God & Falsifiability (discussion moved from other thread)

CDfm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

CDfm, nozzferrahhtoo sat you down in an epically stylish fashion.
Your rebuttal?

We can grant the possibility there is a god -nozzferrahhtoo

Hey it doesn't bother me - he can believe what he wants. MY God Belief really bugs him.

Genghiz Cohen

CDfm wrote: »

We can grant the possibility there is a god -nozzferrahhtoo

Hey it doesn't bother me - he can believe what he wants. MY God Belief really bugs him.

Well yeah there is the possibility there is a god. But there is also the possibility that if you hold up your hand a man in a pinstripe suit, speaking spanish and holding a model train will take a dump in it.

What's going on in this thread is that you want us to prove there isn't a god, which is the wrong way around, you need to prove there is a god.

Anyone's belief in a god bothers me, and some other atheists. A blind faith does nothing but progress the blind acceptance of things that might be difficult to explain. Like quantum mechanics, it would be so easy to sit back and say a wizard did it, but with that we will never be able to harness that power.

Religion powers ignorance.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

We can grant the possibility there is a god -nozzferrahhtoo

Hey it doesn't bother me - he can believe what he wants. MY God Belief really bugs him.

What type of rebuttal is that?
"Well, ill think what I want to think anyway".

Possibility is not proof in any way.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

....MY God Belief really bugs him.

No its probably you that bothers him. Why do you post so much in the A+A forum considering your beliefs?

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What's going on in this thread is that you want us to prove there isn't a god, which is the wrong way around, you need to prove there is a god.

Hopefully what's going on in this thread is that the atheist concludes he can't prove no God. And that the theist concludes that he can't prove God. Which means the logical position for the atheist to occupy is agnosticism. That theist has all the evidence he needs to believe in God means he can go on believing in God. His not being able to prove it to the atheist is quite a different issue - and need not impact on his own belief.

Anyone's belief in a god bothers me, and some other atheists. A blind faith does nothing but progress the blind acceptance of things that might be difficult to explain.

If it was you who couldn't see the evidence that supports belief, wouldn't the problem be your own blindness and not with the faith of the believer. Theoretically I mean.

nozzferrahhtoo

Guys,

This is in fact the standard of response I expected from the user and I only made my long comment above to illicit this very level of reply out of it. It’s worth looking over this users patters on this and other threads as it is troll 101 and I knew my post above would make it show its true fur.

Troll 101 works something like this:

1) Make something that appears to be a point and argue for it a little time. Preferably not long as it will show you actually have no idea what you are talking about.

2) Wait until people have invested themselves in a reply (Trolling doesn’t really work unless you get people to invest in their reply 1st, as they are easier to make react when they have invested some time in a thread. People are liable to pass over threads that are obvious trolling from the start.)

3) Follow up with content-less replies that do not actually say anything but serve ONLY to attempt to rile up a reaction out of the targets. I present to you:

CDfm wrote: »

Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Thats me sleeping soundly.

4) Also follow up with replies that are patently false but try and distract the user into a tangent so that the points that are too good for you to reply to will lie forgotten and your targets will be stamping their feet at the latest bile you have spewed. I present to you:

CDfm wrote: »

MY God Belief really bugs him.

Really lads, don’t feed the troll. They are only worth feeding long enough to get evidence of trolling out of them and then to do no more. I for one will not be addressing this troll again.

Genghiz Cohen

I pride myself on looking at evidence and working to a conclusion from there.
If there was evidence I would take it on-board and reassess my opinions.
Since declaring Atheism I have yet to seriously reassess my religious beliefs.

Flamed Diving

Q: Prove God doesn’t exist.

A: That’s a tough one. Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus and Apollo don’t exist, and I’ll use your method.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear to presume the deity in question desires to be evidenced in the manner scientific. Is that not a bit of a leap?

Burning bushes, parted seas, stone tablets and resurrected carpenters beg to differ with you!

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's wrong with wanting things a certain way. Gay who want the laws changed want their beliefs written into the law of the land. Don't they?

Last time I checked the proposed gay marriage concept didn't make it compulsory for all of us. :pac:

aidan24326

CDfm wrote: »

Not to these guys they are scientists and research things scientifically.

Reminds me of a story I heard. One Saturday evening after Mass Fr Murphy came accross a man in a lab coat under a street light searching franctically. The good padre stopped to help and asked the man what he had lostand he replied his house key.After an unfruitful search Fr Murphy asked could he remember where he was when he last had the key. The man pointed to some bushes and the priest suggested they search there next to which the man replied "Why , Im a scientist and the light is better here"

The logic is that you reject everything thats not proveable via the natural sciences. Already, knowing such is the sum of their knowledge they resort to a bit of ridicule and challenges and smugly declare their self fulfilling prophesy.

Having exhausted all of their natural factual sciences to explain away their inability to cope with God Beliefs in others and in other cultures resort to memes and genes and stuff to give it a technical sci-babble feel. At this stage,we are all supposed to be impressed that they have applied their scientific brains to the issue and now can do philosophy too. Deadly.

Did you hear the one about the atheist who had a breakdown - he thought his kids first word was Yahweh.

If there's a point to any of this it's lost on me I'm afraid.

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I pride myself on looking at evidence and working to a conclusion from there.

In order to look you have to be able to see. You seem to be presuming yourself able to see all the evdience. If that assumption is correct then your position is a sound one. If not then not.

Given no way to check whether your assumption is sound, agnosticism would be a more rational option

If there was evidence I would take it on-board and reassess my opinions

I'm sure you would. It seems the reasonable thing to do.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Burning bushes, parted seas, stone tablets and resurrected carpenters beg to differ with you!

You'll remember rampant unbelief in the face of such things too?

Last time I checked the proposed gay marriage concept didn't make it compulsory for all of us. :pac:

There are varying reasons why someone might resist the law being changed. I don't suppose this being one of them.

Black Swan

This debate seems to recycle in this forum between those that "believe" in a theist perspective and those that "accept" a very different scientific-based explanation?

Does anyone see the craic that comes from the interaction of these two different perspectives of life? And perhaps why they may never convince the other side to switch?

I have encountered several of the theist believer orientation that will point out examples in their lives, or in the lives of others, that serve to lend support to their belief system. Faith healing and the power of prayer are accepted by many to support their "beliefs" (which of course are disputed by those of the scientific-based orientation).

Those of the science-based perspective must "accept" some things that are logically consistent with their orientation, as they cannot personally test everything considered valid in terms of existent scientific-based theory, nor can they personally replicate in laboratory experiments or naturalistic quasi-experimental designs everything that they "accept?"

So to a small extent is there a similarity between theist "believers" and those that "accept" their markedly different scientific-based perspectives, both lacking direct personal experience to support all that they "believe" or "accept?"

This reminds me of what W.I. Thomas once concluded: "If you believe (or accept*) something as being real, it will be real for you in its consequences;" i.e., real for you in terms of how you perceive the world, be it something founded on faith or something founded on scientific evidence?

*I added "accept" to Thomas. Also, apologies for making a dichotomous argument between "believers" and those that "accept," when things are probably more complex in the real world.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll remember rampant unbelief in the face of such things too?

I don't follow. These are religious myths, afaic.

Also, can I point out that you can still be an atheist and acknowledge that the non/existence of god(s) is unknowable?
I acknowledge it - but for the record I believe gods don't exist, which makes me an atheist.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

I don't follow. These are religious myths, afaic.

You used the "fact" of empirical evidence for God to answer my suggestion that God might not wanting to evidence himself. I'm using the "fact" of people still not believing - in spite of the empirical evidence to expand the point.

"You'll know God exists when God decides he wants you to know" is as good a presumption as the one that figures it can't find any evidence therefore there probably isn't a god.

Also, can I point out that you can still be an atheist and acknowledge that the non/existence of god(s) is unknowable?

I acknowledge it - but for the record I believe gods don't exist, which makes me an atheist.

Is that a blind belief or have you some evidence for it?

Mena

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that a blind belief or have you some evidence for it?

It would be a lack of evidence I would say.

velocirafter

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Those of the science-based perspective must "accept" some things that are logically consistent with their orientation, as they cannot personally test everything considered valid in terms of existent scientific-based theory, nor can they personally replicate in laboratory experiments or naturalistic quasi-experimental designs everything that they "accept?"
[/size]

can you give an example of these experiments

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You used the "fact" of empirical evidence for God to answer my suggestion that God might not wanting to evidence himself. I'm using the "fact" of people still not believing - in spite of the empirical evidence to expand the point.

So the fact that not everyone believes is evidence that God might not wanting to evidence himself? You're on the wrong forum with that nugget!

antiskeptic wrote: »

"You'll know God exists when God decides he wants you to know" is as good a presumption as the one that figures it can't find any evidence therefore there probably isn't a god.

Maybe in a world devoid of logic it might be.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that a blind belief or have you some evidence for it?

As a rule, I don't believe in invisible, intangible, supernatural propositions without a reason.

antiskeptic

Mena wrote: »

It would be a lack of evidence I would say.

Which places a serious amount of onus on your ability to a) find and b) evaluate evidence. The belief arises out of trust in self thus.

Against what precisely is this "instrument" calibrated?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which places a serious amount of onus on your ability to a) find and b) evaluate evidence.

Only if you're operating on the assumption that the evidence must exist, before you even start looking.
Similar to the way creation science works, in fact.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully what's going on in this thread is that the atheist concludes he can't prove no God. And that the theist concludes that he can't prove God. Which means the logical position for the atheist to occupy is agnosticism.

Not really. Humans can never prove anything about reality, but what we can do is build up models and see which one is more likely

To be truthful an atheist cannot say for certain there is no intelligent being out there that did something or other to create the universe (or how ever someone defines "god" these days).

The knowledge required to know that for sure is beyond a human. But they can build up quite a good set of evidence that believers imagine their religion, their religious experiences, and their "God". And thus be atheists. An atheist after all is simply someone who rejects the theists beliefs.

I don't have to determine God doesn't exist to make a good case that a Christian doesn't have a clue what they are talking about, doesn't know he does and the evidence they use to support his existence is flaky at best.

I can't prove Star Wars didn't happen. George Lucas said it didn't, but he could be lying. It doesn't make much sense to say it actually took place, but that isn't the same as proving it didn't Technically I must be "agnositic" about it if agnostic means not asserting for certain it did or didn't happen.

But I can certainly build up a good, convincing case that it didn't happen, and become an atheist with regard to it, an a-Star-Wars-happened-ist.

Will I be able to convince some one with a strong personal desire to believe it all happened? Probably not.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

So the fact that not everyone believes is evidence that God might not wanting to evidence himself? You're on the wrong forum with that nugget!

It's not better or worse than the presumption that God, if he existed, would leave evidence of himself lying around to be found scientifically.

You're in the right forum for that particular nugget

Maybe in a world devoid of logic it might be.

I made an illogical statement? Where and (more importantly) how?

As a rule, I don't believe in invisible, intangible, supernatural propositions without a reason.

As a rule I don't disbelieve in visible, tangible, supernatural beings without a reason. Then again, I'm equipped with sensory equipment you don't appear to be in possession of. It's a bit like having night-vision equipment vs. not having it.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a rule I don't disbelieve in visible, tangible, supernatural beings without a reason.

God is visible now?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

God is visible now?

In the bandwidth of light called "spiritual" absolutlely.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the bandwidth of light called "spiritual" absolutlely.

So "no" then :rolleyes:

As soon as someone builds a detector of the spiritual that rules out someone simply imagining God in their head, then we might have something. Until then of course ....

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

So why should anyones atheism really bother me. Your beliefs or lack of them are just as illogical to me as mine are to you. I just accept it.

No you don't, you come on here calling the God Delusion a "comic" and dismissing atheistic views on religion. If what I've quoted has been your opinion all along, then why have you engaged in the discussion up to this point?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

I made an illogical statement? Where and (more importantly) how?

Here:

"You'll know God exists when God decides he wants you to know" is as good a presumption as the one that figures it can't find any evidence therefore there probably isn't a god.

One of these is a theological suggestion. The other owes it origin to reality.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a rule I don't disbelieve in visible, tangible, supernatural beings without a reason. Then again, I'm equipped with sensory equipment you don't appear to be in possession of. It's a bit like having night-vision equipment vs. not having it.:)

Well next time you spot a supernatural being with your night vision goggles, take a picture for us.

It might help us all if you nailed your true colours to the mast, btw.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. Humans can never prove anything about reality, but what we can do is build up models and see which one is more likely

But in order for these "likelyhood models" to reflect reality we'd have to calibrate them off something absolute. Otherwise we're pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

To be truthful an atheist cannot say for certain there is no intelligent being out there that did something or other to create the universe (or how ever someone defines "god" these days).

I'd go further and say that the atheist can't even begin to hang a probablity level on whether God exists or not. Which is why I suggest agnosticism.

I don't have to determine God doesn't exist to make a good case that a Christian doesn't have a clue what they are talking about, doesn't know he does and the evidence they use to support his existence is flaky at best.

I'm not sure quite what you're saying here.

I can't prove Star Wars didn't happen. George Lucas said it didn't, but he could be lying. It doesn't make much sense to say it actually took place, but that isn't the same as proving it didn't Technically I must be "agnositic" about it if agnostic means not asserting for certain it did or didn't happen.

But I can certainly build up a good, convincing case that it didn't happen, and become an atheist with regard to it, an a-Star-Wars-happened-ist.

You have evidence that Star Wars is a story. What evidence have you that God doesn't exist. It's a different thing altogether is it not?

Calibos

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

...................

So to a small extent is there a similarity between theist "believers" and those that "accept" their markedly different scientific-based perspectives, both lacking direct personal experience to support all that they "believe" or "accept?"

This is just a flowery way of saying that atheists use as much faith in believing scientists as the theists do in believing in their God just because we didn't perform the experiments ourselves. Been done to death that one

antiskeptic wrote: »

.........

As a rule I don't disbelieve in visible, tangible, supernatural beings without a reason. Then again, I'm equipped with sensory equipment you don't appear to be in possession of. It's a bit like having night-vision equipment vs. not having it.

Yeah, yeah, "I can see the lord in the beauty of the world, in music, in love"...blah blah, "I can feel the lord."

Yes and the Trinity of the Lord is Dopamine, Seratonin and Oxytocin

JC 2K3

@antiskeptic
Do you believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mars, Leprechauns or Fairies?