]

It appears that you do not agree with the above. Consider your example from just a few posts before:


It is again the exact same fallacy. You are trying to equivocate the reasonableness of two ideas by using a concept that applies UNIVERSALLY. This is textbook fallacy of equivocation.

I am defining belief as any cognitive viewpoint held as true, and faith as belief in something without empirical evidence. These are the same definitions used by my dictionary.

It is not my fault that the concepts of faith and belief apply universally.

And more to the point you do not believe in your own example.

You're right, I don't believe in pink fairies. But at least I can admit that I have no proof of the inexistence of pink fairies.

You do not have absolute proof that the next time you post here your computer won’t explode killing you.

Exactly. So if I do not have absolute proof, then it is an example of faith.

Yet you will post not having this absolute proof. Your retort will be that you have used a computer for x number of years so you have experiential and empirical evidence that your computer will not explode. But this very same line of reasoning applies to your example.

I will not post that at all.

Neither of the two chaps have ever seen fairies, and this experiential and empirical evidence is not dissimilar to your experiential and empirical evidence with your computer.

Inductive reasoning is not a substitute for deductive reasoning.

Also, people could use their experiences which have led them to believe in God as a means of justification in the same way as what you're describing.

It should also be noted that your example also relies on the concept of negative proof which is another realm of fallacy.

I could state that reindeer don't exist and be proven right or wrong depending on the evidence. I could similarly do the same thing with unicorns, and upon finding no evidence, would have to make up my own mind. This isn't a fallacy at all, it's a fact.

The expectation inherent in your example that disproof of an existence claim should be considered comparable to the proof of an existence claim is pretty clear is not reasonable.

It's not clear at all. You're just in denial. Sorry, but it's true.

Not really. And the whole “we shouldn’t argue” is pretty pointless considering the hope that has been pointed out to you. And pointed out to you repeatedly at this stage.

Must have missed that.

 

[DarkSun]

What would the evidence for the existence or the non existence of nothing look like?

I dunno, but it really is amusing that you pre-empted the idea that God doesn't exist when saying "the non-existence of nothing".