Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Stardust wrote:To answer the question, is there a god?
Yes, but it only exists in believers minds.
God is imaginary, if anyone can demonstrate god existing outside of their mind I'd like to see/hear it.

First you'd have to prove you have a mind.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Stardust wrote:To answer the question, is there a god?
Yes, but it only exists in believers minds.
God is imaginary, if anyone can demonstrate god existing outside of their mind I'd like to see/hear it.

First you'd have to prove you have a mind.

I appreciate the joke! Stardust does have a mind but it is extremely perverted. I don't think you'll get anything intelligent out of him.

I was wondering if the increasing number of single mothers in society is augmenting the number of atheists as well. All those kids with a poor example of a father can't help them accept their Father in heaven. Also, today's atheists seem unusually angry and not well read. (Ivellious is an exception, as is - perhaps - this new girl, audie.)

Ideas?

If you can't prove god exists outside of your mind then why reply?
Your god is imaginary, by definition, it's something you'll just have to deal with, it's no ones fault.



FL

Stardust wrote:To answer the question, is there a god?
Yes, but it only exists in believers minds.
God is imaginary, if anyone can demonstrate god existing outside of their mind I'd like to see/hear it.

Starhunter wrote:
Every time an atheist bellows against Christianity and God he or she is advertising that they are slaves to some vice.

Audie wrote:

Starhunter wrote:
Every time an atheist bellows against Christianity and God he or she is advertising that they are slaves to some vice.

Speaking as an atheist myself, from atheist family and generally the people I know well are also, I never remotely heard anyone "bellow" that there is no god.

Never heard someone say there isnt a god. It would be unintelligent and thoughtless to do so, after all. Something like saying "there is no planet with intelligent life' or, "there is no Bigfoot". Why make such an assertion when one simply does not know? Dumb!

I dont believe there is, much as I do not believe there is a Bigfoot. Its not all the same as saying "there is no...". Perhaps a subtle seeming distinction, but it is important.

Perhaps you have heard people bellow about no god, and have determined that they are slaves to vice? I sort of doubt it, but... have you?

As for myself, I live a boringly clean life. Christians that I know, some do and some do not do clean living.

I hope you are not suggesting that atheists are somehow inherently 'slaves to vice"?

And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong?
And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept
on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier
to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a
complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this
idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.
What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and
senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in
such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water
animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my
own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on
saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.
Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality
was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should
never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Starhunter wrote:
Every time an atheist bellows against Christianity and God he or she is advertising that they are slaves to some vice.

Speaking as an atheist myself, from atheist family and generally the people I know well are also, I never remotely heard anyone "bellow" that there is no god.

Never heard someone say there isnt a god. It would be unintelligent and thoughtless to do so, after all. Something like saying "there is no planet with intelligent life' or, "there is no Bigfoot". Why make such an assertion when one simply does not know? Dumb!

I dont believe there is, much as I do not believe there is a Bigfoot. Its not all the same as saying "there is no...". Perhaps a subtle seeming distinction, but it is important.

Perhaps you have heard people bellow about no god, and have determined that they are slaves to vice? I sort of doubt it, but... have you?

As for myself, I live a boringly clean life. Christians that I know, some do and some do not do clean living.

I hope you are not suggesting that atheists are somehow inherently 'slaves to vice"?

Hi Audie,

I've been following your posts a little since our short exchange, where possibly we got off on the wrong foot?
Perhaps, given your Chinese cultural heritage (?) that you are different from the majority of other Atheists who often drop in.

In any case, I'm not going to speak for Starhunter.

Understand that it is not that you or others who are non-Christian can't be moral. It is not that Christians are morally superior.
Many a non-Christian can and do put a Christian to shame morally across a range of issues.

Rather, the issue to explain for anyone who embraces right and wrong, is the existence of any morality.
What grounds morality? Who says what is morally good or bad? Why does that matter?

Are you familiar with CS Lewis' Mere Christianity? Free PDF copy here. It's become a classic.
Although it wouldn't necessarily be light reading for many, I'd endorse it as a foundational read for any thoughtful Christian (or non-Christian for that matter who debates/is exploring Christianity).

Here is a relevant and classical extract. Perhaps you can relate to a degree?

And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong?
And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept
on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier
to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a
complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this
idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.
What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and
senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in
such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water
animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my
own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on
saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.
Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality
was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should
never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and
therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Kurieuo wrote:

I've been following your posts a little since our short exchange, where possibly we got off on the wrong foot?

You could say that. I would not have used the passive voice though.

Perhaps, given your Chinese cultural heritage (?) that you are different from the majority of other Atheists who often drop in.

That could be.

Understand that it is not that you or others who are non-Christian can't be moral. It is not that Christians are morally superior.

That is obvious.

Rather, the issue to explain for anyone who embraces right and wrong, is the existence of any morality.
What grounds morality? Who says what is morally good or bad? Why does that matter?

There is only one way that can go after a person has assumed there is a god. So I dont think those are even real questions in this context.

Are you familiar with CS Lewis' Mere Christianity?

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, the problem is you do not get it.
Certainly CS Lewis as an Atheist got it.

If what "society says" sets the standard, then is there ever such a thing as moral reform?
Towards what moral standards can a society morally reform itself?

Who is morally right and wrong on the following? Please justify your response.
- Hong Kong self-governance or Chinese dictatorship?
- Russian occupation or Ukraine / Europe?
- Syrian Government or Rebels?
- ISIS or it's opponents?

Maybe we should all bow down to the UN and their so-called "International Law".
Or perhaps we bow down to the Supreme Court of the US who declared many Nazi soldiers guilty of war crimes although they were just following orders.

The thing is, even if all of mankind turned around tomorrow and said it's fine to kill Kenny -- I'm certain that you would have a strong moral objection.
What would you appeal to? Morality? No. It's good to kill Kenny. Everyone agreed. They do it in South Park and it's funny!
So you would just have to admit your objection is morally wrong and try plead for your life in some other way.
Interesting huh?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1vkyb8ioWg[/youtube]

B. W. wrote:
God intervened and sent forth the 10 Commandments as a guide to how we are to treat each other as a community of his believers. Simply summed up is this, Love and honor God and honor and love each other and we will do well. Without that intervention, ISIS, Nazism, dominance of the elites over all other, political pettiness, unbridled cruelty would be the supreme morality of humanity.

Kurieuo wrote:

It seems you are hardly surprised that you have moral values.
Re: [moral] values without meaning? Consider it a prelude to my previous post to you.

There were a couple of previous posts that caused me to be disinclined to talk to you. You may want to specify which one you refer to here.

I'm all open to you explaining what you tie moral values down to.
Tell me this larger context from which you are looking, for I'm feeling quite ignorant.
I can't help it, for as you know, I find it hard to see beyond the smaller subset of my religion.
But, I'm open to you explaining to me this larger context...?

The snarkiness of another poster was very off putting, I wont engage on that level.
Same goes for you. Please refrain, its tacky.

If one sees (his) religion, his god as the be all and end all, everything subsumed under that heading then of course, everything goes under that heading. I see Christianity as but one of countless invocations of the supernatural in a universe of profound mysteries.

Personally, I don't know why more Atheists don't bite the bullet on morality.
It has not been proven that morality exists, only that we have strong emotions about certain actions.

To "bite the bullet" is to endure a painful or otherwise unpleasant situation that is seen as unavoidable.

I dont see anything in your statement but non sequitur, sorry. Prease exprain.

Heck, and we may not even be responsible for such actions any more than we are our physical make-up and environment.

Some people are not responsible for their actions. I am, but then I am not a sociopath.

Here would be my take as an Atheist. It is really the most logical I can see...
and actually I'd say it's how many live their lives when no one is looking.

Jim and Tammy, say. My sense of honour says I dont do differently just because I wont get caught. Too bad for those whose honour is too weak and need a threat to keep them in line.

Humans as social creatures evolved feelings of moral rightness and wrongness.
From the alpha dominance witnessed in primates, feelings evolved to the point that most modern humans value families and others

More or less.

However, having found out we evolved, why shouldn't we break free from these feelings?

Seriously? Do you need me to say something about that?

There is no ought to them.

Of course there is.

Shaking off all sense of guilt and morality would mean we are free to live our lives how we want.

I was raised to believe that there is no freedom without responsibility.

This is even an evolutionary advantage over others who have not yet realised morality is an evolutionary vestige

No, there is not, this is, sorry, but very typical of the misrepresentations of science that are used by those who want to make some religious point but do not know what they are talking about.

Indeed, perhaps the next stage of the fittest surviving are those who first shake off their moral sense.

As above.

Morality and "values" are just an illusion brought about by evolution. Feelings. Nothing more.
An alpha wolf feels no remorse over killing rivals. Doing so allows it to extend its genes the best.
So, as far as it benefits you, be under no illusion -- right and wrong do not exist.
Only what is best for you.
If anything, what is right is therefore what is best us personally.
And what is wrong is anything that frustrates us from fulfilling what we personally desire in life.

I got it the first time you expressed this error.

And there you have it. Atheism is grounded.

I see some words but they make no sense to me.

But, can any of us really live with these conclusions?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

It seems you are hardly surprised that you have moral values.
Re: [moral] values without meaning? Consider it a prelude to my previous post to you.

There were a couple of previous posts that caused me to be disinclined to talk to you. You may want to specify which one you refer to here.

I'm all open to you explaining what you tie moral values down to.
Tell me this larger context from which you are looking, for I'm feeling quite ignorant.
I can't help it, for as you know, I find it hard to see beyond the smaller subset of my religion.
But, I'm open to you explaining to me this larger context...?

The snarkiness of another poster was very off putting, I requested that he refrain from addressing me, tho I see he did, for the lurkers I suppose, I didnt read it. I will not have anything to do with him, I wont engage on that level.
Same goes for you or anyone. Please refrain, its tacky.

If one sees (his) religion, his god as the be all and end all, everything subsumed under that heading then of course, everything goes under that heading. I see Christianity as but one of countless invocations of the supernatural in a universe of profound mysteries. I dont see any religion as having much to do with reality, other than that they express an aspect of the human psyche. Thats a pretty small subset.

Personally, I don't know why more Atheists don't bite the bullet on morality.
It has not been proven that morality exists, only that we have strong emotions about certain actions.

To "bite the bullet" is to endure a painful or otherwise unpleasant situation that is seen as unavoidable.

What painful situation is that?

Heck, and we may not even be responsible for such actions any more than we are our physical make-up and environment.

Some people are not responsible for their actions. I am, but then I am not a sociopath.

Here would be my take as an Atheist. It is really the most logical I can see...
and actually I'd say it's how many live their lives when no one is looking.

I kind of dont think many religious people know what it is to be an atheist.

nobody looking...
Jim and Tammy, say.
My sense of honour says I dont do differently just because I wont get caught. Too bad for those whose honour is too weak and need a threat to keep them in line.

Humans as social creatures evolved feelings of moral rightness and wrongness.
From the alpha dominance witnessed in primates, feelings evolved to the point that most modern humans value families and others

Sort of.

However, having found out we evolved, why shouldn't we break free from these feelings?

Seriously? Do you need me to say something about that?

There is no ought to them.

Of course there is.

Shaking off all sense of guilt and morality would mean we are free to live our lives how we want.

I was raised to believe that there is no freedom without responsibility.
And, for that matter, that 'freedom' is hardly the highest value.

This is even an evolutionary advantage over others who have not yet realised morality is an evolutionary vestige

No, there is not; this is, sorry, but very typical of the misrepresentations of science that are used by those who want to make some religious point.

Indeed, perhaps the next stage of the fittest surviving are those who first shake off their moral sense.

As above.

Morality and "values" are just an illusion brought about by evolution. Feelings. Nothing more.
An alpha wolf feels no remorse over killing rivals. Doing so allows it to extend its genes the best.
So, as far as it benefits you, be under no illusion -- right and wrong do not exist.
Only what is best for you.
If anything, what is right is therefore what is best us personally.
And what is wrong is anything that frustrates us from fulfilling what we personally desire in life.

I got it the first time you expressed this error. You and CS need not belabour an obvious point.

And there you have it. Atheism is grounded.

I dont follow you, at all, but then the premise is flawed anyway.

But, can any of us really live with these conclusions?

The conclusions are your own, they are not mine nor are they based on good science.

If you wish me to explain why, I will.