Faith and Faithlessness Part III

[Lord Mord]

the Blauer Dragon,

I do have a question, or two. What evidence is there to say that God does not exist? Without using the "No one can prove that God does exist" argument, can you seriously answer that one?

Can you tell me what evidence is there to say that leprechauns don't exist? That Osiris never walked on earth? What evidence is there that my wristwatch doesn't secretly run on the blood of orphaned Lithuanian children? ("Well open it to find out!" ... "Ah, but the blood is invisible!")

By that logic, can anyone seriously argue against believing in anything?

[Elrostar]

the Blauer Dragon,

Can you tell me what evidence is there to say that leprechauns don't exist? That Osiris never walked on earth? What evidence is there that my wristwatch doesn't secretly run on the blood of orphaned Lithuanian children? ("Well open it to find out!" ... "Ah, but the blood is invisible!")

By that logic, can anyone seriously argue against believing in anything?

This is, after all, the basic argument of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If we're going to say that you can't prove a negative, then what makes one particular creation myth preferable to any other? And hey, why not have a religions that's at least fun?

Not that I'm really a pastafarian, but by construction it's impossible to prove it's not true. That's the whole point.

[LCOTNW]

Things I have gleaned from this thread so far:

1) The existence of homosexuals proves that they are god's chosen people (apparently because their tendency to avoid sexual reproduction tends to make them unlikely to survive long term without divine intervention)

2) subatomic particles may, or may not exist

Carry on.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Azor Ahai

And I'd agree. But, you're going further by baldly stating that a track record trumps that same proven system's inability to disprove something else.

I fear that you will have to clarify your objection here.

I'm arguing that religious experience is subjective and non-transferrable. Take, for instance, the feeling of God's presence during worship or the sensation of the Holy Spirit entering oneself during service, both of which are common claims made by many Christians. I don't doubt that someone does experience that sensation. But I cannot, and I do not. So, to those who experienced it, they take it as validation of their conviction. But if I don't, and can't, experience that same thing, or if I do, but I choose to interpret it in a secular way, then I will not be convinced. The problem I have is that many Christians, if not almost all, claim that God exists whether we non-believers believe it to be so or not. I do not see how there can be a valid argument for that.

i. I believe god exists

ii. I can't prove it

iii. Yet, this means something to me

I quite agree that one can derive meaning from something that cannot be proven to exist. But the presence of meaning does not mean that this entity exists, no?

What it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're arguing that the only meaning that can be found in religion is faith. This in itself isn't a scientific counter argument against. You got me all confused. I can't be reading this right.

What I'm saying is that "belief" is not the same as "faith." In fact, I think the acceptance of God's existence requires faith, and faith alone. Once you accept that God exists, then all the accumulated artifacts of the religions that spawned from the idea of God will now have value. Artifacts like the Talmud and the Bible and the Qoran, etc. One's faith cannot be sustained by the Bible, because the Bible is only meaningful once you accept God.

The origin of this line of argument is the statement (paraphrasing) "I believe in God because there's evidence for it," to which I countered, if there's evidence for it, then there's no choice involved, no more than we having a choice in whether we believe that birds can fly.

Re: Silent Speaker

Evidence is that which, if believed, makes the proposition it stands for more likely.

So you agree with me, then, that if something is not believed, then it is not evidence?

I said "more probable than previously." I said this for a reason. I specifically did not say that anything was proven.

But your line of reasoning does not establish this. To wit:

1. Jews exist.

2a. They shouldn't.

2b. It is more probable than previously that Something is keeping them around.

2c. It is alleged that God promised that He would keep them around.

2d. It is more probable than previously that God as alleged in 2c is the entity inferred in 2b.

3. As a corollary of 2d, God exists.

You have not addressed most of the arguments I've made against this series of claims.

2d does not follow b and c. Something is keeping Jews around != that something is God.

Also, 2c relies on the Talmud, i.e., a source that is valid only if one accepts the existence of God in the first place, ergo, this is a circular argument, aka begging the question.

Your 2a, 2b, 2c, are all claims that cannot be substantiated without compromising the argument. This reads more like the rationalization of a believer than a proper argument.

And this affects what I said how?

It affects your claim that God exists regardless of whether we believe it or not.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Ser Scott,

Also, if there exists anything (anything at all) which cannot be created or destroyed, but simply changes forms, and there must be an origin to everything in order for it to exist, what is it's origin?

This argument, no matter how many ways it is said, is stupid.

If matter can be neither created nor destroyed, it was always there. nothing created. if anything, the law of conservation of matter proves there is no god, because he creates matter all the time in almost every religion.

Assuming there must be an origin to everything in order for it to exist is.... a faulty asssumtion. what exactly are you basing this on?

[The_BlauerDragon]

the Blauer Dragon,

Can you tell me what evidence is there to say that leprechauns don't exist? That Osiris never walked on earth? What evidence is there that my wristwatch doesn't secretly run on the blood of orphaned Lithuanian children? ("Well open it to find out!" ... "Ah, but the blood is invisible!")

By that logic, can anyone seriously argue against believing in anything?

Lithuanian children have invisible blood???

To answer your question, No. I cannot tell you that those things do not exist (or are not true). I would say that the answer to the second question is No as well. If you believe that a spaceship full of leprechauns is going to fly down and shower you with the invisible blood of Lithuanian children then whisk you away behind a comet to go and meet Osiris on the planet Spaghettimon 13 where you will rule as emperor over 50,000 yetis and 100,000 talking goats... then... SO be it. That's your belief and if you believe that it's actually real, I cannot say that it isn't. I have no means of proving you right or wrong. For me the choice is then a very simple one, Do I want to grab some brand new Nikes and a plastic bag so that I can join you, or do I want to go about my own path? As long as you do not believe that it is necessary for you to cause me harm, we should be able to get along beautifully. If your God happens to require that you shower in my blood though, then I hate to tell you this, but... you may not be able to make it to paradise.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I think you are missing the point Blauer, which is that while one cannot disprove the existance of leprecauns(though I could prove they do exist if i could ever find the bottom of that DAMN RAINBOW), belief in them still qualifies the believer as a moron.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

PWWP, I am indeed very proudly Jewish.

Explains a lot. Now I'm curious on how you think the Jews surviving is a flaming arrow pointed at God's existence. Do you think the Temple, the center of Jewish religion (before it's complete destruction in 70 A.D.) will be rebuilt? What about the Messiah? (I'm not trying to disprove anything, I'm just wondering)

God's existence can't be proven simply by Jewish existence, no more than the existence of Greeks proves Zues is real. If the Jews were still God's chosen people, then why'd He take their temple, give them to the Romans, and scatter them? In the Old Testament, they were delivered into enemy's hands because of some great sin, and released when they set themselves straight. Well, what caused God to do it this time? I doubt God would scatter His beloved children just for fun, AND take their Temple (which they used for sacrifices to atone for sins).

[The_BlauerDragon]

I think you are missing the point Blauer, which is that while one cannot disprove the existance of leprecauns(though I could prove they do exist if i could ever find the bottom of that DAMN RAINBOW), belief in them still qualifies the believer as a moron.

There was a time when we couldn't prove the existence of black holes, giant squid, protons, neutrons, single-celled organisms, or any number of other things. Were the people who believed that they existed before such proof morons? How about the Higgs Boson particle? Are the people who built the Large Hadron Collider hoping that they might be able to prove it's existence morons? After all, they believe in the existence of something that has not yet been proven to exist. Do you see my point yet? Just because it has not yet been proven, does not mean that we can discount the intelligence of the people who believe in it. You or I may not believe in it, but having no proof that something exists is not absolute proof that it does not exist. Mankind may someday find a means of verifying the existence of Leprechauns. I doubt it, but I am not willing to say that it is not possible. The same goes for God. I have all the proof of God's existence that I require. Just because you do not, that does not make either of us intellectually inferior to the other.

[the silent speaker]

Do you think the Temple, the center of Jewish religion (before it's complete destruction in 70 A.D.) will be rebuilt? What about the Messiah?

Yes to both.

If the Jews were still God's chosen people, then why'd He take their temple, give them to the Romans, and scatter them?

The Talmud attributes it to baseless hatred. Certainly there's enough of it still going around to explain why it hasn't been rebuilt yet.

To answer the question that you didn't ask but implicitly assumed, the Temple was wood and stone. Its destruction in no way abrogated the covenant writ on the heart and brain. When it ceased (by the actions of the people) to adequately represent that covenant, the wood and stone had no remaining value.

Incidentally, Terra --

You presume that all the events detailed in the Talmud are real, literally.

What do you think the Talmud is, exactly? Because I suspect you are envisioning a catalog of miracles, and it's not.

It affects your claim that God exists regardless of whether we believe it or not.

It's a complete non sequitur. Some things exist only in the subjective sense -- but they exist in that subjective sense irrespective of the evidence establishing the subjective perception. You hate Goodkind regardless of whether you can convince me of same.

And I reiterate that there is more than one kind of "objective sense" for something to exist anyway, renderig the whole thing mooter still.

[TrueMetis]

There was a time when we couldn't prove the existence of black holes, giant squid, protons, neutrons, single-celled organisms, or any number of other things. Were the people who believed that they existed before such proof morons? How about the Higgs Boson particle? Are the people who built the Large Hadron Collider hoping that they might be able to prove it's existence morons? After all, they believe in the existence of something that has not yet been proven to exist. Do you see my point yet? Just because it has not yet been proven, does not mean that we can discount the intelligence of the people who believe in it. You or I may not believe in it, but having no proof that something exists is not absolute proof that it does not exist. Mankind may someday find a means of verifying the existence of Leprechauns. I doubt it, but I am not willing to say that it is not possible. The same goes for God. I have all the proof of God's existence that I require. Just because you do not, that does not make either of us intellectually inferior to the other.

Yes but things like that were found pretty quick and if they weren't most people thought they were not real. Now with God they've had thousands of years to find proof and they haven't so at that point belief in it is stupid. Like Leprechauns, God is so unlikely to exsist that it's not worth thinking about. As for the Higgs Boson particle if they can't find it in the next few years they will look for something else instead.

Basically your going with the cop-out argument of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but guess what in scientific and most situations absence of evidence is evidence of absence, why cause you can't prove a negative.

[TerraPrime]

What do you think the Talmud is, exactly? Because I suspect you are envisioning a catalog of miracles, and it's not.

Your suspicion is wrong.

But, do you disagree that within it, there are records of miracles, e.g. parting of the red sea, the flaming bush that speaks, the turning of a staff into snake, two women turning into pillars of salt, the flood that covered the Earth, etc.?

Still, that's tangential. The point is that your argument claims that God had made promises to protect the Jews. The fact that Jews appear to have survived against hostility and aggression is then used by you to argue that this means God had kept his promises, i.e., a sort of objective evidence for God. My critique is that these alleged promises were conveyed to us in the Talmud, which is a record (some written, some oral) made by the Jews. You still haven't talked yourself out of the circle of using the holy text to bolster the claim that the divine exists.

It's a complete non sequitur. Some things exist only in the subjective sense -- but they exist in that subjective sense irrespective of the evidence establishing the subjective perception. You hate Goodkind regardless of whether you can convince me of same.

I didn't start this argument. I pointed out that I am perfectly happy to accept that to each believer, God exists. It's when you claim that God exists whether there are believers or not that I started arguing with you.

Or have I grossly misunderstood you? Do you think if tomorrow every human being stops believing in God, that God will no longer exists, much like if tomorrow everyone stops hating Goodkind's books then that hatred will cease to exist?

And I reiterate that there is more than one kind of "objective sense" for something to exist anyway, renderig the whole thing mooter still.

You keep saying this, but you gave no argument for it. What other kinds of "objective sense" are you talking about?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Your suspicion is wrong.

But, do you disagree that within it, there are records of miracles, e.g. parting of the red sea, the flaming bush that speaks, the turning of a staff into snake, two women turning into pillars of salt, the flood that covered the Earth, etc.?

Are you confusing the Torah with the Talmud?

[Le Communard]

Are you confusing the Torah with the Talmud?

Yeah, I caught onto that one a while ago too. Just to help clarify, the Torah is the Old Testament, the Talmud is a massive legal discourse regarding the opinions of the Sages on just about everything Jewish (sadly, nothing there on good gefilte fish recipes--much to the disappointment of the sages wives--bargain shopping, or stand-up). It's actually pretty much the best example there is of Jewish skepticism.

[Galactus]

I blame the jewish tendency to have all their important documents (Torah, Tanakh, Talmud...) start with "t". That's just a recipe for confusion.

[TerraPrime]

Are you confusing the Torah with the Talmud?

Yes, my bad. Got the two "t" confused.

[Lord Mord]

TheLoneliestMonk,

I think you are missing the point Blauer, which is that while one cannot disprove the existance of leprecauns(though I could prove they do exist if i could ever find the bottom of that DAMN RAINBOW), belief in them still qualifies the believer as a moron.

Emphasis mine.

I don't think I could disagree with the part in bold more.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

There was a time when we couldn't prove the existence of black holes, giant squid, protons, neutrons, single-celled organisms, or any number of other things. Were the people who believed that they existed before such proof morons? How about the Higgs Boson particle? Are the people who built the Large Hadron Collider hoping that they might be able to prove it's existence morons? After all, they believe in the existence of something that has not yet been proven to exist. Do you see my point yet? Just because it has not yet been proven, does not mean that we can discount the intelligence of the people who believe in it. You or I may not believe in it, but having no proof that something exists is not absolute proof that it does not exist. Mankind may someday find a means of verifying the existence of Leprechauns. I doubt it, but I am not willing to say that it is not possible. The same goes for God. I have all the proof of God's existence that I require. Just because you do not, that does not make either of us intellectually inferior to the other.

The difference there is that in the case of black holes for example, there were anomolies that could not be explained, and black holes were a theory to explain them.

in the case of protons, electrons, and single celled organisms, they were theorys to explain how things worked that fit the bill in a way that made sense before they were proven.

Leprecauns, God, vampires, eskimos etc. can not explain anything.

ok, scratch that. God can explain anything, and everything. That by itself is decent evidence that god does not exist. if there is already an explaination for why we are here, then there probably isn't another one too.

Belivers in black holes, protons, what have you, saw that there was an explaination that fit very logicaly.

Believers in god and leprecauns have no such justification. That comparison is absurd.

ETA Metaphor

black holes as an explaination are a round peg in a round hole.

God is just a tiny peg that fits in any hole.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Yes, my bad. Got the two "t" confused.

No sweat. Your basic point remains the same.

[VarysTheSpider]

There was a time when we couldn't prove the existence of black holes, giant squid, protons, neutrons, single-celled organisms, or any number of other things. Were the people who believed that they existed before such proof morons? How about the Higgs Boson particle? Are the people who built the Large Hadron Collider hoping that they might be able to prove it's existence morons? After all, they believe in the existence of something that has not yet been proven to exist. Do you see my point yet? Just because it has not yet been proven, does not mean that we can discount the intelligence of the people who believe in it. You or I may not believe in it, but having no proof that something exists is not absolute proof that it does not exist. Mankind may someday find a means of verifying the existence of Leprechauns. I doubt it, but I am not willing to say that it is not possible. The same goes for God. I have all the proof of God's existence that I require. Just because you do not, that does not make either of us intellectually inferior to the other.

It's not about whether the person is correct about the existence of leprechauns, it's about why the person believes they exist at all. A broken clock is correct twice a day, but you still shouldn't use it to tell the time.

ETA: My bad for falling behind in this thread. I'll catch up on the old one soon.