View this page "The Support of the Premise "No god exists" via the Sci

[rappoccio]

Click on
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[Drafterman]

FYI, I authored this, but the pages are locked so I asked Rapp to
post. Thanks rapp!

On Mar 17, 2:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...

[rappoccio]

Yes, I don't know how to get around this. I gave the credit on the
first line. Does anyone know how to do this in a better way?

[Drafterman]

Opening the pages invites vandelism. Maybe we could have a periodic
"Open pages" day or time where the restriction is removed temporarily,
then closed again. A little work on you and OldMan's part, but maybe
better then personally vetting everyone's submissions.

> > > work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 17, 2:21 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I don't know how to get around this. I gave the credit on the
> first line. Does anyone know how to do this in a better way?
>

Another way is to post in files and then attach the link to a regular
post.

This will work with everything except RTF and DOC files.

There are lots of free HTML editors around to create a basic HTML
page.which only contains Text.

Instructions could be put in Pages or in the FAQ.

[OldMan]

On Mar 17, 11:21 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I don't know how to get around this. I gave the credit on the
> first line. Does anyone know how to do this in a better way?

As Trance suggested earlier, he could post as a File and then start a
thread to reference it. The Files are not editable, which is the
problem we are having with them now.

>
> On Mar 17, 1:19 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > FYI, I authored this, but the pages are locked so I asked Rapp to
> > post. Thanks rapp!
>
> > On Mar 17, 2:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...
> > > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

[Simpleton]

On Mar 17, 11:21 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I don't know how to get around this. I gave the credit on the
> first line. Does anyone know how to do this in a better way?
>

This is fine. I saw it rightaway.

> On Mar 17, 1:19 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > FYI, I authored this, but the pages are locked so I asked Rapp to
> > post. Thanks rapp!
>
> > On Mar 17, 2:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...
> > > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

[Simpleton]

On Mar 17, 11:17 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...

> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> work.

Good post D Man.

I'd like add a couple of sentences:

Often the debate starts with the cosmological premise:

Either the universe was caused or uncaused.


The probability being assigned to

A. The universe was caused

or

A'. The universe was not caused


is 50-50.


And then it goes downshill.


B. The universe was caused by God.

B'. The universe was not caused by God

Which is still held at 50-50 for some obscure reason.

...


Z. The universe was caused by a three-in-one god, born of a virgin
impregnated by himself, who killed himself on the cross to spare his
own creation from his own wrath

Z' The universe was not caused by a three-in-one god, born of a
virgin impregnated by himself, who killed himself on the cross to
spare his own creation from his own wrath

and still held at 50-50 to often argue that atheism requires as much
faith as Christianity.

When it should be obvious from A and B

that if the "universe was caused" is at 50%, and "universe is caused
by God" is still at 50%, then God has a specific value.

0

[Dag Yo]

Good stuff rapp, perhaps i'll make one of my own some day.
------

Might I suggest you make one as well simpleton, I like your ideas.

-

[rappoccio]

Okay, will do this in the future.

[Trance Gemini]

This was excellent. Crystal clear description of the argument.

Thanks! And thanks for adding it to Pages so we can use it as a
reference.

[rappoccio]

Great post, Drafterman.

This really highlights the fact that not believing in God is the more
rationally valid hypothesis. Implicit to this discussion is Bayesian
inference, which gives a prescription to calculate the probability
given each measurement of a given result. So as time goes on, we are
more and more certain that if there is a God, then that God does not
interact with us. As you say, a single disproof of this would suffice
to falsify the notion that "There is no God". Theists of course claim
that this exists via historical events with "eyewitness" testimony (of
which there is seemingly only one actual eyewitness that everyone else
plagiarized). We can apply similar methods to examine this
"eyewitness" testimony to determine its veracity in and of itself. The
results are inconclusive, of course, to the degree necessary to make a
universal determination. Therefore it is neutral (i.e. adds a Bayesian
probability of zero) to both hypotheses "God exists" and "God does not
exist".

So the premise "God does not exist" is indeed sufficient to make
predictions about the universe about us, both in our everyday lives
and in scientific inquiry. The Bayesian probability of it being true
is very close to 100%. What is left is hope that God exists to right
the wrongs we perceive, but this is, at best, wishful thinking. There
is, therefore, no reason to act as if God exists. This "God" doesn't
impact us in any unambiguous way, doesn't offer actual clear
direction, instead intentionally confusing us and expecting us to stop
thinking and just believe, just because.... ummmm... because! In which
case, Epicurus has it right... why call this thing "God" to begin
with?

This is why I am an apatheist. Whether or not God exists is
irrelevant. There is no clear direction in our lives to begin with
from such a being, so it's pointless to act as if there is. I'm also
an agnostic with regards to a designer of the laws of physics since
there is no information possibly obtained in this particular arena,
and a strong atheist with regard to the God of the Bible, because the
Bible is absolutely false.

[Simpleton]

On Mar 17, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good stuff rapp, perhaps i'll make one of my own some day.
> ------
>
> Might I suggest you make one as well simpleton, I like your ideas.
>

Thanks, note that D Man, and not PhysicsBoy made the original post.

As for me doing something like that, I have done two so far, one
explaining the issue with Pascal's Wager, and another explaining what
proportionately and disproportionately means, with a suitable editing
hand lent by cathyb.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 17, 5:30 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great post, Drafterman.
>
> This really highlights the fact that not believing in God is the more
> rationally valid hypothesis. Implicit to this discussion is Bayesian
> inference, which gives a prescription to calculate the probability
> given each measurement of a given result. So as time goes on, we are
> more and more certain that if there is a God, then that God does not
> interact with us. As you say, a single disproof of this would suffice
> to falsify the notion that "There is no God". Theists of course claim
> that this exists via historical events with "eyewitness" testimony (of
> which there is seemingly only one actual eyewitness that everyone else
> plagiarized). We can apply similar methods to examine this
> "eyewitness" testimony to determine its veracity in and of itself. The
> results are inconclusive, of course, to the degree necessary to make a
> universal determination. Therefore it is neutral (i.e. adds a Bayesian
> probability of zero) to both hypotheses "God exists" and "God does not
> exist".

I've heard you mention this before and thought about mentioning it,
but it is a bit outside my expertise.

[Lawrey]

D Man,

Congratulations on a well produced and thoughtful incursion into
what appears to be Thomas Bayes territory. One would if reasonable,
need to concur with Rapp's, brief summation or at least the first
part.
However in line with Rapp's thought I would contend that since there
is no advance on the known facts, which may or may not imply
existence, it would seem to me, and please don't take this as in
any way derogatory, or by imputation critical of your excellent work,
but to introduce Bayes, or any other similar method into the
existence, or non-existence argument, puts the ordinary reader
into inappropriate and unnecessary avenues of theory and
complexity, likely to deflect them from the immediate issue of
existence or no; further adding and to boot, an unwanted decision
as to the accuracy and or validity of the theorem proposed; more
especially since the outcome is of no conclusive conclusion. To
which the knowledge that science already proceeds without
assuming gods exist, adds little or no credance to the exercise in
the first instant. Am I being overly pinerky? :)

[Drafterman]

I can't say, I'm not sure what you're saying here. But, uhm, thanks
for the compliment?

[Multiverse]

> The probability being assigned to
>
> A. The universe was caused
>
> or
>
> A'. The universe was not caused
>
> is 50-50.

I could be wrong but I have a different take on this. I would be
interested in what you or anyone thinks here.

My view:

The probability that the universe was caused is unknown. I see it
this way because arbitrarily assigning the value of 50-50 as in your
example, automatically assumes that exactly half the amount of ways
that a universe could have been created are via a cause. There could
be 1 million ways for a universe to come into existence via uncaused
methods and only 1 way for it to come into existence via caused
methods. Since all methods are not known, and specifically if the
universe could even be caused is not known, inserting numbers is no
better than a SWAG.

Assuming however, that only two options of:

A. caused

B. uncaused

The odds that a SWAG (scientific wildass guess) would result in the
correct selection is 50-50. These odds apply only to my SAWG since
one of the two is 100 % correct and the other is 100 % wrong, I have a
50-50 chance of selecting correctly. If all the possible ways for a
universe to come into existence were known, then we could further
define the odds. For example if 80% of the ways for a universe to
exist were uncaused and 20% were caused, we could lay odds of the SWAG
being correct as 80-20.

I have not read Drafty/s post yet but will get to it shortly.

Opinions?

[Drafterman]

Simpleton wasn't expressing his view. He was displaying a common
theist argument (that theism and atheism are equally true) and how
even that fallacious argument leads to a necessary contradiction if
taken as valid.

> > 0- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

Yes I see but I was just posting my simplified refute and was just
looking for comments. I guess I worded like it was his opinion but
that was incorrect. Nice work on your post btw.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[rappoccio]

On Mar 17, 5:04 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:30 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Great post, Drafterman.
>
> > This really highlights the fact that not believing in God is the more
> > rationally valid hypothesis. Implicit to this discussion is Bayesian
> > inference, which gives a prescription to calculate the probability
> > given each measurement of a given result. So as time goes on, we are
> > more and more certain that if there is a God, then that God does not
> > interact with us. As you say, a single disproof of this would suffice
> > to falsify the notion that "There is no God". Theists of course claim
> > that this exists via historical events with "eyewitness" testimony (of
> > which there is seemingly only one actual eyewitness that everyone else
> > plagiarized). We can apply similar methods to examine this
> > "eyewitness" testimony to determine its veracity in and of itself. The
> > results are inconclusive, of course, to the degree necessary to make a
> > universal determination. Therefore it is neutral (i.e. adds a Bayesian
> > probability of zero) to both hypotheses "God exists" and "God does not
> > exist".
>
> I've heard you mention this before and thought about mentioning it,
> but it is a bit outside my expertise.

It's basically the formation of modern (post Popperian) scientific
theory. We're unconcerned with the fact that a prediction has "only" a
99.9999999999999% of being true rather than 100.00000000000000% chance
of being true. Nothing whatsoever is 100% true, so it's not a
fundamental limitation.

[rappoccio]

Yes, for the layperson an introduction into Bayesian techniques would
in this case be superfluous.

[Lawrey]

Rapp,'

Quite!

The only point I was badly making, trying to stay polite and
diplomatic. Thanks.

> > the first instant. Am I being overly pinerky? :)- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Mar 19, 11:30 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Rapp,'
>
> Quite!
>
> The only point I was badly making, trying to stay polite and
> diplomatic. Thanks.

Ah, after re-reading I understand now!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simpleton]

That is quite correct. Assigning any probability to the universe
being caused or not requires either a guess or an estimate.

I simply examined the position many Christians in here often take to
claim that atheism is as irrational as Christianity, and the starting
point for them is supposedly agnostic one, i.e., unknown, or guessed
at 50-50. The purpose of the illustration was to show that even if
one took that starting position, the values *have to* change when
other unknown things are introduced and assigned probabilities in the
open interval (0, 1).

If one says that the chances of reaching LaGuardia is about 50-50 if
you encounter "light" traffic in the next five miles, then the chances
change if you not only encounter "light" traffic but a lane closure
due to repairs, *and* a stalled Pinto in the middle lane *and* a two
car accident on the outskirts of the airport *and*...

In other words, starting with a 50-50 probability might be fine to
retain an agnostic position, it ain't reasonable to remain at that
while additional probabilistic propositions are added.

[Keith MacNevins]

We are all just speculating when we offer opinions as to first causes. Whether theist or atheist, agnostic, mystic, or scientist. The best we can do is learn a great deal about how things work, and IMO to study what great thinkers think. For instance, the mystics of the major religions pretty much all agree that God is unfathomable to humans. But they certainly do agree that there is a God for the most part.Take it from there.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[WVProfessor]

Before you debate whether the universe was caused or uncaused you
should address the possibility that the null state (that is the state
of no universe) is not physical and thus impossible.
When working with physical laws it is best to move gradually from
known states to slightly different states. What strange discoveries
are lurking just beyond the reach of our instruments?
Try not to be an armchair scientist. Don't make up the rules. Go read.
You will stay busy.

[Keith MacNevins]

That sounds humorous to me. A state of reality with no matter is impossible, eh? Well, physically impossible I do suppose. Har, har. But for argument's sake let us imagine a universe that did not involve the existence of any matter. To whom would it matter?

--
Ambassador From Hell

[banev]

It is quite apparent that notion "exist" can not be applied to God as
it leads to an infinite recursion. The notion "God" must be degraded
down to "semi/sub-God" status to be in compliance with such quality as
"existence". The level of degrading is kind of arbitrary and can be
defined at will by believer.

--sb

On Mar 17, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI, I authored this, but the pages are locked so I asked Rapp to
> post. Thanks rapp!
>

> On Mar 17, 2:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

> > work.- Hide quoted text -

[Stonethatbleeds]

IF you can't deffine "God" before you even start... the rest is just
bullshit. With out God you do not even know what you are talking
about!
LOL

[Drafterman]

Perhaps you can be useful and offer an appropriate definition.

[zencycle]

From: "Stonethatbleeds" <fb...@ncf.ca>
Subject: [AvC] Discussion on
the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method

>
> IF you can't deffine "God" before you even start. the rest is just
> bullshit.

I can, and I'll use your words

"god .....is just bullshit"

[bertie]

I feel I must introduce the philosophical argument, rather than the
logical scientific argument here.
Existence exists. A is A. Existence cannot not exist, A cannot be B,
for A is A, always.
Existence cannot exist and not exist at the same time. A cannot be
both A and B, it can only be A. Existence exists, has always existed
and must always exist, and that means FOREVER.
Existence exists prior to consciousness, that is, consciousness is
born out of existence through existents.
Any existent, even a mythical one like god, cannot create existence
from nothing. Only an existent like man can create a mythical
existent, ie., a god or gods, or dragons, or ghouls, or souls, or
tooth fairies, or father xmas, or whatever.

[simonsaysbye]

O: "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of
the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"

So if I were to put the planet Jupiter near the surface of the Earth
it would accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2? What about an object of infinite
mass? What about a photon? In fact, all objects of different masses
will accelerate differently.

I'm all for the scientific method, don't get me wrong. But if it
actually is as good a method of describing the universe as you say it
is, we may as well get things right. It seems to me that there are a
possible infinite number of objects that negates O. Apply this
statistically if you like: the probability drops from approaching 100%
to approaching 0%. So what has the scientific method really
achieved?

[Drafterman]

On Mar 23, 9:50 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> O: "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of
> the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
>
> So if I were to put the planet Jupiter near the surface of the Earth
> it would accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2? What about an object of infinite
> mass? What about a photon? In fact, all objects of different masses
> will accelerate differently.

Actually that's incorrect. Objects near the surface of the earth will
accelerate at the same rate regardless of mass.

The force of gravity between two options is (G*m1*m2)/(r^2) where G is
the gravitational constant, m1 & 2 are the masses of the objects and r
is the distance between their centers of gravity. Now, in your example
Jupiter's large mass would inhibit bringing its center of gravity near
the center of the Earth, the Earth would be long destroyed before it
got anywhere near that. However, Newton showed that, for these
equations, we can ignore volume and simply treat an object as points.

So, for your Jupiter example our variables would be:

G = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
m1 (Earth) = 5.9736×10^24 kg
m2 (Jupiter) = 1.8986×10^27 kg
r (Radius of Earth) = 6.371x10^6 m

Inputting those values into our equation yields a force of:

18645564210356036408402823764.812 Newtons

To calculate the acceleration we use another equation:

a = F/m where a is the acceleration, F is the force and m is the mass.
In this case:

F = 18645564210356036408402823764.812 Newtons
m (Jupiter's) = 1.8986×10^27 kg

Using the above values we get:

9.8 m / s^2

Converted into imperial measurements (1 meter = 3.2808399 feet):

32.2 ft / s^2

Photons are different because they have no mass, yet still are
affected by gravity due to space-time warping. However, this requires
more complicated relativity equations.

But regardless, all objects near the surface of the Earth will
accelerate at 32.2 ft / s^2, regardless of mass, as Galileo showed
several hundred years ago.

In any event, my point was not about the acceleration remaining the
same independent of mass, but that the same object, if dropped, will
always accelerate at the same rate. That is, the consistency of
gravity is also at stake here.

>
> I'm all for the scientific method, don't get me wrong. But if it
> actually is as good a method of describing the universe as you say it
> is, we may as well get things right. It seems to me that there are a
> possible infinite number of objects that negates O.

It seems that you lack a real understanding of gravity at the surface
of the Earth since you think the rate of acceleration is dependent on
mass. Frankly, this is a intuitive mistake that has been proved false
for hundreds of years and is known by almost all students by the time
the graduate school. Before you go start claiming that there are
possibly an infinite number of objects that negate O, you should do
some research into the matter.

> Apply this
> statistically if you like: the probability drops from approaching 100%
> to approaching 0%. So what has the scientific method really
> achieved?

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I would ask that you
investigate the nature of what has been said here and then return.

[Drafterman]

I would just like to add that the truth or falsehood of the example I
used is irrelevant. I just picked something to illustrate the
*process*. The example is, admittedly, a simplification. Certainly
objects do not fall at exactly 32.2 ft / s^2, certainly in a
scientific sense I wouldn't be using imperial measurements, and
certainly I would have to define what I mean by "near the surface of
the Earth".

Indeed, using the process I highlighted, you could potentially prove
it false by using Einstein's equations rather than Newtonian mechanics
that the example was picked from. So, true or false, the process
holds.

So, using the process, can you disprove G?

[simonsaysbye]

Hi. Thank you for taking the time to correct any misconceptions, and
thank you for being polite about it! I am aware of Galileo's work
establishing that mass does not tha rate at which an object falls to
the earth's surface and I have a reasonable understanding of Newton's
law of universal gravitation. (I am also aware that strictly
speaking, GTR makes Newton's laws incorrect.) And it was very kind of
you to plug all those numbers in. The thing is, I was just picking up
your example and applying it to the universe as it really is. If you
actually got an object the size of jupiter it is very unlikely that it
would fall to earth at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. Agreed?

What is interesting is that in order to defend the scientific method,
you have already had to treat objects as having no volume. Once you
do that you are no longer dealing with objects in the same way.
Please note that I am not saying that doing so is woring or
irrational. But ... surely you find that interesting? Doesn't that
raise interesting questions about the ways we read and understand that
universe? What does this say to the meaning of the word 'objects' in
the statement "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the
surface of the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2" Usually an
object is considered to have volume, yes?

> > investigate the nature of what has been said here and then return.- Hide quoted text -

[simonsaysbye]

On Mar 23, 2:59 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would just like to add that the truth or falsehood of the example I
> used is irrelevant. I just picked something to illustrate the
> *process*. The example is, admittedly, a simplification. Certainly
> objects do not fall at exactly 32.2 ft / s^2, certainly in a
> scientific sense I wouldn't be using imperial measurements, and
> certainly I would have to define what I mean by "near the surface of
> the Earth".
>
> Indeed, using the process I highlighted, you could potentially prove
> it false by using Einstein's equations rather than Newtonian mechanics
> that the example was picked from. So, true or false, the process
> holds.
>
> So, using the process, can you disprove G?

Like you, I agree that the actual example given is irrelevant, but I
am intrigued by the epistimological assumptions that lie behind the
scientific method. Zeroing on a couple of particulars was meant to be
a easy way to do just that, nothing more.

PS I do believe in gravity.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 23, 11:38 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi. Thank you for taking the time to correct any misconceptions, and
> thank you for being polite about it! I am aware of Galileo's work
> establishing that mass does not tha rate at which an object falls to
> the earth's surface and I have a reasonable understanding of Newton's
> law of universal gravitation. (I am also aware that strictly
> speaking, GTR makes Newton's laws incorrect.) And it was very kind of
> you to plug all those numbers in. The thing is, I was just picking up
> your example and applying it to the universe as it really is. If you
> actually got an object the size of jupiter it is very unlikely that it
> would fall to earth at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. Agreed?

Yes because it's volume would get in the way. But this would prevent
it from being a valid test since other forces would necessarily get
involved (and thus not be an object falling under only the force of
gravity). Thus the only way to analyze it is to use an abstraction
where those other variables do not get involve, in which case it
passes the test with flying colors.

>
> What is interesting is that in order to defend the scientific method,
> you have already had to treat objects as having no volume.

No, you don't have to do that. I merely say that for Newtonian
equations, you can do that with no effect on the outcome. It is
certainly not necessary in the pursuit of the scientific method.

> Once you
> do that you are no longer dealing with objects in the same way.
> Please note that I am not saying that doing so is woring or
> irrational. But ... surely you find that interesting? Doesn't that
> raise interesting questions about the ways we read and understand that
> universe? What does this say to the meaning of the word 'objects' in
> the statement "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the
> surface of the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2" Usually an
> object is considered to have volume, yes?

Yes, but what Newton showed is that, for the most part, the volume
does not factor. This is only something relevant to his equations and
the situations for which they apply. It is not a statement about the
scientific method as a whole.

[zencycle]

From: "simonsaysbye" <tahta...@live.co.uk>

Subject: [AvC] Discussion on
the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method

>

> O: "All objects, under only the force of gravity, near the surface of
> the Earth, will accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2"
>
> So if I were to put the planet Jupiter near the surface of the Earth
> it would accelerate at 32.2ft/s^2? What about an object of infinite
> mass? What about a photon? In fact, all objects of different masses
> will accelerate differently.
>

The formula you're questioning is valid in a vacuum. In the atmosphere, wind
resistance on a falling object will prevent acceleration beyond a certain
point. This is known as terminal velocity. Objects of the same density will
generally fall at the same rate and reach the same TV, and depending on
their shape. A one pound steel ball, for example, would reach a higher
terminal velocity than a one pound steel cube., but they would both reach
their terminal velocities according to the formula. A ten pound steel ball
would reach close to the same terminal velocity as a one pound steel ball,
and they would accelerate at the same rate. It isn't mass that's the issue,
it's density.

Essentially All objects will accelerate to their terminal velocity at the
same rate.

[dafsmo@googlemail.com]

I REALY WONDER IF YOU HAVE ANY FEILING, OR YOU JUST PRETAND YOU HAVE
THEM. DID YOU CONSIDER USKING PEOPLE HOW THEY FIEL, AND TRY TO SEE, IF
YOU FIEL THE SAME. I DONT THING SO, BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT TO FIND OUT.

[cathyb]

I hope that you are aware that this post is void of content and
meaning.

Hope springs eternal...but not this time.

On Mar 26, 11:07 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> > work.- Hide quoted text -

[dafsmo@googlemail.com]

THE PROUF OF GOD ITS AROND US AND WITH IN US WE JUST HAVE TO FIEL IT
BUT WE CAN'T IF WE DONT HAVE ANY FIELING. THAT IS THE DEFIRANCE
BETWING THE ANIMAL AND HUMANE.

On Mar 17, 9:30 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great post, Drafterman.
>
> This really highlights the fact that not believing in God is the more
> rationally valid hypothesis. Implicit to this discussion is Bayesian
> inference, which gives a prescription to calculate the probability
> given each measurement of a given result. So as time goes on, we are
> more and more certain that if there is a God, then that God does not
> interact with us. As you say, a single disproof of this would suffice
> to falsify the notion that "There is no God". Theists of course claim
> that this exists via historical events with "eyewitness" testimony (of
> which there is seemingly only one actual eyewitness that everyone else
> plagiarized). We can apply similar methods to examine this
> "eyewitness" testimony to determine its veracity in and of itself. The
> results are inconclusive, of course, to the degree necessary to make a
> universal determination. Therefore it is neutral (i.e. adds a Bayesian
> probability of zero) to both hypotheses "God exists" and "God does not
> exist".
>

[Drafterman]

Set Caps_Lock = Off

Thank you.

On Mar 26, 9:17 am, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> > Bible is absolutely false.- Hide quoted text -

[cathyb]

On Mar 26, 11:17 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> THE PROUF OF GOD ITS AROND US AND WITH IN US WE JUST HAVE TO FIEL IT
> BUT WE CAN'T IF WE DONT HAVE ANY FIELING. THAT IS THE DEFIRANCE
> BETWING THE ANIMAL AND HUMANE.

I hope that you are aware that this post is void of content and
meaning.

Hope springs eternal...but not this time.

>

[Trance Gemini]

Daffy. Have you ever seen an animal cry? They have feelings.

Daffy. Prove that God exists.

On Mar 26, 9:17 am, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Mar 17, 2:19 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI, I authored this, but the pages are locked so I asked Rapp to
> post. Thanks rapp!
>

> On Mar 17, 2:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> > work.

Hey Drafterman. May I post this to my New Atheism blog?

I was waiting for the conversation to develop and bit and see if you
made any changes or updates to your original document.

If you're not planning any changes I'd love ot post the document and
link to this thread.

Any objections?

[Drafterman]

Be my guest :)

[Trance Gemini]

Thanks!

It's done. http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

[zencycle]

From: <daf...@googlemail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Discussion on
the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method

>
> THE PROUF OF GOD ITS AROND US AND WITH IN US WE JUST HAVE TO FIEL IT
> BUT WE CAN'T IF WE DONT HAVE ANY FIELING. THAT IS THE DEFIRANCE
> BETWING THE ANIMAL AND HUMANE.
>

I can't take this guy

<plonk>

[BlueSci]

On Mar 26, 6:17 am, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> THE PROUF OF GOD ITS AROND US AND WITH IN US WE JUST HAVE TO FIEL IT
> BUT WE CAN'T IF WE DONT HAVE ANY FIELING. THAT IS THE DEFIRANCE
> BETWING THE ANIMAL AND HUMANE.

U R PROUF THAD BELIF IN GOD MAKS U STUPIT.

[bertie]

Feelings are no proof of the existence of god. If i relied on my
feelings to differentiate between what is and what is not, rather than
my ability to conceptualise via human consciousness, then I would be
living purely on the level of percepts, which is only useful to a
lower animal. It would not suit my survival needs. Animals adapt to
the environment in order to survive, humans adapt the environment in
order to survive.

[Stonethatbleeds]

Since no such thing as a scientific look or method was used we see
only prejustic and hate and lots of errors.

the scientific method would of found the seals more important than
anything else... provng no such method was ever used on the Bible or
scriptures. Not knowing how to do the scientific method is clearly
seen.

[bonfly]

STb'z ~ prejustic ?

which is defined as ?

[zen cycle]

> Subject: [AvC] Re: Discussion on the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method

> On Mar 30, 7:12 pm, Stonethatbleeds <fb...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Since no such thing as a scientific look or method was used we see
> > only prejustic and hate and lots of errors.

Funny, that's exaclty what I see from most christians (I'm assuming bloodystone meant 'prejudice')

---

Test your Star IQ Play now!

[Stonethatbleeds]

Of course it did but Bonfly is a hater and choose to play the ignorant
fool to such things all the time... in fact it is the least he does in
hate and voilence post I asked he be banned for before and again
yesterday.

I do not limit this to religions or not!
Why do you?

> _________________________________________________________________
> Test your Star IQhttp://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR

[bonfly]

Shove it in your arse Peter_W.

[dafsmo@googlemail.com]

you are a sick m/w I feel sorry for you.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 31, 10:48 am, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> you are a sick m/w I feel sorry for you.

It's my paper, so you can address any comments to me. Is there
something specific you disagree with?

>
> On Mar 17, 7:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-suppor...
> > - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't

> > work.- Hide quoted text -

[dafsmo@googlemail.com]

No I just feel sorry for you lot, all of you. I realy hope you will
see the truth within you because their where it's all about, in
deep ,you find the true what you call prouf.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Mar 31, 11:56 am, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> No I just feel sorry for you lot, all of you.

Why?

> I realy hope you will
> see the truth within you because their where it's all about, in
> deep ,you find the true what you call prouf.

What of what I said isn't truth?

[dafsmo@googlemail.com]

everything about you is not true, because you are not honest with
yourself, how can you be honest with other.the truth is within you if
you can be honest with you.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 31, 12:34 pm, "daf...@googlemail.com" <daf...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> everything about you is not true,

Can you be more specific?

> because you are not honest with
> yourself,

And how do you know I'm not honest with my self?

> how can you be honest with other.

Easy: Tell the truth.

> the truth is within you if
> you can be honest with you.

I am, and I believe I uncover new truths everyday. Again, if you'd
like to refute something specific I've said. By all means, do so. I'm
genuinely interested in learning the truth.

[Observer]

On Mar 20, 9:30 am, banev <stefanba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is quite apparent that notion "exist" can not be applied to God as
> it leads to an infinite recursion. The notion "God" must be degraded
> down to "semi/sub-God" status to be in compliance with such quality as
> "existence". The level of degrading is kind of arbitrary and can be
> defined at will by believer.

Observer

And what of this ?


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that
the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are
nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason
otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by
Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this
heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know.
But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


Psychonomist


> --sb

>
> On Mar 17, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > FYI, I authored this, but the pages are locked so I asked Rapp to
> > post. Thanks rapp!
>

[Vagabond]

Drafterman,

Your arguement is interesting and insightful, though I find the entire
context you are using to be, IMO, too narrow.

"Thus all we have to do is sit and observe the universe. Every moment
that passes by that is not validation of god's existence increases the
validity of G."

So, unless god is proven to exist (which necessarily includes
disproving his non-existence) and we perform tests to increase the
truth of god's nonexistence (even by a slight degree) then we are
correct in saying that "God does not exist" is a more true, logical,
and scientific premise to hold than "God exists".


I think these statements, and indeed your entire essay, are
scientifically true. However, when speaking logically/rationally/
reasonably/etc they are too narrow to be considered a principle to
take to heart and live by. Logically speaking, the universe is a
really REALLY big place. How much of this universe has been
observed? How much is left to observe? The answers to these
questions are the variables in your argument. If we have observed 90%
of the universe, then you are right in saying that the truth values
for G are high (i.e. 90%). However, if we have in fact only observed .
000000000001% (put in whatever infinitesimally small percentage you
want) of the universe and our instruments are only capable of some
other small percentage, then it would not be logically prudent to
assume that G is the 'de facto' standard/principle which rational/
logical individuals should believe.

The proverbial "tip of the iceberg" is a good analogy in this case.
How much does the scientific community know about our universe? It
may very well be just a small tip of an enormous iceberg. Although
your position is scientifically correct, it would be illogical to
assume that it is the most true and logical.

To be clear, I believe that science is not at odds with God. Much
like philosophy is different from science, so to is theism from
science, but that does not make theism wrong, just different. Theism
(and philosophy) try to explain the "why" of the universe, science
tries to explain the "how." Both will uncover absolute truths and
both will, IMO, eventually prove that there is a god. Perhaps you
will think me simple-minded or irrational, but one cannot stand in a
majestic cathedral or stare at an incredible piece of art and claim
that there was no creator. In much the same way, I cannot marvel at
the universe and all its unimaginable depth and complexity and not
logically deduce that there must have been a creator. Every day
science learns a little bit more about the universe and new
observations are constantly creating new hypothesis and throwing out
old theories or even calling into question out entire understanding of
physics or what have you.

And so I end with a quote from Aldous Huxley, "There comes a time when
one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, is this all?" I
would also ask this of Albert Einstein, Galileo, or of science in
general.

[Drafterman]

Thanks for the reply. Just a few comments:

"I think these statements, and indeed your entire essay, are
scientifically true."

Given that it's entitled "Support of the premise 'No God Exists' via
the scientific method" then "scientifically true" would be the goal
and scope of the essay.

Regardless, your discussion about the as yet unobserved are, well,
irrelevant. Every popular definition of god (especially the Christian
God) describes a god that is part of the observable universe, thus
making it well within the scrutiny of logical and rational inquiry
and, via my essay, one must conclude it is more rational to say that
God doesn't exist. I'd be interested in a full description of the god
you believe in, that has had no influence in the observable universe.

Furthermore, it is still not rational or logical to posit the
existence of a god anywhere! Your exception would seem to indicate
that it is perfectly reasonable that, in the light of the unknown, we
can just make up our answers. This is certainly not the case because
there doesn't exist any measure by which we can filter out one fiction
from the next.

I freely admit that much of the universe is, as yet, unknown, but this
does not give anyone free reign to decide that there exists, in this
as-yet-unmeasured part specific entities, divine or not. So even if
"God exists" is logically equivalent to "God does not exist" for these
unknown areas then one cannot choose either. So your choices are
either "God exists" is false and "God does not exist" is true or
neither "God exists" or "God does not exist" is true. Since atheism is
simply "God does not exist" not being true, then atheism is the more
rational course for either scenario.

[Vagabond]

To address your first question, the god I believe in is not based on
the Nicene Creed, though I am Christian. The god I believe in is all-
powerful and all-knowing, but is not physically all-places. I believe
in a god that does have a central role on the observable universe.

In response to your discussion on making up answers in light of the
unknown and to address point number 1 at the beginning of your essay
(the logic theism rests on is weaker than the logic of atheism) , I
submit the following: I stated in my original response that only using
the scientific method is too narrow to provide enough persuasion to
move one to consider it logical and rational that god does not exist.
The very universe itself witnesses to the existence of a creator. I
find it intellectually wanting to observe the intricate design,
marvelous beauty, and enormous complexity of the universe and
attribute it to luck. Call me delusional, but that makes a lot of
sense to me.

As science continues to move forward and new discoveries are made, the
depth and complexity of the universe is increased, not reduced. At
times it appears that more questions are created for every discovery
made. In my view, rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts
further toward an intelligent source. I believe many other theists
also have this same perspective and that is why it is perfectly
logical and reasonable from this point of view to believe in the
existence of a god. A person who discounts God's hand in existence is
left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause,
without design, and is merely a statistical anomaly or piece of
incredibly good fortune. The odds of which are truly astronomical
(pun acknowledged). With this in mind, it is illogical and irrational
that we or the universe should even exist at all and shifts the burden
of proof to the contrary to those that state the opposite. Perhaps
you have heard this before, but here it is and I paraphrase, "When
rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But
the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else
entirely." Therefore, I affirm that the logic theism rests on is at
least equal to the logic of atheism.

[Dag Yo]

> To address your first question, the god I believe in is not based on
> the Nicene Creed, though I am Christian. The god I believe in is all-
> powerful and all-knowing, but is not physically all-places. I believe
> in a god that does have a central role on the observable universe.

Do you feel that you have a good reason to believe in this God, or do
you think that it is acceptable to believe in things without any good
reason to do so?

> In response to your discussion on making up answers in light of the
> unknown and to address point number 1 at the beginning of your essay
> (the logic theism rests on is weaker than the logic of atheism) , I
> submit the following: I stated in my original response that only using
> the scientific method is too narrow to provide enough persuasion to
> move one to consider it logical and rational that god does not exist.

What methodology besides the scientific method do you use? And how do
you know that it is correct? (follow-up question for ya: if you do not
know it is correct why should anyone believe that it is correct --
this includes you btw; why should YOU believe it is correct).

> The very universe itself witnesses to the existence of a creator.

That is incorrect, there is nothing about the existence of the
universe that implies the existence of a creator (unless by creator,
you simply mean physical laws), if you intend to stand by this
assertion of yours I would ask that you back it up with some evidence
so that we know you aren't just spouting nonsense.

> I
> find it intellectually wanting to observe the intricate design,
> marvelous beauty, and enormous complexity of the universe and
> attribute it to luck.

You really have moved to a different topic now, but for the record,
physicists don't attribute the state of the universe to "luck", they
attribute it to necessity.

> Call me delusional, but that makes a lot of
> sense to me.

An argument from ignorance isn't exactly a delusion, but your
conclusion very well seems to be just that.

> As science continues to move forward and new discoveries are made, the
> depth and complexity of the universe is increased, not reduced.

That is incorrect. Neither the "depth" nor the "complexity" of the
universe has increased as the result of developments in different
scientific fields. The universe is what it is regardless of how well
anyone understands it. And if you were merely speaking poetically,
then you have utterly no point to be made in any sort of argument.

> At
> times it appears that more questions are created for every discovery
> made. In my view, rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts
> further toward an intelligent source.

Claims about reality are not subjective, either evidence does mount
that points "toward an intelligent source" or it does not. If it
does, then you should have evidence for it, and you ought to post that
evidence because we would all be terribly interested. If it is not
the case, then you are just confused.

> I believe many other theists
> also have this same perspective and that is why it is perfectly
> logical and reasonable from this point of view to believe in the
> existence of a god.

Arguments "ad populum" (please wiki it if you are unfamiliar with this
term) are nothing short of fallacious, there is nothing about them
that makes any conclusion "perfectly logical and reasonable".

> A person who discounts God's hand in existence is
> left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause,
> without design, and is merely a statistical anomaly or piece of
> incredibly good fortune.

That is not necessarily the case by any means, but for the sake of
argument, just because you are ignorant as to how a universe could
exist without the magic of a space wizard does not mean that it is
impossible to figure out how the universe could come to exist, or (and
more to the point) how it could possibly exist without a pre-existing
space wizard.

> The odds of which are truly astronomical
> (pun acknowledged).

You certainly know nothing of these odds because you certainly no
nothing of the factors involved, or necessarily what role "chance"
even played in any of it. This is an utterly invalid assertion.

> With this in mind, it is illogical and irrational
> that we or the universe should even exist at all and shifts the burden
> of proof to the contrary to those that state the opposite.

No it does not, the person making the positive claim always has the
burden of proof. We have not (though we might in a different sort of
conversation) make the claim that no gods exist; at most we have
pointed out that there is no reason an intelligent person ought to
believe that god(s) do exist -- we have therefore not even made a
claim, where you have clearly made a positive claim; the burden of
proof is entirely your own.

> Perhaps
> you have heard this before, but here it is and I paraphrase, "When
> rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But
> the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else
> entirely." Therefore, I affirm that the logic theism rests on is at
> least equal to the logic of atheism.

Atheism is the lack of theism. It need not even rest upon any logic
at all. Though in the cases in which it does (or various subsets of
atheistic philosophy) you are wrong. Anyone with a valid epistemology
knows that knowledge is based upon evidence, as there is no evidence
pointing to the existence of a god it is not valid to claim knowledge
of any god.

Feel free to reply if you've got the nads for it. ;P
-

[Drafterman]

On Apr 7, 11:08 pm, Vagabond <vagabo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To address your first question, the god I believe in is not based on
> the Nicene Creed, though I am Christian.  The god I believe in is all-
> powerful and all-knowing, but is not physically all-places.  I believe
> in a god that does have a central role on the observable universe.

Then that pretty much makes your objections moot, since they
implicitly relied on the idea that a god exists only in the realm of
the unobserved.

The fact is, there is no god in the observable universe.

>
> In response to your discussion on making up answers in light of the
> unknown and to address point number 1 at the beginning of your essay
> (the logic theism rests on is weaker than the logic of atheism) , I
> submit the following: I stated in my original response that only using
> the scientific method is too narrow to provide enough persuasion to
> move one to consider it logical and rational that god does not exist.

Interesting. Do you feel this is true about all things supported by
the scientific method, or just things where the conclusion contradicts
your opinions? Do you think the scientific method is too narrow to

provide enough persuasion to move one to consider it logical and

rational that:

Light moves at about 3.00 x10^8 m/s?
As objects accelerate to the speed of light their mass increases,
their length (in the direction of movement) shortens, and their
relative time slows down?
The gravitational force between objects is proportional to their mass
and inversely proportional to the square of the distanct between them?
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons?
The sun produces its energy through fusion?
Galaxies are moving away from us?

> The very universe itself witnesses to the existence of a creator.  I
> find it intellectually wanting to observe the intricate design,
> marvelous beauty, and enormous complexity of the universe and
> attribute it to luck.  Call me delusional, but that makes a lot of
> sense to me.

I find it intellectually wanting (not to mention a false dilemma
fallacy) to say the only two options are "design" and "luck". You
posit the existence of a creator. From whence did the creator come?
Was it, too, created? Or is it here through sheer luck? If you posit a
third possibility, why do you preclude that possibility as an
explanation of the universe?

The argument from design is an argument from incredulity. Just because
you can't make sense of it any other way is not the fault of logic.
The argument from design basically goes:

Things in the universe seem, look or feel designed, and since
everything that we know was designed has a designer, the universe must
be designed.

Asside from merely being an argument from incredulity it fails because
of the reference point used. We call things in nature designed,
because they are similarities in structure and order to things we know
have been designed. The flaw comes in the fact that everything we know
has been designed, has been designed by humans. That is, the only
observed designers, have been humans. So essentially the argument:

All designed things have a a designer. Nature looks designed. Ergo
nature has a designer.

Can, through the same logic, become:

All designed things were designed by humans. Nature looks designed.
Ergo nature was designed by humans.

Certainly flawed.

It is certainly not delusion to anthropromorphize the universe and
nature. It's the way our brains are designed. Pattern recognition
machines. We look at bits and pieces of data, and assign it a value
based on our experiences. It does it instinctively and very quickly
and is a necessary trait for our survival. This does not mean it is
correct or accurate. Optical illusions are such a case. They exploit
the "fill-in-the-blanks" ability of the brain to make us see things
they're aren't there.

Essentially when you look at the universe and see design, it is an
optical illusion.

>
> As science continues to move forward and new discoveries are made, the
> depth and complexity of the universe is increased, not reduced.

In what way?

The depth and complexity of our knowledge is certainlly increased, but
as science continues to move forward and new discoveries are made, it
is consistently being found that the underlying structure and laws of
the universe are less in number.

There are countless numbers of molecules. Yet as yet finite number of
naturally occurring elements (about 92) that make up these molecules
(simpler).

There are a large number of elements, yet all are made up of only 3
subatomic parties. (simpler).

It is currently hypthosized that all elementary particles (quarks,
electrons, nuetrinos and their cousins) are actually all a single type
of entity, stringers (simpler).

It was once though that magnetism and electricity were separate. We
know them to be the same (simpler).
The same is said of electromagnetism and the weak forces. Under
certain conditions they are the same (simpler).
We are currently working on combining the strong force and the
electroweak force.

> At
> times it appears that more questions are created for every discovery
> made.  In my view, rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts
> further toward an intelligent source.

Is there a specific piece of evidence that points toward an
intelligent source, or merely the compulsion to fill in a blank with
"God"?

> I believe many other theists
> also have this same perspective and that is why it is perfectly
> logical and reasonable from this point of view to believe in the
> existence of a god.

So, because many other theists agree with you, it's logical? Hardly.
(Argument ad populum).

Consider the following statement:

"I believe many other theists also have the same perspective that the
Earth is the center of the universe and that is why it is perfectly
logical and reasonable from this point of view to believe the Earth is
the center of the universe"

>  A person who discounts God's hand in existence is
> left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause,
> without design, and is merely a statistical anomaly or piece of
> incredibly good fortune.

No. They aren't left with that conclusion. Again, how do you posit
that your God came about?

> The odds of which are truly astronomical
> (pun acknowledged).

The odds of reality vs. non-reality are not calculable.

> With this in mind, it is illogical and irrational
> that we or the universe should even exist at all and shifts the burden
> of proof to the contrary to those that state the opposite.

It doesn't since your entire argument rests on nothing but fallacies.

> Perhaps
> you have heard this before, but here it is and I paraphrase, "When
> rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing.  But
> the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else
> entirely."  Therefore, I affirm that the logic theism rests on is at
> least equal to the logic of atheism.

Yeah, I've heard it. I don't see how it applies other than your
irrational insistence on suggesting that everything is designed or
random (except, of course, your God. No. no. no. That doesn't apply to
God because that would just be silly (not to mention destructive to
your argument). So just leave God out of this. Don't think about God.
I don't want to talk about whether or not he was caused or random. I
just want to say that he exists without considering the logical
ramifcations of that.)

So, you've proposed that everything is designed or random. So, which
applies to your God?

[Dag Yo]

Interesting to read another's reply to the same post, neat variations
to be sure. However, I disagree with you on one point, I do not think
any part of nature "looks designed". Even if I were to ignore all I
know about biology and evolutionary theory; I am of the opinion that
living things just look like they are trying to survive, and non-
living things in nature just look like they are acting according to
unavoidable natural laws.

Very little design to any of it.

[Drafterman]

I hope I wasn't implying that I, myself, believe that the universe
looks designed, I was merely expressing that as a premise of the
argument from design. As I stated, any apparent design is an illusion.

[Vagabond]

In response to your questions. (This is in response to Drafterman, but
I believe there is some overlap that can be applied as responses to
Dag Yo)

> The fact is, there is no god in the observable universe.

Because it is not currently observable it does not exist? That may
make sense if the scientific method is the only thing you go by (which
is why I stand by the fact that only using the scientific method is
too narrow to answer the question of god), but that doesn't mean a god
doesn't exist. I believe precious pieces of truth can be found in
many places outside of science. I believe philosophy has truths, I
believe feelings have truths, I believe the arts have truths. Truth
can be found in all subjects and fields. It is impossible for science
to come to discover these truths because it is inherently outside its
scope of reality. Feelings, the arts, philosophy are all outside of
the ability of science to test, but they exist and if God created
everything, then logically you must look everywhere to find evidence
of him. As you say, science proceeds on the assumption that god does
not exist. How do I know that they are truths? One thing that
Christians believe is that we are God's children, as such, we have the
ability to know right from wrong and discern truth (be it secular
truth or spiritual truth). We are born with this intelligence.

If no one had any eyes that would mean that the electromagnetic
spectrum could no longer be used as a point of reference for the
universe.
Let me use an example. Let's say there is an explosion several miles
away, I would see it happen with my eyes at time A , but those without
eyes would hear it at time B. When did the explosion really happen?
Relativity (going outside the scope of light) would say that both are
right because for the blind people, the electromagnetic spectrum does
not exist as a medium they can use to observe. From this example, how
do we know that another medium of observation outside of the
electromagnetic spectrum does not exist that would make God
observable? There I go again, a possible thought experiment, very
irrational.

> Interesting. Do you feel this is true about all things supported by
> the scientific method, or just things where the conclusion contradicts
> your opinions? Do you think the scientific method is too narrow to
> provide enough persuasion to move one to consider it logical and
> rational that:

> [examples of scientific discoveries]

No. I stated that, "... in my original response that only using the

scientific method is too narrow to provide enough persuasion to move

one to consider it logical and rational that god does not exist." The
scientific method is an important tool that is based on gathering
observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific
principles of reasoning. This question cannot be answered to complete
satisfaction by the scientific method alone because there is no
empirical or measurable evidence either way.

> I find it intellectually wanting (not to mention a false dilemma
> fallacy) to say the only two options are "design" and "luck". You
> posit the existence of a creator. From whence did the creator come?
> Was it, too, created? Or is it here through sheer luck? If you posit a
> third possibility, why do you preclude that possibility as an
> explanation of the universe?

I believe that a creator has always existed, no beginning and no end.

> It is certainly not delusion to anthropromorphize the universe and
> nature. It's the way our brains are designed. Pattern recognition
> machines. We look at bits and pieces of data, and assign it a value
> based on our experiences. It does it instinctively and very quickly
> and is a necessary trait for our survival. This does not mean it is
> correct or accurate. Optical illusions are such a case. They exploit
> the "fill-in-the-blanks" ability of the brain to make us see things
> they're aren't there.
>
> Essentially when you look at the universe and see design, it is an
> optical illusion.
>

Consider the two statements:

1) If one believes in a creator, then one sees the creator's hand in
creation. If God really does exist and if he said that he created the
universe, then logically you look for that design and find it.

2) If one believes in string theory then it is logical to believe in
the existence of the graviton and that all elementary particles are
made up of little strings of energy.

Neither of these sets of beliefs are proven one way or the other. So,
in essence the argument against design is a moot point, just as the
argument for design is moot from your point of view because you do not
believe in a god. So both our arguments in this case are invalid.

> The depth and complexity of our knowledge is certainlly increased, but
> as science continues to move forward and new discoveries are made, it
> is consistently being found that the underlying structure and laws of
> the universe are less in number.

This is an opinion. Just like Einstein so keenly pointed out, "No
amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment
can prove me wrong." So to it is assumed that this applies to
everything in science. Newton may also have felt the same way about
consistently finding that the underlying structure and laws of the
universe were less in number. We know better today and it would be
presumptuous on humanity's part to assume otherwise. It has taken
thousands of years and millions of people putting there heads together
to bring science to its current level of understanding, who is to say
we're over the summit? The paradigm shift in the world of science
toward Einstein's theory of relativity didn't make things simpler. It
was simpler to believe in the ether.

> Is there a specific piece of evidence that points toward an
> intelligent source, or merely the compulsion to fill in a blank with
> "God"?

I could say the same thing about dark matter or dark energy. Are they
just trying to "fill in the blank" in their formulas or is there
empirical evidence that these exist? I could say that they are
compelled to force their models to fit their observations and that
neither one really exists.

> So, because many other theists agree with you, it's logical? Hardly.
> (Argument ad populum).
>
> Consider the following statement:
>
> "I believe many other theists also have the same perspective that the
> Earth is the center of the universe and that is why it is perfectly
> logical and reasonable from this point of view to believe the Earth is
> the center of the universe"

It would be a mistake to say that Argument ad populum does not carry
any weight in a logical discussion, though it is not, of course, by
itself proof. Science believed for a long time that the earth was the
center of the universe and it was logical to Aristotle. So, are you
saying that Aristotle was illogical and irrational at the time he had
this theory? Science is only as good as our ability to observe the
universe. Our modern day instruments may be considered more primitive
to scientists 1,000 years from now than Aristotle's seem to us today.

In addition, these tools may detect things we can only imagine (but
could still logically reason to exist). If everyone just followed the
scientific method exclusively, then only questions would be asked if
something were observed, that would cripple advancement. Thinking
outside the box, or conducting "thought experiments" brings questions
to the table that otherwise would not. Einstein's theories came about
because of this. He came up with theories about the universe when he
imagined chasing a beam of light and completely changed the way we
understand the universe. Why then is it so hard to imagine traveling
beside a god and observing him create the universe?

As a side note, the scriptures say God is a being of light. If a
being achieved the speed of light, to that being all space would
contract to the point that it would be "here" for him, and all time
would slow down until it became "now" for him. Therefore, science
itself may suggest how, for a being of light and glory like God, all
space and all time could be present

> > A person who discounts God's hand in existence is
> > left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause,
> > without design, and is merely a statistical anomaly or piece of
> > incredibly good fortune.
>
> No. They aren't left with that conclusion. Again, how do you posit
> that your God came about?

You've already affirmed one conclusion of the three I stated by
stating that the universe is without design and any design is an
optical illusion. What is your conclusion then? That the universe
just is because it is necessary that it is? That is at least as
logical and rational a statement that the universe was created.

> The odds of reality vs. non-reality are not calculable.

This is true, they are not calculable because it is outside the
observable universe. There is no medium by which to measure.
Restricted by our current medium, it is outside the ability of our
minds to understand (thus the use of the word, astronomical). Does
that mean there isn't another medium, yet undiscovered, that would
allow such a calculation? Of course not. But if it did exist, I
still hold that the odds would be astronomical based on pure, simple,
logical statistics and probabilities.

> So, you've proposed that everything is designed or random. So, which
> applies to your God?

As stated before, I do not hold that the observable universe is
"everything" so it is not
destructive to my argument and does not mean that God has to be random
or designed.

Therefore, I affirm that the logic theism rests on is at least equal

to the logic of atheism. Furthermore, Occam's Razor does not favor
atheism if the logic of both is equal. You can argue that it is
simpler to conclude that the universe was created instead of randomly
falling into existence. The entities involved can be said to be one
when referring to a creator, or many when referring to physical laws
as the reason for the universe).

[Dag Yo]

Nah, I didn't really think so, I was just splitting hairs like an
annoying twit.

[Keith MacNevins]

Once in a blue moon the truth comes out like a bolt of lightning.

[Dave]

On Apr 10, 7:58 pm, Vagabond <vagabo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Because it is not currently observable it does not exist?

Absolutely not. There is no reason, no evidence, no evidence there
could be evidence that there might be evidence, to believe that a god
could exist.

We don't need to observe a god, just look back in the history of
humanity. Look at the origin of the concept of gods. They're human
inventions just like any other character in any other mythology.

[Dag Yo]

> Because it is not currently observable it does not exist?

No. And btw, science deals most appropriately with questions about
hypotheses for which there is no evidence.

> That may
> make sense if the scientific method is the only thing you go by (which
> is why I stand by the fact that only using the scientific method is
> too narrow to answer the question of god), but that doesn't mean a god
> doesn't exist.

Read some books, or take a class on the philosophy of science. It's
obvious you don't know what you're talking about and to be perfectly
fair, it's an easily avoidable mistake.

> I believe precious pieces of truth can be found in
> many places outside of science. I believe philosophy has truths, I
> believe feelings have truths, I believe the arts have truths. Truth
> can be found in all subjects and fields. It is impossible for science
> to come to discover these truths because it is inherently outside its
> scope of reality.

Its like an explosion of equivocation.

> As you say, science proceeds on the assumption that god does
> not exist. How do I know that they are truths? One thing that
> Christians believe is that we are God's children, as such, we have the
> ability to know right from wrong and discern truth (be it secular
> truth or spiritual truth). We are born with this intelligence.

I asked you before, if you have something other than the scientific
method then tell us about it and tell us how you know it's true. Stop
keeping us for your awesome secrets.

> As stated before, I do not hold that the observable universe is
> "everything" so it is not
> destructive to my argument and does not mean that God has to be random
> or designed.

Bloody irrelevant. Are you actually stating that God exists but isn't
observable? Because if so, just say it. And when you do say it back
it up with some freaking evidence so we know you aren't just talking
out of your ass.

> Therefore, I affirm that the logic theism rests on is at least equal
> to the logic of atheism. Furthermore, Occam's Razor does not favor
> atheism if the logic of both is equal. You can argue that it is
> simpler to conclude that the universe was created instead of randomly
> falling into existence. The entities involved can be said to be one
> when referring to a creator, or many when referring to physical laws
> as the reason for the universe).

You're seriously misusing Occams's Razor, if you happen to think that
it states that because "Godidit" is such a simple answer then it is
equal to a naturalistic explanation you are very much mistaken. Heck
Occam's Razor is quick to cut away extraneous statements like
"invisible immortals with magic powers created the universe" from any
statement about the simple existence of the universe.

And don't say "therefore" like you just made an argument - you did no
such thing.

-

[Drafterman]

On Apr 10, 10:58 pm, Vagabond <vagabo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In response to your questions. (This is in response to Drafterman, but
> I believe there is some overlap that can be applied as responses to
> Dag Yo)
>
> > The fact is, there is no god in the observable universe.
>
> Because it is not currently observable it does not exist?

Not within the observable universe, by definition. And since that's
what we're talking about (despite attempts to extend the conversation
beyond the observable universe) then that's all that matters. To
summarzie:

There is no god in the observable universe.
Any potential god in the, as yet, unobserved universe is not a god
posited by anyone.

> That may
> make sense if the scientific method is the only thing you go by (which
> is why I stand by the fact that only using the scientific method is
> too narrow to answer the question of god), but that doesn't mean a god
> doesn't exist.

Nevertheless, given the evidence at hand, the only rational course of
action is to take the position that one doesn't exist. Though I'd be
interested in what other reliable epistomological methods you are
aware of. Aside from the empirical scientific method there is also the
rationality of logic, but I'm not aware of any argument that leads to
the necessary conclusion that god exists.

> I believe precious pieces of truth can be found in
> many places outside of science.  I believe philosophy has truths, I
> believe feelings have truths, I believe the arts have truths.  Truth
> can be found in all subjects and fields.  It is impossible for science
> to come to discover these truths because it is inherently outside its
> scope of reality.  Feelings, the arts, philosophy are all outside of
> the ability of science to test, but they exist and if God created
> everything, then logically you must look everywhere to find evidence
> of him.

No, if God created everything, then logically you should be able to
find evidence everywhere, including realms within the scope of the
scientific method.

So your poetic declarations about truth aside, do you have a concrete
method of determining truth, outside the scientific method, that
necessarily concludes god exists?

> As you say, science proceeds on the assumption that god does
> not exist.

I said that? If I did then I spoke in err. I should have said that
science simply proceeds as if god doesn't exist. Which is not the same
thing.

> How do I know that they are truths?  One thing that
> Christians believe is that we are God's children, as such, we have the
> ability to know right from wrong and discern truth (be it secular
> truth or spiritual truth).  We are born with this intelligence.

Somewhat, though not nearly as clear cut as you make it. Feral
children, for example, do not seem to have the ability to distinguish
right from wrong in the same manner as humans. If not rescued and
integrated before a certain point, it is nearly impossible to later
teach them language, walk upright, or establish meaningful social
relationships. They are, essentially, human only in DNA.

This clearly shows that a majority of human behavior is taught and
learned by children in their youth. The amount of "intelligence" we
are born with is very minimal, maybe some survival instincts at best.
Since we are not borth with this intelligence, it would seem that you
don't know that "they are truths". Furthermore, if God's existence was
a truth we were born with, it would seem that I would be unable to
even contemplate contradicting it. Yet I have no difficulty, so it
seems I was born without that truth. For atheists this is not an
issue, but if you believe there is a God, then you necessarily must
concede that I am made the way it intended, and your are defying Gods
will by arguing with me.

>
> If no one had any eyes that would mean that the electromagnetic
> spectrum could no longer be used as a point of reference for the
> universe.

Oh, that's incorrect. Perhaps it would have been a great deal of time
before we even discovered the existence of the electromagnetic
spectrum, but we would have discovered it nonetheless and used
technology to convert electromagnetic signals into sensory input we
could recognize. In the same manner that we convert frequencies of
light outside our ability to directly detect into frequencies we can
detect, thus allowing us to use them as a point of reference. After
all, our eyes aren't the only eletromagnetic sensors on our body. We
have nerves designed to respond to heat, one form of which comes from
the radiation of electromagnetic waves.

> Let me use an example.  Let's say there is an explosion several miles
> away, I would see it happen with my eyes at time A , but those without
> eyes would hear it at time B.  When did the explosion really happen?
> Relativity (going outside the scope of light) would say that both are
> right because for the blind people, the electromagnetic spectrum does
> not exist as a medium they can use to observe.  From this example, how
> do we know that another medium of observation outside of the
> electromagnetic spectrum does not exist that would make God
> observable?  There I go again, a possible thought experiment, very
> irrational.

I don't understand the relevance of this "thought experiment". You
don't need to invoke relativity (though I don't even know how it
applies). Assuming both sets of people know how fast light and sound
travel in the medium within which the explosion occurred, then they
would both come to the same conclusion about time the explosion
happened, irrespective of the existence of other stimuli.

We don't know that another medium outside the eletromagnetic spectrum
does not exist that would make God observable. This is irrelevance
because:

You are still positing a God that has interacted with reality and
should have left evidence within our ability to detect.
There are literally an infinite number of things that are "possible"
and it is impossible that we believe all of them and irrational that
we believe one of them simply because you say so. I'd prefer some sort
of empirical or logical evidence on your part rather than complaints
that the scientific method is not complete.

>
> > Interesting. Do you feel this is true about all things supported by
> > the scientific method, or just things where the conclusion contradicts
> > your opinions? Do you think the scientific method is too narrow to
> > provide enough persuasion to move one to consider it logical and
> > rational that:
> >  [examples of scientific discoveries]
>
> No.  I stated that, "... in my original response that only using the
> scientific method is too narrow to provide enough persuasion to move
> one to consider it logical and rational that god does not exist."

Yes, and my response to that was: "Do you think the scientific method

is too narrow to provide enough persuasion to move one to consider it
logical and rational that:"

And I provided a list of examples. I want to know if you are
consistent with that objection and, if not, why the things I listed
are rational and logical to accept as true while "God does not exist"
is not.

> The
> scientific method is an important tool that is based on gathering
> observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific
> principles of reasoning.  This question cannot be answered to complete
> satisfaction by the scientific method alone because there is no
> empirical or measurable evidence either way.

Did I not include certain caveats at the end of my paper regarding why
this topic isn't addressed by the scientific community in the real
world that would cover this objection?

>
> > I find it intellectually wanting (not to mention a false dilemma
> > fallacy) to say the only two options are  "design" and "luck". You
> > posit the existence of a creator. From whence did the creator come?
> > Was it, too, created? Or is it here through sheer luck? If you posit a
> > third possibility, why do you preclude that possibility as an
> > explanation of the universe?
>
> I believe that a creator has always existed, no beginning and no end.

Ok, and why do you preclude that as a possibility for the universe?

>
> > It is certainly not delusion to anthropromorphize the universe and
> > nature. It's the way our brains are designed. Pattern recognition
> > machines. We look at bits and pieces of data, and assign it a value
> > based on our experiences. It does it instinctively and very quickly
> > and is a necessary trait for our survival. This does not mean it is
> > correct or accurate. Optical illusions are such a case. They exploit
> > the "fill-in-the-blanks" ability of the brain to make us see things
> > they're aren't there.
>
> > Essentially when you look at the universe and see design, it is an
> > optical illusion.
>
> Consider the two statements:
>
> 1) If one believes in a creator, then one sees the creator's hand in
> creation.  If God really does exist and if he said that he created the
> universe, then logically you look for that design and find it.
>
> 2) If one believes in string theory then it is logical to believe in
> the existence of the graviton and that all elementary particles are
> made up of little strings of energy.
>
> Neither of these sets of beliefs are proven one way or the other.  So,
> in essence the argument against design is a moot point, just as the
> argument for design is moot from your point of view because you do not
> believe in a god.  So both our arguments in this case are invalid.

Then why bring it up?

>
> > The depth and complexity of our knowledge is certainlly increased, but
> > as science continues to move forward and new discoveries are made, it
> > is consistently being found that the underlying structure and laws of
> > the universe are less in number.
>
> This is an opinion.

No. The number of forces and elementary particles is an objective,
quantifiable number. It is not an opinion to say that 2 is less than
4.

> Just like Einstein so keenly pointed out, "No
> amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment
> can prove me wrong."  So to it is assumed that this applies to
> everything in science.  Newton may also have felt the same way about
> consistently finding that the underlying structure and laws of the
> universe were less in number.  We know better today and it would be
> presumptuous on humanity's part to assume otherwise.

Presumptuous if we are talking about future discoveries, which we are
not. You made a statement about the state of science now versus
historically. That a trend shows increasing complexity. I prove this
false by showing how it actually shows decreasing complexity. This is
not presumption. I am not saying that it will continue in this manner.
Indeed, if you were suggesting that this (false) increase in
complexity will continue into the future, then it is use that is
presumptuous.

It is a fact that science shows the laws and nature of the universe to
be simpler than previously thought. Your argument for increasing
complexity is false.

> It has taken
> thousands of years and millions of people putting there heads together
> to bring science to its current level of understanding, who is to say
> we're over the summit?

Nothing. I didn't say that.

> The paradigm shift in the world of science
> toward Einstein's theory of relativity didn't make things simpler.  It
> was simpler to believe in the ether.

No, it wasn't. There was never any resolution between the proposed
existence of the ether and the empirical and rational evidence at
hand. All thought experiments about the ether, while answering some
questions, only raised more, and no depictions of the ether were
sufficient to answers even the questions it was purposefully invented
to answer.

Relativity is simpler because it combined schools of thought into a
single overarching model. 1 model is simpler than 2. Especially if the
1 model resolves a contradiction between the 2 models! The static
speed of light contradicted the notion of absolute time but relative
motion. Special relativity resolved this by proposing relative time.
Einstein then enveloped theories of gravity into this model to create
general relativity.

Several different models now under one umbrella. While the equations
may be harder to solve and contain more variables, the model itself is
simpler.

>
> > Is there a specific piece of evidence that points toward an
> > intelligent source, or merely the compulsion to fill in a blank with
> > "God"?
>
> I could say the same thing about dark matter or dark energy.  Are they
> just trying to "fill in the blank" in their formulas or is there
> empirical evidence that these exist?  I could say that they are
> compelled to force their models to fit their observations and that
> neither one really exists.

Interesting, but irrelevant. The only thing I'm interesting in what
you "could" do is answer the question. I'll repeat it:

"Is there a specific piece of evidence that points toward an
intelligent source, or merely the compulsion to fill in a blank with
"God"?"

>

> > So, because many other theists agree with you, it's logical? Hardly.
> > (Argument ad populum).
>
> > Consider the following statement:
>
> > "I believe many other theists also have the same perspective that the
> > Earth is the center of the universe and that is why it is perfectly
> > logical and reasonable from this point of view to believe the Earth is
> > the center of the universe"
>
> It would be a mistake to say that Argument ad populum does not carry
> any weight in a logical discussion, though it is not, of course, by
> itself proof.

Why is it a mistake? Argument ad populum is a fallacy. It carries no
weight.

> Science believed for a long time that the earth was the
> center of the universe and it was logical to Aristotle.  So, are you
> saying that Aristotle was illogical and irrational at the time he had
> this theory?

In this regard, perhaps not, since he did not have access to
contradicting data. But I fail to see what this has with argument ad
populum.

Aristotle did make many illogical claims though, that defied empirical
evidence easily accessible, such as the rate at which objects fall. I
fail to see the relevance in this reference.

> Science is only as good as our ability to observe the
> universe.  Our modern day instruments may be considered more primitive
> to scientists 1,000 years from now than Aristotle's seem to us today.

Ok, and?

>
> In addition, these tools may detect things we can only imagine (but
> could still logically reason to exist).  If everyone just followed the
> scientific method exclusively, then only questions would be asked if
> something were observed, that would cripple advancement.  Thinking
> outside the box, or conducting "thought experiments" brings questions
> to the table that otherwise would not.  Einstein's theories came about
> because of this.  He came up with theories about the universe when he
> imagined chasing a beam of light and completely changed the way we
> understand the universe.  Why then is it so hard to imagine traveling
> beside a god and observing him create the universe?

Eisntein was attempting to resolve a contradicting between two
scientific models. His resolve, while outside the box, wasn't accepted
until evidence surfaced to support it. Had evidence not done so, his
idea about relative time and space-time would have been consider as
fanciful fiction as a creator god.

But the creator god is worse, since it resolves nothing. It stems from
no axioms and no conclusions can be derived from it without positing
more axioms. It useless, true or false.

Regardless, you keep making claims about things outside the realm of
science, despite the fact that my essay is specifically adressing
things in the realm of science. Are you, or are you not, conceding the
god exists completely outside the realm of science, because you seem
to be flip-flopping depending on the situation. I'd like a clear
answer on this, and I'll prepare my responses ahead of time:

If should exist (even in part) within the realm of science, then my
essay shows why we should accept the premise as false.
If god doesn't exist within the realm of science, then the discussion
is irrelevant.

>
> As a side note, the scriptures say God is a being of light.  If a
> being achieved the speed of light, to that being all space would
> contract to the point that it would be "here" for him, and all time
> would slow down until it became "now" for him.  Therefore, science
> itself may suggest how, for a being of light and glory like God, all
> space and all time could be present

No, all space would not contract. The speed of light is not infinite
speed (a la Warp 10 in Star Trek). It is simply the maximum speed
anything can go.

As far as perceptions of time. We would perceive the object moving at
the speed of light to not be aging at all. It is unknown how the
object itself would perceive the outside world, the relativity would
suggest it would percieve us in the same manner.

The "scripture" is poetry, not a scientific description of anything
real. Furthemore it begs the question and is a circular argument. The
scripture is only valid if god exists. You can not use it to prove
that god exists.

>
> > >  A person who discounts God's hand in existence is
> > > left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause,
> > > without design, and is merely a statistical anomaly or piece of
> > > incredibly good fortune.
>
> > No. They aren't left with that conclusion. Again, how do you posit
> > that your God came about?
>
> You've already affirmed one conclusion of the three I stated by
> stating that the universe is without design and any design is an
> optical illusion.  What is your conclusion then? That the universe
> just is because it is necessary that it is?  That is at least as
> logical and rational a statement that the universe was created.

I don't have a conclusion regarding why the universe exists.

>
> > The odds of reality vs. non-reality are not calculable.
>
> This is true, they are not calculable because it is outside the
> observable universe.

Did you just realize this, or are you lying on purpose, hoping I
wouldn't catch this? If you know the odds aren't calculable, then why
would you make a statement regarding those odds?

> There is no medium by which to measure.
> Restricted by our current medium, it is outside the ability of our
> minds to understand (thus the use of the word, astronomical).  Does
> that mean there isn't another medium, yet undiscovered, that would
> allow such a calculation?  Of course not.  But if it did exist, I
> still hold that the odds would be astronomical based on pure, simple,
> logical statistics and probabilities.

This is pure, irrational bunk. Since you don't know the necessary
details on which to even make such a statement, or even estimate such
a statement, this is just wild, gross speculation.

>
> > So, you've proposed that everything is designed or random. So, which
> > applies to your God?
>
> As stated before, I do not hold that the observable universe is
> "everything" so it is not
> destructive to my argument and does not mean that God has to be random
> or designed.

You're great at evading questions. If your god is not random or
designed, what is he?

>
> Therefore, I affirm that the logic theism rests on is at least equal
> to the logic of atheism.  Furthermore, Occam's Razor does not favor
> atheism if the logic of both is equal.

Yes it does, since Occam's Razor specifically says that, all things
being equal, the answer with lesser components should be accepted.

> You can argue that it is
> simpler to conclude that the universe was created instead of randomly
> falling into existence.  The entities involved can be said to be one
> when referring to a creator, or many when referring to physical laws
> as the reason for the universe).

I know I can argue. I'm waiting for you to do so.

[zencycle]

From: "Vagabond" <vaga...@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Re: View this page "The Support of the Premise "No god
exists" via the Sci

> not exist. How do I know that they are truths? One thing that
> Christians believe is that we are God's children, as such, we have the
> ability to know right from wrong and discern truth (be it secular
> truth or spiritual truth). We are born with this intelligence.

Incorrect. You were born with an innate sense, but that sense is heavily
altered on the indoctrination you received as a child. Depending on how
malleable your personality is, that indoctrination may or may not take
precedence over your innate sense. For example, I was born with an innate
sense that god was load of horseshit, since I remember questioning the whole
concept as early as 8, while attending CCD until I was 12. Some children
will be molded to other ideas, such as children brought up in the FLDS
church. Given the opportunity, the adults will brainwash these children into
thinking that women are subservient to men and that forced marriage and
subsequent rape is ordained by scripture. If we were all born with this
god-given sense of right and wrong, then clearly, the FLDS would not
survive, wars would not be fought over religion, and people would not be
murdered over different interpretations of this god.

> I believe that a creator has always existed, no beginning and no end.

A classic cop-out. You're defining an entity that must live outside our
observable dimensions. Therefore, you always have the out ' we can't ever
see god until we transcend this dimension'. Yet, you use as evidence, a book
allegedly dictated by this extra-dimensional being, and based on that, we
should take your word for it.

No, this is pure faith on your part. It has no basis whatsoever in reality.

> Consider the two statements:
>
> 1) If one believes in a creator, then one sees the creator's hand in
>

> 2) If one believes in string theory then it is logical to believe in

Except that string theory has been arrived upon by observable phenomenon IT
wasn't a presupposed theory that was created out of the ether. That's the
difference. In case 1, the theist starts from an established point of view
and looks for evidence to support it, and unfortunately (in most cases)
disregards evidence that contradicts the pre-conclusion. In case 2, the
scientist looks at the data and _then_ looks for an explanation following
leads that lead to more experimentation and evidence. Heres the big twist,
when the scientist finds the data disproves his theory, he discards the
theory, not the data.

> believe in a god. So both our arguments in this case are invalid.

The argument from science is sustainable with observable evidence.

>> is consistently being found that the underlying structure and laws of
>> the universe are less in number.
>
> This is an opinion. Just like Einstein so keenly pointed out, "No
> amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment
> can prove me wrong."

First, the first statement is wrong. Second the two statements have nothing
to do with each other.

> Newton may also have felt the same way about
> consistently finding that the underlying structure and laws of the
> universe were less in number.

Yes, he _may_ have. I assume you have some credible evidence to support
this?

> We know better today and it would be
> presumptuous on humanity's part to assume otherwise.

1) we know better than what newton may or may not have felt? How would we
know?

2) Where do you get the idea that science is _not_ leading us toward a grand
unification theory?

> It has taken
> thousands of years and millions of people putting there heads together
> to bring science to its current level of understanding, who is to say
> we're over the summit?

No one. Have you heard anyone say that?

>The paradigm shift in the world of science
> toward Einstein's theory of relativity didn't make things simpler. It
> was simpler to believe in the ether.

It made things more understandable, and from that aspect it's simpler.
FWIW - it's easier to believe in god than practice any form of productive
scientific research. Don't understand it? the answers simple. god did it.
Where would we be if that were the prevailing thought?

>> intelligent source, or merely the compulsion to fill in a blank with
>> "God"?
>
> I could say the same thing about dark matter or dark energy.

And you would be wrong

>Are they
> just trying to "fill in the blank" in their formulas or is there
> empirical evidence that these exist?

yes. (I'll need rapps help on that one, I'm not a physicist)

> I could say that they are
> compelled to force their models to fit their observations and that
> neither one really exists.

As was stated earlier, science follows the data, The same is not true of
god.

[Trajan]

Hi Trajan here:
Can anyone prove scientifically that George Washington was the first
president of the US and a General in the Revolutionary war?
Can anyone prove without doubt that Dr. Martin Luther King was the
nation's foremost civil rights leader again, "Scientifically?"
The answer is NO! Why? Because for anyone to scientifically prove
anything they must be able to repeat the same experiment over and over
again and obtain the same result.
Of course I KNOW that the above 2 people were who it says they were
and how do I come to this conclusion? By reading books and history
about them. THAT and THAT alone is the proof. BUT...It is NOT
scientific proof.
By the same token one cannot seriously ask the question to anyone to
SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of God. Why? because the scientific
pre-requisite of obtaining PROOF by repeated experiments will ALWAYS
come into play.
So, like George Washington and Dr. King, God too is evidenced by books
and writings about Him. Both secular and religious. We Christians rely
on the bible, the dead sea scrolls, the Jewish Wars and Antiquities by
Josephus and hundreds of other writings that tell us that God does
indeed exist and that Jesus Christ came as God in the flesh, lived,
died for man's sin and rose again alive at the right hand of God the
Father. And we have many MANY more writings to prove God's existence
than ANYONE else in the history of the world.
Then there is that ever present subject of faith. The evidence of
things seen and the substance of things hoped for. If we can have
faith that the envelope we drop in a mailbox will go through the
hundreds of hands, cars, and planes etc., it takes to get to to it's
destination by mistake prone Man, then why is it so hard to believe in
the same type of faith that God IS Who He says He is?
Scientific proof of God? No. Can't help you there anymore then you can
help me scientifically prove to me that ANY person that is not
physically present ever existed. But literary proof. Evidentiary proof
by the people who walked with Him and saw Him? Yep! I can help you
there all day long. The bible, (God's Word) tons of other written
materials and faith tell me that God is real and HIs life changing
ways testify to Him every day.
Oh and that "Big Bang?" Come on. Tell the last time you had a
catastrophic explosion that resulted in A PERFECTLY ORDERED UNIVERSE
AND NOT CHAOS. Every time I've seen something blow up the end result
is ALWAYS chaos. The chances of that happening are about as slim as
Websters complete unabridged Dictionary being the result of an
explosion in a printing factory.
Later on folks.
Trajan

[Dev]

There is substantial evidence of historical events that are accepted
as fact. That makes it very different from believing in magical
storybook characters with no substantial evidence. If believing in
something with no real evidence at all is okay, it should be perfectly
acceptable for a jury to find you guilty of raping your own mother
with no evidence and then send you to prison to be buttraped until
your eyeballs fall out of your skull--not my standards but yours. So
either you admit to being a hypocrite, or admit you should be
buttraped in prison for raping your mother. Either-or.

[Dag Yo]

> By the same token one cannot seriously ask the question to anyone to
> SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of God. Why? because the scientific
> pre-requisite of obtaining PROOF by repeated experiments will ALWAYS
> come into play.

You're clearly confused about the scientific method and you're
confused as to how history is studied, both rely on a thoughtful view
of evidence. If there was any good reason to believe that God exists
the we would know about it scientifically. At the moment though, God
appears to be nothing more than a very silly concept put forward by
people with little understanding of the world around them, very weak
critical thinking skills, a great deal of gullibility, and a
propensity for magical thinking -- and so there IS NOT a good reason
to believe that God exists.

-

[Drafterman]

On Apr 12, 7:03 pm, Trajan <Is41...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Trajan here:
> Can anyone prove scientifically that George Washington was the first
> president of the US and a General in the Revolutionary war?
> Can anyone prove without doubt that Dr. Martin Luther King was the
> nation's foremost civil rights leader again, "Scientifically?"
> The answer is NO! Why? Because for anyone to scientifically prove
> anything they must be able to repeat the same experiment over and over
> again and obtain the same result.

Thankfully I address this issue since every observed moment in time is
a repeated test of God's non-existence.

> Of course I KNOW that the above 2 people were who it says they were
> and how do I come to this conclusion? By reading books and history
> about them. THAT and THAT alone is the proof. BUT...It is NOT
> scientific proof.

In what way are the books proof of any kind?

> By the same token one cannot seriously ask the question to anyone to
> SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of God. Why? because the scientific
> pre-requisite of obtaining PROOF by repeated experiments will ALWAYS
> come into play.

Thankfully I address not scientific proof of God, but scientific
disproof of God.

> So, like George Washington and Dr. King, God too is evidenced by books
> and writings about Him. Both secular and religious. We Christians rely
> on the bible, the dead sea scrolls, the Jewish Wars and Antiquities by
> Josephus and hundreds of other writings that tell us that God does
> indeed exist and that Jesus Christ came as God in the flesh, lived,
> died for man's sin and rose again alive at the right hand of God the
> Father. And we have many MANY more writings to prove God's existence
> than ANYONE else in the history of the world.

Yet, for some reason, you do not believe George Washington and Dr.
King are saviors and should be worshiped. You arbitrarily place a
higher value on the Bible, yet not the higher scrutiny which should
naturally accompany the higher value. Why?

> Then there is that ever present subject of faith. The evidence of
> things seen and the substance of things hoped for. If we can have
> faith that the envelope we drop in a mailbox will go through the
> hundreds of hands, cars, and planes etc., it takes to get to to it's
> destination by mistake prone Man, then why is it so hard to believe in
> the same type of faith that God IS Who He says He is?

Because you are equivocating. Faith can mean many things. I have
"faith" in the US Postal service because I have tangible empirical
experience that it works. Essentially it is not faith at all, since
faith is belief without proof or evidence. I have proof and evidence
that mail gets where it's supposed to (aside from the occasional
mistake), yet there is no proof or evidence of god.

> Scientific proof of God? No. Can't help you there anymore then you can
> help me scientifically prove to me that ANY person that is not
> physically present ever existed.

Ok. So?

> But literary proof. Evidentiary proof
> by the people who walked with Him and saw Him? Yep! I can help you
> there all day long. The bible, (God's Word) tons of other written
> materials and faith tell me that God is real and HIs life changing
> ways testify to Him every day.

What is "literary proof"?
What evidentiary proof is there that the Bible is anything but a work
if fiction?

> Oh and that "Big Bang?" Come on. Tell the last time you had a
> catastrophic explosion that resulted in A PERFECTLY ORDERED UNIVERSE
> AND NOT CHAOS. Every time I've seen something blow up the end result
> is ALWAYS chaos. The chances of that happening are about as slim as
> Websters complete unabridged Dictionary being the result of an
> explosion in a printing factory.

The universe isn't perfectly ordered so I'm wondering what ignorant
Christian a apologist website you pulled that from.

> Later on folks.
> Trajan

[zencycle]

I think this is a troll, but I'll counter with a few pieces of bait, just in
case it isn't.

From: "Trajan" <Is4...@gmail.com>
Subject: [AvC] Discussion on
the-support-of-the-premise-no-god-exists-via-the-scientific-method

>
> Hi Trajan here:
> Can anyone prove scientifically that George Washington was the first
> president of the US and a General in the Revolutionary war?
> Can anyone prove without doubt that Dr. Martin Luther King was the
> nation's foremost civil rights leader again, "Scientifically?"
> The answer is NO! Why? Because for anyone to scientifically prove
> anything they must be able to repeat the same experiment over and over
> again and obtain the same result.

Yes, We can do that, and have done that. Where did you get the idea we
can't?

> Of course I KNOW that the above 2 people were who it says they were
> and how do I come to this conclusion? By reading books and history
> about them. THAT and THAT alone is the proof. BUT...It is NOT
> scientific proof.

Sure it is. If you were to start from scratch by asking 'how did the US come
to be?', your research would lead you to only one conclusion in the form of
a complicated series of events, in which george washington was a central
figure. It's not just _a_ history book, there are reams of corroborating and
independent sources from the period, as well as _personally_ written
documentation, and the legacy of his actions. The last piece is that we know
where he's buried, and we have several personal artifacts. This is
repeatable 'experimentation' which leads to the same result. You can't do
this with god.

> By the same token one cannot seriously ask the question to anyone to
> SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE the existence of God. Why? because the scientific
> pre-requisite of obtaining PROOF by repeated experiments will ALWAYS
> come into play.

agree to the conclusion, but not the precursor.

> So, like George Washington and Dr. King, God too is evidenced by books
> and writings about Him. Both secular and religious.

First off, Dr. King is a separate issue. We have video of Dr. king, so he's
off the table with this experiment. As far as god is concerned, you have no
evidence except the writings of people who _said_ they spoke to god. Here's
the tricky part....we don't know who wrote the old testament. In order for
the documentation to be considered reliable, you have to be able to vet the
author by corroborating their research. We cannot do that with the old
testament.

> We Christians rely
> on the bible

unreliable due to the above

> the dead sea scrolls, the Jewish Wars and Antiquities by
> Josephus and hundreds of other writings that tell us that God does
> indeed exist

No, these tell us that jesus existed. They only reference god in that jesus
is described as a believer

> and that Jesus Christ came as God in the flesh, lived,
> died for man's sin and rose again alive at the right hand of God the
> Father.

no, the literature you describe was speculative. These 'witnesses' that
allegedly saw some figure they consider to be some reincarnate form of jesus
were describing some character that acted and sounded a lot like jesus, but
didn't look like him. That isn't exaclty 'proof'.

> And we have many MANY more writings to prove God's existence
> than ANYONE else in the history of the world.

Except that all of these writings are based on the bible, which we've
already shown to not be a reliable source, in that we can verify neither the
authors or their sources.

> Then there is that ever present subject of faith. The evidence of
> things seen and the substance of things hoped for.

then why can't we include the billions of prayers _not_ answered in the
formula?

> If we can have
> faith that the envelope we drop in a mailbox will go through the
> hundreds of hands, cars, and planes etc., it takes to get to to it's
> destination by mistake prone Man, then why is it so hard to believe in
> the same type of faith that God IS Who He says He is?

This one has to go into Dag's stupid analogy file. You're really equating
the us postal service to the creation of the universe?
If the letter were to magically appear at it's destination, you might have a
point, but it doesn't. Mail delivery has been a process that has been
devolped and automated over the past 150 years, and all it does is deliver
mail. It doesn't create the universe. dumb, dumb, dumb

> Scientific proof of God? No. Can't help you there anymore then you can
> help me scientifically prove to me that ANY person that is not
> physically present ever existed.

Wrong, as is detailed above.

> there all day long. The bible, (God's Word) tons of other written
> materials and faith tell me that God is real and HIs life changing
> ways testify to Him every day.

Faith is ALL you have. The bible is not a verifiable source, and all other
documentation praising god is based on that book, therefore, when you sart
out with a questionable source, all extrapolations of that are equally if
not more suspect.

> Oh and that "Big Bang?" Come on. Tell the last time you had a
> catastrophic explosion that resulted in A PERFECTLY ORDERED UNIVERSE
> AND NOT CHAOS.

Who ever said the universe was perfectly ordered? It isn't, except for a few
notable exceptions. You need a short science lesson. There is no such thing
as chaos. Everything reaches a certain level of stability known as
'entropy'. The universe as a whole has not reached entropy, as the big bang
is still exploding.

> Every time I've seen something blow up the end result
> is ALWAYS chaos.

And here's where we finally arrive at the real issue, your inability to gasp
complex issues such as quantum mechanics and entropy. The problem is that
you have neither the intellect or imagination to get passed basic science,
and your ego won't allow you to consider that there are things you can't
understand, yet others can, therefore, there must be god, because it's easy
to check your brain at the door and not have to think any longer.

>The chances of that happening are about as slim as
> Websters complete unabridged Dictionary being the result of an
> explosion in a printing factory.

Now you're getting it.

[Trajan]

REPLY TO DEV:

Hi Dev:
Trajan here. I simply MUST respond to to this one.

First, where did you get the idea that I believe "in magical
> storybook characters with no substantial evidence.?" (your quote). It is historical fact that in addition to the Bible, there are many secular, historical and even eyewitness accounts (of Jesus) and writings that totally support many of the stories, people, geographic locations etc., that are depicted in the bible.Modern archaeologists are finding more and more evidence each year. This is especially prevalent in the geographical arena. Not too many years ago the location of the Hittites and their cities were unearthed. Prior to that it was maintained that these people never existed and that the bible was in error in it's mention of them. The point? Don't think evidence does not exist when all the facts are not in yet.

TWO: I noticed in your profile that you quoted Friedrich Wilhelm
Nietzsche, indicating a possible interest in Philosophy or more to the
point, Philosophers. Along with Nietzsche and the "God is dead" crew
we also have Jung, Hiedegger, Sartre, and Freud among many others. How
can you accuse me of having conclusions lacking evidence when one of
your favorite quotes comes from a man whose field of expertise is
rooted in nothing except theories many of which are challenged all the
time. My mother holds three doctorates. One in Philosophy and the
other 2 are in English and Literature. She earned her degrees and
because of a 4.0 average she earned a full scholarship to Oxford
University where she defended her dissertation. Mom just retired from
teaching at the University of Maine at Machias. Why all this? Because
Dev, I HAVE done my research. I read many books other than the Bible
(which people keep saying is the only book I draw conclusions from).
Nothing could be further from the truth. I learned a lot from my mom
as well as my professors, and because of that earned my degree in
Theology.
Now I may be drawing a conclusion without direct evidence right now
but I cannot help myself. Your disgusting prison analogy of me
certainly smacks of a wierd and perhaps twisted view of Motherhoodf.
Possibly the old cliche'? A Freudian slip perhaps. Here are your
words:

"If believing in something with no real evidence at all is okay, it
should be perfectly
acceptable for a jury to find you guilty of raping your own mother
with no evidence and then send you to prison to be buttraped until
your eyeballs fall out of your skull--not my standards but yours. So
either you admit to being a hypocrite, or admit you should be
buttraped in prison for raping your mother. Either-or."

Wow Dev! Where did THAT come from.? That's the first thing that came
to your mind when you wanted to come up with an analogy? Sheeeesh! You
might want to lay off the philosophy books for awhile bro. That whole
scenario is twisted. And then your position of "Either -or"? If you're
an astute member of the "Enlightenment" era one would think that you'd
move away from the draconian either or, black or white, good or bad
this OR that position, and instead, explore the realm of other
possibilities. You're beginning to sound like a Monotheist. This
brings me to my last point.

Dev...Hmmm, short for "Devil." (again your profile). Of all the names
you could have used as a handle you chose that one. You asked me to
"admit being a hypocrite OR [there is that word again] admit I should
be buttraped in prison for raping my mother. Either-or."

I will not admit to either one Dev because I am not a hypocrite nor do
I feel I deserve your Freudian slop of a prison analogy. I WILL
however pose that question to you though. Will YOU admit that YOU are
a hypocrite? I only ask because you identify yourself as an atheist
but yet you name yourself Dev (short for DEVIL) and everyone knows
that if you believe in one you MUST believe in the other. If being an
atheist means that you believe there is NO God, then it means there is
no devil or anti-god either. So would YOU admit being a hypocrite?
Because you call yourself an atheist yet name yourself from that same
"magical storybook" (your words describing the Bible) and call
yourself Devil who was an angel created by God. DO let us know.

P.S. I wish to make it crystal clear that ANYTIME I mention the word
Mother, or Motherhood etc. in this reply I am NOT referring to your
mother or anyone else's. This is a courtesy that you did not extend to
me.

P.S.S. I do love a spirited debate and harbor no ill will or feelings
toward ya Dev. For real.

Have a great day.
T.

******Some QUOTES TO PONDER*****

" Martin Heidegger changed the way we think about reality by
successfully
challenging Positivism or scientism as the absolute "truth" of reality
when
he published "Being and Time" in 1927 All the fuzzy thinking we
post-moderns are so accustomed to feeling quite righteous in doing,
owes its
beginning in our consciousness to the efforts of Nietzsche and
Heidegger.
There are currently three major ontologies, ways of defining "being",
what
exists in "reality". Positivism, Hermeneutics [study of the Bible],
and some blend of the two.
When Hiedegger picks out an object with just the right meaning to
example
the four terms of Aristotle's traditional idea of causation, he
settled on a
Communion Chalice of all things...a big holy cup of Jupiter right
smack dab
on the place most associated with Gods authority being communicated,
transmitted to man, the birth degree of Jesus ..." ~Pedantus
Pansophicus


"Whenever a planet contacts that point, it creates a "finger of God"
and opposes
my vertex. I've experience old friends of the male persuasion
contacting when
this aspect ... Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing
wonder and
awe - the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. -
Immanuel Kant."


"If this is hard for you to understand, imagine that your feet
themselves are physcially welded to the Earth. And that all things
that appear separate are welded together by the Life Force that
pervades the Universe and that this picture of complete connectedness
is just as powerful, even more so, than the physical connection you
have just imagined. Imagine that concsciousness itself exists covered
over by this blanket
of outer reality that you witness and that you feel you live in. And
that the outer reality is nothing more than this. And further that
its
relation to the inner reality is as the image in a mirror is to the
object it reflects....This underlying consciousness is God. The Atman.
God, of which you are a
tiny piece, peeps his head up inside all that is conscious and views
Himself as he unfolds himself. For it is necessary for him to do so
in the proper ordering of the Universe. " ~ Tad Perry excerpt from: A
Master Teaches His Disciple.
Check out the whole article:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astrology.moderated/browse_thread/thread/a4dd8491439d2c6f/57a9aa430fc77f4b?lnk=gst&q=Freud+God#57a9aa430fc77f4b


"Hell is other people." ~ Jean-Paul Sartre (?) I always saw Hell
depicted as a place, albiet a spiritual (or non spiritual place) Hell
is the absence of God to me.



"God is the mind with which I think." - this tells me that mind is
Real, and what is mind but consciousness? Consciousness doesn't
change. It is unborn and cannot die.
Appearances within the mind are not Real. They come and go. They are
illusions. The world is an appearance within the One mind.
But the GRAND illusion is the illusion of SEPARATENESS. That's what
makes the world SEEM real. " ~ Carl Jung

> >Trajan- Hide quoted text -

[Dag Yo]

Whoa whoa whoa there. Put the rest of that on hold just for a second.

> First, where did you get the idea that I believe "in magical
> storybook characters with no substantial evidence.?" (your quote).
> It is historical fact that in addition to the Bible, there are many
> secular, historical and even eyewitness accounts (of Jesus)

I've never heard of ANY non-biblical eye-witness accounts of Jesus
(not that any book of the New Testament could be described as an eye-
witness account since we have no reason to believe that the anonymous
authors writing decades after Jesus was said to have died, were eye-
witnesses to those accounts of Jesus). I've also never heard of ANY
secular eye-witness accounts of Jesus. Or for that matter ANY non-
biblical historical eye-witness accounts of Jesus. You might very
well have been told that plenty of such evidence exists and I don't
really doubt that you believe this is true, but I challenge you to
find a single non-biblical eye-witness account of Jesus. [and make it
from the time that Jesus was alive, I'm not interested in someone's
visions or dreams from last week]

> and writings that totally support many of the stories, people,
> geographic locations etc., that are depicted in the bible.

That doesn't count as evidence of anything. There is plenty of
fiction that takes place in real locations, involves real events, and
includes real people, and because people can write stories this way,
it cannot be counted as any sort of evidence that the strange and
magical events described in the bible actually happened.

-

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astrology.moderated/browse_thread/...

> ...
>
> read more »