Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:But they're not opposites. They're the same.

Let's make it simpler so you can see the two statements are the same:
1). Atheists don't believe God exists.

2). Atheists believe God doesn't exist.

It sounds like a way to avoid claiming a belief. That way one can criticize other beliefs, without having to defend one's own.

All there doing, Rick, is trying to make the claim that "Atheists lack belief in God" is different from the claim "Atheists positively believe God does not exist." That's the difference they are trying to point out. It's a tired argument, long refuted, and only held by intellectually dishonest people and people who are terribly ignorant of the nature and history of the debate (which is pretty much everyone that goes by the term 'atheist' anymore. You remember where I walked through this with Lunalle some time ago).

Put differently, the problem you are having is that you have the proper definition of atheism (which makes your analysis of the sentences correct), whereas they have the incorrect (though popular) definition of atheism, whereby they make the above suggested, faulty distinction. It is a logically valid distinction, but lexically incoherent.

You last statement in this quote by the way, is exactly correct. It's what K has been pointing out in some of his threads in the Questioning Non-Belief forum. They're just hiding, masking their cowardice. Their "arguments" against God are little more than this, since they just comprise of, "NAUH!!1!11!!111" And when we say, "Well on what basis do you say NAUH!" they respond, "IDONTNOISNOTMYJOOOOOOOB2TELUWHATIBELEEVISURSUSTOOPIDTHEIST!!!11!1"

Jac3510 wrote:Their "arguments" against God are little more than this, since they just comprise of, "NAUH!!1!11!!111" And when we say, "Well on what basis do you say NAUH!" they respond, "IDONTNOISNOTMYJOOOOOOOB2TELUWHATIBELEEVISURSUSTOOPIDTHEIST!!!11!1"

the link was hysterical, Jac.

Seriously though, it is quite boring to have to listen to the new atheism of 'I don't have to prove anything because I hold no position' or 'reality is relative' or 'truth can't be know'. Really? Is this what it comes down to? Like I said, utterly unsatisfying but hey, to each his pit of hell I guess.

Jac3510 wrote:All there doing, Rick, is trying to make the claim that "Atheists lack belief in God" is different from the claim "Atheists positively believe God does not exist." That's the difference they are trying to point out. It's a tired argument, long refuted, and only held by intellectually dishonest people and people who are terribly ignorant of the nature and history of the debate.

My sincere, and I believe intellectually honest, position regarding the existence of god(s) is this: I lack a belief in god; I do not believe god exists; I do not believe god is non-existent. This position of agnosticism is the same one I hold on many, many subjects (string theory for one example), and for the same reason - I don't think the data is there for me to make up my mind one way or another. Of course, given more experience or new data I may one day come to actively accept or reject theism or string theory.

I've enjoyed reading your posts on this forum, Jac, but I think that it's a bit uncharitable to accuse people of intellectual dishonesty or cowardice when they admit to a position of agnosticism rather than firm rejection or acceptance. It could just be that, whilst you sincerely believe you have a reason to believe, other people sincerely don't

PerciFlage wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:All there doing, Rick, is trying to make the claim that "Atheists lack belief in God" is different from the claim "Atheists positively believe God does not exist." That's the difference they are trying to point out. It's a tired argument, long refuted, and only held by intellectually dishonest people and people who are terribly ignorant of the nature and history of the debate.

My sincere, and I believe intellectually honest, position regarding the existence of god(s) is this: I lack a belief in god; I do not believe god exists; I do not believe god is non-existent. This position of agnosticism is the same one I hold on many, many subjects (string theory for one example), and for the same reason - I don't think the data is there for me to make up my mind one way or another. Of course, given more experience or new data I may one day come to actively accept or reject theism or string theory.

I've enjoyed reading your posts on this forum, Jac, but I think that it's a bit uncharitable to accuse people of intellectual dishonesty or cowardice when they admit to a position of agnosticism rather than firm rejection or acceptance. It could just be that, whilst you sincerely believe you have a reason to believe, other people sincerely don't

I could be wrong but I don't believe Jac was referring to agnosticism (and neither was I for that matter). But I'll let him answer for himself.

Post edit: I wish you (and every other agnostic/atheist) would simply stop referencing many gods. The idea is as ridiculous as it is contradictory. It has been shown through reason there can be one and only one God.

Byblos wrote:I could be wrong but I don't believe Jac was referring to agnosticism (and neither was I for that matter). But I'll let him answer for himself.

Post edit: I wish you (and every other agnostic/atheist) would simply stop referencing many gods. The idea is as ridiculous as it is contradictory. It has been shown through reason there can be one and only one God.

It seemed from Jac's post that he was taking umbrage at the idea of people taking a position of agnosticism, i.e. believing the evidence is such that lacking an active positive or negative belief is a valid and honest stance. I'm happy for him to correct me, though.

Regarding many gods, when I write god/gods I don't mean it in a monotheism versus polytheism sense. It's a way to clarify that of all the mooted gods (and indeed of all the possible but un-mooted gods) I lack a belief in all of them. Some gods (or more specifically, some stated attributes or acts of god) I do have an active belief against - I don't recall in which thread it was stated, but in Jac's "if evolution is true then YEC is false" syllogism I would take the approach of affirming the antecedent rather than denying the consequent.

Ya, rubberneck claiming to be agnostic would have made a lot more sense. But then I think you'd find people here can't take that position seriously. It's a middle ground of uncertainty, which must be a awkward place to be.

BTW, there will never be "proof" God exists. He wants us to make a choice, because he is love. When you have creation in front of you, it begs the question, red pill or blue pill?. No middle ground. Because one day we die. And you're either right or wrong. Sorry if that comes off strong.

ryanbouma wrote:Ya, rubberneck claiming to be agnostic would have made a lot more sense. But then I think you'd find people here can't take that position seriously. It's a middle ground of uncertainty, which must be a awkward place to be.

It's also a middle ground of honesty and necessity, depending on the subject at hand and the level of evidence. You're an odd/even number of hairs agnostic, but you probably don't find it an awkward place to be.

ryanbouma wrote:BTW, there will never be "proof" God exists. He wants us to make a choice, because he is love. When you have creation in front of you, it begs the question, red pill or blue pill?. No middle ground. Because one day we die. And you're either right or wrong. Sorry if that comes off strong.

I disagree. There is ample proof for God from reason.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:But they're not opposites. They're the same.

Let's make it simpler so you can see the two statements are the same:
1). Atheists don't believe God exists.

2). Atheists believe God doesn't exist.

It sounds like a way to avoid claiming a belief. That way one can criticize other beliefs, without having to defend one's own.

All there doing, Rick, is trying to make the claim that "Atheists lack belief in God" is different from the claim "Atheists positively believe God does not exist." That's the difference they are trying to point out. It's a tired argument, long refuted, and only held by intellectually dishonest people and people who are terribly ignorant of the nature and history of the debate (which is pretty much everyone that goes by the term 'atheist' anymore. You remember where I walked through this with Lunalle some time ago).

Put differently, the problem you are having is that you have the proper definition of atheism (which makes your analysis of the sentences correct), whereas they have the incorrect (though popular) definition of atheism, whereby they make the above suggested, faulty distinction. It is a logically valid distinction, but lexically incoherent.

You last statement in this quote by the way, is exactly correct. It's what K has been pointing out in some of his threads in the Questioning Non-Belief forum. They're just hiding, masking their cowardice. Their "arguments" against God are little more than this, since they just comprise of, "NAUH!!1!11!!111" And when we say, "Well on what basis do you say NAUH!" they respond, "IDONTNOISNOTMYJOOOOOOOB2TELUWHATIBELEEVISURSUSTOOPIDTHEIST!!!11!1"

Thanks Jac.

PerciFlage wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:Ya, rubberneck claiming to be agnostic would have made a lot more sense. But then I think you'd find people here can't take that position seriously. It's a middle ground of uncertainty, which must be a awkward place to be.

It's also a middle ground of honesty and necessity, depending on the subject at hand and the level of evidence. You're an odd/even number of hairs agnostic, but you probably don't find it an awkward place to be.

I am agnostic when it comes to my hair, but it's not awkward because it's just hair. When you're talking about the ramifications of whether there is an afterlife or not, that is very serious. If the number of hairs meant my eternity, I'd start counting.

Byblos wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:BTW, there will never be "proof" God exists. He wants us to make a choice, because he is love. When you have creation in front of you, it begs the question, red pill or blue pill?. No middle ground. Because one day we die. And you're either right or wrong. Sorry if that comes off strong.

I disagree. There is ample proof for God from reason.

I think the proof most agnostics require is undeniable scientific proof. I consider the "first causer" to be proof of a deity, but the rest comes from one's own reason afaik. Would love to know more about what you mean though, if there's a thread or something on the subject.

Wow jac, Thank you for your choice selection of words, cowards, dishonest,...only you are right, you are brave, every one elae must be so miserable... I don't suppose anyone has any objection here, seems you all agree on this? Light of the world, salt of the earth, fits you fine, you are Shining examples of the gospel. I am impressed.

ryanbouma wrote:

Byblos wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:BTW, there will never be "proof" God exists. He wants us to make a choice, because he is love. When you have creation in front of you, it begs the question, red pill or blue pill?. No middle ground. Because one day we die. And you're either right or wrong. Sorry if that comes off strong.

I disagree. There is ample proof for God from reason.

I think the proof most agnostics require is undeniable scientific proof. I consider the "first causer" to be proof of a deity, but the rest comes from one's own reason afaik. Would love to know more about what you mean though, if there's a thread or something on the subject.

And there lies their problem. If scientific 'proof' they are seeking then science itself denies their request since science is not in the business of providing proofs to begin with. Be that as it may, however, there is ample scientific evidence for the existence of God. If, on the other hand, they seek a metaphysical proof (from reason) then an undeniable proof is available.

PerciFlage wrote:My sincere, and I believe intellectually honest, position regarding the existence of god(s) is this: I lack a belief in god; I do not believe god exists; I do not believe god is non-existent. This position of agnosticism is the same one I hold on many, many subjects (string theory for one example), and for the same reason - I don't think the data is there for me to make up my mind one way or another. Of course, given more experience or new data I may one day come to actively accept or reject theism or string theory.

I've enjoyed reading your posts on this forum, Jac, but I think that it's a bit uncharitable to accuse people of intellectual dishonesty or cowardice when they admit to a position of agnosticism rather than firm rejection or acceptance. It could just be that, whilst you sincerely believe you have a reason to believe, other people sincerely don't

That's not agnosticism. You've misunderstood the term, just as most "atheists" misunderstand the term "atheism." Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. To say, "I don't know whether or not God exists" isn't agnosticism. It's just ignorance on this particular subject.

[EDIT: If you haven't aleady, you should read this post, which deals with the ridiculous "atheism = lack of belief" argu--er--assertion.]

And I appreciate that you think it's uncharitable to call your position what it is. While I appreciate it, you are just mistaken. You are confusing language that you find distasteful with being uncharitable. That is, you are confusing political correctness with charity, and the two are nowhere near the same.

Ignorance of God's existence is not uncharitable. Ignorant people, however, who are intellectually honest do not make arguments for or against a position. Ignorant people also don't back their claims by ever deeper ignorance. All objections are literally arguments, and all arguments must be both valid and warranted. Therefore, all objections to arguments for God's existence must be valid and warranted. But that means that objections to God's existence are not rooted in ignorance, but rather they are rooted in worldviews that are incompatible with His existence. Thus, what makes your position dishonest is to pretend you are ignorant on the matter, cover up your mere ignorance with words incorrectly used, and then use those layers of obfuscation to deny that you have a position on your own, all the while arguing from your position that you neither admit to nor are willing to defend. That is what makes your position dishonest and cowardly. More, it is immoral, because it is sophistic, deceptive, and fundamentally uses reason in an irrational manner (and, in case you are unaware, you have a moral obligation to be reasonable, transparent, and honest in your arguments).

Once again, don't confuse my language here with being uncharitable or mean-spirited or anything of the sort. I don't have anything against you personally. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of the position you have declared (and not declared!) on multiple levels. The position itself is not worthy of respect. You as a person certainly are, but your position? It belongs in the dung-heap of long discredited ideas (e.g., the flat earth theory, geocentricism, Darwinian racism, logical positivsm, etc.).

Neha wrote:Wow jac, Thank you for your choice selection of words, cowards, dishonest,...only you are right, you are brave, every one elae must be so miserable... I don't suppose anyone has any objection here, seems you all agree on this? Light of the world, salt of the earth, fits you fine, you are Shining examples of the gospel. I am impressed.

Oh PLEASE. As if someone came along and just treated you so nice and was a pushover and lavished compliments on you and disrespected you enough to not call you out on your errors but instead praised you in your mistakes . . . as if I were to do that then you would really see me as a "shining example of the gospel."

Do you not realize how arrogant you are? Your statement here presupposes that YOU know both the nature of the gospel and the nuances of the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" so well that YOU are able to examine my own words and find in them such a failure to reflect the truth of those matters that YOU can declare it hypocritical.

Neha, let me inform you of something. You don't know the gospel as well as we do. You don't know what the word "atheist" means as well as we do. You don't know what the word "agnostic" means as well as we do. You don't know the arguments for God's existence as well as we do. You don't even know the arguments against His existence as well as we do. We know more than you in every respect on this subject. And you want to come here and tell me that you know this material so much better?

If you think that Christians are supposed to be pushovers, unwilling to challenge in stark language the errors of the day, then you have never read the Bible with any degree of understanding. Jesus referred to those who opposed Him as broods of vipers. He regularly called people hypocrites. He told the Pharisees their father was Satan. Paul referred to the Judaizers as dogs, which was one of the worst insults you could throw at a person in those days. And have you read John's description of the unsaved in Rev. 21:8?

If you want to be respected, be respectful and respectable and hold to respectable positions. Don't come here patronizing us pretending to lecture us and inform us on our faith, as if you understand it better than we do. Be honest for once about what you believe, and be courageous enough to admit your presuppositions that drive your belief. That's what we're doing on this board, every single day. But you want to come along and cast stones safely from the sidelines, refusing to get on the field and actually submit your ideas to public scrutiny? And then when you get called on it, you want to tell me that I'm not being Christian?

As I said, please . . . I'm sorry if your puny little misconception of what Christianity is all about is being challenged by people who actually understand their faith. But I certainly make offer no condolences for those of us who do understand what we believe and expect those of you who are going to challenge us to be honest enough to put your cards on the table.

------------------------------------------

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Their "arguments" against God are little more than this, since they just comprise of, "NAUH!!1!11!!111" And when we say, "Well on what basis do you say NAUH!" they respond, "IDONTNOISNOTMYJOOOOOOOB2TELUWHATIBELEEVISURSUSTOOPIDTHEIST!!!11!1"

the link was hysterical, Jac.

Seriously though, it is quite boring to have to listen to the new atheism of 'I don't have to prove anything because I hold no position' or 'reality is relative' or 'truth can't be know'. Really? Is this what it comes down to? Like I said, utterly unsatisfying but hey, to each his pit of hell I guess.

Yes, I've been quite fond of that one for a little while, now.

But to your point, I think that unfortunately, that is what it's come down to. This is, in large part, why the board changed near a decade ago. We used to have "atheists" who roamed freely. Every single thread was exactly like you'd expect. Someone would post mentioning some scientific or philosophical position that either suggested or proved that God exists, and the atheists would come out, guns a-blazin', with their typical "NAUHHH!!!" assertions. Really, it just boiled down to, "But how do you know THAT?" over and over again (in, of course, incredibly long threads couched in language that was supposed to make dem sownd smawt). Looking back, it reminds me of arguing with my four year old. "Elly, got to bed." "I don't want to go to bed, Daddy." "I know, but you need to." "But how Daddy? How I need to go to bed?" " Because you need your rest." "But how Daddy? How I need my rest?" "So you don't get sick and so you aren't mean tomorrow." "But how Daddy? How I don't get sick and be mean?" And on and on.

And they wonder why some of us find them boring . . . and they're surprised and offended when they're called for what they are.

PerciFlage wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:Ya, rubberneck claiming to be agnostic would have made a lot more sense. But then I think you'd find people here can't take that position seriously. It's a middle ground of uncertainty, which must be a awkward place to be.

It's also a middle ground of honesty and necessity, depending on the subject at hand and the level of evidence. You're an odd/even number of hairs agnostic, but you probably don't find it an awkward place to be.

Except when someone uncertain debates in forums like these...

Then they're just being dishonest with their not knowing or being unable to know, assuming to know something. Namely that others, like some Christians here, are wrong.

Now if you're simply stating you do not know whether or not God exists, then that's a weak form of agnosticism... even Christians are agnostic on many issues to do with God's nature. But believe anyway since it is perhaps the best conclusion for them, or for whatever other reasoning.

If on the other hand you claim that one cannot know God exists, then that is far different. It is making a claim that Theism, which advocates a personal God who is involved with the world, is not true. This is the position of Strong Agnosticism. And has more to do with epistemology and knowledge in general rather than God.

This one is not a middle ground of uncertainty at all. It is not neutral. The more neutral ground is weak agnosticism, but it simply mean either one hasn't looked into the matter, lacks confidence to comment, or doesn't really care much for the issue.

Here's an interesting page I found that'd put a spin on the way some understand agnosticism: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnost ... g_weak.htm (and wow, an Atheist resource talking some sense!? Well I'll be... )