Marilyn Adamson writes:
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if He is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?
Notice that Adamson assumes two things: the credibility of the Bible and the gender of God ("Him"). Neither assumption is valid in a discussion about whether any gods exist in the first place. If a person doesn't accept the premise that some sort of god exists, it isn't reasonable to cite the Bible as an authority on the matter and it isn't reasonable to ascribe qualities to this alleged god.
1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God. Billions of people, who represent diverse sociological, intellectual, emotional, educational makeups...believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?
First, Adamson is probably wrong in the assertion that all cultures "have been convinced there is a God," and for two reasons. The first reason is the existence of certain Pygmy tribes in Africa with no identifiable gods or spirits in their belief systems. The second is the fact that Adamson says "a God," which implies a particular deity with particular attributes. In this case, we can safely say that Adamson is probably referring to the traditional God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is absolutely untrue that all or even most cultures have believed in anything like this god — religious and theistic beliefs have been far more varied than this.
The second thing to keep in mind that a belief is not made more likely true simply because it is common. This is a fallacy that Adamson is using alongside the fallacious appeal to tradition. Adamson employs quite a few fallacies throughout her arguments and it is important to keep in mind that she couldn't even get through the first argument without stumbling over two of them. The short response: the fact that a belief is common or traditional has no relevancy when considering whether or not the belief is reasonable. Anyone who suggests otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or does, but can't be entirely trusted.
2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
I'd addressed teleological and design arguments at some length elsewhere and I won't repeat everything here. All that is important to say in response to this is that Adamson not only doesn't offer anything new or interesting but she does, in fact, offer a form of this argument with examples that have been rebutted in many, many places. If she isn't aware of all this, she hasn't done her homework. If she is aware but chose to offer such a superficial argument anyway, then she doesn't have much respect for her readers.
3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.
What are Adamson's standards for "adequate"? She doesn't deign to inform us, so it is impossible to determine whether her conclusion is valid or not. As it stands, all we have is an assertion devoid of substance or support. I might as well say "Does God exist? Marilyn Adamson's god is not an adequate explanation of the universe" and be done with it.
Notice also that she manages to slip in the word "creation" instead of "universe" — if this is a "creation" then there must be a "creator," but whether a creator exists or not is the point of her argument. Once again we catch her fallaciously Begging the Question.
4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
Here we have the Argument from Morals and Values, also addressed at length elsewhere. I won't repeat what I have already written but I will point out that it simply isn't enough for someone like Adamson to assert that our sense of right and wrong cannot have a biological explanation. She may not be able to figure out one that satisfies her, but that's a long way from insisting that a biological explanation is impossible. There is a great deal of literature out there on the evolutionary development of things like ethics and altruism. If Adamson really cared about the subject, she'd read up on it.
5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
Here we find the Argument from Scriptures: My religious scriptures are True, therefore my God exists. The fact that just about every religion can make the same argument with the same validity (which is very little) doesn't bother people like Adamson. Simply asserting that the Bible is true and consistent just isn't good enough. It's a rhetorical device used by weak apologists who count on an audience that doesn't ask too many difficult questions.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
Unless we assume not merely that some god exists, but in fact that a very specific God exists, how on earth will we be able to determine that a particular set of writings qualifies not only as a divine "revelation," but is in fact the "clearest, most specific picture of God"? Answer: we can't. Absent a specific conception of God (not "a god," but God), there is nothing to compare the descriptions in the Bible to such that we could conclude that those descriptions are or are not clear.
Thus, Adamson's final "reason to believe that God exists" assumes the truth of exactly what she is trying to demonstrate. Begging the Question appears to be Adamson's favorite fallacy because she uses it so often. I have to wonder if she has the slightest idea how a logical argument is supposed to be formulated. Is she the least bit familiar with logical fallacies? Does she have any idea what some common errors in reasoning are?
I sincerely doubt that. Marilyn Adamson doesn't offer any reasons to believe in her god, but she does offer reasons to doubt the validity of any religion that would produce such atrocious apologetics. She cites Josh McDowell more than once and since McDowell is probably the leader of Bad Apologetics, it's not surprising that something derivative of his work would be equally poor in quality.
Read More:
You just proved her point. Man never walked on the moon because you don’t want to believe it, but God bless you.
“McDowell is probably the leader of Bad Apologetics.” Yours is argument by insult. Not smart.
“If she isn’t aware of all this, she hasn’t done her homework.” Yours is argument by insinuation. As if we can believe you.
“There is a great deal of literature out there on the evolutionary development of things like ethics and altruism. If Adamson really cared about the subject, she’d read up on it.” Yours is argument by presumption. Wonder if you know about the tons of criticisms on evolution that you choose to ignore. Whos calling the kettle black?
I’m not making an argument here; I’m simply pointing out that the “authority” cited by Adamson is actually a very poor source of information.
It’s not “insinuation,” it’s a fact that Adamson presents very superficial and easily-rebutted forms of the argument in question. If she had done her homework, she’d have presented something more sophisticated and stronger.
It’s not presumption to say that a person should read up on a subject before making claims about it.
I’ve read quite a lot of religious criticism of evolutionary science. I’ve even read religious criticism which people try to dress up in scientific language.
No one. I am, however, someone who says that Marilyn Adamson is a very poor apologist whose work isn’t based on facts, research, or sound reasoning. It’s worth noting that all you do is pick out a couple of random quotes to make vague, unsubstantiated accusations about while not once offering any substantive objections to any of the counter-arguments I offered. Do you have anything substantive to offer? Can you actually rebut any of my counter-arguments, or do you agree that they stand as valid?
Austin,
You’ve gone to great lengths to explain the differences/commonalities between atheism and agnosticism. Especially that atheism is NOT necessarily the denial of any gods, but “the absence of belief”. I’ve found it very enlightening and straightforward. It appears to be a distinction without a difference, but I will keep reading more later. You may still win me over.
However, assuming that your reasoning is sound, what do you call one who does specifically deny the existence of any God or gods?
Thanks for clarifying this.
Why?
Curious that you say I’ve gone to “great lengths” to explain what atheism and agnosticism are, suggesting that you’ve read a lot of the relevant material, but never came across the explanation of strong vs weak atheism. What, exactly, have you been reading here?
O.K.
Hate to break it to ya but your article does seem like it is insulting her and NOT arguing against her. Yeah, I know you’d probably say “you’re too young to understand this stuff kiddo” but there are debates in my school that go on for only a little while yet the christian always wins. Most atheists come from broken down homes that some thing happened in their life that caused them to doubt God no matter what cost. You might probably be thinking or saying that it never happened to you ( cant tell for sure). But man, things do not happen by chance. Every thing happens for a reason. If God never really existed then explain to me how the UNIVERSE was created. Explain to me how we say the Earth is billions of years old yet when we went to the moon we only found “a thousand years worth of spacedust”. Explain to me how matter could be created just spontaneously. How the Earth was formed just by chance. How “billion” year old fossils could be so complicated yet they just happened to ‘evolve’ and form.
(Listen buddy, you have alot of questions tonight, so guess what that means? You have homework!)
*Quick note* I’ll be praying for you tonight and lets see if you see the light;)
Then you should be able to explain how, with examples.
Somehow, I question your ability to judge.
Really? Please provide evidence supporting this.
Really? Prove it.
I see no evidence that it was created.
Easy: we didn’t find that. Someone has been lying to you.
I see no evidence that matter was ever “created”.
It wasn’t formed by “chance.” It was gravitation and other natural forces.
They didn’t “just happen” to evolve; they evolved in line with natural forces.
You also made a lot of assertions which you are obligated to support.
Your time would be better spend thinking rather than praying. If you are comfortable proclaiming that I need someone to pray for me, would you mind being told that you need someone to think for you?
“Be Specific” and “So What” is the first answer to all relifious right-wing propaganda.
First of all to generalize the entire atheist population, to say,” Most atheist come from broken down homes” is an ignorant assumption. I do not come from a broken down home. I didn’t turn away from god, because you cant turn away from something that doesn’t exist. Everything does not happen for a reason. It is just coincidence. And for the only alternative conclusion that humans are here and people die, and the earth revolves around the sun, and etc.. is not because of god. That is an ignorant answer. Just because people are atheists, doesn’t mean that they are satanic, or that something happened in there to turn them away from god, or that they didn’t grow up in a Christian home. Its that they believe in scientific evidence, evolution, and natural selection. I’m sorry, but Jesus was probably a schizophrenic, and heard voices and came to the conclusion that god was talking to him. And the people were too gullible and vulnerable, and believed him. I just refuse to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa clause. That is what god is to me. Some imaginary fairy tale.
I know it must be hard for you to understand. You react with anger, because the existence of people who don’t believe in any god is threatening to you. It shouldn’t be…but it is. If we didn’t believe it gravity, you wouldn’t feel threatened, because you have no doubts about gravity. But, deep down, you do have doubts about God and goodness and the meaning of life and immortality…so you feel threatened and feel a need to somehow disparage us.
I’d be very interested to see the evidence for your assertion that most of us come from broken homes. Some do, some don’t…just as is true for Christians and other theists. I don’t that there is a correlation…I haven’t heard of any such study.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah…none of them. I’m a moral person, with a strong sense of family. I don’t care what you believe. If hugging a blankie or contemplating a myth helps you get through a long, lonely night, that is fine with me. All that you believe in is a creation of other people. I choose to look at life myself and decide what is valid for myself. I wish you’d respect my views as much as you demand such respect for yourself.
I came from a happy, Catholic background. I lost my faith by reading my way out of it. That includes reading the Bible intelligently, rather than devotionally, from cover to cover. If more Christians had the guts to do that, there would be fewer of them. They rely on others to regurgitate and interpret the theologically “safe” parts of the Bible. I do my own thinking now and it feels great! I highly recommend it. Leaving religion behind has been the most liberating experience of my life.
James T. Farrell wrote a novel entitled “A World I Never Made”. It details his intellectual awakening the led him to abandon Catholicism and leave the intellectually sterile University of Chicago.
“Most atheists come from broken down homes that some thing happened in their life that caused them to doubt God…”
The comment by Young Reader, who stated that “most (?) atheists come from broken homes” was clearly indicative of his complete ignorance about atheism and that he is, indeed, a “young” reader, still wet behind the ears, because anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would never make such fatuous remarks.
I, too, come from a Christian family, never well off, but never wanting. My parents, well-meaning, believed simply because they had been programmed to believe. In earlier times, one believed or else…
Yes, something DID happen in my life. I came to my senses.
I stopped believing when I began to think for myself. Instead of just accepting what I was told by others, I decided to investigate the reason and logic behind religion — ALL religions — and began by reading the Bible from cover to cover. Read it for yourself, YR, and I hope the blood and gore in the OT sanctioned by your god and the death threats in the NT don’t upset you.
My studies and research covered many peripheral subjects such as gods, mind control, thought processes, mythology, superstition, the level (if there be one) of education in olden times, and the like.
My decision not to believe was not a cavalier one reached overnight. I gave both sides my best shot, laced with a great deal of common sense.
I do not particularly like the term “atheist” (without God) because to some it could imply that a god exists but that I have chosen not to accept it.
A more accurate term would be rationalist or freethinker.
Of the main religions, Islam basically derives from both Judaism and Christianity, Christianity derives from Judaism, and Judaism is based on Hinduism, and Hinduism, which involves thousands of gods, is pure mythology, fairy tales and superstition.
As a matter of fact, ALL religions are mere cults, with perhaps the exception of Islam, a death cult, and all are mere instruments of CONTROL.
By allowing religion, the curse of mankind, to regulate and control your life, you, YR, have become a willing puppet, acting according to which of your strings are pulled, all because of an impossible promise made to you — the promise of an afterlife.
Instead of chasing dreams, I urge you to think more about your fellow man, to do what you can to relieve the oppressed and help the poor and deprived, because you only have this one chance in life, and it can be cut short in the twinkling of an eye.
Religion requires faith. Faith, according to my dictionary, is: “Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
Atheists tend to be represented by the most educated and intelligent percentage of the population and have always been so throughout the course of recorded human history.
Hey nickofsarnia… are you actually from Sarnia Ontario?… I grew up there… most of my family are still there…
… I too eventually came to my senses after learning as much as I could about the origins & canonization of the bible…
… I sure wish I’d found some of these web sites earlier in life… but, it did make me do my own studies… I spent way too much time believing all the bunk…
… atheism is freeing… happier than I can remember…
… too bad all my family (including inlaws) are still deeply into christianity… I really feel sorry for them…
Can someone tell me what is the reason behind existence? who has decided for nature of things(anything one can imagine) to get formed?
Note: I will not agree with answers like; is there a need to know the reason?
What do you mean by “reason behind existence”?
What I mean is, simply why is the life exist? what is the reason of being to be exist? who or what and how decided or calculated for existence to appear? if you say “Big bang” was/is the reason, then what is the reason for “Big Bang”?
What makes you think that any “calculating” went on?
According to the best research and math thus far, I believe the answer to that may be a random vacuum fluctuation.
Idea of “Calculating went on” is arising in mind when I look deep in nature of beings (anything you can imagine)that everything is formed as error free as its complexity.
About getting an answer to the question of what is the reason for “Big Bang” or for existence to appear; you say that ‘”I believe” the answer to that may be a random vacuum fluctuation’.
Now, the conclusion,
1. There is no exact answer for the quesion (because you used “maybe”)
2. At the end of everything we reached to a point where concept of believing started to work (You said “I beleive”)
3. Believing is end point for ability of understanding in human-beings during its existence.
And last question for you.
you have said that ‘”I believe” the answer to that may be a random vacuum fluctuation’; my question is; what is the difference between your answer and someone else who says to you that he/she knows the reason behind existence, and s/he describes it in one word “God”? (only for sake of giving the answer not explaining the meaning of it)
Feel free to support that assertion.
No, I used “may be,” a different English construction. It means I don’t keep up on the latest research and so must simply tell you what I think it is.
See above.
I can’t understand this sentence.
Assuming I have described the research correctly: one is based on rigorous science and math where as the other is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Feel free to support that assertion.
If one didn’t understand or s/he is not able to understand or didn’t wanted to understand doesn’t make it assertion.
No, I used “may be,” a different English construction. It means I don’t keep up on the latest research and so must simply tell you what I think it is.
Whatever construction you used is not bringing any changes in the fact that there is no exact answer for the question. (In this case you have no exact answer)
2. At the end of everything we reached to a point where concept of believing started to work (You said “I believe”)
See above.
See above makes no sense for the fact that I mentioned. You used “I believe” which simply means that you don’t know it. And it shows that you are also a believer.
I can’t understand this sentence or (which in first reaction of you was stated as “You need to work on your English”)
Thanks for your feedback. Here is a different version of the sentence.
Concept of “believing” or “to believe” is the last solution that human beings mind can produce for certain issues in order to bring justification for its ability of understanding. (That is why you have started your sentence with “I believe…”).
Note: Focus of our discussion is to find the best answer out for the question; not to discuss whether the used English needs improvement or the mind requires ability of modification.
Assuming I have described the research correctly: one is based on rigorous science and math where as the other is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
It doesn’t matter whatever the answers are based on, for time being, the following points stay solid as consequence of our discussion.
1. The fact that both parties have no exact answer for the question remains the same.
2. Answers of both parties are based on concept of “belief” or “believing”.
3. One answer brings an individual or seeker to no where, and is against nature of human-being. (has no hope, no love, no value for human-being existence)
4. While the other answer brings seeker or individual to place where his/her nature is formed from. (has hope, has value for existence of beings, and is based on love)
And as last point I want say what the answer for the question is;
The answer is God. God is the reason behind the existence or appearance of the life plus the life or existence itself. This includes anything one can imagine including oneself. Thus, denial of God is only possible if one can deny oneself. Since there is no way out for one to deny his or her existence therefore it is not possible to deny God.
I’m sorry, I can’t understand this sentence. Once again, please support your earlier claim.
That’s not a “fact,” it’s a mistaken implication you made based on your poor understanding of English.
I am indeed uncertain at the precise conclusions of science right now. If you are interested to know what they are, you can do some research of find out. Not knowing for certain what the precise conclusions of science are right now does not make me a “believer.”
In this case, “I believe” means “I am under the impression that” or “it is my understanding that.” It is not a statement of faith, but a report about what one thinks to be the case.
I can’t make sense of this, either.
If you can’t make yourself understood in English, it isn’t possible to offer any answers to your questions.
It does if you actually care what the difference between the two is.
You don’t know that, you simply assume it based on your poor English skills.
Once again, that conclusion is based on your poor English.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
I have said when you look deep into nature of beings. You see two things; the nature of “thing(s)” is designed error-free and complex. For instance your mind, it is designed as much error-free as its complexity. (I only mean it is designed, not that it is functioning like that)
You better train your mind for better understanding. That’s a fact that you don’t know the answer. And it is simple enough to understand that you can not prove it, that’s the reason you used that construction for your sentence.
It is very obvious that level of understanding in your mind is very much limited, especially when you try to understand complex issues such as “reasoning about life”. Let me simplify it, when the “mind” has no answer for certain questions, it produces a defensive statement with a start of “I believe”. It is a “built-in” functionality of mind.
It is has nothing to do with the English. I urge you to answer these questions only with yes or no.
Do you have an exact answer and can you also prove it?
(The question is; what the exact reason behind appearance of the life or the existence is?)
Note1: Exact answer means based on logic and provable in the current time
Note2: Answers like, “some people are working on it, they didn’t find it yet, so when it is found I would tell you” or “I believe it is like this or like that” are not accepted.
I see no hope, no love and no value for my existence, if someone says that the life or existence is appeared due to conditions that “Big Bang” was formed, then it was happened and consequently the life was appeared. I would just doubt and forgive that person for his disability of understanding. More ridiculously, this statement is even not fully covering the entire question. Because occurrence of “Big Bang” is requiring some pre-existed circumstances which simply mean that “existence” was there already even if you think that the life is appeared due to occurrence of “Big Bang”. It is just an empty and ridiculous answer. Thus it brings me to no where.
My nature requires, hope, love and self-value. Since that answer brings me to an empty point which doesn’t fulfill the requirements of my nature; therefore I say it is against my nature.
As I said, my nature requires hope, love and self-value. God answer is based on love, or God self is love. This answer gives me hope, gives me value, makes able to love and care for all “beings” regardless of “beings” reaction to me. It makes me able to own the entire life or the existence.
Concept of this answer is exactly matching my nature, and resolves all the questions that I have had about my existence. That’s the proof for me. A drop of water can become the ocean only if it is dropped into the ocean not into any other place.
As I have said before, God is the existence and the reason for it. It means that you are part of the existence. Since you can not say that you didn’t exist anymore, you can neither prove that God doesn’t exist. You exist and so does the existence and it is logic enough to say that God does exist because God is the existence and the reason for it.
Last conclusion,
You had and have no influence for your existence in this life. And no one will have that luxury but can contribute to existence or can be destructive for his/her existence.
You will stay in the existence in one or another form for ever but you have no influence to change this.
You have no where to escape from the reality which the reality itself is God. Everywhere is filled with existence of God up, including you. You can do nothing about it. For you it would be the best solution if you start to realize and begin to practicing.
Now at the end of everything still if you ask for prove. I would say to you, that it is impossible to describe taste of “apple” for someone who has never eaten and refuses eating the apple unless one accepts and starts eating the apple.
Note: if you still have more questions about the matter, I would urge you to start walking the same line with me. That’s the requirement for the next session. No reaction shall you get from me unless you are willing to walk together.
Over all it was a nice conversation. Thanks for your time
I understood this assertion. I have asked you to support it.
It’s a fact that I’m unsure if my information is up-to-date or not. Others know the answer, but you assume that no one does.
I have done no such thing, thus demonstrating that you claims about the nature of the mind are false.
So, your position is that if you cannot imagine it, then it cannot exist?
Prove it.
So, if you think that “god” answers your question, then it’s the only answer? Are you infallible?
Prove it.
Prove it.
What line is this?
Well, if you can set a “requirement” then I can as well. My requirement is this: when you make assertions, you must support them with sound, valid arguments and evidence. Offering more assertions that are as questionable as the ones in question will not suffice, as that would simply be the fallacy of Begging the Question.
Well, I must confess to having an entirely different impression here. You have made numerous assertions, many of which are incomprehensible and none of which have been supported. You have not offered a single piece of evidence or a single argument to support or justify any of your claims. It’s not a nice conversation when a person just offers one assertion after another, never demonstrating any comprehension of what it means to support one’s claims. I assume that this is not the impression you wished to create, but it’s precisely what happened.
Lol, that yakki guy really made my lunch hour. Is there some sort of garble machine I am unaware of?
Once again ‘The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits’
Let’s take your question seriously. You ask about reasons behind existence. Well, what IS behind or prior to existence? Whatever you care to name, such as God, would have to exist, or it could not be a reason behind existence. But, if whatever you name does exist, then…strangely…it is IN existence, not prior to existence. So, how could there be anything behind or prior to existence? Now, there are those who argue that non-existence is primary or prior to existence. But, for everything to not exist gives us a condition in which there is nothing…and nothing cannot cause anything. So, if there ever were a time when non-existence was all there was, well, then there would have been not any thing at all to bring existence into existence. This is not verbal trickery. It is asking what could be the cause of existence, yet not exist.
All right. So, where are we? If non-existence is not what we have and could not be before existence, then what we have is only existence. No matter what you examine or when, you find existence.
So, existence does NOT have anything behind it and, in the nature of things, cannot have anything behind it. There is a strange and utterly basic fact about existnece. It is. Or, to put that in an axiom which you can use to build on, Existence exists. Wanna examine that starting point for a scientific philosophy some more? Get the book by Leonard Peikoff called Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. She was the champion of existence and the human faculty which is capable of grasping what it is, reason. Good premises to you as you explore.
No reaction shall you get from me unless you are willing to walk together. Comment by yakki — March 28, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Yakki… or Yoda?
How come it’s always the guys who can’t master standard English who are sure they have unlocked the deepest mysteries of the universe?
Sure — I could throw a dart at the purpose for existence. While I exist, that is to say last time I checked I was still here. I can not tell you if I was another’s dream, a product of some other dimension, or if my existence is simply a delusion, but assuming all these to be nothing, I must be. But my existence is not the question. The question is “What is the purpose for my being?”
Hmmmmmmmmm! To begin to answer that question, suppose we ask an obvious question, what is purpose? That seems like a brain dead question until you attempt to try answer it. Does a bird fly because that is its purpose — or does a bird fly because it can?
Austin
The evidence for this statement is very simple, “you” are the prove itself, or existence of “you” is the best prove. Think or doubt or question yourself like,
1.Who has decided for “me” to be “me”?
2.Did I have any chance to ask for my existence?
3.Did I deserve to exist?
4.Did I have the right to exist?
The answer is that no one had any right to exist, and neither anyone deserves for her/his existence yet everyone does exist. In another word, whatever “one” has is all extra, including his/her existence. Since only nature of “Love” is creative, constructive and generous, then I can easily say that God is “Love”.
So, if you think that “god” answers your question, then it’s the only answer?
Since the existence is one and it has one reason, I can simply say that God is the only answer.
The line is “Owning the life” and “being constructive to all beings”.
George,
As you said it yourself, “genius has its limits”, reasoning about the life requires abilities beyond being genius, if you feel like a “genius???!!??” with limited understanding, feel free to enjoy being alive. Nature is designed in such a way that no matter what, any being is able to enjoy it.
Zack;
Do you think mastering Standard English is the measurement for one’s knowledge about the life? For me the language is just a tool, I use it as much I need. It can never be the purpose. “Gold is always gold no matter in which form you get it. it is important to know what Gold is not the form which it has been rendered”. In order to know the life you don’t need to master any language.
DL Johnson
To get the right answer first of all, you need to know who has decided for you to be you or you become you. Secondly you need to get to know that “one (reason)”, only then you will know what is/was the purpose for your being.
But if you ask me what the purpose is? I would dare to say, everything has direct connection to “you” (interdependency of everything), set the purpose yourself, either be constructive or destructive. In any case, you are the first and the last beneficiary of your actions.
I would like you to ask the question like this. Does a bird know that it can fly? Or does it fly because it can?
If the “bird” knows and is aware of its abilities, for sure it can set the purpose for its fly. And duly flying becomes its purpose.
Wish you all what you wish for yourself to be constructive for the life.
Show how.
Prove that exisence has “one reason.:
Prove that you can say “God is the only answer” and not “elves are the only answer” or “Doctor Who is the only answer.”
No, but it does define one’s ability to make oneself understood in English — and much of the time, you can’t.
Do you think mastering Standard English is the measurement for one’s knowledge about the life? Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
There is a becoming humility in mastering the small things before setting out to lecture others about the big things. This has been expressed elsewhere as, “Remove the beam from your own eye, and then you may see clearly to remove the mote from your neighbor’s eye.”
For me the language is just a tool, I use it as much I need. — Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Time to sharpen the saw, yakki.
It can never be the purpose. — Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Do you know this to be true, or is this just an assumption of yours? Clear expression is not my foremost principle in life, but I can imagine that it may have been for, say, Earnest Hemmingway.
“Gold is always gold no matter in which form you get it. it is important to know what Gold is not the form which it has been rendered”. Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
The Bible reports quite a dustup over some gold shaped like a calf. Apparently some people think that its form is important. We can probably include the folks down at the mint in this group as well.
In order to know the life you don’t need to master any language. Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Maybe not, but why not try it for yourself before making up your mind?
One of the most interesting things to note about this article is that since it was published in November 2004, the original site’s “6 reasons to believe in God” have changed fundamentally. It’s funny how these immutable, incontestable reasons mutate over time, as if the author (Marilyn Adamson) were just trying to wriggle around the objections that such logic-free, faith-based pseudo-reasoning inevitably attracts and deserves. Let’s check back in another couple of years and see if Marilyn still believes in her current reasons to believe.
1 reason would have been sufficient… I found no reason whatsoever in the Marilyn Adamson or Yakki drivel… just unsupported assertions…
Austin, I think you are guilty of trying to look much too deeply into Adamson’s very shallow writings. That she is not skilled in the art of philosophy is the least of her problems.
Clearly, she cannot (or will not) distinguish the difference between fact and belief, as is the wont of the apologist.
For starters, she wrote “If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away.” I would submit that the coverse actually true: If a person opposes even the possbility of there NOT being a God, then any LACK of evidence (unaltered photographs, recorded interviews, etc.) can be rationalized.
Her contention that “The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today” is an incredible assumption. The only thing the complexity of our planet points to is, well, a complex planet. How it got that way is best left for scientific study, not theistic belief.
Likewise, her assertion that “The human brain’s complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.” No, the human brain’s complexity shows a complex human brain. She’s free to believe if she chooses that there is indeed a God who is (among other things I’m sure) the God of Neurology. But it’s just that: A belief.
She even argued against herself when she wrote “To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true.” Nuff said!
She further assumes “We know God exists because he pursues us.” I can’t speak for the rest of humanity but in all my 49 years, I have yet to be pursued by God. On the other hand, I have been pursued by many people of many different faiths who would like me to believe as they do.
She asks: “What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?!” Again, while I can’t speak for other atheists, I can tell her that my motivation in responding to Web sites like hers stems from a passionate respect for the truth. As the humanist and moralist Andre Gide said, “Believe in those who are seeking the truth and doubt those who find it.” In the absence of a few clear and unaltered photographs and perhaps recorded interviews of the Almighty Itself, I will continue doubting her.
As for her of God of choice, Jesus Christ, as the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us,” I would suggest that this is merely another instance where Man created God to explain the unknown and then created religion to define and further explain God.
It’s a one-two punch from which civilization is still trying to recover. Maybe it never will.
At any rate, her six reasons to believe God fall about six short of a half-dozen.
ok dude u r totally lying to yourself every time u says i see no evidence of “creation” well i believe that earth and the space thing was all “created” it was created by God! and i know that because there is evidence all around! there is now way that this whole earth and space thing was an accident! first of all its to complex to just come from a “big bang” second our body’s are so complex that without a design they wouldn’t work right! thirdly the earth is the only habitable planet i don’t care what u say about mars or what ever other plant or moon that could be habitual. i believe that when the sun becomes a giant and the earth is ended that that is when Jesus will come back and then there will be a judgment day and a new earth for thoughts that get to live forever with God!
Can you support this accusation?
You’re welcome to point to any.
Prove it.
Prove it.
So?
And why do you believe this?
i have a ? 4 u. when u read a book do u assume the existence of the author or does the book have to start out with a five point out line of who and how and y the author exist? when u writ an article do u first start with five points of ur own existence or do u assume ur own exist and that the readers will assume that u exist?
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the above blog post.
it does because the bible does not have that outline because God assumed his own existence as do u ever time u write something, do u not?
What? I’m sorry, I can’t make any sense out of that. Could you re-write with complete sentences?
it has every thing to do with this entry. the bible doesn’t have an outline of who or what god is because god merely assumes his own existents. as do u every time u write some thing do u not?
What god?
can someone get in any trouble for cussing at u on the page?
God could punish you by not letting you into heaven.
it doesn’t work that way once u ask for forgiveness and become a believer God forgives you for all ur sins past, present and future.
So, you think you can sin freely and just ask for forgiveness at the last minute?
no i did not say that. after u become a believer and u read the bible and pray. God has forgiven all ur sins past, present and future!
So, you can sin as much as you want in the future because those sins are already forgiven.
well no one is perfect except for Jesus Christ. so yes everyone on this plant will sin there is no way around it. but people should try to do the right thing in Gods eyes!
If you’ll be forgiven anyway, I see no reason to worry about trying to do right.
You don’t seem to worry much, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked about getting in trouble for cursing here.
And now you’re comments are even more irrelevant to the original blog post than ever.
Posted by Irene:
>
Sorry for the late comments but I found Irene’s post rather interesting. I am a Christian and a free thinker. It would have been interesting to know how reading the Bible Intelligently convince her to leave her faith. Her conclusions would have made a good discussion.
To conclude I find the Bible to be a reliable work of antiquity worthy of an honest open minded read.
Peace Austin…
God bless….
Here is my philosophy:
We are all born Atheists, then before we actually get a chance to think for ourselves (before reaching the age of reason) we are forced to believe in some religion. (You cant tell me you were born catholic, or christian or whatever religion you believe in. That would be completely illogical and ignorant)
If god really did create the universe then who crated god? You cant tell me he magically appeared and decided to play a game and put humans in a little green/blue planet and play an endless game of war, death and greed. Also, if for some reason i were brainwashed and believed in a god, then i would think he has a great sense of humor for making us share 98% of our genetic information with the chimps. It is also very funny how he made us very similar both biologically and in behavior to the rest of the other animals in the world, and since he also made the animals in this planet It would be logical to say that those animals share the same god and may even pray to him as well, or wait…. we are greedy and we think that god does not care about anyone else in this infinite world besides us, “the human race”. Notice we all speak of god as “he” because according to all the bibles and religions, women would probably not have the capacity nor ever be able to do such task. Women have been repressed, are repressed and will continue to be repressed because men created religion, government and anything that controls anything else( we live in a patriarchal world). Sorry but its the truth.
Ignorance is bliss and people wont change their thinking especially if it has been embedded in their minds since children.
Religion, the church and the people in it are full of corruption, its full of murderers, rapist and child molesters. I hate to disappoint you all but going to confession with a priest is the same as going to see a psychologist for therapy. You see him, tell him your problems and you come out with less weight on your shoulders, so if you really thought when you saw a priest for confession he was forgiving you, you were wrong, really you were forgiving yourself.
God did not create humans but instead humans created god. God is for the weak minded, for people who are desperate for answers. For those who need a scapegoat from their everyday reality problems.
I am an atheist and no i had no huge child trauma to make me disbelieve in god or religion. I live happy the way I am and i don’t need a “god” for support in my life nor my problems. I have very well established morals and goals in my life that have nothing to do with god. Instead I read other religions and beliefs such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Catholicism and grasp what i can use and apply it to my life because I am open minded and learn from different believes and religions instead of fighting on which religions is better. Regardless of anything every bible on earth was written by men, and you cannot always believe the stories men tell you.
I hate to disappoint all you naive people with more bad news but we are really not in Iraq to help people we are there because of $$$, also no landing on the moon
, Christopher Columbus did not discover the Americas because natives were leaving in “Americas” long before this hero decided to create a genocide because his mind was on the gold. There is no such thing as “color” it does not exist, the A-Bomb was used as a scare tactic for Russia, and in comparison to Hitler, the united states killed more people in less time in japan in a few seconds than Hitler did in a couple of years, thus U.S is guilty for genocide as well. I could keep going but i don’t want people to fall into depression.
I strongly recommend for people to read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, it helps explain why people are ignorant.
If you believe in destiny and that everything happens for a reason then it means you really have no control of your life and all the stupid mistakes people do were made because they had to be made. To me its just not being responsible for your own actions. You can sit around all day, or even kill people for that matter, but its okay because it is part of your destiny………right…….
Does God exist? Yes, and her point is well proven in the hearts and lives of those who have chosen by their own God-given freewill.
He is the ONLY deity in our human history that loved humanity so much that He was willing to sacrifice His only Son, Jesus Christ, for our sins that we might have a way back to Him once and for all to live and fellowship with Him for eternity just the way He created us in the beginning.
God already knows each and everyone of us; even before we were physically born, but sin separates us from Him for eternity, and ONLY through the shed blood of Jesus Christ can we ever hope to be near Him again.
He is the “intelligent designer” of the universe we live in with all its complexities that we’ve yet to understand, and even those we do. He’s the one who holds it all together, and is still in control of this world no matter who rules it.
Just because [you] don’t believe, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. You have the God-given freewill to choose your path and destiny in this life, and God will NOT mess with our “freewill,” even if it means He loses them forever; which saddens Him greatly.
Life is all about “choices,” and those choices we were allowed to make by that God-given freewill are slowly being eroded away by our newly “elected” government who wants, needs, and desires to take the place of God in our lives as far as America is concerned. Why? Because in a non-believers heart, God works entirely too slow, and most people who don’t believe in God have fallen for the lies of Satan in thinking they are deity’s themselves.
We do have choices in this life, but when we leave those choices up to God’s guidance, it serves us best to know life, peace, happiness, honor, integrity, and unconditional love that He showed mankind.
Romans 1; Genesis 1-3; Philippians 3:20; Psalm 134; Psalm 34;
WOW you are just pulling words out of your god’s mouth, you are so closed minded, what makes you think there is only one god if there really is one? and what makes you think your religion is the right religion? Wow you are really ignorant, and you are very selfish to think that out of the whole universe, which is infinite, god only listens, cares and hears our prayers, from us humans! what about the entire universe? what about animals which supposedly he made as well. You have blind faith and believe a bunch of stories written by men.
It boggles my mind how in the modern years, as far as we have come, that people still believe in some story about an “invisible god in the sky controlling everything in the universe simultaneously”. As Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and no religion out there has ANY evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence. So what good reason do we have to believe in any of these religions?
If you are going to believe something, at least try to have some good reasons for believing it. A lot of theists can’t make an argument in favor of their religion without committing many logical fallacies, such as Begging the Question, which Adamson does in about every facet of her article here.
And you can come on here and propose as many questions along the lines of “If God doesn’t exist, then how do you explain…….” as you want, but none of those questions do anything to make belief in God, or ANY religion’s god, any more reasonable. There are many things we don’t know and haven’t discovered yet about the universe, evolution, or even our oceans. Just because we can’t explain them with science at this point in time DOESN’T MEAN A GOD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM! Why can’t we just admit that we don’t know everything, rather than using the cop-out that everything that is unknown is the doing of some god?
People once probably saw the sun come up in the morning, and thought that it was a god controlling it. But as time went on, science has proven that a sunrise is simply what we observe from the surface as the result of the earth’s rotation on its axis. In other words, in early times, science couldn’t explain a sunrise, so people probably thought a god was responsible. But now we know that is absolutely rediculous. So science has been able to prove that. And one day, science will hopefully be able to prove how the universe began, and it will become the new “sunrise” in the sense that we will understand it as well as we understand why the sun appears to rise and set.
The point here is that just because we don’t know something at this point in time doesn’t mean a god was responsible for it. It simply means that we don’t know. So hopefully people can someday quit crediting everything that is unknown or unusual to some god, and instead spend their time thinking logically about things, and realizing and admitting that compared to what there is to know about the universe, humans know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Bob, I agree with you and you have a very strong argument. Very logical. Its nice to know that there are people out there who think for themselves, even though its a very small percentage compared to all the other people who cant think for themselves. But yes the majority of humans do not like to feel they don’t know the answer to something or that there is no answer, thus create their imaginary god. its not that hard to realize that humans invented god in order to answer the things that are not explained.
Miranda, no offense but you make no sense what so ever. Your right when you say that nobody is perfect, but what makes you think Jesus was perfect? Of course he was not perfect because no human is perfect and believe it or not Jesus was human. Think of him as Gandhi but from a long time ago who was a great philosophical man who made a huge difference in people’s life. The only difference with Jesus was that people through repeating his story many times it made it a myth and that’s why the story of Jesus Christ is so exaggerated.
I know Betty Crocker exists because I have one of her cookbooks. Her picture’s in it, and there’s an 800 number I can call, a website with message boards, and everything. She’s been around forever it seems like, and her recipes and advice are terrific. I even receive a regular newsletter from her. Lots of people besides me know her and love her. I can’t imagine life without her. Some mean people say she’s not real, but I know that’s not true.
Its interesting reading about all these comments, where some believe that there is God and some do not. I for one believe that there is God, though we cannot see God but we know that God exist. It can be better illustrated as feeling the wind blowing around you but yet you cannot see the wind with your eyes. Though we cannot see God with our eyes to prove it, but we know God exist
I don’t.
We can measure wind objectively through the use of instruments. We can also construct replicable tests to determine if and when wind exists as well as how powerful it is.
So, if “God” is like wind, what instruments do we use to objectively measure God? How do we test for this God?
dear austin,
when i first clicked on to read your article, i was expecting to really read six reasons to believe in god, not criticism of some christian fanatic.
also, i was reading some of the comments, and one guy was saying that people don’t believe in god because they come from poor families and etc. i too disagree with this but perhaps what he was trying to say was that people choose to be agnostic or atheist because of their background. i think this is the case for all belief systems. i was raised as a muslim by my mum, but as i got older i have noticed that koran was full of nonsense. also, i hate it that people are hypocrites and i dont want to be one of them. so i believe in god but dont believe in any of the books.
however, i will always doubt whether i believe in the wrong thing. because it is perfectly possible that mary was a virgin, or mohammed really did speak to allah etc. etc.
i will always have that doubt because i cant help but wonder ”am i just choosing the easy way?”
as soren kierkegaard once said ”they dont believe because the rules are too diffucult to follow”. and there is certainly an element of truth in that, especially in my case, because islam has so many tough rules! like praying five times a day or no alcohol and no sex before marriage!
On an atheism site?
Really? Why is it possible?
And why do you think this is an accurate description of anyone in particular?
“On an atheism site?”
- why not? it would be healthy to talk about both sides of the argument.
“Really? Why is it possible?”
- well fair enough maybe i shouldn’t have used the word “perfectly” but still why not? what people regard as possible or impossible depends on their background. and maybe we shouldn’t interpret religious books too literally.
And why do you think this is an accurate description of anyone in particular? – read what i said carefully!! i don’t claim it to be anyone’s reason but one of mine and possibly others.
on a side note, you are just as narrow minded as my grandfather who prays 5 times a day and showers with his underwear on because he thinks it’s a sin to shower naked!
and before you say “prove it!” i dont have to. it’s just an opinion.
It is not part of the purpose of this site to argue in favor of believing in the existence of any gods; for that, you should go to the several religious sites that are on About. Somehow I doubt you’ve asked them to present arguments against believing in gods as if it would be healthy for them to “talk about both sides of the argument.”
Of course, the simple fact is that both sides are being presented: I’m presenting one and a bunch of other sites on the network are presenting the other side.
If you sincerely think it is possible, it’s up to you to establish how and why. There are arguably an infinite number of ideas that humans might be able to come up with and it’s the job of those presenting ideas to support them; it’s not the job of anyone else to argue “why not.” Indeed, you can’t even legitimately expect others to give any random idea a second thought unless and until you can present good reasons for why it should be taken seriously.
Now, if you are going say that you think that it’s possible that some alleged event occurred, you must have reasons for thinking it — reasons beyond “I haven’t seen proof that it’s impossible,” because that’s fallacious. If you don’t have reasons, then you don’t actually have a substantive, reasonable foundation for saying that it’s possible.
I did read carefully what you wrote and you didn’t write that your statement was intended solely as self-description. You offered a general statement that had to be treated as a general statement. If you had intended it as merely self-description, you should have acknowledged not being clear rather than getting defensive and pretending that it’s my failing for not somehow knowing what you “really” intended — as if I were a mind reader or something.
It’s not “narrow minded” to expect people to support their claims. Narrow mindedness is refusing to consider the arguments and positions of others at all, not insisting that those arguments be sound and positions be well-reasoned before considering them. Narrow mindedness is not taking any contrary views seriously, not insisting that only serious arguments be taken seriously.
The protest “it’s just an opinion” does not automatically relieve one of an obligation to support or prove a claim. If I wrote “Hasan is a child murderer,” I wouldn’t be able to say “it’s just an opinion, so I don’t have to support it.” It would be grossly immoral to say such a thing about a person without being able and willing to support it with very strong evidence.
The accusation you made is obviously not as vile as “child murderer,” but it is a very serious one and if you are going to pretend to have any sort of intellectual or moral respectability, you shouldn’t hesitate to either support it or retract it.
Narrow mindedness is not taking any contrary views seriously, not insisting that only serious arguments be taken seriously. — so who decides an argument is serious or not? just because something is ridiculous scientificaly, doesnt mean it shudnt be taken seriously. mary being a virgin is ridiculous scientifically, but there are many people who treats that subject very seriously. and when you start treating such arguments seriously, ‘you’ will have moral respectability. one way to do that would be to talk about the ‘decent’ arguments for god’s existence which you mentioned in your opening paragraph. anyway, you and i obviously have different views on narrow-mindedness so let’s just say you are wrong and i am right… or vice versa..
I did read carefully what you wrote and you didn’t write that your statement was intended solely as self-description. You offered a general statement that had to be treated as a general statement. If you had intended it as merely self-description, you should have acknowledged not being clear rather than getting defensive and pretending that it’s my failing for not somehow knowing what you “really” intended — as if I were a mind reader or something. — ok i will be clear then… me and possibly some others.. not everyone… is that cool with you now?
and i dont have any desire to be morally or intellectually respected. i think that should be your aim.
i think you would be a great politician. you remind me of tony blair…
Anyone can by looking at the characteristics and qualities of an argument. For example, refusing to support one’s claims is a mark of not having a serious argument.
It is if the claim is an empirical one which can be judged according to scientific standards.
Yes, they do — but should they? You offer no good reason for doing so. Funny that you would claim that “just because something is ridiculous scientificaly, doesnt mean it shudnt be taken seriously,” but then when you give just such a claim you can’t seem to come up with a reason why it should be taken seriously.
First you’ll need to come up with reason why such arguments should be taken seriously; then you’ll have to explain what that has to do with moral respectability.
I have written extensively about arguments which people offer for the existence of gods.
True. I use the actual definition of narrow-mindedness and you use… something else entirely which you don’t explain or justify.
That would explain why you make random claims which you can’t or won’t support. So tell me, if you are uninterested in having any moral or intellectual respectability, why do you expect anyone to take seriously anything you think or write? Indeed, why bother expressing any sort of opinion at all since it can’t be one or your aims that any of those opinions have any sort of moral or intellectual soundness?
And I think that by support my claims and accusations, I achieve it.
if you don’t take anything i say seriously why do you even bother replying to my posts?
i think it’s cos there is something about your personality that will argue over anything.
anyway, so if i say i believe that god doesn’t exist, what would be your argument against that?
also, you talk about empirical evidence a lot which seems to be the foundation for all your arguments. so i ask you this, do you believe that just because something cannot be explained scientifically today, that it won’t be explained scientifically in future?
It’s amusing. It’s rare to encounter someone who so clearly and unambiguously disclaims any interest in establishing an intellectually or morally serious position.
That’s a pretty poor response to having the absurdness and irrationality of your statements pointed out. Perhaps it’s easier for you to just complain about my personality than it is to give a serious, critical review to your own positions.
The fact is, though, that nothing you say about me — even if true — will manage to validate or justify anything you believe. This is why such complaints are logical fallacies.
If you don’t believe for silly reasons, I’d point out that silliness.
No. But of course, that requires having an verified event — an event which can be verified to have actually happened and which cannot be explained according to natural processes we currently understand. Nothing you’ve brought up thus far qualifies. So far you have had nothing but legends which you believe for absolutely no reason you can cite.
the legends i dont believe myself either. i just think we should not dismiss legends so easily.
empirical evidence is also the foundation of my belief system and thats why i am agnostic, and not a muslim. but i just believe one day, we will scientifically prove that god exists. and eitherway, it doesnt matter who is right as long as we dont upset each other.
also, i apologise if i wasted your time. maybe i should learn not to argue with people who are intellectually far superior than me.
That has things the wrong way around: what you need are good reasons to take them seriously in the first place. The burden of proof lies first and foremost with those claiming that some fact is true or that some event has happened; acceptance of such claims should be commensurate with the amount of evidence and support provided.
Why?
ok fair enough. virgin marry for example. i dont believe she was a virgin obviously but i like it that it promotes young women to control their desires. kids without fathers aren’t exactly the pillars of society.! there are many examples of how torat, bible or koran can be a great guideline to people who are lost in life and have no direction. in an ideal world, everyone would have a good education and learn these commonsense stuff at school, and that way religion would not be needed and bad guys wouldnt have the chance to use religion. but we dont live in the ideal world. i have no problem with all your points, they are sound and logical but if you are promoting atheism, i think it wud be a good idea to change your tone because it is very patronising.
as for your question .. why?
i believe science is in the very beginning of it s evolution. things that seemed impossible 1000 years ago, are now possible. people couldnt even imagine a plane or a phone many years ago, but now they are part of our daily lives. it s like time machine. it works in movies but not in reality, for the moment at least. and universe is such a complex place, us humans know only the tiniest percentage of info about it. anyway, i cant prove to you anything. you are obviously not going to take my word for it. so i suggest you find a really smart scientist who believes in god (maybe a string theorist) and have him explain to you why he believes god exists. because i dont think i have the power, the intellect or the will to convince you. and at the of the day, what you believe doesnt make any improvement in my life. it s your choice to be logical and it s my choice to be irrational.
Does it? It seems to me to promote virginity as an absolute good and ideal to strive for. That’s a lot more and a lot different from merely controlling desires.
The story of the virgin birth depicts a women having a child out of wedlock, you know.
In what way, exactly?
And why/how is this a reason to think that science will prove the existence of any gods? The mere fact that science progresses and improves might as well be a reason to claim that it will eventually prove the existence of elves or fairies — which is to say that it’s no such reason at all.
Almost all physicists are atheists, you know.
If it’s OK to believe things for totally irrational reasons, then you essentially say that any belief is OK, regardless of the degree to which evidence and logic refute it.
If you dismiss reason and evidence, then you dismiss any reliable means for separating true from false beliefs.
if you dismiss my belief on the evolution of science and that one day it might be able to prove god exists, then there is nothing else i can say to you. most scientists and academics that i know are agnostics but maybe its different in america. anyway, religion is a really heavy subject and frankly i dont care about who believes what as long as they are good people. i came to this blog to read about an atheist’s point of view. and your arguments are all very logical. but still you havent convinced me to become an atheist if that was your aim at all
on the other hand i havent read your other articles yet. so who knows.
you are a smart guy and i wish you all the success in your future endevours.
That’s only true if you recognize that this is a belief which cannot be supported by any appeals to evidence or logic.
You don’t seem to know that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
That’s not the goal of this site. Whether you are an atheist or a theist is far less important than whether you examine ideas skeptically and apply principles of critical thinking and logic to claims you encounter. A gullible atheist is worse than a skeptical theist.
i recognise that my belief cannot be supported by solid empirical evidence but i wouldnt say that it is not logical.
and i would appreciate it if you could explain more on what you mean by agnosticism and atheism is not mutually exclusive. because as far as i know, one believes in god and the other doesnt.
Well, you can’t support it logically.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. An agnostic is a person who doesn’t claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. This, however, is compatible with both belief and disbelief: an agnostic theist believes that some sort of god exists, but doesn’t claim to know for sure that it exists (or maybe even what it’s like) whereas an agnostic atheist doesn’t claim to know that no gods can or do exist and doesn’t bother believing in any.
For every person, belief in at least one god of some sort is present in their minds or not; if so they are theists if not they are a-theists. There is no middle ground between the presence and absence of belief. You can read more here.
ok thanks for clearing that for me. as for virgin mary i just thought of a logical explanation. what if she and joseph were just fooling around and joseph’s love juice made its way to mary’s ‘chacha’. then she was like, oh sweet moses, what am i gonna tell my parents? then she just paid these 3 wise dudes to tell everyone a miracle just happened.. lol
Religion is for people who don’t understand science. Evolution can be supported by science, but there is no scientific evidence to support any religion.
I found the original piece, “Six Reasons to Believe” first, and I couldn’t help noticing that her blog didn’t have any provision for comments or challenges. She’s got a “Q and A”, but it’s just her questions and her answers. At least Austin Cline is brave enough to handle criticism, which is more than I can say about the original author. I salute you, sir!
I know for fact there is a god!!!!I used to be a severe alcoholic and pot smoker.I went to many churches over the years, apostolic,baptist and such.Id go to church just because my girlfriends made me go.then id go home and drink and smoke pot,never really believing in god.Until I was invited to a bible prophesy seminar at a seventh day adventist church and as the preacher was giving his testimony about how god has healed people of addiction he said if you have something in your life you want god to remove say that prayer now. I drank and smoked everyday for twenty-five years Im thinking no way can this be possible.But I thought to myself,OK If there is a god take away my drinking and pot smoking!As soon as I said that prayer I could feel my addiction lift like a ton of bricks had been lifted off my chest.I no longer have any desire to drink or smoke!! I am now a seventh-day adventist and very much a believer!!!
Hi… I’ve read the article above and some of the comments afterward. I have been a very questioning person in the various churches that I’ve attended. I do have some sort of a faith, but if there were any faith that could be described as “small as a mustard seed” it would be mine. I don’t have any proof, although of course it’s possible I could find some as I continue my searching… although I am striving to look for the truth and not the answer I would prefer because my mind and heart won’t allow me to lie to myself like that, and I believe that some people have faith that is blind – and some have non-faith that is blind. I will not be either of those people. I feel very lost and without purpose… I’m not sure if even atheism would cure it… many times I have looked in the mirror and stared at myself, and thought “this is all i am. this is all i am, ever was, ever will be” and the thought seemed to recoil against something inside me, a physical revulsion if you will, and yes, it is a feeling, and no, i don’t consider it proof, and no, it wouldn’t help anyone else with their faith and that’s what’s probably most frustrating about it, because i want to find a reason that is concrete and true, whichever side of the atheism-faith spectrum it lies on, but it IS one of the reasons why I have faith, if you could call it that. this isn’t an argument, although I’m sure someone will find something to argue with, and it’s okay if you do, it’s more my thoughts.
The so-called genius scientist once made the claim that the atom was the smallest particle in the world. They claimed, that it was a proven fact. Obviously, they were incorrect. Are the same scientist so arrogant to continue to regurgitate their incorrect ignorance again?? Of course they are… because they are soooo arrogant. We know that was a “incorrect” fact. You atheist want unequivocal proof of God… just because you cannot have it, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. You cannot prove your love for another person. Does that mean that love does not exist??? Or, do you atheist need scientist to prove that to you also?
“The so-called”
Ah, dismissiveness. We’re off to a great start.
“genius scientist once made the claim that the atom was the smallest particle in the world. They claimed, that it was a proven fact.”
It was the best information they had at the time. That’s how science works. Science and religion are the same in that they are stacks of paper attempting to describe how the universe works. They are different in that science not only accepts new information and rigorous testing… it demands it. Science is skeptical. Religion otoH, refuses any attempt to examine its claims. Religion is dogmatic.
“Obviously, they were incorrect. Are the same scientist so arrogant to continue to regurgitate their incorrect ignorance again?? Of course they are… because they are soooo arrogant.”
You are sooooo 14.
Science can admit its ignorance. Religion refuses.
” We know that was a “incorrect” fact. You atheist want unequivocal proof of God… ”
Says who? Not me.
But if you’re going to tell me your God wants me to do X and not do Y… yeah, i’m gonna ask run a credibility check on you. It’s more likely that YOU want me to do X and not do Y. i’ve had some form of contact with you, so it seems likely that you exist. i have an idea of what you think because you’re telling me. These gods of yours… nada. Not even a whisper or shred of evidence.
While it may be true that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, but it’s a pretty strong case.
“just because you cannot have it, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. You cannot prove your love for another person. Does that mean that love does not exist???”
The love does not exist anywhere but in my mind. It’s virtual, like an avatar in a video game. My love for my girlfriend is as real as it needs to be. i can prove it to myself by feeling it. i can’t prove it to anyone else, but so what? My love for her isn’t telling people they can’t get married, making them not eat pigs, blowing itself up on a school bus, or telling people they will suffer forever for what they did over the course of their short lives.
“Or, do you atheist need scientist to prove that to you also?”
Brush up on subject verb agreement. It should be in a 4th grade English text book.
#67,
Its a good thing you don’t desire to be morally and intellectually respected.
btw-Austin already is respected.
Toscani (84). Do you mean “The so-called genius scientist” or “scientists”? You begin the next sentence with “They”, which is plural. Please quote the reference which states that a scientist, or scientists, once made the claim that it was a proven fact, that the atom was the smallest particle in the world.
I think it is just a little arrogant for someone to call atheists arrogant, when he considers himself capable of assessing all science as “regurgitated incorrect ignorance”, and cannot even use correct 3rd Grade grammar properly.
I suggest that you get a 3rd, or maybe 2nd, Grade grammar book and refresh your memory about singular and plural words, and the use of a and an; your comments might seem a little more credible if you appear to be slightly more erudite…
Toscani (84). An old proverb states “He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; ignore him.”
Toscani (84). Please list several items of “regurgitated incorrect scientific ignorance”. Your statement implies that you are familiar with them. I think many, or most, atheists would like to be informed.
Toscani(84). Did you preach and run, as have all Fundies that I have asked for comments? Seems to be the standard operating procedure.
If you had the quote, I suspect you would be anxious to present it. This quote may exist, but I do not believe it was made by a scientist. Mathematicians work with proofs; scientists do not. Please prove me incorrect.
perhaps you should think about the fact that matter can not have just existed forever, something must come out of nothing. something must have caused everything
niall (91). Perhaps you should read a little elementary cosmology. It is possible, but certainaly not a fact, that matter can not have existed forever.
If “something must come out of nothing. something must have caused everything”. I assume this implies another Fundie proof of “God did it”. Possibly elementary quantum mechanics could shed a little light on “something must come out of nothing,…”. Virtual particles are particles that form out of nothing (vacuum fields analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles), exist for an extremely short time, and then disappear. These particles are real and have measurable effects. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle allows them to come into existence, but does not permit them to be directly observed.
Energy and duration are characterized by complementary uncertainties. There is always at every point in space and time, even in a perfect vacuum, an uncertainty in both energy and duration, and these two (2) complementary uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero simultaneously.
Putting it as simply as I can, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means that “something” can arise from “nothing” if the “something” returns to “nothing” after a time interval too short to be observed.
John 12
28 Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spoke to him.
It is about your choice.
Every one is protecting his faith.
Atheism is a faith as well.
Atheism is smart, but not wise.
Atheism is one of the spiritual filters to catch particles (people who don’t want to believe in God), and clean stuff (believers) gets cleaner.
Prove it.
Please show how.
Are you asking me to prove it?
Don’t you have a some kind of education? You can prove it easily without any help. Unless you don’t want to.
smart vs. wise? I think you already know the answer as well.
Yes, you made the assertion and it’s your obligation to support it.
It’s not my obligation to try to prove any random assertion that comes along, that obligation lies with the person making the assertion. I have neither the time nor the inclination.
This means you think it is “wise” to make assertions that you are unwilling or unable to support. You also seem to think it is “wise” to expect others to invest their time and energy trying to prove whatever assertions you happen to come up with.
Sorry, but that doesn’t qualify as either smart or wise. It’s exactly the opposite.
If you can’t support the claims you want to make, you should retract them — that’s the smart, wise, and mature thing to do.
Well, doesn’t look like you have time shortage!
I didn’t even need your reply.
The truth is that you (Austin Cline) can support any point of view based on your knowledge of religion and philosophy.
You can prove the existence or non-existence of anything.
In case you can’t- I’m glad I’m not your professor.
You have decided to believe in certain things. It’s about your choice.
I could give you few books to read, but I think you already familiar with them.
It didn’t help you first time.
Why, do you imagine that it takes very long to ask you to support your assertions?
So, you already knew that you had an obligation to support your claims but refused to do so anyway?
I’m glad you don’t teach philosophy, because you don’t know enough about it to even know where to start. For example, you imagine that one can “prove” anything, but you demonstrate a completely inability to even just support any of the claims you make. You demonstrate no abilities beyond simply being able to make claims, hardly a skill worth being proud of.
In fact, beliefs aren’t choices.
Or maybe I just disagree with your conclusion. It requires a significant amount of arrogance to imagine that one’s conclusion from a book are the only possible ones, such that anyone else who has read them and doesn’t agree with you must simply not have understood them.
Instead of wasting time posturing about what you think you know, why not invest just a few moments to demonstrate what you think you know and support your original claims.
Unless, of course, you can’t and know this but just aren’t able to admit it. As far as I can tell, you’re in way over your head: you don’t seem to know anything about atheism and so can’t even begin to explain your ideas about it. I’d be happy to help you learn about atheism, but it would be a waste of my time unless it were clear that you actually had some interest in learning new things and engaging in substantive discussion.
The first requires asking sincere questions and the second requires and ability to support one’s claims, neither of which you have demonstrated here.
shut up.
I was born,raised and taught by atheists.I was most of my life an atheist. You don’t have anything new to tell me about it.
On the other hand I would gladly tell you more about God.
The problem is that all you smartness,experience and knowledge will not help you to understand God.
Even within this forum you had enough testimonies of different people about God.
You just can’t get it. You miss the point every time!
Ask God to show Himself to you.
It’s your only chance.
Good work Austin,
In all the religious debates I’ve seen, I’ve yet to see a decent argument for the existence of god. I had high hopes for the Reverend Al Sharpton, but Hitchens took him out without breaking a sweat. Sadly, there isn’t a single one here, either, however, I did enjoy that Yakki fellow…
Religion has always, and I include all religions, past and present, struggled with credibility. Even in the very beginning, someone must have grunted “That lion is sacred? Are you sure about that?” only to have been grunted down by a few others.
In the past centuries all faiths have be under increasing pressure to justify their existence. They are pitted against the staggering volume of empirical evidence, produced by advances in all fields of science, which are either inconsistent with, or contradictory to their teachings. For the clergy, containment was easier 400 years ago when they just put those pesky scientific types to a slow and painful death, burnt the offending documents, rewrote science and carried on with the status quo, but fortunately that’s not an option for them these days. At least not publicly. In North America.
It’s a doozy of a problem, isn’t it? If the various holy books are correct, much of this scientific evidence must be wrong, yet the conclusions of science have moved beyond deniability. Religion and science are a square peg and a round hole. To many, this is an indication that religion is looking through the wrong end of the telescope, but not to those who remain true to the definition of faith. They adapt.
Evidence of that is recently the Pope chose to acknowledge Darwin’s evolution as fact, albeit as an incomplete theory. I don’t disagree with that, but I found it interesting that the Pope was careful to add that Darwin’s theory was only a part of a larger, yet undiscovered theory that must include both Darwin’s evolution and god. It took over 150 years to get that far, but it’s a start…
However, Islam still has some way to go. According to IslamOnline.net today, “it’s a plain fact that what the Darwin theory wants to prove runs in sharp contrast to the divine teachings of Islam, and even to all the teachings of all heavenly revealed religion. “ I think they’re going to be a tougher nut to crack…
Faith in any religion puts you in some level of conflict with all known fields of science and understanding. I can hear the faithful saying “I can offer a divine resolution to many of these conflicts”. I’m sure they can. People have been sparring verbally, and otherwise, over this for thousands of years.
There is only one explanation that is consistent with all historical and archeological discoveries, all known social and biological evolution, all fields of science and understanding, and explains the existence and persistence of all religions. Man created his gods in his own image. Turning the telescope around makes all religious scientific conflict disappear and everything suddenly fits. It’s a miracle! opps. Sorry.. Blame that on my Catholic upbringing…
So why does mankind so desperately want to believe in gods anyway? The idea of a god is very powerful, but I think that for every religious person, if you dig into their lives and you will find a completely human, rational explanation for their willingness to accept and embrace the irrationality of religion. For some, the reason is close to the surface. An easy example is; I know people that believe in god because god promises them an afterlife. These people lost a parent at an early age and hold onto the hope they will see them again in heaven. They tell me they know it’s irrational, and a long shot, but they don’t want to accept they will never see them again. Other peoples reasons are much deeper and more complex, but every bit as human.
The point is; every person that believes in a god has their own personal reason for doing so, and all of them can be explained within the framework of human understanding. No gods required.
Austin, You obviously are very intelligent, But, your intellect is getting in the way of finding God’s mysterious truth. Sometimes one has to jump out in faith before the truth will set you free. It is apparent to me that you are a very unhappy person, who fights and has little, if any, inner peace. You, and all other atheists, need prayer in order to be shaken out of your intellectual stupor.
God will not reveal Himself to you until you drop your intellectual arrogance and pride, of that I am certain! I pray that the prayers of your loved ones and caring acquaintances will bring you around. That really may be your only hope! Give God a chance, for your own sake! Intellect isn’t everything and man is not God, but man does need God!
You mean, Odin? Or was that Apollo?
So, I have to have faith in Zeus first before I’ll see the truth of Zeus?
Right, because you know me so well.
If you can presume to know that I am unhappy and need to be prayed for, can I presume that you are unintelligent and need someone else to do the thinking for you?
So, I need to be dumb before I see God?
So, you’re going to pray that other prayers will make me dumb enough to become like those doing the praying?
“Have hope, not knowledge” is your mantra, is it?
Or do you mean for your sake, so you aren’t burdened by seeing smart people living good, happy lives without your god?
Like man needs elves.
Give God a chance, for your own sake! Intellect isn’t everything and man is not God, but man does need God! — Mauna on April 11, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I can see that this is a matter of great urgency for you. So urgent, in fact, that you will post one time and never return to see whether your words had any effect or if anyone had a response.
But if you ever do return, please answer this question: the last time you had a clogged sink, did you simply pray for it to unclog, or did you call a plumber?
March 28, 2008 at 9:30 am (24) yakki says:
Note: if you still have more questions about the matter, I would urge you to start walking the same line with me. That’s the requirement for the next session. No reaction shall you get from me unless you are willing to walk together.
I lol’d
In a more serious vein:
Austin,
Thank you. I would call myself an agnostic theist by your clarification (I hadn’t really understood the distinction until now.) I am against controlling (or attempting to control) others’ actions based on my religious belief as well as being against others doing the same to me. I appreciate you being able to put things so succinctly and logically.
Anyway, my definition of “God” involves a being who is inherently not bound by the rules of the universe (maybe multiverse – I don’t know about the scale,) so it would be, by definition, impossible to prove or disprove the existence of said being. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that any such being has interfered in the universe since the Planck time, and very possibly not before then. In summation:
I do not know if God exists, but choose to believe that he(she/it/etc.) does. However, I will freely admit that this is not based on anything more than personal preference. I do not actually believe that I or anyone else should act any differently based on this information, leading me to question whether I believe in God, per se.
This raises the question:
My question for you: How would you describe that? Is my label of agnostic theist relevant here?
On a sidenote, if you disagree with my definition of God or assumptions based off that, let me know. I haven’t found much on this point of view, so I’ve been making it up as I go along, and am flexible.
This would suggest a “God” that has never had any sort of impact or effect on the universe.
How would you distinguish the “existence” of such a being from its nonexistence? If you can’t — and I don’t think you can — then why believe or say that it exists?
Does it make sense to believe that certain objective propositions are true or false based solely on personal preference? If you think so, is this a standard you apply broadly (i.e., and objective proposition can legitimately be believed true or false simply because you prefer it and regardless of any evidence) or to some narrow subset of propositions?
Yes, I think so. You believe so you’re a theist. You don’t claim to know for sure, so you’re an agnostic. Everything else after that is ultimately secondary to the definition (even if they seem to follow logically, like not being interested in forcing anyone to agree).
How would you distinguish the “existence” of such a being from its nonexistence? If you can’t — and I don’t think you can — then why believe or say that it exists?
I can’t. I like the concept of a God, and since it is defined to be unprovable either way, I don’t really know how I could treat it as an objective problem, so I treat it as subjective. Yet if it doesn’t matter, is that even believing in anything?
Does it make sense to believe that certain objective propositions are true or false based solely on personal preference? If you think so, is this a standard you apply broadly (i.e., and objective proposition can legitimately be believed true or false simply because you prefer it and regardless of any evidence) or to some narrow subset of propositions?
I only apply it to objective propositions that are (or at least seem to me to be) completely unapproachable logically. I don’t know of any others that would fall into this category.
Then when you say “it exists,” you aren’t expressing anything more meaningful than when someone says “it doesn’t exist.”
Why?
I like the concept of being a multi-billionaire, but I don’t believe I am.
Don’t you define it in an unprovable way precisely to avoid hard questions and challenges about it?
But it’s only “unapproachable logically” because you have deliberately chosen to make it that way. You have effectively created a category of propositions for you to believe without having to hold them to the same standards as you know you should with all other propositions.
Exactly. You’ve singled out this one proposition for special exemptions.
But once you do it with one proposition, there’s nothing stopping you from doing it with others.
Then when you say “it exists,” you aren’t expressing anything more meaningful than when someone says “it doesn’t exist.”
This is completely true.
I like the concept of being a multi-billionaire, but I don’t believe I am.
But you are provably not a multi-billionaire.
Don’t you define it in an unprovable way precisely to avoid hard questions and challenges about it?
But it’s only “unapproachable logically” because you have deliberately chosen to make it that way. You have effectively created a category of propositions for you to believe without having to hold them to the same standards as you know you should with all other propositions.
You’ve singled out this one proposition for special exemptions.
But once you do it with one proposition, there’s nothing stopping you from doing it with others.
I define it that way because that’s what I understand “God” to be if “God” exists. And what hard questions would there be if I redefined “God” and then believed there wasn’t one? This is the only way for a god to exist – any provable definition would be, in my opinion, proven wrong. From the evidence currently available, either there is a god like this or there isn’t one at all – I don’t know and like to think there is, you don’t know and don’t think there is. How is there a difference between the two?
Then you could say “it doesn’t exist” and communicate the same thing. So why don’t you say that?
Only if I choose to regard the issue as logically approachable. I could, however, arbitrarily decide that it’s logically unapproachable.
And like I said, you choose to define “God” this way, thus you only “understand God” this way because you have made the choice to do so. It’s not a choice you had to make. Ergo, you are responsible for the definition as well as everything that follows from it. Being responsible means you must be able to answer for those choices — defend, explain, and justify them.
I didn’t say you should. The hard questions at issue are those which ensue from not choosing to find ways to exempt a particular concept from the normal standards. You might want to look up the fallacy “Special Pleading.”
So you say. But, you offer no reason to think so. All I see is someone making up a definition for a concept that is tailor-made to exempt that concept from reasoned critique and empirical evaluation. Coincidence? That’s not plausible — it’s something that believers do all the time. You’re just more obvious about it.
I’m flabbergasted and amazed that you would ask such a question. You clearly answered it yourself. You deliberately and consciously typed in the answer with your own fingers, but you still asked me.
Here, let me repeat back to you your own words. This time, I’ll highlight the answer:
Not only did you type in the answer, but it’s something I address specifically earlier.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t choose to believe things simply because I like them. I don’t single out concepts that I like and deliberately find ways to exempt them from the same rational analysis that everything else is subjected to.
Indeed, as a rational adult I can’t “choose” beliefs at all — I can only believe that something is true when there is good reason for it. I can no more “choose” to believe their are fairies in my basement than I can choose to believe in any sort of god, no matter how many convenient definitions apologists come up with.
In the end, my desires just aren’t relevant. Reality doesn’t conform to what I want to be the case — nor does it conform to what you want. Neither gods nor fairies exist just because people want them to and this means it’s not justified to believe they exist just because people want them to.
Honestly, it’s far more rational and sensible to believe a god exists because you think there is good empirical evidence for its existence than to believe simply because you like the idea and want it to be true.
Fair enough.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t choose to believe things simply because I like them.
Then why do you believe that there isn’t an unprovable, non-interfering god? Do you have empirical evidence? Is there a logical approach?
It has come to my attention that as I am making the positive claim that is farther from observed evidence, I bear the burden of proof. I would still like to hear your rational reason for believing that my claim is false (as opposed to not believing my claim is true) but I drop the claim that they are the same.
Actually, it is anyone making an empirical claim who bears the burden of proof. Being removed “from observed evidence” has no bearing on the matter (except that it likely makes the job harder).
It’s curious that you admit to having the primary burden of proof after explaining that you have defined “God” in a manner that appears specifically designed to exempt it from any need for logical or empirical support. It’s also curious that you would then proceed to try to shift that burden to me…
I never claimed that it is false. You, however, readily admitted that your claim communicates the exact same thing as the opposite claim — in other words, your affirmation of the proposition is identical to the denial of the same proposition. If you know that what you are saying is equivalent to saying “it doesn’t exist,” then you are the one who has stated that your claim is false. True, you didn’t use those words, but you admit that the words you do use are equivalent to that.
Yet, I’m the one who should give “rational reason” for something that you have stated?
What I will say is that your claim is incoherent and nonsensical. In any situation where the claimant admits that the affirmation and denial of their claim are equivalent, with no means for differentiating them, then they are admitting that they aren’t claiming anything meaningful, sensible, rational, logical, or worthy of consideration.
Indeed, it’s arguable that they are making a case for their own irrelevance because anyone who admits to believing such a proposition is admitting that neither logic nor evidence need play any role in their empirical beliefs — and that’s simply not a person who can be taken seriously. I don’t think that’s what you want, but that’s definitely the path you’ve adopted.
No, there isn’t empirical evidence because you haven’t made an empirical claim — on the contrary, you appear to be deliberately framing your position in a manner designed to avoid anything empirical so you can hold on to the idea of a “God” while stripping it of all content, meaning, and relevance. You appear to recognize that as soon as you invest the word “God” with anything meaningful or coherent, you’ll suddenly be faced with an obligation to support claims about it with substantive arguments, evidence, and logic. The only way to avoid this is to keep use of the term as vague and empty as possible.
Is there a logical approach? Absolutely: empty, vacuous claims about empirical reality are to be avoided because they are ultimately empty, vacuous, meaningless, and irrational. If you assert the truth of some proposition and then realize that it’s impossible to differentiate between the proposition’s truth and its falsehood (or, put another way, all possible situations are equally compatible with the proposition’s being true and it being false), then the proposition must be dropped because it’s not communicating anything meaningful or sensible about reality — and that is supposed to be the point of such claims.
But is that really your point or purpose? Are you really trying to communicate something about reality — about the universe we all share? I question this. You use language that gives the appearance of being about reality (there “exists” some “God”), but when pressed to explain suddenly everything is about you: what you want, what you desire, etc. That isn’t the appropriate reaction to questions about or challenges to empirical claims.
If I claim to have created a cold fusion device and you challenge me on that, it would be quite bizarre for me to start talking about myself and what I want. There’s no place for such responses. The only proper response — the response you would be expecting — would be to start pointing to empirical reality to support what I’m saying. In this case, I’d be pointing to very firm reality: an actual device which demonstrably produces energy through fusion.
Your case isn’t quite so simple, but the same general principle applies: you should respond by pointing to those features of our shared reality which at least suggest, if not clearly demonstrate that this “God” somehow “exists.” If you cannot give empirical content to the concept “God” and point to aspects of reality which make its “existence” more likely than not, then the assertion “God exists” simply has no value or meaning. You aren’t communicating anything about our shared reality or about “existence out there”.
I don’t believe empirical propositions for which there is insufficient evidence. You admit that this is the case with your claim. I don’t accept as meaningful, relevant, sensible, or rational claims which purport to be “empirical” but which are empty of any substantive, serious content. And that applies to your claim as well.
Ok, I’m not sure we’re understanding each other here, so let me attempt to rephrase:
I believe we will never find evidence of a god’s interference in this universe. Given that, I see two options:
1. There is no god
2. There is a god, but he hasn’t interfered since before we can determine such things (and thus is improvable)
How, then, does one decide between the two?
Why? Under some definitions of “god,” we should find such evidence — or the alleged god must be regarded as nonexistent So now we are back to you choosing an idiosyncratic definition of “god” which just happens to exempt it from any sort of empirical or logical testing. And I have to ask: why? What is the point is carefully creating a definition simply to avoid the possibility of testing the concept against the real world?
You’re making an error in #2: if you postulate a god which has never had any impact on any aspect of anything in the universe or the universe itself, such that the existence of this god is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, then for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist.
So there really is no decision to be made between the two. The first is the only appropriate choice because the second doesn’t communicate anything meaningful or substantive about reality. It adds nothing new or real to what is expressed in #1.
FYI, from a scientific standpoint, saying “X has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful,” is the equivalent of saying “X does not exist.”
Under some definitions of “god,” we should find such evidence — or the alleged god must be regarded as nonexistent So now we are back to you choosing an idiosyncratic definition of “god” which just happens to exempt it from any sort of empirical or logical testing. And I have to ask: why? What is the point is carefully creating a definition simply to avoid the possibility of testing the concept against the real world?
And I’m saying those gods are indeed nonexistent. I don’t believe in a god that did anything more than create and observe the universe.
FYI, from a scientific standpoint, saying “X has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful,” is the equivalent of saying “X does not exist.”
OK. I guess it is saying the same thing in a more roundabout way. “I don’t believe in a god that interacts with the universe” isn’t discernibly different from “I don’t believe in a god.”
Thanks for your help!
the reason to “BELIEVE” doesn’t exist!
the EXCUSES are INFINITE!
COWARDS and SLAVES believe, HUMANS know !
you want peace on this planet, stop protecting the slavers and their slaves, every time you respond to one of these morons you are protecting their belief, it causes them to BELIEVE their point is valid because you responded, which to them means it must have threatened you, thats why they respond to YOU, because your comment threatened their silly belief!
I’m sorry , but no matter how hard you try, you can’t educate those that CHOOSE retardation as a way of life!
the way to change things is not to try to change the minds of the CHOSEN ignorance, they have to be ignored, and those that would defend their position of stupidity need to be ignored until it is seen in the common world as a way to treat the ignorant!
you probably don’t get this, but you have to make it embarrasing to be stupid to fight stupidity, embarresment is the only thing the choosers of retardation fear, this may seem silly, but your fighting the stupid, not the intelligent, logic means nothing to the moron, their FEELINGS is all that matters, so the answer is very simple, NUKE their feelings, political correctness will not allow you to break their will, thats why PC is one of their tools!
the act of insulting them for moronic way of thinking, attack their psycology until they lose it and keep at them till their curled up in a ball wimpering like the brats they are!
this IS the only way to rid the world of the religious right and the dogma of retardation, simply put, Logic doesn’t work on the stupid, stop pretending they have the ability to think and Reason, they wouldn’t look for people to tell them what to do if they could!
So you don’t believe in any gods that are defined in such a way that their existence can actually be tested for and evaluated. You only believe in a “god” that you have defined in such a way that completely excludes the possibility of testing and evaluation. Convient, but also pointless, meaningless, and irrational.
So why bother? What’s the point? What do you think you are communicating when you say “God exists”? Near as I can tell, the only half-way meaningful or substantive you thing you’ve said about this “god” is that your belief is based on “personal preference” — it appear that you wish it existed. But to be honest, that’s not saying anything about this “god,” it’s saying something about you.
Not in any substantive, meaningful way.
The comments were more interesting than the article itself
People like Yakki, that ‘youngkid’ and Miranda kind of make me lose faith in humanity’s ability to listen to reason or logic.
Austin – you totally made my day! This website is awesome.
Question for both parties: What happens when/after you die? Not the corpse, the conscience mind.
While there are reasonable arguments for both sides- not necessarily represented here,mind you-most people’s opinions are not likely to change. We choose to believe what we choose to believe. And while there may not be a God, is it morally correct to plant doubt into a believers mind if you know that it will cause them discomfort? For some people, religion or belief in a higher power is a way of dealing with life. They may be wrong, there may be no god, no life after death, whatever. However, I believe that almost all people realize that it is important to be an upright, moral person throughout your life and if religion helps some people get through the day, who am I to ruin their way of life?
I am 16 so if there are any holes or contradictions in my argument feel free to respond.
Also to let you know from what position I am speaking, I am Roman Catholic but I understand atheism’s reasoning.
Just because you are closed-minded doesn’t mean you should assume others are.
Beliefs aren’t choices.
Yes. It is always morally correct to discourage self-righteous certainty when certainty is not warranted; and often when it does seem to be warranted.
And it’s not the only way of dealing with life.
Why assume that you will “ruin” a person’s life by depriving them of self-righteous certainty?
You didn’t make an argument, you made some assertions.
And what do you think “atheism’s reasoning” is?
I clearly get the feeling that the one person who says the last word is the winner of this discussion
Popular culture has created the presupposition that if you believe in a god, and in America this is generally a reference to the Christian God, then you cannot believe in evolution.
Yet why should this be so? I am a Christian and believe that God and Evolution can be reconciled without the need to deny one in order to accept the other. It seems that many of the commenters’ arguments assume that because they believe in evolution, they must therefore be atheists and don’t bother to consider God because they see the Bible as contradicting evolution, a firm belief they hold.
This doesn’t have to be so. I argue that the Bible was written as a book to communicate who God is and what he did. It wasn’t written as a scientific book that intended to guide science, and shouldn’t be taken as such.
Hence believing in evolution and believing in God can go hand in hand. Not every Christian is a creationist. And not every evolutionist is an atheist.
If nobody in the world belived in God or the absence of religion the world would be a caos, religion has reduce comunism and made people care for others and theres alot of evidence that God exist, ” look around you” nature is one of them.
Prove it.
Demonstrate that “nature” is evidence of your god.
If there is no God and He did not create human and the universe in the Genesis creation week, then how did people get there on earth? What was the cause? The Big Bang?? Never. It would burst up and scatter out everything apart. Evolution? Ah-ha. So you may be a father of a monkey or chimpanzee.
Of course, evolution is the central idea of biology, and biology is the unifying concept of all science.
“No origin of species would be possible except a special act of creation”. By the law of natural generation, descendants will always be the same species as the ancestors. By the bio-genetic law, living organisms are only produced by living organisms.
Prove it.
Feel free to demonstrate how that is “evolution.”
Prove it.
And what “law” is this?
Why are you just making up laws that don’t exist?
Everyone should believe in what he wants.
And everyone should also have to believe its free.
Or not?
Of course, evolution is the central idea of biology, and biology is the unifying concept of all science.
I would think that ordered systems would be a better “unifying concept of all science”
By the law of natural generation, descendants will always be the same species as the ancestors.
A. there is no law by that name. B. By that logic, there would be no hybrid species. such as mules, ligers, ect.
Everyone should believe in what he wants.
And everyone should also have to believe its free.
Austin Cline just successful shut down every single Christian argument presented. I am definitely someone who has battled with my faith and previously had the utmost belief in Christianity, but that is because I was conditioned to through my parents. Every argument that has been brought against Mr. Cline only proved my reasoning for not having faith. Every Christian arguing his/her faith on here just looks ignorant, because it is quite obvious that there is no retort or counter argument. It was even better reading the Christians whose feelings are hurt because Cline is correct. One very common statement made by the lost sheep of a barbaric religion used to control the masses in ancient times is the Bible has stood the test of time and doesn’t contradict itself. Most of the Christians that believe this have no idea what the apocrypha(when pertaining to the Bible) is, or for that matter what was conducted at the council of nicaea. The most obvious reason to me to not believe is what is in the Bible was originally hand copied. If one word was changed(assuming that specific sentence, paragraph, or book made it into the final cut) each time it was copied then we now currently have a completely different book. Remember the telephone game in elementary school?
I believe in god to those wwho dont they just dont know all the good stuff they’r missen
I have read all of your arguments and they are complete drivel. You get defensive on a regular basis and become argumentative with anyone who posts. In addition you claim that everyone needs to support their arguments fully, which you have not even accomplished yourself. When given the chance to prove your theories with a yes or no answer, you did not reply. Can you explain the “Big Bang”? No! Neither can I. So get off your high horse, because its quite apparent you don’t know everything. You don’t know anything just like everyone else.
For example?
If by “argumentative” you mean “ask challenging questions,” then yes I do that sometimes. Do questions upset you?
When have I failed to support an argument that’s been challenged?
Perhaps that’s because you can’t prove a theory by simply saying “yes” or “no,” so if anyone asks for that they are clearly too ignorant to bother with further.