Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:ES
Herein lies some of the problem of talking with you. You change the rules. Your initial question, the one I have been responding to, is to an individual, thereby requesting an answer from an individual...

Ken
I am requesting an answer from the individual. But if the individual doesn’t believe in God, that individual will be called atheist by everyone else weather he likes it or not.

ES
I fixed the original post of mine to let you know it doesn't matter, falsify or no theism, the result is the same. No God to worship: no reason to say you don't believe in God, (atheism) cause now, everyone knows He doesn't exist, per your original question...

Ken
No. You knowing there is no God to worship isn’t going to convince everyone else to know God doesn’t exist. Do you really think if your God were deemed false by you, that those worshiping other Gods will become convinced their God doesn’t exist either?

Ken

kenny wrote:

if I found out God was real, I seriously doubt he would be anything remotely close to what is said about him on these sites.

ES wrote:well since we're so free with our words, i seriously doubt if you can, remotely learn by constantly talking and instead, open your ears enough to learn. But i bet this last thought of yours felt good, didn't it ? Get a little jab in ? Good for you ken, impressive, in the terminally short run

If you are going to imply that Kenny is constantly talking and not opening his ears enough to learn.. then might it not be worth seeing if that applies to more than just him?

What kenny said (if you look past the possible jab) was something actually quite personal and worth exploring and goes beyond just a argument to be had.


Edit:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

"How do you solve a problem like Maria....."

They are two things that come to mind during some of these threads...

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:Frank Turek asks atheists this following question:

"If you knew that Christianity was true, would you become a christian"

So for those of you who are atheists - what would your reply be?

Of course! If you knew theism was false, would'nt you become Atheist?

Ken

I see it like this;
Ken admitted that if he knew christianity was true, then he would be believe.
He flipped the coin and asked the same question.
If theism was proved false would you become a atheist.
These are hypothetical questions and need to be approached as such.
The difficulty is hypothetically God can and does prove His existence, personally and individually, by way of special revelation. It is more difficult to imagine hypothetically that God could be proved false. There have been many people who have rejected a belief in God after being Christian but that is not proof that God does not exist. It is a belief not proof. Science will never disprove God either, it can fill in the blanks where once God stood, but for many theists this does not disprove God at all, science and theism are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think it matters much whether we look at it individually or collectively.
If God was proved to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt, then there would still be people who disbelieved. There would still be atheists. Look at the proof we have regarding the earth. It is in refutable yet people still believe in a flat earth.
If God was proven to not exist, granted I'm not sure how this could be proven, but keeping in mind these are hypothetical questions then yes, people would still choose to believe.

Ken asked a question, if you knew theism was false would you be an atheist.
We then play the semantics card.
Well, there has to be a belief in God for there to be a non belief, so if there is no belief then it renders the term atheism void.
This is not actually true.
It sounds good in argument but it's not logical, as far as I see it anyway.
I think Kens point is, correct me if I'm wrong is that it wouldn't matter either way. The argument can be used on either side, if God was proved to be true, people would still choose to disbelieve. Disbelief in God=atheism.
If God was proved to be false people would still believe, leaving belief and disbelief and disbelief=atheism.

Proving God false would not scoot the word atheism outta the dictionary or the conscious mind neither would it remove the definition from the thesaurus. You may have a whole heap more atheist, but not so to erase the very meaning of the word out of our vocabulary.

I think that they mean if God wasnt true then he would be no more true than the tooth fairy. Theres no word to describe someone who doesnt believe in the tooth fairy so same would be for no word to describe someone who doesnt believe in God.

Or rather maybe there would be no need for a name for someone who doesnt believe in God?

Nessa wrote:I think that they mean if God wasnt true then he would be no more true than the tooth fairy and theres no word to describe someone who doesnt believe in the tooth fairy so same would be for no word to describe God.

Or rather maybe there would be no need for a name for someone who doesnt believe in God?

I don't come to that logical conclusion.
There is no term for a non believer in the tooth fairy because it is falsified fantasy for children.
The term does not exist.
The word atheism means a disbelief in God/s
It is found in every dictionary. Words do not lose their meaning regardless of the tide of public opinion.
The only way this is even remotely arguable is if we lived in a world where the concept of belief and-or disbelief had no bearing on our consciousness. Humanity had no thought of Gods therefore had no term to counter a belief in them
Or fast forward let's say 500 hundred years and belief in God was nothing more than a look into history. There was no-one around that still held to that belief, it had been completely wiped of the table, globally, then the term atheism would cease to have any valid meaning or usable application.
So if we are talking about it in those terms then yea maybe, but I don't think the hypothetical question was attached to those conditions.

But if we found out God wasn't real wouldn't that invalidate the word atheist?

It may still remain in a dictionary but it would be a nonsense word

Tooth fairy and God would both be a fantasy, a delusion....and on the same level.
Maybe Im just not getting it.

A little while back I had a conversation with a friend, who I knew didn't in believe in God.
I referred to her as an atheist in conversation and she said 'no, I'm not atheist'
I replied 'I thought you didn't believe in God?'
'No, I don't'
'So, your an atheist'
'I wouldn't label myself as that'
'Why not, an atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in God'.
'I don't care what other people believe, I respect people's choice to believe in God, I just personally don't'.
I didn't push it, I understand her desire to not want to live under a label.
But she is an athiest, by definition of the word.
We place our pre-conceived ideas onto words that warp their meaning. If we see atheists as people who are intolerant, argumentative or even pushy then we equate the label with the word.
I get it, I went for a time not referring myself as Christian but a believer in Christ. I didn't like the stigma or label attached to 'christian'. Not by definition, by people's idea of what that made me. Then I realised how silly I was being, a christian is a believer in Christ. If I didn't want to live under the stigma of being the pre-convinced label of christian then I simply didn't have to, but it didn't change the fact that I was and am a Christian.

Athiest can be seen as a dirty word.
It conjures up kinds of ideas about what an atheist is about. The loudest voices are usually heard the most, and lots of the loudest atheists are twats. They are intolerant, dismissive, rude and insulting. (The same can be said for some of the loudest Christians).
The definition of atheist is not a non believer who is rude and insulting.
It is just a person who does not believe in God.

The only way the word atheist would become a nonsense word is if the entire world, by consensus, all agreed beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not exist, then yes it could render the word pretty useless.

If I personally decided God didn't exist but others still did, by the definition of the word I would be an atheist. I could be like my friend and see atheist as a dirty word and not want to be associated with such, but I would still be by definition an atheist.
So if people want to say if God didn't exist, I would just be an unbeliever of something that was no longer believed so I wouldn't be an unbeliever of anything because the source of belief doesn't exist. That's fine.
Another easier way to put it could be atheist.
It just means to not believe in God. Even if that means that the source of the belief never existed in the first place, that is after all what atheist already believe.

Was looking at it as if everyone knew it was a fact etc

I was reading ES post I think that seem to view it that way too...actually maybe im in the wrong thread.....


So we agree

I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.
It's like proving that light doesn't exist so dark, which is the absence of light, wouldn't exist either.
Or perhaps to state it better, the term "atheist" would mean nothing.

In short, these are philosophical questions that people are trying to address with non-philosophical understanding.


An atheist is a person that believes there is no such a thing as God or gods BUT for that view to exist it has to be based on the existence of a counter view, that God or gods DO exist, ie: Theism.
That is why the word is Atheist, from the greek word: atheos which means without gods.
In short there is no aTHEISIM without THEISIM and if theism ceased to exist the word atheist would have no meaning.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.
It's like proving that light doesn't exist so dark, which is the absence of light, wouldn't exist either.
Or perhaps to state it better, the term "atheist" would mean nothing.

In short, these are philosophical questions that people are trying to address with non-philosophical understanding.


An atheist is a person that believes there is no such a thing as God or gods BUT for that view to exist it has to be based on the existence of a counter view, that God or gods DO exist, ie: Theism.
That is why the word is Atheist, from the greek word: atheos which means without gods.
In short there is no aTHEISIM without THEISIM and if theism ceased to exist the word atheist would have no meaning.

Actually it was a hypothetical question that was asked in the OP.
In avoidance of the question it has been dragged into a philosophical argument.
It was well understand under the pretense of a philosophical understanding, read my previous responses I said exactly what you just stated, twice actually.
But in the 'real world' where theism would never be proven false so uniformly so as to take the very notion of theism off the table as to render the term atheist null and void, making the entire argument pointless. And it in no way addresses the original hypothetical question.

Not very cool to address the issue by using the old, ohh they just don't understand card.
Let's assume 'they' DO understand and take it from there.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

Diddo
I didn't see your post while I was responding.

The point here is Ken was asked a question and he answered 'yes'.
He flipped the question and got this deluge of philosophical mumbo jumbo instead of a simple answer.
Or no answer.
That's fine.
Philosophical gymnastics might sound clever but it's not a good argument in realistic honest terms in regards to the OP.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

Kenny,

I was giving an answer to your question. I was explaining it as an individual asked by you:

If you knew theism was false, wouldn't you become atheist?

Your question does not ask, "If you knew God didn't exist, would you become atheist?"

And even if you asked the question about God, instead of theism, the key word is "knew". If you replaced "knew" with "believed", the question as you probably meant it would make sense, and we wouldn't be arguing about this.

Atheists don't "know" that God doesn't exist. Atheists "believe" God doesn't exist. Big difference. It changes the meaning of the question.

If I believed that God doesn't exist, would I be atheist? Well Duh! Of course! That's the very definition of atheist!

ed wrote:
Sure, in a world where everyone behaved rationally. Here on Earth there are still people who think Elvis is alive and the moon landing was faked. Incontrovertible evidence that god doesn't exist and never has would definitely diminish Christianity, but it wouldn't kill it entirely. Thus there would still be theists, thus there would still be atheists...

do you agree with this post from ed, ken ?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's point was that if theism was proven to not be true then atheism, which is the opposite of theism, wouldn't exist.

If that is the point he was addressing, he was giving an answer to a question nobody asked and neglecting to answer the question that was asked.
The initial question was to individual atheists about if they knew God existed. They weren't asked if the entire world knew, they were asked if they as an individual knew. My counter question was asked to an individual theist about if he knew God did not exist. I only asked about this particular theist, I didn't ask if everybody on earth knew God didn't exist; but I guess I can understand the desire to create another question that is easier to answer and respond to it instead.

Ken

Kenny,

I was giving an answer to your question. I was explaining it as an individual asked by you:

If you knew theism was false, wouldn't you become atheist?

Your question does not ask, "If you knew God didn't exist, would you become atheist?"

And even if you asked the question about God, instead of theism, the key word is "knew". If you replaced "knew" with "believed", the question as you probably meant it would make sense, and we wouldn't be arguing about this.

Atheists don't "know" that God doesn't exist. Atheists "believe" God doesn't exist. Big difference. It changes the meaning of the question.

If I believed that God doesn't exist, would I be atheist? Well Duh! Of course! That's the very definition of atheist!

But Rick the same could be said in reverse.
To be a Christian is to 'believe in Christ'.
If it was proved correct without question across the board then the 'belief' aspect would be taken off the table.
Th question was if you KNEW christianity was true.
So Kenny could have said by the same argument by semantics of definition that he wouldn't be a Christian because the term christian is centered around 'belief' in Christ.

My point being exactly what you just said in regards to atheist.
We don't know God exist we choose, (rightly so), to believe He exist.
Same but different