Atheists & Spiritualists = Equal Fools

[rjd970]

That's definitely interesting, but before we worry about how the universe began (or not), shouldn't we first decide what role God might have played in it, if any at all?

And even before, wouldn't the answer to that question be predicated on the foundational question of whether God exists, or not?

I believe that you are one of the better and more outspoken voices of those atheistic members here -and please correct me if I am wrong - and was wondering if you might be able to shed some light on the question of God's existence?

Or more simply, can you effectively and empirically prove that God does not exist, and if not now, when might you be able to do so?

Absence of evidence against does not constitute evidence for. That is the difference between the spritualists and the atheists. Spiritualists claim that because he can't be disproven, God must exist (or at least, some do). The atheist POV is there is no evidence for, or it is lacking enough not to warrent it in serious discussion.

Asking a Christian to disprove the divinity of Muhammed, and asking a Muslim to disprove the divinity of Christ is the same excercise as asking an atheist to disprove any God. I think you are asking an impossible question, especially since the very notion of a supernatural being is set up specifically so emperical evidence doesn't matter. The hypocrisy is we all naturally gravitate to empircal proof. It is why water stains on walls and grilled cheese that show the personage of the virgin mary make such big headlines...or while may pray before a loved one goes into surgery, we hedge our bet that the surgeon is medically competent. People are searching for any hard data at all that would help their cause.

I can sit here and name any number of empirical proofs that would hands down prove the existence of God...but none would ever happen. Likewise, I can also sit here and detail out why I think the notion of a supernatural being is largely bogus....but then, I am not the one making extraordinary claims. I still contend the burden of proof is on those who are claiming a divine supernatural being, unicorns, or any other non-falsifiable notion.

 

[BigPapaVol]

RJD, you're overstating the Christian belief that since you can't disprove God, he must exist. I don't buy that as pervasive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

I think that's much of the point. People argue fervently, yet fail to recognize the holes in their own argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Disagree. By its very definition the rational approach welcomes criticism and you get extra credit for proving holes in a theory. This is 180 degrees from the spiritual approach where supernatural and emotional "evidence" reigns supreme.

I don't think you can find a single scientist that claims evolutionary theory is 100% correct...but on the same token, you would be hard pressed to find one that claims it didn't happen is some fashion.

 

[IPorange]

Apparently in some people's minds, believing in beings they have no evidence for takes as much faith as postulating how we got here based on what we have evidence for.

Whatever.

 

[rjd970]

RJD, you're overstating the Christian belief that since you can't disprove God, he must exist. I don't buy that as pervasive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Maybe not pervasive, but after 50 pages of discussion on a message board, it inevitably comes down to this. But when it comes down to it, if such a notion can't be disproven, and one wants to believe something, it is good enough. That is the point. This is why the issue of God or whatever is so interesting. So many people want to believe, and the very notion is set up so it can't be disproven.

I would even say that even if proof against is given, faith would still be good enough for many.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Disagree. By its very definition the rational approach welcomes criticism and you get extra credit for proving holes in a theory. This is 180 degrees from the spiritual approach where supernatural and emotional "evidence" reigns supreme.

I don't think you can find a single scientist that claims evolutionary theory is 100% correct...but on the same token, you would be hard pressed to find one that claims it didn't happen is some fashion.

Rational approach is welcoming to the extent that you accept their methodology and parameters while ignoring the holes. You might have utmost belief in the process, but its proponents are every bit as disingenuous as its counterparts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

Rational approach is welcoming to the extent that you accept their methodology and parameters while ignoring the holes. You might have utmost belief in the process, but its proponents are every bit as disingenuous as its counterparts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The methdology and the parameter may be the problem, and in all likelihood, would probably be the first thing looked at when an extraordinary claim is made. Any hole in the process, parameters, or methodology would be pointed out first. The actual proposition would then fall flat on its face before itself is even really looked at.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It isn't about the belief, it is about the reasons, process and evidence that matters. That is why asking one to disprove or prove God is silly. Like with any other supernatural claim I want to make, it simply can't be done.

 

[sjt18]

I can sit here and name any number of empirical proofs that would hands down prove the existence of God...but none would ever happen. Likewise, I can also sit here and detail out why I think the notion of a supernatural being is largely bogus....but then, I am not the one making extraordinary claims. I still contend the burden of proof is on those who are claiming a divine supernatural being, unicorns, or any other non-falsifiable notion.

And I still contend an equal burden of proof is on those claiming naturalism/materialism as their philosophical starting point. It is equally non-falsifiable to say that everything "MUST" have a material cause as you have effectively done.

Here is a "proof". We have a written record more than 1900 years old with over 30,000 manuscripts and fragments validating to well over 95% an original text that gives an account of God's direct interaction with man in the material world.

 

[sjt18]

Disagree. By its very definition the rational approach welcomes criticism and you get extra credit for proving holes in a theory. This is 180 degrees from the spiritual approach where supernatural and emotional "evidence" reigns supreme.
.

Not true in the least... even if I accepted your fallacy of limited alternatives which I don't. You have left out the third approach. The belief in both spiritual and material reality.

Do you really think naturalists/evolutionists/humanists "welcome criticism"?

 

[sjt18]

I don't think you can find a single scientist that claims evolutionary theory is 100% correct...but on the same token, you would be hard pressed to find one that claims it didn't happen is some fashion.

So you effectively agree that they are operating at the very foundation on faith in a materialistic answer rather than something they can actually prove, right?

 

[sjt18]

I would even say that even if proof against is given, faith would still be good enough for many.

The very same thing applies to materialists, evolutionists, and atheists.

 

[Tenacious D]

The methdology and the parameter may be the problem, and in all likelihood, would probably be the first thing looked at when an extraordinary claim is made. Any hole in the process, parameters, or methodology would be pointed out first. The actual proposition would then fall flat on its face before itself is even really looked at.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It isn't about the belief, it is about the reasons, process and evidence that matters. That is why asking one to disprove or prove God is silly. Like with any other supernatural claim I want to make, it simply can't be done.

RDJ, I also appreciate your answers.

But, please cite those facts which you believe effectively and empirically disprove the existence of God.

If you cannot, when will you be able to do so, if ever?

Like you, I think that its an impossibility - just as spiritualists face in proving that he does exist.

If neither side can prove their respective theorum, what might that mean, if anything.

You see, I don't believe its either a matter of faith or scientific evidences, at all. And its inadequate to hope to use either in its pursuit.

So, if its neither faith nor evidence which supports your respective positions ( and its not, as such would have long-since put the question to bed).....how have you and others come to the positions you hold?

What makes you choose one or the other?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

The very same thing applies to materialists, evolutionists, and atheists.

So evidences - be they calculated scientific fasts or the conversion testimony of believers - are insufficient in answering the question, at least to an effective and empirical degree, right?

Then how did either side choose which side they wished to believe (and note, that's all that either position is, ultimately, a set of beliefs), considering all unsatisfactory evidences?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

And I still contend an equal burden of proof is on those claiming naturalism/materialism as their philosophical starting point. It is equally non-falsifiable to say that everything "MUST" have a material cause as you have effectively done.

Here is a "proof". We have a written record more than 1900 years old with over 30,000 manuscripts and fragments validating to well over 95% an original text that gives an account of God's direct interaction with man in the material world.

Not sure what you mean by "material cause". Yes, I do think there is a natural cause to everything.

There are certainly causes we don't understand, but it doesn't mean those cause are supernatural. If a jet fighter flew over napoleon's army it would most definitely been attributed to supernatural forces. However, there is a very rational and scientific answer as to how said jet fighter is working, no matter how extraordinary something may seem right now.

 

[rjd970]

RDJ, I also appreciate your answers.

But, please cite those facts which you believe effectively and empirically disprove the existence of God.
If you cannot, when will you be able to do so, if ever?

Like you, I think that its an impossibility - just as spiritualists face in proving that he does exist.

If neither side can prove their respective theorum, what might that mean, if anything.

You see, I don't believe its either a matter of faith or scientific evidences, at all. And its inadequate to hope to use either in its pursuit.

So, if its neither faith nor evidence which supports your respective positions ( and its not, as such would have long-since put the question to bed).....how have you and others come to the positions you hold?

What makes you choose one or the other?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I very clearly said, I can't, that why I think the question asked in the OP isn't correct. I don't know how else to get this across.

I believe Elvis is still alive. You can't prove he isn't. You can give me evidence that he isn't, but if I want to believe it you can't change my mind. To prove it to myself, I can play the card that it is a supernatural claim so I don't have to worry about evidence, and by definition, whatever you say doesn't matter because you are looking at it wrong.

 

[VOLatile]

Do you really think naturalists/evolutionists/humanists "welcome criticism"?

Yes. Without criticism, their basis would be unfounded. It's the reason why so many theories have been proven wrong and why theories exist today.

 

[rjd970]

The very same thing applies to materialists, evolutionists, and atheists.

Wrong. It is based soley on evidence. Any explanation is weighted by the evidence. The only evidence for special creation or existence of God rest primarily on the absence of natural explanations for naturally occuring phenomenon. Historically, taking this default position has been notoriously wrong.

 

[rjd970]

Do you really think naturalists/evolutionists/humanists "welcome criticism"?

Absolutely, it is at the very foundation of the process. Certainty is fleeting and absolutes are rare.

 

[rjd970]

So you effectively agree that they are operating at the very foundation on faith in a materialistic answer rather than something they can actually prove, right?

They have a reason for believing a natural answer exists. What possible reason could they have that the more reasonable approach involves supernatural forces?

 

[VOLatile]

Wrong. It is based soley on evidence. Any explanation is weighted by the evidence. The only evidence for special creation or existence of God rest primarily on the absence of natural explanations for naturally occuring phenomenon. Historically, taking this default position has been notoriously wrong.

To add to this: many phenomena described in old texts and written off as "works of God" have been explained away with science. It's only a matter of time until science has an explanation for everything.

 

[IPorange]

To add to this: many phenomena described in old texts and written off as "works of God" have been explained away with science. It's only a matter of time until science has an explanation for everything.

One of those explanations could end up being a god. But I doubt it.

 

[Tenacious D]

I very clearly said, I can't, that why I think the question asked in the OP isn't correct. I don't know how else to get this across.

I believe Elvis is still alive. You can't prove he isn't. You can give me evidence that he isn't, but if I want to believe it you can't change my mind. To prove it to myself, I can play the card that it is a supernatural claim so I don't have to worry about evidence, and by definition, whatever you say doesn't matter because you are looking at it wrong.

Ok, so you can't.

IPO - You've been notoriously absent from this thread.

Why don't you take a stab at disproving God's existence, or are you just waiting on someona else's theory to piggy back on? That's cool, too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

I very clearly said, I can't, that why I think the question asked in the OP isn't correct. I don't know how else to get this across.

I believe Elvis is still alive. You can't prove he isn't. You can give me evidence that he isn't, but if I want to believe it you can't change my mind. To prove it to myself, I can play the card that it is a supernatural claim so I don't have to worry about evidence, and by definition, whatever you say doesn't matter because you are looking at it wrong.

We are not talking about matters of belief here, only proof.

As a person with such reverence for science, surely you can appreciate that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

Not sure what you mean by "material cause". Yes, I do think there is a natural cause to everything.

There are certainly causes we don't understand, but it doesn't mean those cause are supernatural. If a jet fighter flew over napoleon's army it would most definitely been attributed to supernatural forces. However, there is a very rational and scientific answer as to how said jet fighter is working, no matter how extraordinary something may seem right now.

So you "think" that there are natural causes for everything? Is that correct?

But then you (honestly) admit that there are some things which cannot be explained by natural causes, which seems to leave the possibility - however unlikely and remote (or impossible) - of a supernatural cause.

Isn't it more accurate to say that you believe that no such supernatural being / forces exist, and hence, you believe that there must be a natural cause - even in the absence of evidence. Further, you must also then say that no evidences which suggest a supernatural cause will be sufficient to allow you to believe in anything but a natural cause, alone.

Please, remind me again as to how best to differentiate your position from that of a spiritualist?

You seem to be doing the exact same thing as you decry them for - believing a position held without absolute certainty despite the absence of evidence - and which you have seemingly adopted as little more than an assumed by personal belief (read: faith), and then dogmatically refusing to consider even the possibility of the oppositions offered theories and evidences.

Surely you can understand how eerily similar you each appear, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

One of those explanations could end up being a god. But I doubt it.

And upon what evidences do you base that doubt?

Wouldn't it simply be easier to say, "I don't want that to be true."?

Much like a spiritualist refuses to whitewash the atheists many arguments by effectively saying, "I believe these things to be true, despite reason or evidence.".
Posted via VolNation Mobile