Thread: A challenge for the Theist

Originally Posted by Bayside

I don't feel the need to have to prove my beliefs to anyone. I believe because I choose to do so, because I have faith, because of the curious way that life unfolds itself to me, and partly because of the way that I was raised. I don't believe in any specific God, I don't follow any specific religion. Faith is something that cannot be proved. However, your points of claiming that the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth however, are disproven by science. Science has not disproven God. There would be no reason to say that any kind of evidence contrary is simply made up, as I would not say that about any science unless it is debatable science that has still not been proven. Furthermore, before you question it, my way of seeing faith is that it's similar to a scientists hypothesis. Experiences in life lead one to believe one way or another, and you form a hypothesis on it. The only difference is that with science, you can actually attempt to confirm or deny your hypothesis. With faith, you just have to wait and see if it's right.

I don't see a point in not believing, I don't use it as a crutch for anything besides the fact that it helps me cope with loved ones deaths and whatnot while I'm still alive. It acts as a comfort, that helps me to live a better life. Why not believe in something that makes life easier for me, why not try to live a better life? It doesn't inhibit my life in any way either, as I don't believe in any strict set of moral codes given to me by any religion, I follow my own set of morals.

By the way, I didn't read the rest of the thread, I don't have time right now to....

So since it isn't falsifiable, it is therefore not only wrong, but one hell of a fork in the eye for anyone who wants to use logic, math, and reasoning in everday tasks.

Using faith and hypothesis in the same sentence... Tsk.

Faith is seeing the invisible bigfoot in a picture of a tree. The scientific method is seeing the bigfoot, and then realisze that the reason isn't because there really is a bigfoot in the phtotgraph, but that the shape and lighting of the trees makes you see a face that doesn't really exist.

But yeah, if you have faith you could always wait around and convince yourself that you are correct and simply shrug off any other explanation. After all, since you COULD be right, then that is a perfectly sound position, right?

You could have faith that the earth is actually growing, and that the moon is its offspring, or you could enroll in a geology class and see the ludicrous nature of the thought.

However, your points of claiming that the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth however, are disproven by science. Science has not disproven God.

Wow, you aren't in the right mode of thinking.

They weren't DIRECTLY diproven, we just showed, mathematically, that the earth was a round object, and that everything in the solar system revolved around the sun.

You can't simply prove that the earth isn't flat, you ahve to show that it is something else.

Science can't 'disprove' 'god' because god has no clear definition, and most people who believe in some form of it manage to twist the idea to the point where it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a valid idea.

Just as you cannot disprove that there is a magic, invisible unicorn at the center of the earth that causes the earth's rotation, you can, at the least, show that the Earth's rotation is caused by the law of conservation of angular momentum, and therefore not a unicorn, thus making the entire idea pointless.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So since it isn't falsifiable, it is therefore not only wrong, but one hell of a fork in the eye for anyone who wants to use logic, math, and reasoning in everday tasks.

What the hell are you talking about? How does believing in a God cripple you from using math, logic or reasoning? And how is it wrong? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Using faith and hypothesis in the same sentence... Tsk.

Faith is seeing the invisible bigfoot in a picture of a tree. The scientific method is seeing the bigfoot, and then realisze that the reason isn't because there really is a bigfoot in the phtotgraph, but that the shape and lighting of the trees makes you see a face that doesn't really exist.

This is a horrible analogy. Faith is like believing the Bigfoot is out there, because of the stories you've heard, and experiences you've been through. Science is actually trying to find the Bigfoot. Just because the Bigfoot cannot be found, does not mean it does not exist. For the longest time, people thought that the Earth was flat, because it could not be proved otherwise. Then science proved to us that it was round. Just because science cannot foresee a way that God fits into our world right now, does not mean that it doesn't. It simply means that we don't have the means to see it as of yet. You formulate a hypothesis that God exists, and then you seek answers, try to find a basis for your faith, the same way a scientist forms his hypothesis and tries to prove it with evidence. The only difference is that in faith, the evidence is not necessarily something tangible, not something that can be explained in conventional means.

But yeah, if you have faith you could always wait around and convince yourself that you are correct and simply shrug off any other explanation. After all, since you COULD be right, then that is a perfectly sound position, right?

Not at all. What about my faith makes me shrug off any other explanations? Any other explanations about what exactly? I think this is a baseless claim, you're just stereotyping me as a fanatic Christian who follows the Bible word for word, and lets it cripple his everyday life.

I don't have time to answer the rest of your shit right now, I'm going camping for a day or two to get stoned and enjoy life. How very crippling my faith is to my lifestyle, eh?

You could have faith that the earth is actually growing, and that the moon is its offspring, or you could enroll in a geology class and see the ludicrous nature of the thought.



Wow, you aren't in the right mode of thinking.

They weren't DIRECTLY diproven, we just showed, mathematically, that the earth was a round object, and that everything in the solar system revolved around the sun.

You can't simply prove that the earth isn't flat, you ahve to show that it is something else.

Science can't 'disprove' 'god' because god has no clear definition, and most people who believe in some form of it manage to twist the idea to the point where it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a valid idea.

Just as you cannot disprove that there is a magic, invisible unicorn at the center of the earth that causes the earth's rotation, you can, at the least, show that the Earth's rotation is caused by the law of conservation of angular momentum, and therefore not a unicorn, thus making the entire idea pointless.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Bayside

What the hell are you talking about? How does believing in a God cripple you from using math, logic or reasoning? And how is it wrong? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Because you are accepting an unproved, unprovable, and pointless idea as true, so then it's pretty hypocritical to use logic for anything else if you refuse to here.

This is a horrible analogy. Faith is like believing the Bigfoot is out there, because of the stories you've heard, and experiences you've been through.

How does this deviate from what I said? You believe it is there, is all that matters. It still isn't there, but you could still say that it is, we just haven't seen it yet

Science is actually trying to find the Bigfoot. Just because the Bigfoot cannot be found, does not mean it does not exist.

It also doesn't mean that it does exist, and makes the whole idea pointless. If you don't have a base, then you cannot discuss it.

For the longest time, people thought that the Earth was flat, because it could not be proved otherwise. Then science proved to us that it was round. Just because science cannot foresee a way that God fits into our world right now, does not mean that it doesn't.

Bad analogy, because here we proved that it was round and not simply that it wasn't flat, which is not exactly the same. What if the earth were a tetrahedron? Then it still isn't flat, but it isn't a sphere, either. This where you are misunderstanding. Nothing is disproved, you have to replace it. In this case, there is nothing that can replace the idea of god, and, since there is no proof for it, it is basically false. If you can come up with proof then that's wonderful-- That's the point of this thread. You're accepting an unproven hypothesis as fact and calling it faith and [somehow] using that as justification.

It simply means that we don't have the means to see it as of yet. You formulate a hypothesis that God exists, and then you seek answers, try to find a basis for your faith, the same way a scientist forms his hypothesis and tries to prove it with evidence. The only difference is that in faith, the evidence is not necessarily something tangible, not something that can be explained in conventional means.

Hypotheses are falsified, not proven. Faith is pretending to see something that isn't there because it makes you feel good.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Knowledge is all essentially superficial, as existence is endless and therefore all truth is meant to be forgotten.

Therefore we're collectively all knowing

We are connected, as all our particles constantly interchange between ourselves and the world around us, and as all existence is constantly flickering in and out of reality.

We are all one, we all know nothing, and yet everything. We are omnipresent, and omnipotent.

Well, that logically seems to follow.

Oh, wait. No.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Because you are accepting an unproved, unprovable, and pointless idea as true, so then it's pretty hypocritical to use logic for anything else if you refuse to here.

Most ridiculous comment ever.

Originally Posted by Bayside

Science can't 'disprove' 'god' because god has no clear definition, and most people who believe in some form of it manage to twist the idea to the point where it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a valid idea.

Just as you cannot disprove that there is a magic, invisible unicorn at the center of the earth that causes the earth's rotation, you can, at the least, show that the Earth's rotation is caused by the law of conservation of angular momentum, and therefore not a unicorn, thus making the entire idea pointless.

[/QUOTE]

exactly, the guide lines of how god functions are pretty loose, I think the church tells you at a certain age "if some one starts asking questions just tell them he lives in the invisible reams of the spirits, but still communicates with earth".

But the truth is, is that science does disprove any such thing as a "god" depicted by the christian and mormon churches.

Existence is defined as that which is composed of energy (including matter).

All that which is composed of energy can be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation.

God, by definition, cannot be observed, directly or indirectly.

Ergo, God is not composed of energy, and hence does not exist.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Existence is defined as that which is composed of energy (including matter).

All that which is composed of energy can be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation.

God, by definition, cannot be observed, directly or indirectly.

Ergo, God is not composed of energy, and hence does not exist.

You've got to be kidding. Sure, your premises support your conclusion, but those premises are themselves completely unsupported. You're basically just redefining terms to fit your argument.

unless this is a joke, in which case, whoosh.

Originally Posted by archdreamer

You've got to be kidding. Sure, your premises support your conclusion, but those premises are themselves completely unsupported. You're basically just redefining terms to fit your argument.

unless this is a joke, in which case, whoosh.

All you had to do is give 1 example of either 1) something that exists that is not composed of energy or vice versa, or 2) give an example of something composed of energy that is not observable.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

All you had to do is give 1 example of either 1) something that exists that is not composed of energy or vice versa, or 2) give an example of something composed of energy that is not observable.

Yeah, I could either have done that, or pointed out that your premises are completely unsupported. Look at them. You're just making shit up.

Originally Posted by archdreamer

Yeah, I could either have done that, or pointed out that your premises are completely unsupported. Look at them. You're just making shit up.

To prove that, you need to give 1 counter-example. Otherwise, what you're saying is unfounded. Or in other words, I disagree.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

To prove that, you need to give 1 counter-example. Otherwise, what you're saying is unfounded. Or in other words, I disagree.

How exactly is anything made of energy? What is energy?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How exactly is anything made of energy? What is energy?

The standard scientific definition.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

The standard scientific definition.

Which is...?

Energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that is an attribute of objects and systems that is conserved in nature. In physics textbooks, energy is often defined as the ability to do work or to cause change.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Most ridiculous comment ever.

Let me simplify:

If you refuse to use logic to come to a conclusion in situation A, because you do not like the conclusion drawn from it, then how can you justify using it in situation B, which is used in a rebuttal to your conclusion from situation A?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that is an attribute of objects and systems that is conserved in nature. In physics textbooks, energy is often defined as the ability to do work or to cause change.

You just completely skipped around that question. Everyone knows energy can be changed or created from activity, hence, metabolic energy, kenetic energy, potential energy. The question is where does energy come from? and I don't want to hear nuclear reactions from the big bang initiating in star systems.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

You just completely skipped around that question. Everyone knows energy can be changed or created from activity, hence, metabolic energy, kenetic energy, potential energy. The question is where does energy come from? and I don't want to hear nuclear reactions from the big bang initiating in star systems.

Let's save the R/S board from going over this point again:

Common Critical Thinker - I don't don't know where energy and matter came from, do you?

ShadowNightWing - I know, (I assume) it was god!

CCT - Who created god then?

SNW - (I assume) He doesn't need to be created/He created himself/etc.

CCT - Why not save a step and assume the Universe, which you already know that exists, has that/those quality/ies?

SNW - Err...

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Existence is defined as that which is composed of energy (including matter).

All that which is composed of energy can be proven to exist by direct or indirect observation.

God, by definition, cannot be observed, directly or indirectly.

Ergo, God is not composed of energy, and hence does not exist.

Wow, yes, this makes perfect sense. I can't even think of how to tell you how this does not apply here at all, and how this comment is completely stupid, but I just can't seem to put it in words. Using human invented definitions to disprove God, just does not make sense.

I have a cat.
A cat is defined as a four legged animal with a tail.
Therefore, my cat must have four legs, and a tail.
However, my cat was hit by a truck, and now only has three legs.
Therefore, my cat is not a cat.

The logic just doesn't seem to follow through here.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Because you are accepting an unproved, unprovable, and pointless idea as true, so then it's pretty hypocritical to use logic for anything else if you refuse to here.

No, it's not hypocritical at all. First of all, humans are adaptable creatures. What applies in one situation, does not apply in all situations. Take love for example. When people are in love, logic goes out the window, a person can become hysteric, unpredictable, and behave in ways that make no logical sense to others around them. I use logic where it's applied. I don't use scientific methods or logic when I'm writing a song, or painting a picture, or dreaming, or doing anything creative.

Why is the idea of God pointless, and why is it unprovable? My earlier point was, many years ago, people were unable to prove that the Earth was flat. Now we can. Who says science can't someday prove or disprove God? Or perhaps science won't even be needed. God does not have to follow any rules of logic that make sense to a human being, God can be completely out of a human beings realm of thinking, the same way a dog cannot see colour, or a human cannot breathe underwater as a fish does. Just because it isn't fathomable to us now, does not mean it can't exist.

You just don't seem to understand this point, and I don't think I could possibly explain it any more clearly. You're just going to go back to the same point of "It can't be proved or disproved, therefore it is false."

Guess what? Science isn't definitive either, by the time a physics textbook is written, edited, printed and distributed, half of the information in it has already been proven to be inaccurate and changed. What seemed to be true yesterday, no longer is. We can't prove why gravity works, it just does. No theories around it can be proved, that doesn't make gravity false, it just means we don't know how it works yet.

How does this deviate from what I said? You believe it is there, is all that matters. It still isn't there, but you could still say that it is, we just haven't seen it yet

And you know it isn't there how? I'm not saying I do know it's there. I'm saying it's a possibility. You're just as narrow-minded as the people whom you criticize by saying there is no God. They're convinced that there is a God, and mock you for not believing in it. You on the other hand, are convinced there is no God, and mock them for believing in it. You're like a logical equivalent, just on the other end of the spectrum, only you're more of a dick about it.

It also doesn't mean that it does exist, and makes the whole idea pointless. If you don't have a base, then you cannot discuss it.

Yes, I can, because I am, and I do, and if you don't like it, well that's too bad for you. Why is it so hard for you to see that just because you can't prove it or disprove it, does not mean one cannot believe in it? And tell me, how is the idea pointless, in any way? Even if in the end, it turns out to be false, it has still helped me to live a better life anyhow. It's brought me comfort in my life, and what's wrong with a comfortable life? If it works for some people, why not let them have it? It's like giving painkillers to someone who's in pain, why the fuck wouldn't you? It's not going to kill them, and it's not going to do anything but make life easier and better overall, so what's wrong with it? I could just as well say that it's pointless to be an Atheist, using your logic.

Bad analogy, because here we proved that it was round and not simply that it wasn't flat, which is not exactly the same. What if the earth were a tetrahedron? Then it still isn't flat, but it isn't a sphere, either. This where you are misunderstanding. Nothing is disproved, you have to replace it. In this case, there is nothing that can replace the idea of god, and, since there is no proof for it, it is basically false. If you can come up with proof then that's wonderful-- That's the point of this thread. You're accepting an unproven hypothesis as fact and calling it faith and [somehow] using that as justification.

No, it is not false just because you say it is, sorry to tell you. And why the hell would you make a thread about finding proof for a God? Obviously there is none that is going to pop up in an internet forum. If it was out there, everyone would already know about it, it's not a secret that's hiding with some guy living in his parents basement in Ohio or some shit. And yes, I am using an unproven hypothesis and using it for justification. That's what people do for science as well. You take your hypothesis, and you attempt to either prove or disprove it. What's the difference? I'm not seeing your point here.

Hypotheses are falsified, not proven. Faith is pretending to see something that isn't there because it makes you feel good.

I don't pretend to see anything. I hope that someday I will see something, and then my faith would be confirmed. Your point is baseless, faith is not pretending to see anything, faith is like letting yourself fall into the arms of a friend, you hope they're there when you let yourself fall, you don't know for sure, and you don't pretend to know, you just have faith that they are your friends, and they will catch you.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

You just completely skipped around that question. Everyone knows energy can be changed or created from activity, hence, metabolic energy, kenetic energy, potential energy. The question is where does energy come from? and I don't want to hear nuclear reactions from the big bang initiating in star systems.

The total energy of the (observable) universe is a fixed quantity held by the singularity that spawned the big bang. No process in the history of the universe has ever changed this quantity. Where did it come from? No way to tell, not even in principle.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

The total energy of the (observable) universe is a fixed quantity held by the singularity that spawned the big bang. No process in the history of the universe has ever changed this quantity. Where did it come from? No way to tell, not even in principle.

All I wanted to know is the bolded statement. The rest, I've already explained it.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that is an attribute of objects and systems that is conserved in nature. In physics textbooks, energy is often defined as the ability to do work or to cause change.

How can an object consist of one of its attributes? How exactly is anything made of "the ability to do work or cause change"?

He's talking about energy mass equivalence. Nuclear power stations convert mass into energy which is then used to do work. It's also why the sun is hot...

You just completely skipped around that question. Everyone knows energy can be changed or created from activity, hence, metabolic energy, kenetic energy, potential energy. The question is where does energy come from? and I don't want to hear nuclear reactions from the big bang initiating in star systems

The amount of energy in the universe has always been the same throughout the whole of time, so there was never a point at which any was 'made'.

Yeah, I could either have done that, or pointed out that your premises are completely unsupported. Look at them. You're just making shit up.

Uh he's really not.

Although I would disagree, specifically with the second statement I suppose. We personally cannot observe much of the universe. However it exists. For example, specific stars or planets on the other side of the universe; or dark matter/energy. Even if we could, it would be an assumption to say the universe is all that exists; if we were locked securely in a concrete room from birth, it would not be correct to posit that all that exists is your concrete room and everything in it. Personally, in the same way that we can logically but not directly deduce the existence of dark matter, we can also deduce that it is probable that there are many universes with different conditions, although the science is currently on shakier ground (I'm talking about fine tuning).

But the truth is, is that science does disprove any such thing as a "god" depicted by the christian and mormon churches.

You do not understand the scientific method at all.

The scientific method says that anything that can be reliably observed exists. It does not say that anything not observed does not exist.

I give Xei 10 points for that post.