It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I guess, at its very basis, it IS an opinion. I see it as applying the same standards of existence to god as is applied to anything else. We don't let fancy inductive reasoning prove the existence of Bigfoot, so why is it ok to make an exception for god?


Because the logic of the arguement cant be denied. Also sciwnce would never ask questions without. Can anyone prove a multiverse or super strings?


Logical arguments are sound or unsound as well as valid or invalid.

An argument is valid if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false provided that the premises are true. In other words, you make an assumption that the premises are true and analyze the argument to make sure the conclusion HAS to be true.

An argument is sound if and only if it is also valid AND the premises are true.

The cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are all valid arguments, but there is no way to show that they are sound. Therefore they cannot be used as proof of anything. They are nice philosophical ponderings, but as far as proving anything, they fail.




posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?


Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.


Do you expect to see george washington? Did he exist? This is how to prove if your logic makes sense.




That's an extremely weak argument. George Washington was a human being from a few centuries ago, why would I expect to 'see' him? Why you would consider placing God against that kind of 'logic' is a little strange - again, you are using two different standards and expecting the same rule to apply.


Was he do you have emperical evidence? I made no claims about god. I was referring to the logic you provided.

If I have historical records of dragons from 6,000 years ago is that proof?


oh dear, I see we are just going to go round in circles aren't we? I think I'm reaching the point where I really don't want to discuss something that is pointless discussing when you are going to apply this boring cliched attitude. Next you are going to say 'if you've never been to (insert country of your choice), how do you know it exists?' - just as boring.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?


Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.


Why can't you expect to see god if god exists? Because that is how humans have defined god? Well humans used to define god to look very human like as well. Your rebuttal is rather weak. You can't just declare that proof for something is unnecessary because you as a human have defined it to be undetectable to humans. That is called a cop out.


No, actually the cop out is the expectation you seem to have that if God exists there must be physical, quantifiable evidence that shouts out "This is God". Faith doesn't work like that I'm afraid, if you don't get that, I'm not sure how you can engage in any kind of theological debate as it's fairly much the crux.


Yea see, that is a cop out. Like I just explained to luthier, you are using a sound argument to prove existence, when only a sound argument says that the conclusion is true with the given premises, but a sound argument doesn't test to see if the premises are true. Therefore, there is no proof provided. Just fancy reasoning.

Also, I know what faith is. It is a cop out to say we cannot prove god. Like I said, God has to interact with the physical for us to know it exists. After all, how ELSE did god communicate with the prophets and saints of yore to let them know His will? Therefore it reasons that God has SOME sort of effect on sound waves, synapse firings in the brain, eyesight, etc in the physical realm when He contacts humans (that is an example of a valid argument by the way). So therefore there is something that should be detectable for us to prove God's existence.

I always find it strange when people such as yourself don't want to look for proof of god. Why is faith all that you seem to think is necessary? Wouldn't proof of your god cement your belief THAT much more? It certainly would stop many of the naysayers in their tracks. To me, when someone says they don't want to look for proof of god or that it doesn't exist, that just tells me they are secretly afraid that god doesn't exist.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?


Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.


Why can't you expect to see god if god exists? Because that is how humans have defined god? Well humans used to define god to look very human like as well. Your rebuttal is rather weak. You can't just declare that proof for something is unnecessary because you as a human have defined it to be undetectable to humans. That is called a cop out.


No, actually the cop out is the expectation you seem to have that if God exists there must be physical, quantifiable evidence that shouts out "This is God". Faith doesn't work like that I'm afraid, if you don't get that, I'm not sure how you can engage in any kind of theological debate as it's fairly much the crux.


Yea see, that is a cop out. Like I just explained to luthier, you are using a sound argument to prove existence, when only a sound argument says that the conclusion is true with the given premises, but a sound argument doesn't test to see if the premises are true. Therefore, there is no proof provided. Just fancy reasoning.

Also, I know what faith is. It is a cop out to say we cannot prove god. Like I said, God has to interact with the physical for us to know it exists. After all, how ELSE did god communicate with the prophets and saints of yore to let them know His will? Therefore it reasons that God has SOME sort of effect on sound waves, synapse firings in the brain, eyesight, etc in the physical realm when He contacts humans (that is an example of a valid argument by the way). So therefore there is something that should be detectable for us to prove God's existence.

I always find it strange when people such as yourself don't want to look for proof of god. Why is faith all that you seem to think is necessary? Wouldn't proof of your god cement your belief THAT much more? It certainly would stop many of the naysayers in their tracks. To me, when someone says they don't want to look for proof of god or that it doesn't exist, that just tells me they are secretly afraid that god doesn't exist.


So, let's pick a definition of faith....

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
4. (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Please don't talk about 'my God', I was making comments about what faith is and how it differs from other things for which without evidence there is no proof.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Yet the only thing where "faith" is all that is needed for belief is God. Everything else requires objective evidence. How you cannot see this double standard is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I guess, at its very basis, it IS an opinion. I see it as applying the same standards of existence to god as is applied to anything else. We don't let fancy inductive reasoning prove the existence of Bigfoot, so why is it ok to make an exception for god?


Because the logic of the arguement cant be denied. Also sciwnce would never ask questions without. Can anyone prove a multiverse or super strings?


Logical arguments are sound or unsound as well as valid or invalid.

An argument is valid if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false provided that the premises are true. In other words, you make an assumption that the premises are true and analyze the argument to make sure the conclusion HAS to be true.

An argument is sound if and only if it is also valid AND the premises are true.

The cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are all valid arguments, but there is no way to show that they are sound. Therefore they cannot be used as proof of anything. They are nice philosophical ponderings, but as far as proving anything, they fail.


Again that runs counter to philosophy which is where you are getting your rules. The teleological is a sound argument and I havent found a real argument against it that proves otherwise. Again look and listen to the sources then respond to the actual hypothesis'. You are not adressing the logic or the arguments but are creating an argument of vagueness.

Also. Physics and empericism dont always go hand in hand. As described in "theoretical" physics. Such as superstrings etc.
edit on 20-7-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Yet the only thing where "faith" is all that is needed for belief is God. Everything else requires objective evidence. How you cannot see this double standard is beyond me.


That is just not true.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?


Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.


Do you expect to see george washington? Did he exist? This is how to prove if your logic makes sense.




That's an extremely weak argument. George Washington was a human being from a few centuries ago, why would I expect to 'see' him? Why you would consider placing God against that kind of 'logic' is a little strange - again, you are using two different standards and expecting the same rule to apply.


Was he do you have emperical evidence? I made no claims about god. I was referring to the logic you provided.

If I have historical records of dragons from 6,000 years ago is that proof?


oh dear, I see we are just going to go round in circles aren't we? I think I'm reaching the point where I really don't want to discuss something that is pointless discussing when you are going to apply this boring cliched attitude. Next you are going to say 'if you've never been to (insert country of your choice), how do you know it exists?' - just as boring.


One of us is.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Again that runs counter to philosophy which is where you are getting your rules. The teleological is a sound argument and I havent found a real argument against it that proves otherwise. Again look and listen to the sources then respond to the actual hypothesis'. You are not adressing the logic or the arguments but are creating an argument of vagueness.


How do you prove that the premises in the FTU are true though? Everything I'VE read about the FTU says that it is true because it appears that way, but there is no way to prove the premises true. Another way to look at it, if it were a sound argument, then it would be 100% true. God would exist because the premises are true and the conclusion cannot be false.


Also. Physics and empericism dont always go hand in hand. As described in "theoretical" physics. Such as superstrings etc.


No, they DO go hand in hand, superstring argument are just like the three arguments we've been talking about. We cannot prove the premises true (though scientists certainly are trying instead of just saying we have to rely on faith and leaving it at that), so the argument are merely valid but not necessarily sound.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Yet the only thing where "faith" is all that is needed for belief is God. Everything else requires objective evidence. How you cannot see this double standard is beyond me.


That is just not true.


Sure it is. Like I said above, arguments like superstrings and multi-verses are merely just valid arguments. They aren't necessarily sound, because we cannot prove all the premises true. THOUGH, scientists ARE looking to try to prove those premises true. That is the difference here. Scientist may not have the ability to do that, but it isn't stopping them from trying and saying, "Whelp, you'll just have to have faith that it is true."



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
Again that runs counter to philosophy which is where you are getting your rules. The teleological is a sound argument and I havent found a real argument against it that proves otherwise. Again look and listen to the sources then respond to the actual hypothesis'. You are not adressing the logic or the arguments but are creating an argument of vagueness.


How do you prove that the premises in the FTU are true though? Everything I'VE read about the FTU says that it is true because it appears that way, but there is no way to prove the premises true. Another way to look at it, if it were a sound argument, then it would be 100% true. God would exist because the premises are true and the conclusion cannot be false.


Also. Physics and empericism dont always go hand in hand. As described in "theoretical" physics. Such as superstrings etc.


No, they DO go hand in hand, superstring argument are just like the three arguments we've been talking about. We cannot prove the premises true (though scientists certainly are trying instead of just saying we have to rely on faith and leaving it at that), so the argument are merely valid but not necessarily sound.


Did you listen to the podcast or go to the links?

Because there is emperical evidence for fine tuning. Are you resding the 200 plus peer reveiwed papers in cosmology of it.

Your arguement is true for ANYTHING. How can we prove we are observing correctly? How we can we prove math is real and not just real on earth and in this galaxy. Of coarse we are predetermined to assume the universe is fine tuned because it is. Everyone agrees right now. Show me how you disprove fine tuning.

Have you read a real scientific paper on the subject or listened to a physicist explain it? Are you only argueing based on theist interpretation. One thing is for sure it is a FACT this universe is fine tuned for life. Please listen to any cosmologist on this from hawking to barnes. The only aspect in question is if this proves a god not that there is tuning.

Listen to the pod cast i linked from an atheist website. He goes over wby your very arguement is not valid. As well as the debunkers who have zero peer reviewed papers on the subject. Where is your evidence? I have given you plenty now and you havent argued against any of the points made. You are making a vague argument for what you THINK fine tuning is.
edit on 20-7-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Did you listen to the podcast or go to the links?

Because there is emperical evidence for fine tuning. Are you resding the 200 plus peer reveiwed papers in cosmology of it.


I don't need to do that, if the FTU were a sound argument then there wouldn't be a discussion left. We'd have successfully proved God is real.


Your arguement is true for ANYTHING. How can we prove we are observing correctly? How we can we prove math is real and not just real on earth and in this galaxy. Of coarse we are predetermined to assume the universe is fine tuned because it is. Everyone agrees right now. Show me how you disprove fine tuning.


I mean technically yes, we cannot prove TRUE soundness. That is one of the reasons sound arguments tend to only be within deductive logic. 1 + 1 = 2 is a sound argument by the way. Though we can approach true soundness with good, objective evidence. I'd say that the argument that the earth is almost close to a sphere is a pretty sound argument.


Have you read a real scientific paper on the subject or listened to a physicist explain it? Are you only argueing based on theist interpretation. One thing is for sure it is a FACT this universe is fine tuned for life. Please listen to any cosmologist on this from hawking to barnes. The only aspect in question is if this proves a god not that there is tuning.

Listen to the pod cast i linked from an atheist website. He goes over wby your very arguement is not valid. As well as the debunkers who have zero peer reviewed papers on the subject. Where is your evidence? I have given you plenty now and you havent argued against any of the points made. You are making a vague argument for what you THINK fine tuning is.


I've already told you that I don't want to continue this conversation. I haven't even fully dived back into the conversation again and I can already see you starting to come unhinged while talking to me.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
Did you listen to the podcast or go to the links?

Because there is emperical evidence for fine tuning. Are you resding the 200 plus peer reveiwed papers in cosmology of it.


I don't need to do that, if the FTU were a sound argument then there wouldn't be a discussion left. We'd have successfully proved God is real.


Your arguement is true for ANYTHING. How can we prove we are observing correctly? How we can we prove math is real and not just real on earth and in this galaxy. Of coarse we are predetermined to assume the universe is fine tuned because it is. Everyone agrees right now. Show me how you disprove fine tuning.


I mean technically yes, we cannot prove TRUE soundness. That is one of the reasons sound arguments tend to only be within deductive logic. 1 + 1 = 2 is a sound argument by the way. Though we can approach true soundness with good, objective evidence. I'd say that the argument that the earth is almost close to a sphere is a pretty sound argument.


Have you read a real scientific paper on the subject or listened to a physicist explain it? Are you only argueing based on theist interpretation. One thing is for sure it is a FACT this universe is fine tuned for life. Please listen to any cosmologist on this from hawking to barnes. The only aspect in question is if this proves a god not that there is tuning.

Listen to the pod cast i linked from an atheist website. He goes over wby your very arguement is not valid. As well as the debunkers who have zero peer reviewed papers on the subject. Where is your evidence? I have given you plenty now and you havent argued against any of the points made. You are making a vague argument for what you THINK fine tuning is.


I've already told you that I don't want to continue this conversation. I haven't even fully dived back into the conversation again and I can already see you starting to come unhinged while talking to me.


Its just upsetting that you are making a case for somwthing you wont even read about when I havw made the effort to give you so many examples from atheists even. I have given you a path to actual scientific peer reviewed papers by actual cosmologists. I have given you very famous atheist philosophers and sciwntists like Dawkins and Hithcins who say the fine tuning argument is valid and sound. Hitchins doesnt admit that kind of thing lightly.

I find it deeply disrespectful to set a standard for yourself to have others follow and then ignore when others do it if it doeant agree with your opinion. Its hard to change a view once held I get that. But at least argue against the information given to you.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I normally don't do that, but you appear unable to talk to me about this conversation without getting angry at me.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: rickymouse
Atheists usually quote science and science is basically governed by interpretation.



Yeah, they are currently beaming back images of Pluto becase NASA got lucky with their interpretation of planetary mechanics/gravity/propulsion etc...

/s

You clearly know zero about how science works...please stop guessing.


Did we really need to know what Pluto looked like to live on this planet? You need to go back and evaluate whether the whole trip to Pluto was even necessary. The money might be better spent trying to find ways for us to live more symbiotically with the ecosystem on this planet.

It is like arguing if the microwave oven is bad for us because of the microwaves. Now I see that when we eat too much hot foods all the time, we can have health issues. Microwaves have altered our habits in a negative way, it effects our health because cool foods stimulate acid production in the stomach which makes many nutrients more available.

So I don't know anything about science, I study both sides and compare conflicting evidence and stand back and look at the whole picture. Most people are so narrow minded they can't see anything in front of their face if it does not match how they believe.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

Yet the only thing where "faith" is all that is needed for belief is God. Everything else requires objective evidence. How you cannot see this double standard is beyond me.


The fact you cannot see the difference is a little beyond me actually, but it does kind of explain your approach.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

There is no difference. God is supposed to exist, therefore evidence must exist of God. You can't argue around that logic. You can PRETEND you can, but you are just deluding yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, God MAY exist and we just haven't found the right evidence yet. But to just delude yourself that evidence doesn't exist of God but God exists anyways is just delusional (and not to mention defeatist, you'd think someone who knew god would want to validate their beliefs with hard evidence).



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

There is no difference. God is supposed to exist, therefore evidence must exist of God. You can't argue around that logic. You can PRETEND you can, but you are just deluding yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, God MAY exist and we just haven't found the right evidence yet. But to just delude yourself that evidence doesn't exist of God but God exists anyways is just delusional (and not to mention defeatist, you'd think someone who knew god would want to validate their beliefs with hard evidence).


There is a world of difference. I have no deep need to prove that existence, and in previous threads in conversation with you I have said I hope there is such a thing and that my inclination is to believe there is - whatever God actually is.

If you tell me Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster exist then I would expect you to be able to validate that, it's just not the same thing - sorry if you cannot compute, that's really not my issue.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

To me, it is just lying to yourself to say that you can believe in something without faith. How else are you going to define what it can and can't do? I mean, granted, if you refuse to look for evidence of your god or believe it is unobtainable then it frees you from any responsibility on defining god's actions and can just easily make god do whatever you want. It certainly explains why your definition of god is completely different than another Christian's definition of god, and why one can't have a frank discussion about the beliefs of Christianity without offending someone who doesn't believe that particular piece of dogma. Me, I'd want to concentrate on defining god so that Christianity could consolidate under one belief system again.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

To me, it is just lying to yourself to say that you can believe in something without faith. How else are you going to define what it can and can't do? I mean, granted, if you refuse to look for evidence of your god or believe it is unobtainable then it frees you from any responsibility on defining god's actions and can just easily make god do whatever you want. It certainly explains why your definition of god is completely different than another Christian's definition of god, and why one can't have a frank discussion about the beliefs of Christianity without offending someone who doesn't believe that particular piece of dogma. Me, I'd want to concentrate on defining god so that Christianity could consolidate under one belief system again.


Did I actually say you can believe in something without faith? I don't think I did, but actually on reflection of course you can. I believe my TV is on, I don't need faith to back that up as I can hear it. If I should choose to believe in God then yes, faith would be needed to sustain that belief in my opinion. Others may say that evidence to substantiate that belief is all around us, all evidence of a divine creator. I have some empathy with that view but it doesn't mean that I cling to it.

You can be very strange. Why do you say 'your God'? I never suggested I had my own God. Why is it always prefaced by Christianity to you, do other faiths not worship God? Please don't use your usual cop out that Christianity is the only faith you will as it's the only one you feel qualified to speak about, the concept of God is bigger than one faith.

Your idea of a 'frank discussion' seems to always circle back to you getting other people to agree you are right - that's not really a discussion if you ask me.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join