Proof God exists

pH

Cat, it's almost impossible to take you seriously. Why all the colours? Surely your argument should stand up in black and white. What you write, rather than the colour of what you write gives the text meaning.

I'm not arguing that your post in hip forums was not your own, merely pointing out that copying and pasting (even your own work) in different forums is a lazy way of trolling.

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

Well no. I studied maths. It you have an infiniate amount of choices, one will be the one you require. Thats the nature of infinaty.

Dear put maths aside can I colour ppl's faces in the market with blue colours? try to get my point

Zulu wrote:

But Allah created Adam; he created a grown man. Did he also create the tree in it's mature state?

He can do everything

Zulu wrote:

And why did he bother creating a digestive system

He wants you to survive and eat and to ponder his creation which leads to Him

Zulu wrote:

All you are saying is: it's complicated, therefore god exists. That's not a proof, it's an assumption.

I didn't say so, We have to ask ourselves such question 'cause to me they lead me that his existence is highly possible

Zulu wrote:

God may indeed be possiable. I believe a God may exist. I believe in the chance that a God exists, but I don't see any proof. If I saw proof I'd believe in a God.

WoW, Alhamdulilah =D so you aren't atheist my brother, so try to do do the two things I've mentioned my deepest sincere best wishes

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

bubonicus

Zulu wrote:

God may indeed be possiable. I believe a God may exist. I believe in the chance that a God exists, but I don't see any proof. If I saw proof I'd believe in a God.

No you would not. You would know god existed then. You would'nt have to believe it, you would know it.

CatStevens

pH

pH wrote:

Cat, it's almost impossible to take you seriously. Why all the colours?

Dear you don't like this example I already gave other ones

pH wrote:

is a lazy way of trolling.

That's what you think anyway, but me My answer is the same so I won't write it again very simple

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zulu

CatStevens wrote:

Dear put maths aside can I colour ppl's faces in the market with blue colours? try to get my point

You can't ask me to put logical proof aside; thats asking me to imagine and imagination isn't proof.

He can do everything

I'm sure (s)he can. That doesn't proove his existance, it mearly refutes your earlier conclusions that because the system is so complex there must be a God. Surely if God was any good, he would have made eveything far simpler?

He wants you to survive and eat

...but "He can do everything"; (s)he can create a living being that dosen't need to eat.

WoW, Alhamdulilah =D so you aren't atheist my brother,

I never claimed to be. I think perhaps you made another assumption. I think I'm best described as agnostic.

Dades

CatStevens wrote:

Cause many non-Muslims came to me and argue and others want me to leave Islam, well, it is better to have an idea about their belief when we discuss or talk , and to know why do they think that thir religion is true

But in the interim, before you get a chance to dig other religions, would it be true to say you've reached a conclusion without all the facts?

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

You can't ask me to put logical proof aside; thats asking me to imagine and imagination isn't proof.Dear I my example was about colouring, every thing in the picture has a particular colour and shadow.

Zulu wrote:

because the system is so complex there must be a God.

When did I say so? please again I said such questions and discussions led me as it did to many other ppl that the existence of God is possible.

Zulu wrote:

(s)he can create a living being that dosen't need to eat.

yep He can and can create a living being that need to eat.

Zulu wrote:

I never claimed to be. I think perhaps you made another assumption. I think I'm best described as agnostic.

Good ^^ Alhamdulilah, well you know I wrote in my first posts in this thread

Ok, let me start this way, I want one Atheist to argue with me

My question to every atheist

I wish you all the best Zulu
Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

Wow, I haven't been this disappointed since they cancelled Beverly Hills 90210

Thats it? That is the proof?

CatStevens wrote:

Human were created from nothing or by nothing. This proposal violates basic reason. Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing cannot create something.

Very true. But humans were not created from nothing, humans were created from hyrogen, carbon and oxygen (and a few other bits as well). So I am not sure where the idea that humans were created from nothing comes from.

CatStevens wrote:

Humans created themselves.

Well humans actually do create themselves. Your parents bodies (mostly your mother) built you, from raw material ingested in your mothers food, from a single one of her cells.

You can trace this liniage back nearly 4 billion years to the formation of the very first self-replicating molecules, that under the right conditions begain to replicate naturally under the energy of the sun.

CatStevens wrote:

Humans were created by something already created. This implies in infinite regression of causes which ultimately means that humans do not exist.

Well now you get to the interesting part. What created the matter, some of which would eventually start forming self-replicating molecules on the Earths surface 6 billion years later?

All matter energy and time was created in the instance of the big bang, some 10 billion years ago. But what created the big bang.

Now hold on to your hat. In all possibility the universe wasn't created! :eek:

What? I hear you ask. That makes no sense. It doesn't in our view of the universe as we see it sitting inside it.

But if time doesn't exist yet, then the term "created" has no meaning, because it implies cause and effect. How can you have cause and effect with no passage of time exists to facilitate that creation. It would be as illogical as saying "i am going to make this 2 days ago"

Before the big bang the rules of how we view the nature of the universe are out the window. Time doesn't exist yet. Matter doesn't exist yet. Energy doesn't exist yet.

So you cannot say what created the big bang because linear time doesn't exist yet, it too was created with the big bang. This opens up a range of possible alternatives to the way we normally think about cause and effect, though it is doubtful we will ever know which is correct.

It is possible that time is set on an infinate loop, that time will be start, expand, collapse and start again. But this is just one possibility.

Our brains have a hard time visually comprehend these possibilities, because we think inside the rules of our own universe, rules created at the big bang.

So I can understand Cat how you might have trouble with these concepts, and prefer to believe the teachings of a religion that sounds more grounded in every day experience, that works in the framework of the rules of our universe. It is easier to think of things in terms of things created and destroyed, in terms of a creator. But there is no logical reason to believe this is how the pre-bigbang existance worked.

CatStevens wrote:

If C1 were caused by C2, and C2 by C3 to CN, then C1 cannot exist unless C2 does, etc.

That is only true if linear time exists. If linear time doesn't exist yet, as in before the big bang, then C1 following C2 isn't a given at all.

CatStevens wrote:

How do you think this universe existed, how did it come to the existence

Absolutely no idea. But there is no logical reason to believe a supernatural god did it.

There is no logical reason to believe it was even created, since without time the term "created" has no meaning

CatStevens wrote:

My answer is humans and other created things were created by a being which is not itself created what about yours let's start the discussion this way.

You can choose to believe that if you wish, but there is no evidence for that assumption, or logical reason to believe it. And there is certainly no proof to support that idea.

CatStevens

The Atheist

The Atheist wrote:

But in the interim, before you get a chance to dig other religions, would it be true to say you've reached a conclusion without all the facts?

conclusion/facts concerning what?

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Sam Vimes

CatStevens wrote:

Commander Vimes
Jesus believe in God yet you not I guess

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

that's not proof. i have merely professed to be atheist. i could be god in disguise and you can't prove i'm not. the point of my argument is that you shouldn't believe in something simply because there is no proof against it. i refer you to the argument of the flying spaghetti monster.

Your argument is simply intelligent design. anyone with a concept of mathematics will tell you that in an infinite universe anything will happen

let's move it away from religion for a second to explain my point further. if you were given a dartboard and a dart and tried to hit the bullseye you'd probably miss. but if you were given 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chances, you would eventually hit it, probably multiple times.

i realise that life is improbable but with billions of years of proteins sloshing around in goo, the chances are quite good that they would eventually come together in a way that would form a viable life form. there is absolutely no evidence that there was a divine being guiding things.

the only place where science fails is at the creation of the universe. matter wasn't, and then was. this violates the laws of physics. life from no life does not. and even if it did, that doesn't mean women should wear clothes that only show their eyes. that idea's entirely man made

Zulu

CatStevens wrote:

Dear I my example was about colouring, every thing in the picture has a particular colour and shadow.

I fail to see how this proves the existance of a God/

again I said such questions and discussions led me as it did to many other ppl that the existence of God is possible.

Possiability does not equate to truth.

Good ^^ Alhamdulilah, well you know I wrote in my first posts in this thread

So as an agnostic, I don't deserve proof? or debate? Are my arguments not as valid; if you prick me do I not bleed?

robindch

> He can do everything

If he can do everything, is he powerful enough to think of something that he can't do?

Ciaran500

I think everyone has missed the ultimate proof for god. Behold a bananna! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBiW3BZbw_M

CatStevens

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Very true. But humans were not created from nothing, humans were created from hyrogen, carbon and oxygen (and a few other bits as well)

And where did hyrogen, carbon and oxygen come from?

Wicknight wrote:

So I am not sure where the idea that humans were created from nothing comes from.

The idea is read this example, again it is an example: if the human was created from hyrogen, carbon and oxygen, and let's assume that these three things came from nothing but all of a sudden they appeared then you created from nothing which became to hyrogen, carbon and oxygen later. without a creator

Wicknight wrote:

Well humans actually do create themselves. Your parents bodies (mostly your mother) built you,

who built my parents

Wicknight wrote:

You can trace this liniage back nearly 4 billion years to the formation of the very first self-replicating molecules, that under the right conditions begain to replicate naturally under the energy of the sun.

Maybe God was leading these processes.

Wicknight wrote:

Absolutely no idea. But there is no logical reason to believe a supernatural god did it.

so what is the logical reason that by chance or randomness or whaeva did it anyway do you agree that his existence is possible?

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

that's not proof.

you said you are jesus, but jesys isn't atheist or doen't question the existence of God so you aren't him.

Commander Vimes wrote:

i could be god in disguise and you can't prove i'm not.

O come on now do ya want me to take this seriously, well, I can 'cause I will ask ya to give life to dead ppl and such things when you cannot do so well you aren't God.

Commander Vimes wrote:

the point of my argument is that you shouldn't believe in something simply because there is no proof against it.

I don't do so

Commander Vimes wrote:

anyone with a concept of mathematics will tell you that in an infinite universe anything will happen

And can he prove that?

Commander Vimes wrote:

let's move it away from religion for a second to explain my point further. if you were given a dartboard and a dart and tried to hit the bullseye you'd probably miss. but if you were given 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chances, you would eventually hit it, probably multiple times.

dear read my posts , or let me comment on this OK it hitted it, so? can he evolve or devlope or take and make processes by itself and put each object or whateva in its right place with a purpose and function? this is a japanese Animie

Commander Vimes wrote:

i realise that life is improbable but with billions of years of proteins sloshing around in goo, the chances are quite good that they would eventually come together in a way that would form a viable life form.

It is a possible theory to many ppl anyway

Commander Vimes wrote:

the only place where science fails is at the creation of the universe. matter wasn't, and then was. this violates the laws of physics. life from no life does not. and even if it did, that doesn't mean women should wear clothes that only show their eyes. that idea's entirely man made

God can do everything can violate the laws of physics, He claimed to be God He sent messengers they performed miracles and He sent books read them if you wish, I think God's exitence is highly possible:)

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

I fail to see how this proves the existance of a God/

Dear I didn't say that these are proofs , these examples has a point which I wish you got it and they lead us to some questions which led me to believe that His existence isn't impossble, get it:)

Zulu wrote:

Possiability does not equate to truth.

yeah but then you can start your own journey to know whether this possibility is true or not

Zulu wrote:

So as an agnostic, I don't deserve proof? or debate? Are my arguments not as valid; if you prick me do I not bleed?

I didn't say that dear =D but you know we have to discuss his existence possibilty first 'cause I think we have some Atheists here, and then I mentioned 2 things as a start for your journey

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

shroomfox

I believe in God. But I believe in a God who:

1. Didn't leave a vast amount of evidence to fool us into believing in evolution or scientific method.
   
2. Was able to create a vast and intricate system of laws where we could evolve in a changing universe over billions of years rather than just throw the whole lot onto the canvas at once.
   
3. Doesn't feel the need to provide evidence of his existence.
   
4. Gave us enquiring minds and curiosity and intelligence and logic to enable us to uncover the secrets of the Universe, rather than awarding us these gifts so we can be lead astray.

I don't want to know that God exists. It's faith that's important, and proof negates faith. And I certainly refuse to believe in God as some kind of ultimate prankster, giving us abilities to learn but providing evidence pointing to the opposite of the truth.

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

Maybe God was leading these processes.

Maybe He was. Maybe He wasn't

But there is no logical reason to believe that He must have, let alone that He did.

As such there is no evidence for or against God's existance to be found here. God could have done it, sure, but you cannot say it was necessary for a god to exist for it to happen.

CatStevens wrote:

so what is the logical reason that by chance or randomness or whaeva did it anyway do you agree that his existence is possible?

Anything is possible CatStevens. It is possible you don't exist and that I am locked in a mental hospital tapping on the side wall thinking that I am in work typing on a keyboard.

Do I think it is at all likely that God exists? No.

I reject that concept as being an invention of the human imagination, and as such very unlikely that something humanity invented would, by chance or fluke, correspond to an actual real entity.

The concept of a god was invented by humans in an attempt to deal with the apparent randomness of the natural world around us. As an article on another thread explained, humans have an inbuild desire to see patterns and assign meaning to natural events. It is the way our brain catalogs and organises data.

Hundreds of years ago our anncestors attached an order and meaning to events such as the weather, or the movement of the planets, attributing these natural phoneoma to the work of gods. They did this because the did not understand that natural workings behind these events, and attributing them to the workings of human like gods, in a clear realm of understanding (Thor gets angry, lightning happens) was easier for them than simply say "we have no idea what that is"

It makes humans quite uneasy to be unsure about why or how something is happening, especially with something as powerful as the weather.

And we still do this today. Instead of stating that you don't know ANYTHING about before the Big Bang, it is easier for you (and other religious people) to think that it follows a line easy to understand in context of the day to day world we experience. Things are created, therefore the universe must have been created, therefore something must have created it, therefore that something must be a god. You are applying your everyday understanding of how the universe "should work" to events and phoneoma far beyond current human understanding, just as say the Vikings did with the weather, or the sessions.

You are attributing meaning and order in a context you are familiar with, to things you cannot understand. That is where the concept of "god" comes from.

God is a concept that humans use (invented) to rationalise for our own peace of mind, things we don't or cannot yet understand.

It isn't the only one, but it is the biggest and most universal, since a god can be applied to anything, from the creation of the universe to why a J-Lo won her Grammy (ie things we don't understand )

So do I think God exists? No, I reject the idea of God as being a real thing because the concept of God is simply a construction of the human imagination. Therefore I am an atheist.

robindch

> God can do everything can violate the laws of physics

Can your god make something so big that he can't move it?

Dades

Originally Posted by The Atheist
But in the interim, before you get a chance to dig other religions, would it be true to say you've reached a conclusion without all the facts?

CatStevens wrote:

conclusion/facts concerning what?

Concering who or what the "creator" is. If you are convinced there is a designer, but only have a working knowledge of a few of the many "designers" described by world religions, then surely your belief is based on incomplete information?

If you test drive only three cars, can you choose one and claim it to be the best car on the road not having ever sat in any of the other thousand options?

bubonicus

all i see here is people who believe in one thing because they can't disprove it's existence asking somebody who believes in something to prove what they don't believe exists.

prove it exists?

prove it does'nt exist?

Atheists have as much faith in believing there is no god as Chirtstian/Muslim etc... have in believing god does exist.

Both of them work of faith and believe. So really what has proof got to do with it?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> God can do everything can violate the laws of physics

Can your god make something so big that he can't move it?

Here is one for you

Can God destroy himself?

Wibbs

CatStevens wrote:

O come on now do ya want me to take this seriously, well, I can 'cause I will ask ya to give life to dead ppl and such things when you cannot do so well you aren't God.

Well you're taking it seriously that someone who you never met calims to have knowledge of these miracles.

I don't do so

It seems you do as every argument against your view you dismiss.

And can he prove that?

Yes he can. You need to understand the concept of infinity.

dear read my posts , or let me comment on this OK it hitted it, so? can he evolve or devlope or take and make processes by itself and put each object or whateva in its right place with a purpose and function? this is a japanese Animie

Over long periods of time with many variables. The simple leads to the complex.

God can do everything can violate the laws of physics, He claimed to be God He sent messengers they performed miracles and He sent books read them if you wish, I think God's exitence is highly possible:)

You believe that. There is no proof that he did. More to the point there is equal proof that he didn't do it the way you believe in other religions held to be equally valid by those who believe in them. The only "proof" you have is your faith in a particular God.

I didn't say that dear =D but you know we have to discuss his existence possibilty first 'cause I think we have some Atheists here, and then I mentioned 2 things as a start for your journey

FYI Both the "dear" and blue type are irritating to say the least and don't help whatever flimsy case you think you have.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

So really what has proof got to do with it?

CatStevens (the poster, not the singer) claimed he could prove God exists, through a logical paradox.

It turned out he couldn't, not that this was any great surprise. Lots have tried, they have all failed.

Sam Vimes

CatStevens wrote:

Commander Vimes
you said you are jesus, but jesys isn't atheist or doen't question the existence of God so you aren't him.

lets just forget that. i'm not actually claiming to be god. i was using it as an example that you're not getting

CatStevens wrote:

I don't do so

yes you do. you believe in a god despite the fact that the only evidence for him/her/it is an old book and some ghost stories. if you forget several of the laws of physics, a god might be possible, but there is nothing to suggest that there ever was one.

CatStevens wrote:

And can he prove that?

ummmm.., yes. Yes, give a mathematician a blackboard and some chalk and he can prove that to you

CatStevens wrote:

dear read my posts , or let me comment on this OK it hitted it, so? can he evolve or devlope or take and make processes by itself and put each object or whateva in its right place with a purpose and function? this is a japanese Animie

i can't make out what you're saying there

CatStevens wrote:

It is a possible theory to many ppl anyway

all i said was the chances of it are good. i said nothing about a theory. over billions of years, single celled organisms could have formed randomly. this is a fact, not a theory. i made no comment about whether or not they did, i said they could have.

CatStevens wrote:

God can do everything can violate the laws of physics, He claimed to be God He sent messengers they performed miracles and He sent books read them if you wish, I think God's exitence is highly possible:)

as someone has mentioned, a god that can do anything can create an immovable object. but if it is immovable, then by definition he cannot move it. if he can move it, then it is not immovable.

the best he would be able to do is create an object that is immovable by everyone except him. if there are exceptions to what he can do, then he is not omnipotent.
an omnipotent being is a contradiction in terms

Schuhart

In general, I find the whole ‘this order could not have evolved by chance’ approach to god is misdirected. If there is order, then it suggests there are physical laws that will operate without intelligence. If the existence of a god was to be suggested, surely we would find him in free will as represented by uncertainty, choice and disorder.

From reading the thread, I’m still left with that picture of the many assumptions that have to be made to get to the point of saying no only that there is a creator, but that creator is the god of such and such a religion. As I see it, the path is:

1. assuming the universe is not eternal, and commenced at some point
2. assuming the commencement was not a mechanical thing, but an initiative of some creator. (In fairness, if we assume the creator, I don’t think there’s a great leap to assuming that creator had some purpose that involved creating a universe.)
3. assuming the creator’s purpose relates in some way to our existence, and that his real chosen people are not on the far side of the Crab Nebula. Maybe we’re just the pond life in a galactic water feature.
4. assuming the creator has a specific interest in us individually
5. assuming that communication is through one of the mutually exclusive systems of religion – say religions with the Adam and Eve story
6. assuming communication is through one of the mutually exclusive branches within that system – say Judaism, Christianity or Islam
7. possibly, assuming communication is through a particular variant of that branch that might feel it is the only variant with the true franchise

That would look like four assumptions are needed to get to the idea of some kind of god that we should be arsed about. At least six and possibly seven significant assumptions are needed to get to the god envisaged by Mormons, Hasidism, Druze or whatever congregation you choose. If any one of these assumptions falls, so does the claim of that sect. None can be proven.

Which takes us right back to the idea that the main reason people believe the faith that they do is because, as Dawkins would say, religious traditions have acquired authenticity in peoples minds over the years. If Islam is on the go for over a thousand years, the fact these myths have survived for so many generations makes the current generation more confident in saying ‘one billion adherents can’t be wrong’. In fact, every one of those billion adherents is making at least six assumptions with no basis whatsoever.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

CatStevens (the poster, not the singer) claimed he could prove God exists, through a logical paradox.

It turned out he couldn't, not that this was any great surprise. Lots have tried, they have all failed.

yeah but you are talking about beliefs!!!!

edanto

@Cat

So, basically, there's no proof. We just don't know how [God OR Universe] came into being. We don't know what happens when we die.

Anyone that tells you different is just trying to sign you up to their church.

Ultimately, we can't know. They can't know. Nothing about God or the beginning of time could ever be proved.

As above, Godbelievers and Atheists both have faith, just complementary.

Choose to believe what you will, all religions and godless traditions have very similar rules about how to treat your fellow man and surely that's much more important than whether there's a god waiting for us after death or just a long black moment.

Why worry about death in life? life is love is life is love is life is love is life is love...

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

yeah but you are talking about believes!!!!

Everything is belief bubonicus. None of use can know anything for certain in a scientific manner.

We can only measure the world in degrees of likelyness.

Is it likely you exists? Yes.

Is it likely that I am typing on a keyboard right now? Yes.

Is it likely that humanity invented the concept of gods to help explain the universe in a certain why? Yes.

Is it likely that this invention of the human imagination happens to correspond to a real entity? No

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I don't want/need to either. In the absence of a reason to believe in something I don't believe it.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

Everything is belief bubonicus. None of use can know anything for certain in a scientific manner.

We can only measure the world in degrees of likelyness.

Is it likely you exists? Yes.

Is it likely that I am typing on a keyboard right now? Yes.

Is it likely that humanity invented the concept of gods to help explain the universe in a certain why? Yes.

Is it likely that this invention of the human imagination happens to correspond to a real entity? No

I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I don't want/need to either. In the absence of a reason to believe in something I don't believe it.

So if I said I don't believe in sea horses or eskimos because I've never seen one in real life, you would not ask me to prove to you my belief because you know better........

Live and let live!!!

Tar.Aldarion

CatStevens wrote:

Hi Tar.Aldarion

Hello there CatStevens.

And there is no proof for that, but this is off topic, but I don't mind to discuss that if you want

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

I know there is no proof of the trinity, I don't believe in that either, I'm just pointing out that your quotes were, well, wrong for the purpose you purposed them for.

A mere pray isn't enough as I said

Do you not understand me or are you avoiding the question?
I hope you note that your A) C) thing was completely proven wrong, do you accept this, or wish to debate it?

So how do you explain the existence of the universe, how did it come into the existence?

There are theories,that's all there are, people have them, some have more 'proof' than others. Yet, they are just theories. What I am saying, and you seem to miss the point, is that your 'proof' is an illogical catch-22. it does not matter if something existed forever or not.

Scenario A) Something can come from nothing:
The universe can come from nothing. Humans can come from a non god source.

Scenario Something can not come from nothing:
Then the universe had to be created, which lead to humans. It had to be created from something. So something would have existed 'forever', even if time was not linear. If something existed forever, then the universe and all before could exist forever, without any god.
Otherwise.
Something would have had to created 'god' and if something did not have to create 'god', then something did not have to create the universe, because something can not come from nothing. Something could have just existed 'forever', moreover as before the universe forever does not even exist, as there is not a need for linear time.
Humans can come from a non god source in both scenarios, and most likely do.

btw please guys I think some of you didn't read my posts here maybe one or two because I think I'm repeating answers which I already answered so please read my posrs before posting

I have read them, I just think you missed my point.

The_Scary_Man

This whole argument spins on the form that God takes. If we can agree on that then this discussion will be made a little clearer.

Is God a supernatural force external to humanity or is He solely an implicit part of the human experience?

5uspect

edanto wrote:

As above, Godbelievers and Atheists both have faith, just complementary.

We are all born atheist, does a baby have faith? Someone here once said that I don't collect stamps, does that make not collecting stamps a hobby?

The atheist viewpoint is that there is only knowledge, we acrue more knowledge everyday about the world we exist in. We throw out old ideas when new better ideas show they are wrong. There is no faith.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

So if I said I don't believe in sea horses or eskimos because I've never seen one in real life, you would not ask me to prove to you my belief because you know better........

No, for a start you don't have a belief. You have a rejection of a commonly held belief. I would not ask you to prove all the things you don't believe because the set of things you don't believe is infinately large.

I would probably show you a sea horse, or an eskimo. I always carry one in my back pocket for such occassions

For example, I do believe Steve Stauton is the manger of Ireland. I don't believe Steve Stauton works in my local chipper, or any of the infinate other thing I don't believe Steve Stauton does.

If I was to try and prove to why I don't believe all the billion things Steve Stauton could do were true, from working in the chipper to running an alien spaceship, we would be here until the end of the world. In fact we would never finish even listing them.

It is of course totally possible he does work in my chipper, but very unlikely.
If someone wants to show me Steve Stauton does actually work in my local chipper then need to show me that. I am not going to go on the assumption that he does unless someone shows me he doesn't. That would make little sense.

So I'm not going on the assumption God exists until someone shows me he doesn't. I'm going to assume He doesn't until someone shows me He does.

If anyone wants to show me a god I'm all ears (and eyes). If anyone wants to prove to me that a god exists I'm all ears.

Until then I see no logical reason to believe that supernatural gods are at all likely to exist. The universe works just fine without a god, so why believe in one?

bubonicus

5uspect wrote:

The atheist viewpoint is that there is only knowledge, we acrue more knowledge everyday about the world we exist in. We throw out old ideas when new better ideas show they are wrong. There is no faith.

So Atheists disagree with there been gods, not that they don't believe in gods. Well that's cleared that up. Cheers.

So for athesit's it's not about proof or belief, it's about trying to tell everybody else they are wrong.

Zombrex

edanto wrote:

As above, Godbelievers and Atheists both have faith, just complementary.

Faith is belief without reason.

I have faith in nothing, because there is nothing I believe where there is no reason for that belief.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

For example, I do believe Steve Stauton is the manger of Ireland. I don't believe Steve Stauton works in my local chipper, or any of the infinate other thing I don't believe Steve Stauton does.

I understand what you are saying, I was trying to say you would know better to actually think I don't believe in sea horses etcc..

Any way, I think people throw the word belief around to easily.

I don't think you believe Steve Staunton is the manager of the irish football team. I think you know he is.

I am trying to make a distinction between belief and what you know.

Knowing something and believing in something are completely different. I don't think people really make the distinction.

As i think I said above, if god was proven or disproven, nobody would believe or disbelieve, they would just know.

edit: it's like that song "I believe I can fly", yeah but I know I can't

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

So Atheists disagree with there been gods, not that they don't believe in gods. Well that's cleared that up. Cheers.

Atheists reject the commonly held belief that supernatural gods are real and manipulate the universe.

As has been pointed out, everyone is atheist at some level, as everyone religious or otherwise, reject some ideas of gods. "Atheists" in the western world just take that one step further and reject the final god, the Hewbrew god.

Not believing in something is not a belief in of itself, for any meaningful use of the word "belief" For a start, the list of things I don't believe in is infinately large.

bubonicus wrote:

So for athesit's it's not about proof or belief, it's about trying to tell everybody else they are wrong.

You do know you are on an atheist forum here Bubonicus?

You can hardly expect the posters here to be mindful of not pointing the illogic nature of belief in a supernatural god, in case they offend someone.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

You do know you are on an atheist forum here Bubonicus?

You can hardly expect the posters here to be mindful of not pointing the illogic nature of belief in a supernatural god, in case they offend someone.

which you invited a member of Islam to come onto and prove the existence of their god?

Lambs, slaughter!!!!!

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

I don't think you believe Steve Staunton is the manager of the irish football team. I think you know he is.

I don't know anything for certain. It isn't possible

There is only what I believe and the likelyhood I attribute to that belief. Knowledge is just the set of beliefs that you hold as being very very likely.

bubonicus wrote:

I am trying to make a disinction between belief and what you know.

There is none, in an absolute sense.

Knowing something is just a (slighly inaccurate) term for believing something to be very very very likely.

bubonicus wrote:

Knowing something and believing in something are completely different.

No they aren't

If you see Steve Stauton on a football pitch with the Irish team you believe your eyes are accurately depicting the scene as it is infront of you. You trust your eyes. You assess the situation and you make a judgement that it is very very very likely that your belief that Steve Stauton is the manger of the Irish football team is correct.

You might then say "I know this to be true", but that is just laymans terms. You only think you know this because you believe the information you have been given, be it from a newspaper or from your very eyes.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

which you invited a member of Islam to come onto and prove the existence of their god?

Lambs, slaughter!!!!!

Actually he came onto the atheist forum and claimed he had proof of God's existence. I simply asked him to state this proof

Though I agree with the lambs bit .. CatStevens is a braver (more foolish?) man than me

edanto

Wicknight wrote:

Faith is belief without reason.

I have faith in nothing, because there is nothing I believe where there is no reason for that belief.

You, and I, believe that no Gods exist. To me, that belief is analagous to a belief in God since it starts and ends with a feeling. It's an opinion, a perspective, call it something else if you don't want to call it faith - but it's something emotional no matter what we call it.

Having read a lot of your posts, I think that that reason you don't believe in God is because you have have no proof she exists. But people that do believe in God say that she doesn't need to prove her existence to exist. And on and on...totally irreconcilable viewpoints. I think they're both faith based - mine because I choose to dismiss metaphysical stuff and theirs because they choose to embrace it. I might be wrong, that's the chance I take with faith.

Dades

bubonicus wrote:

which you invited a member of Islam to come onto and prove the existence of their god?

Lambs, slaughter!!!!!

He needed no prompting to get into the thick of it. I think it's great to have someone here not be afraid to speak their case other than heathens for a change.

Keeps us out of the Christians' hair for a few hours at least.

5uspect

bubonicus wrote:

So for athesit's it's not about proof or belief, it's about trying to tell everybody else they are wrong.

I don't follow? I'm sure you're an atheist about many things? The orbiting teapot and the flying spaghetti monster for example. What makes the concept of the Abahramic god special?

bubonicus wrote:

I am trying to make a distinction between belief and what you know.

Do you know that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun?

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

I.
No they aren't

Yes they are!

5uspect wrote:

Do you know that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun?

Possible but highly improbable. But I think you miss read me.

I meant to say there is a difference in what we all believe and what we all know on a fundamental level.

Zombrex

edanto wrote:

You, and I, believe that no Gods exist.

I have no believe that no God exists, any more than I believe Steve Stauton isn't the captain of an intersellar attack ship from a far away galaxy.

I reject someone elses belief that a god or gods exist, and I would reject someone elses idea of Captain Stauton. It just becomes one of the endless infinate list of things I don't believe in.

It tells you nothing about my actual beliefs.

I do have a belief that the concept of gods is a product of human imagination and culture.

If you assign into the category of "my beliefs" everything I don't believe (which is an infinately large set of all possible imaginings) then "my beliefs" become a completely meaningless term. What I actually believe becomes completely lost in the endless list of every possible thing I don't believe in.

In that case it would take me until now until the end of the universe to list my beliefs.

edanto wrote:

To me, that belief is analagous to a belief in God since it starts and ends with a feeling.

No it doesn't.

My rejection of gods concept starts and ends with the fact that there is no logical reason to believe they exists, and that the explination that they are simply a by product of the human need to order and structure the perception of the world around him, is much more plausable and likely explination for why the concept exists in human culture.

edanto wrote:

It's an opinion, a perspective, call it something else if you don't want to call it faith

It is an opinion, it is a perspective. It isn't faith.

edanto wrote:

but it's something emotional no matter what we call it.

There is no emotion behind my reasoning.

If anything atheists are often called too cold, calculating and unemotive (that right sp?) in their logic preciesely because there is no emotion in their reasoning.

If your reasoning is based on emotion that is fine, but mine isn't. And I would imagine that is true of most of the posters here.

edanto wrote:

Having read a lot of your posts, I think that that reason you don't believe in God is because you have have no proof she exists.

I wouldn't say proof, I would say logical reason, and yes that is one of the reasons I don't believe she exists.

Evidence of God would be a logical reason to believe she exists, but so far we don't have any. So that as they say is that.

edanto wrote:

But people that do believe in God say that she doesn't need to prove her existence to exist.

Good for them.

edanto wrote:

I might be wrong, that's the chance I take with faith.

You might be wrong with something you think you know for certain.

The possibility of being wrong has very little to do with it. You can be wrong about anything, faithbased or otherwise.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

Yes they are!

Tell me one "fact" about the universe that you know for absolute certain, that the possibility that you are, even slightly, wrong or mistaken in this knowledge is absolutely 0%, that what you think you know cannot be wrong.

Then tell me how you know that for certain.

Schuhart

edanto wrote:

To me, that belief is analagous to a belief in God since it starts and ends with a feeling. It's an opinion, a perspective, call it something else if you don't want to call it faith - but it's something emotional no matter what we call it.

I think there is truth in what you say. There’s no proof of a god, but some people have a sense of a divine that they hold on to. I dare say its been expressed in a million ways, but there’s an Emmylou Harris lyric “if there's no heaven what is this hunger for?” which I think makes a reasonable stab at the simultaneous doubt and hope that it involves.

I think the problem of interpreting that emotion is that we don't really have a clean slate to judge if this divine sense is just a social creation or something that is 'hardwired' as the article in the other thread suggests. One way would be to study persons raised as athiests, to see if any develop such a sense. However, even then they will likely have acquired their religion in a soical setting.

bubonicus

Wicknight wrote:

Tell me one "fact" about the universe that you know for absolute certain, that the possibility that you are, even slightly, wrong or mistaken in this knowledge is absolutely 0%, that what you think you know cannot be wrong.

Then tell me how you know that for certain.

I can drive a car. I know this because I drive it from A to B. If I tried to drive a car on the belief I can drive it, I don't think I would get very far.

You entering the realms of Philosophy.

To believe in something is not the same as knowing something.
Intrinsic to the concept of belief is implication that there is an opposite to belief, disbelief. Not everyone will believe something is true, but all sane and rational people will acknowledge an observable fact.

I can claim that I believe that it will rain at 3:00 AM, six years from today, and someone may agree with me and believe the same thing. If I hold a rock, and drop it, all who are present will acknowledge that a rock had been dropped...unless they are just choosing to be childish, whimsical, or are a philosophy major.

The difference between the matter of the rock and the matter of the rain, is the difference between an observable fact, and a thought accepted as a fact. One is present, provable, undeniable and concrete, the other, howsoever fervently believed, is not. The rain could come, my belief about it could be true enough, but there is no observable proof. There is nothing to point to, nothing to show, nothing to touch, nothing to smell, nothing to be experienced by the senses of myself or others.

The only way belief can be experienced is in the mind. Facts can be experienced both in the mind and by the senses...and what is more, unlike a mental hallucination, the sensory experience can be shared with others.

It is a common error of human beings to allow belief, to allow a mental construct accepted on faith, to become so important, so obsessive, that it is taken as the same thing as fact. Indeed, there are many emotional reasons why a person might be driven to do this, but it still remains that any belief is purely mental whatever it's origin, and the mind can be mistaken.

This means that all beliefs have as part of them an implied doubt. Facts cannot be doubted, they are observably real.

Zombrex

bubonicus wrote:

I can drive a car. I know this because I drive it from A to B. If I tried to drive a car on the belief I can drive it, I don't think I would get very far.

How do you know this? For that matter how do you know the car exists in the first place. How do you know you aren't attached to a machine in a purple glop living a virtual existance ala the Matrix? How do you know that you weren't created 2 days ok and had the memories of someone else put into your brain ala Blade Runner? How do you know you were not brainwashed yesterday so you believe you can drive a car today, but you have actually never learned?

The simple fact of the matter is that you don't. Just like the tea pot going around the sun it is possible, you can only say that it is very very very .. very very unlikely.

And that is all knowledge is, belief coupled with a very high likelyhood based on evidence and rational thinking. Faith is the opposite, belief in something coupled with hardly any evidence or rational logic.

But at the end of the day it is all still belief.

bubonicus wrote:

You entering the realms of Philosophy.

Bubonicus we are well well inside the realms of philosophy. Any discussion like this, any discussion about the nature of knowledge, belief and God is in the realms of philosophy.

bubonicus wrote:

Intrinsic to the concept of belief is implication that there is an opposite to belief, disbelief.

Exactly, and we make discision based on how likely a belief in something is to be true.

You think it is very very likely that the belief you have that you can drive a car is true. This is based on the fact that you can remember learning to drive. You can, at any time remember what to do. The likelyhood that you cannot drive a car is tiny. Therefore you group this belief as part of what you know.

bubonicus wrote:

Not everyone will believe something is true, but all sane and rational people will acknowledge an observable fact.

If someone disagrees with you how do you know you are not the one being irrational or insane?

bubonicus wrote:

If I hold a rock, and drop it, all who are present will acknowledge that a rock had been dropped

You believe that, and you consider that belief likely enough that you would call it knowledge, but you don't know that for absolute certain.

bubonicus wrote:

The difference between the matter of the rock and the matter of the rain, is the difference between an observable fact, and a thought accepted as a fact.

But you only have belief that your eyes are telling you the truth.

I woke up this morning at about 2am and I saw something moving on my floor. I turned on my light and it was gone. Did I see something? Was there something there when I had the light off?

You say if too people see something it must be a fact. Why? What if one of the persons is lying? What if they are both nuts?

All you can do is make an assessment at how likely you think a belief of yours is to be true. You can never know for absolute certain that something is true.

Which is why the agnositc argument "How can you know for certain God doesn't exist" is so ridiculous. I don't know for certain ANYTHING. All I can do is make judgements on my beliefs as to the support for or against one. If I have a lot of evidence for a belief I call it something I know. If I have hardly any evidence for a belief I call it faith.

bubonicus wrote:

Facts cannot be doubted, they are observably real.

Facts can be doubted, observations can be wrong.

Newtons laws of physics were considered facts until the end of the 18th century when it was discovered that actually they weren't laws at all, because they did not work for the quantum level.

Nothing can be known for certain. We can only have degrees of belief.