Objecting the concept of a Deity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  How is no disproof less an argument than no proof?
It would be an argument from ignorance to say that because X hasn't been proven to be wrong (yet), it is therefore true and vice versa. My lack of belief in supernatural deities is founded on the lack of evidence for their existence.

It is not ignorance. You are correct, a lack of evidence supports that something does not exist. No proof is no proof. However, you choosing to absolutely deny the possibility of a things existence with out proof it cannot exist, is ignorant. Example: a person claims they saw something anything for a moment. a gost, a monster. in the very spot they claimed to have seen it, a camera happened to record the entire event in time and with a wide view of the space. the camera reveals that there was simplyy nothing there. ever. that is proof that "something" was not there. the person was wrong. period. with science, i believe the answer must be proven. I just proved that given the tools, one can PROVE something does not or never did exist. A lack of such evidence exist an atheist's belief system. they are just as blinly devout to their "superstition" of non-existence that a Christian is to theirs.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I'm an amateur science buff. I've seen many theories that provide the possible existence of Intelligent Design.
Care to cite an example of such a theory?

(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  They are just theories though.i do not believe in them myself. Theories do not prove anything. They are just theories.
This is a blatant and unfortunately very common misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context.

From Wikipedia:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.


that post is may be true. But String theory, put fourth by Stephen Hawking(a brilliant modern theoretical physicist), is a theory in which the only "proof" is mathematical. It is an "un-proven theory". I simply meant that some theories in physics and religion are just possible mathematical solutions that the laws of physics allow. The math can be right, but only through experimentation can a theory be proven. And not ALL theories have been proven. scientist like to palce them as fact when the math is right though, because math doesn't lie. at least, until a flaw is found. Einsteins theory of relativity was flawed. and we dubbed it fact for about 90 years. until of course Stephen Hawking. and recently, a amateur physicist, who was a plumber lol, found a flaw in his work as well. we are in a constant state of learning, without the last answer.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  The only thing I believe in is physics.
You do know that the science of physics is based on numerous theories, for instance the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity, right?

yes i know this. as i just explained, even einstein was flawed, string theory countered his theory, and a plumber countered Hawkings theory. you need to get up-to-date man.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I will not deny a faith if physics allows its POSSIBLE existence. But I wont believe the faith is real either.
What makes you think that physics "allow" the possible existence of a supernatural deity?

simply because alternate dimensions do not break the laws of physics as you will see in one of the post i just made.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Does it exist? I do not know. and neither do you. I am simply after the truth, and won't make up my mind until I find it. And why should I? why MUST I take a side? What if i take a side, but then later i am proven wrong? I don't like to be wrong haha. So I will not give the answer. Many brilliant minds of today choose this path.
A large amount of atheists on here and in general are agnostic atheists; we are able to change our position once new evidence is brought forth. Until that moment, it would be irrational to believe in that for which there is no evidence.

it would be irrational. i agree. just as irrational as to deny its possibility to exist.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  The reason I'm here is to observe why people believe what they cannot prove, both religious people and atheists. It is amusing, and brain stimulating. Smile
What exactly do you think atheists believe in that they cannot prove? I get a hunch that what you're thinking of are actually gnostic atheists.
(21-12-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  to the latter, i believe i covered that with my retort to your "irrational" section.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 09:31 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Welcome to TTA.

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  If you want it plain, here it is; neither science or the Christian scholars have ever found tangible proof that gives way to once side or the other. The is nothing in all the modern laws and formulas of Physics that disproves the concept of a deity or Intelligent Design. There is also nothing that the Pope, his researchers, or any religious scholar has discovered or announced that proves they are correct either.
Biological evolution is very strong evidence against Intelligent Design. With that said, you are correct, there is neither evidence for, nor evidence against the existence of any supernatural deity.

yes it is. I personally believe in evolution. remember Bill Nye? the science guy? he recently had an interview in which he spoke of the Catholic church. His message was not to impose religion on your kids. and i agree. at least not blind faith, so that they do not believe in science. "the Catholic Church, it should be noted, Largely believes in evolution."
(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  The fact is, it may come as a shock to some both atheists and believers that science has indeed provided evidence that heaven/God/a higher power could possibly exist.
Care to elaborate on this?
(21-12-2012 09:31 AM)Vosur Wrote:  i did to some of your other inquiries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2012 11:08 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 10:27 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  So whether its Infinite Parallel Universe's or God, no one has the answer. Both are equally without any proof. For you to pick one or the other, you have to have true "blind faith".
Although this is a valid observation, it should be noted that atheism does not deal with the origins of the Universe. As such, you do not have to choose one or the other in order to be an atheist. In fact, many of us admit that nobody has an answer to that question yet; just like you did.

With that said, you said that science has provided evidence for the possible existence of heaven, a god and/or a higher power and you have given me, assuming that I haven't misunderstood you at this point, the following example.

(21-12-2012 10:27 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  We don't know what yet, but religious scholars begin their argument there. That God or some other higher power is behind such an event. nothing else could be. If God does exist, and what the bible says about Him is true, then he is, quote, "The alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." Well i have to say that fits the "infinite" description. His power is "Infinite", never ending. Just like the description of the singularity.
There are two problems with this approach.

Firstly, since nobody knows the answer to the question "Where did the Universe come from?", proposing that the only way it could have been created is by means of a supernatural god without being able to provide evidence for this claim would be intellectually dishonest.

And secondly, while there are certain similarities between the Christian god and the singularity in that passage, the differences are much more numerous throughout the rest of the Bible. The two most important disparities between the two of them are 1.) that the Christian god is imagined to be an immaterial, supernatural and conscious being that has an interest in the human race, whereas the hypothesized singularity possesses none of the characteristics and 2.) that the hypothesized singularity has ceased to exist over 13 billion years ago, whereas the Christian god is imagined to be "alive" today.

On a final note, do you know of anything in science that supports the possible existence of an afterlife (i.e. heaven)?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
21-12-2012, 11:17 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
Let me make this clear, theories ARE NOT FACTS. They may have facts that support them, but the FACT is that there are many that although they have supportive evidence, that doesn't mean they are proven. Its like a court case. both side present their evidence, and a jury decides guilty or not guilty. let me make one more point clear on that; if a piece of evidence that is UNDENIABLE in finding the accused guilty or not guilty, then the case is proven without a doubt, and in science as well as the court, you'll find that there is a serious lack of those types of facts in big unifying theories of physics. do the research. i do. i will post a link in one such case in physics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hydDhUNvva8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 11:17 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Let me make this clear, theories ARE NOT FACTS. They may have facts that support them, but the FACT is that there are many that although they have supportive evidence, that doesn't mean they are proven. Its like a court case. both side present their evidence, and a jury decides guilty or not guilty. let me make one more point clear on that; if a piece of evidence that is UNDENIABLE in finding the accused guilty or not guilty, then the case is proven without a doubt, and in science as well as the court, you'll find that there is a serious lack of those types of facts in big unifying theories of physics. do the research. i do. i will post a link in one such case in physics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hydDhUNvva8
I think you are unclear on the meaning of the word theory in science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
21-12-2012, 11:22 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 10:55 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  It is not ignorance. You are correct, a lack of evidence supports that something does not exist. No proof is no proof. However, you choosing to absolutely deny the possibility of a things existence with out proof it cannot exist, is ignorant. Example: a person claims they saw something anything for a moment. a gost, a monster. in the very spot they claimed to have seen it, a camera happened to record the entire event in time and with a wide view of the space. the camera reveals that there was simplyy nothing there. ever. that is proof that "something" was not there. the person was wrong. period. with science, i believe the answer must be proven. I just proved that given the tools, one can PROVE something does not or never did exist. A lack of such evidence exist an atheist's belief system. they are just as blinly devout to their "superstition" of non-existence that a Christian is to theirs.
My suspicions have turned out to be correct; what you are talking about are indeed gnostic atheists. Both gnostic atheism and gnostic theism are intellectually dishonest positions because one cannot, with an absolute certainty, know that god does or does not exist. However, as I've said previously, many, if not all atheists on here, are agnostic atheists. We do not claim to know whether or not supernatural deities exist, but as long as there is no evidence to support their existence, we choose not to believe in or worship them.

(21-12-2012 10:55 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  that post is may be true. But String theory, put fourth by Stephen Hawking(a brilliant modern theoretical physicist), is a theory in which the only "proof" is mathematical. It is an "un-proven theory". I simply meant that some theories in physics and religion are just possible mathematical solutions that the laws of physics allow. The math can be right, but only through experimentation can a theory be proven. And not ALL theories have been proven. scientist like to palce them as fact when the math is right though, because math doesn't lie. at least, until a flaw is found. Einsteins theory of relativity was flawed. and we dubbed it fact for about 90 years. until of course Stephen Hawking. and recently, a amateur physicist, who was a plumber lol, found a flaw in his work as well. we are in a constant state of learning, without the last answer.
Technically, a theory that has not been proven to be true is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Aside from that, you are correct about us being in a constant state of learning. It is for that reason that scientific theories are subject to change at all times. If a theory is not supported by the evidence we have, it is either being altered or completely abandoned. For example, while the Universe was once thought to be static and eternal, the observations of several different astronomers, namely Edwin Hubble, Georges LemaƮtre and Vesto Slipher, caused scientists to alter this model. Today, the scientific community widely recognizes that the Universe is in fact finite and expanding.

(21-12-2012 10:55 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  simply because alternate dimensions do not break the laws of physics as you will see in one of the post i just made.
As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we have no evidence of "alternate dimensions".

(21-12-2012 10:55 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  it would be irrational. i agree. just as irrational as to deny its possibility to exist.
Agreed.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 11:41 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 11:05 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-12-2012 10:27 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  So whether its Infinite Parallel Universe's or God, no one has the answer. Both are equally without any proof. For you to pick one or the other, you have to have true "blind faith".
Although this is a valid observation, it should be noted that atheism does not deal with the origins of the Universe. As such, you do not have to choose one or the other in order to be an atheist. In fact, many of us admit that nobody has an answer to that question yet; just like you did.

With that said, you said that science has provided evidence for the possible existence of heaven, a god and/or a higher power and you have given me, assuming that I haven't misunderstood you at this point, the following example.
(21-12-2012 11:05 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You admit that no one has the answer to the origins of the universe, yet claim to know for certain that a deity cannot exist? That is the very embodiment of the point you make about why Christians should not believe in God.
(21-12-2012 11:05 AM)Vosur Wrote:  We don't know what yet, but religious scholars begin their argument there. That God or some other higher power is behind such an event. nothing else could be. If God does exist, and what the bible says about Him is true, then he is, quote, "The alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." Well i have to say that fits the "infinite" description. His power is "Infinite", never ending. Just like the description of the singularity.
(21-12-2012 11:05 AM)Vosur Wrote:  There are two problems with this approach.

Firstly, since nobody knows the answer to the question "Where did the Universe come from?", proposing that the only way it could have been created is by means of a supernatural god without being able to provide evidence for this claim would be intellectually dishonest.

And secondly, while there are certain similarities between the Christian god and the singularity in that passage, the differences are much more numerous throughout the rest of the Bible. The two most important disparities between the two of them are 1.) that the Christian god is imagined to be an immaterial, supernatural and conscious being that has an interest in the human race, whereas the hypothesized singularity possesses none of the characteristics and 2.) that the hypothesized singularity has ceased to exist over 13 billion years ago, whereas the Christian god is imagined to be "alive" today.

On a final note, do you know of anything in science that supports the possible existence of an afterlife (i.e. heaven)?
(21-12-2012 11:05 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I never proposed that the only viable solution to the origin of the the universe is God. (lets assume from know on when speaking of God, we speak for the entire essence of any deity/higher power/supernatural existance, lol. its easier since we are having such a long discussion. I should let you know you are a very intelligent person, and i admire your ability to analyze. I hope you feel the same Smile we have a lot in common, even as opponents.) I simply said that is a possibility not refuted by the laws of physics. although I will concede to God as described in the bible as you said quote"the Christian god is imagined to be an immaterial, supernatural and conscious being that has an interest in the human race, whereas the hypothesized singularity possesses none of the characteristics". However i believe you misunderstood the hypothesis. What i was implying is that the infinite factor is characteristic to God's "power", and that is, would be in my mind, a representation of that power, (possibly a gate to "heaven" as i imagine it, although let me stress i do NOT believe in this or God, i just don't deny his possible existence, i hope you have firmly established that by now.) and No i do not know of anything aside from alternate dimensions that support the idea of an afterlife. and Alternate dimensions are prevailing prevailing theories. according to the laws of physics, they CAN exist. though the evidence of them is not there. proving another point that not all scientific theories are fact, or proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 11:45 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
I just hurt myself with a mis-aimed facepalm. Too drunk.



Good luck with picking this one apart boys and girls.

Noted that the OP is still at school and willing to learn and wanting of learning (in both senses).

TruthSeeker,
You are to be applauded for that attitude. I sincerely hope you pay attention to guys like Vosur... you can learn much about logical fallacies.

I think perhaps your editing skills need a little attention. Please attend.


Vos, it beats me how you still have so much patience after all these years. Good job, sir.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
21-12-2012, 11:47 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
You continue to confuse theory and hypothesis. Please look up the definitions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 11:51 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
Well then as it seems you do not deny its possibility, then we agree. That was in fact my original intentional message. And of course i do not expect you to worship in God. I do not. I do see Him as a possibility. And i do see now there are different kinds of atheist. That was a piece of information I did not have before. I'm glad you brought that to my attention. This has been a very stimulating conversation. I'm enjoying it very much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: