Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 27 Jun 2008 04:50 Virgil wrote: > In article <1214552129.1522.3(a)proxy01.news.clara.net>, > The Natural Philosopher <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jun 26, 3:56?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> W.A. Sawford wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05? am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48? am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)Joe.King.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. ? All you have done >>>>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is >>>>>>> suppsed to have done it. ?Atheists have said they have proven all >>>>>>> manner of things. ?Almost always it turns out to be something some >>>>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists. >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it >>>>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh). >>>>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.' >>>>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists >>>>>> have claimed it? ?Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything, >>>>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first >>>>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any >>>>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal. >>>>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor >>>>> a fact. >>>>> So it can't be proven or disproven. >>>>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get >>>>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less. >>>>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open >>>>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as >>>>> something one can simply do without. >>>>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual >>>>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place... >>>>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its >>>>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology. >>>>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a >>>>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof. >>>>>> Wendy >>>> Your "god" is yours. ?Different people have more or less >>>> anthropomorphic ideas of gods. ?And the claim wasn't so much that your >>>> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're >>>> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical >>>> god is provably false. ?The most obviously wrong points would be the >>>> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood. >>>> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to >>>> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge >>>> by transcribers. >>>> >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> So scientists can be proven wrong by >> Correct. >> >> Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are not a >> scientific theory: Since religion predicts nothing that can be tested, >> its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis. > > And while that sort of religious belief cannot be proved wrong by > science, it also cannot be proved right. > *Nothing* can be proved right. At best, we can say of any theory, that it hasn't been disproved..yet, although logically it COULD be. Religion cannot be proved wrong *logically*: it has zero value as a scientific theory for that reason. It is scientifically *empty*. > On matters of religion, as on many non-religious matters, science says > nothing. > It CAN say nothing. A atatement such as 'somewhere in some dimension, exist perfectly formed pink unicorns' is so loose that it cannot be disproved: it pushes the burden of refutation so far beyind teh practical that it is empty in any nortmal context. > However when the religious say that science is wrong, they usually have > no idea what they are talking about. > The problem is that very few scientists understand what science is, either. They think that science can prove things right, that it makes a final statement about the nature of the universe: It does neither. It is simply a system of *predicting the future*. That is its value and ultility. That it produces reliable ways of doing things whose outcome is always the same. Any more than most religious people understand what religion is. Religion is rightly a way of *acting* 'as if' something that cannot be proved to exist, or disproved, were a fact. It is *a* way to proceed in the human condition of utter ignorance as to the ultimate nature and meaning - if any - of the universe. If both scientists and religious people were to retreat into the humility that befits general human ignorance of the fundamentals of life, there would be no argument. > E.g., creationists and intelligent design freaks. Spiritual arrogance. That's all. Coupled with a weak sense of self esteem that does not allow them to consider that the assumptions around which they base their whole existence, might be wrong. For second rate scientists and religious people, the basis on which they act has to be assumed to be *factual*. They neither can stomach life as a process of behaving 'as if' some explanation or theory were in fact the real case, when it certainly may not be. The whole of human knowledge is based on 'as if'. It is 'as if' there were a force sucking us down onto the surface of the planet. It is 'as if' time passes in a smooth linear fashion, according to the way we remember it . None of these is provable fact: Possible alternatives exist. Occams's razor is the tool we use to decide, not what is right,but what is functional and effective: And sadly what s functional and effective in one worldview is obscenely complicated in another. The creationists worldview is completely secure and simple: all mystery comes from God, he has his Word and his Rule book, and that is the end of the matter. Science, to the fundamentalist, is obscenely complicated and a complete violation of Occam's Razor. Likewise to the scientists, the Big Bang explanation only needs ONE simple weird event to explain everything: broken symmetries account for everything, and anthropocentrism accounts for God. A supernatural intelligence than could carry out ALL the details of a creation such that to a scientist it *appears* that the big bang is the simplest explanation, is in Occam's words 'multiplication of entities (WELL) beyond necessity'. I have no problem with either explanation. However where I do take issue, is those that would teach both as equally valid: they are not. The Big bang is the logical extrapolation in a more or less linear fashion, of stuff that WORKS, that has passed test of refutation. Religion is, by its very nature, irrefutable, and has no predictive power. That is the primary difference. Religion only predicts things in its essence about life beyond death, a state which it is not possible to test. One anecdotal account written up by four people some of whom were not there, in a cultural matrix of extreme political change and repression is hardly strong evidence. If returning from the dead ere an every day occurrence, and all whop returned said 'yeah, right: there w god, and st peter, and all the stuff you expect' there wouldn't be any argument or religious wars either.
From: W.A. Sawford on 27 Jun 2008 05:39 On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: > Well, give me your address, and I can send you a Bible. In your dreams chum. So we will > run through what has been said so far. Atheists say that everything > in the Bible is mythology. Actually I have met many Christians who believe that the difficult to swallow supernatural bits in the bible are 'myths'. It's jolly convenient. Wendy
From: W.A. Sawford on 27 Jun 2008 05:48 > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 5:05=C2 am, RobertL <robertml...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Jun 26, 4:48=C2 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>> > > 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.' > > > > Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists > > have claimed it? Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything, > > because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first > > place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal. > Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor > a fact. I never said it was. But I do think that if someone claims that a supernatural being exists, then it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence that it is actually the case. > So it can't be proven or disproven. Not in an absolute sense, no. What can? However the overwhelming lack of any evidence for the existence of 'god' should tell us that the possibility is vanishingly unlikely. > Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less. God of the gaps, as they say. > Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open > mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as > something one can simply do without. No, I disagree that atheism is 'sidestepping the issue'. Speaking for myself I can simply find no grounds for supposing the existence of such a thing as 'god'. If that is sidestepping the issue, then what exactly *is* the issue? > > Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual > > evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place. > That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology. > Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a > statement about its existence, or lack thereof. Sorry, you've lost me there. Can you explain a bit further? Wendy
From: Tiger on 27 Jun 2008 07:32 On Jun 27, 9:25 am, "W.A. Sawford" <was1...(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > My mistake, I actually saw him last week at the restaurant at the end of > the universe, chatting with the young conservatives from Syrius B. ;) Young Tories from the Dog Star? You can't be Sirius!
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2008 08:14
On Jun 22, 12:56 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 21, 5:05�pm, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> "BuddyThunder" <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in message > > >>news:485d8115(a)clear.net.nz... > > >>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>> On Jun 21, 12:43?am, "Alex W." <ing...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in message > >>>>>news:c5f85d3b-d62a-4cf8-925f-661796bd9082(a)t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >>>>> All public education in the United States is now atheistic. > >>>>> ========== > >>>>> IOW, it conforms to the law of the land. > >>>> The law of the land guaranteed freedom of religion, right to trial by > >>>> jury, free and open elections, and many other things that do not exist > >>>> in the United States today. > >>> You don't feel free to practice your religion? Weird. It's a VERY > >>> religious country. > >>> Public education �shouldn't teach people things that are not shown to be > >>> true. They shouldn't teach Christianity, Islam, Odinism OR Hinduism. Why > >>> is that wrong? > >> He does not grasp that "freedom of religion" also means "freedom FROM > >> religion".- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Well, then they should not be teaching atheism, either, but we see no > > such restriction on that religion. > > Atheism isn't a religion any more than not playing guitar is a hobby. > > And you still can't say how atheism is being taught in public schools. > Don't be scared of reality, it ain't that bad!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not playing guitar is a hobby in today's society. How many people do you know who do not play guitar? It takes someone with strong motivation to avoid playing guitar. Atheism is being taught in public schools by teachers who are taught to teach atheism in colleges, by college professors who are taught to teach atheism by other college professors, who are taught to teach atheism by Europeans, who are taught to teach atheism by evil spirits. Well, actually, the evil spirits are involved in the entire process. Robert B. Winn |