It depends on what you describe "God" as

My main objection to any evidence for the existence of "God" existing, is
that most people describe "God" as a magical being that can disrupt the
laws of physics and mess with our universe and it's events (at will and without deterrence), when clearly there's never been any events that were objectively observed which resemble the natural order being broken at all, let alone broken by an all-powerful magical being.

And by "objectively" observed, I meant, not observed by anyone other
than crazy or (rather apparently) overly brainwashed people who are deluding themselves.

It all boils down to "faith". Atheists don't have "faith" in anything that has no evidence for it which has been objectively observed. Not leprechauns or Santa Clause or God.

 

And that is bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

A smost religions that have a God have a great deal of difficulty defining what exactly God is. It is because an exactly definition of something is not needed in order to confirm that it is real. I keep using black holes, because they make the point perfectly. We have no idea what is behind the event horizon, but black holes are very much real. The same goes for dark matter, we are learning more because it MUST be there, and, unlike atheists and God, we are looking and exploring in order to find more.

Now how would a RATIONAL person looking for the truth approach God? He's probably start with the general and then get specific. Sort of like starting WITH the idea of Dark Matter, and then try to gain specificity.

It works by wondering whether there is something powerful enough to create the universe - well, we are here, something created us. The method, by accident or design, we know the fuel source, we have no idea how the fuel source got there and we have no idea what set it off. In terms of statistics, it far more likely that an element of design is involved than not. And so forth.

THe big difference is that people actually curious about God will approach the God problem is a logical, curious manner and then go where the preponderance goes.

People who are just looking to confirm their biased and predispositions come up with excuses - excuses that basically make an end run around the entire solution process and documentation to declare their faith valid - and not even a faith.

And when your conclusion rests on something other than a logical proof, upon a preponderance rather than nothing? Well, that is not just faith - but blind faith.

Pisses atheists off to see that, but no one said your emotion matter to the truth.

 

Electrons, photons, mesons, bosons, black holes, etc.

"objectively Synonyms
objectively

modif.

impartially, indifferently, neutrally, open-mindedly, dispassionately, justly, equitably, detachedly, soberly, accurately, candidly, considerately, not subjectively, with objectivity, with impartiality, with due consideration, with judgment, without prejudice, without bias, without partiality, without passion, squarely*, on the square*, like a square shooter*, on the up and up*."

For some strange reason, I cannot see any Atheist fitting into any of those descriptive roles when speaking of the items I have listed above. "Objectively observed" ?????? Yeah right!

 

I had hopes for this thread when I read the title but then it just seems to have ended up in a "there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe"-thread. While they are important enough, they might already have at least ~20-30 % of the subforum's threads dedicated to it.

I've tried to discuss what was in the title several times but they tend to derail. This thread did even before the bulk text of the OP. New record.

 

My point is that if you define "God" as something vague and useless, for instance, "a higher power and/or intelligence", then sure you could intelligently defend the idea of the existence of such a thing. If you define it as a magical sky being that can do anything it wants and defy physical laws as it pleases...yeah.

It depends on what you define "it" as.

 

Something "created" the universe?

It's "far more likely that an element of design is involved than not"?

Prove those assumptions.

 

As far as defining "God"..

Most people who believe in God seem to define it as an intelligent being that has emotions and personal preferences and partiality, and that can defy the laws of physics as it pleases.

Basically, a magical sky daddy.

 

You prove the opposite.

You do know how explosions work correct? THey require two things, a fuel source and a dentonator. Now thing about that in a general sense. Gas leaking into a mine shaft, or even volcanic shaft and being set off by a spark of lightning can happen.

What are the chances that this random confluence of events will result in Mount Rushmore? That it will take a building down in an exacting manor, at a planned time hrough implosion by exploding the building weak points? Pretty damb thin.

Generally speaking, when explosions are productive, they are the result of some kind of design. A bimb dropped on a enemy, was certainly designed, though I suppose there is an off chance that the building will just randomly blow up - not something we teach military tacticians though mind you.

So, statistically speaking, what are the chance that a random ball of pure eneregy, infinite in mass and eneregy, will just appear for no reason? What set it off? And we do see pure eneregy appear and be utilized through fusion in stars - destructive thought this is - it is not the creation of .... the entire multiverse.

So, statistcially, is there a greater chance that these confluence of events that came to gether and happened ONLY ONCE, was teh result of design .... or, that it is an entirely natural and random process that .... for some reason happened only once?

Statistics are on our side on this one, and, though not definitive, it does lend preponderance to one side of a debate. Certainly allows that God is possible, even probable.

And that is were actual curiosity and study leads you, rather than to toward simple declarations.

Now, where is your proof that there is no God oh ye of NO faith?

 

Show me that definition in the Bible or the Koran? Good Luck.

 

People that I talk to that mention "God" give those characteristics to that fictional being, pretty much uniformly.

 

You don't understand the Big Bang theory at all. I don't either, but I do know it wasn't an "explosion". It was an expansion.

 

It. Does this "It" exist? To give this "It" consideration, as in giving this "It" a definition, then the person forming the definition, using our language system, must have knowledge about this "It" in order to establish a definition. There must be an examination of this "It" in order to provide an adequate definition, and all of the parameters of the definition must be validated (at least according to standards established by science).

You also previously stated "And by "objectively" observed, I meant, not observed by anyone other
than crazy or (rather apparently) overly brainwashed people who are deluding themselves." Based on what you have stated, then a person who has not "objectively observed" this "It" would not be qualified (according to science) to form an 'objectively' based definition of this "It". To proceed with the giving of a definition of this "It" without having 'objectively observed' this "It" would create a condition where the person making the definition without having 'objectively observed' this "It" would be delusional, or at least IGNORANT of the subject matter, ie.. "It".

To observe something does not automatically require the use of the eyes to make such an observation. It is conceivable to 'observe' something merely by 'perceiving' that something. The very first definition of 'perceive' is "to grasp mentally".... as in 'thought'. There are no restrictions placed on 'perceiving' something... merely to grasp mentally.

 

Amazing. Christians and Muslims, the most numerous of God believers, refer to God in a way that conflicts with their own beliefs about God.

Or it is just possible that you introduced a characterization of God to feed your own pre-conceptions.

That has nothing to do with:

a. The proof you asked for and were given and are now failing to rebut.

b. The logical approach to the examination of God beginning in a GENERAL, and not specific sense.

Proving the possibility of God, as we see above is one thing. Proving that any one major religion is more right than the other? Well, I am one of those, and even I think that is basically futile.

So why are you engaged in a level of proof for God that most religious people do not engage in - despite your assurances to the contrary?

 

I agree with you on that point. It was indeed an expansion. Just like the sound waves of a musical instrument, start at the point of origin (the instrument) and move forward and all around ,,,, ever expanding and going forward. That is exactly what happened... "In the beginning, God said......." He spoke (He being the musical instrument). Speaking set up the vibrations necessary to energize everything that He had already put in place. The voice of God... ever going forward and accomplishing what He sent those words out to accomplish.

 

But God is supposed to be able to defy the laws of nature, isn't it? That's the part that makes me not believe in it.

 

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Well, whatever it takes to avoid having to question your faith.

The Big Bang was definitely an explosion. And Semantic word games are hardly the stuff to be denying the validity of other people's on are they not?

 

That doesn't say that it was literally an "explosion". And why would you source something that goes against your own argument?

 

Does he?

Why are you debating your own strawman?

 

Oh, so the expansion of pure eneregy expoding was caused by something else, something that you can't explain, merely because this will cause you to have to challenge you faith?

It went boom. Figure it out.

Now, that proof of their NOT being a God, some rational explanation of how God is NOT possible or probable? Where O where is this vaunted intellectual ability of atheism?

 

Atheism does not mean you assume God can't exist. It means you don't assume God does exist.

 

Yes, it is... principally because the entity in question is a metaphysical one in which absolute positions are usually staked; without a precise definition AND a precise justification of how one may verifiably go about confirmation, there's no telling what you are actually seeing... Jesus, Vishnu, Odin, Coyote, Nyharlotep and an infintie number of possiblities exist ... but then there's the naturalistic ones: delusions, hallucinations, overactive imagination, cognitive problems, etc.

'Real' as far as limited empirical constructions can be, models of phenomena, not things-in-and-of-themselves... unlike god-claims.

Nope... you're still just as wrong here as you were a few weeks ago; arguments from ignorance coupled with false analogies aren't getting you anywhere. But then again, wouldn't it be fun to speculate who/what made your god? After all... why would this particular god exist and not another, or none at all?

Until you can externally justify said 'solution processes and documentation' as being up to this task of verification, we needn't run around anything at all: You'll simply have squat.

 

Wrong! In all of the standard definition of Atheism, the word "assume" is not found at all.

 

So, basically, you avoided everything I have written to go, like the other atheists, directly to the specifics.

Is Dark matter metaphysical? We have no idea what it is. None.

And then there is the matter of metaphysical - which is a philosophical stance - and why would you intorduce philosophy to science? Sceince does not care.

If you wish to argue philosophy about God - well good luck with that.

If you wish to approach the concept of God from a rational stand point, you are going to have to use inductive and deductive reasoning on ethe avilable observable materials to reach a conclusion.

the prepodineranec of the avilable evidence, as I spelled out and which you are pulling an ostrich by claiming metaphysical (philosophic) rather than stating tangible evidential reasoning to disagree is noted, and, sceintifically and rationally, irrelevant.

It is about denying what you demand and nothing more. It is about the blind faith of modern atheism. And no matter how many ill considered buzz words you come up with, in the end, you are guy who doesn;t believe in God for no particular reason other than, apparently, to be very mean to people who disagree with you.

.... and to report them for daring to disgree with you.

 

That's better.

This very discussion is what made me stop being an atheist in favour of theological noncognitivism.

As has been my main mantra the latest few years on this forum, "God" (and occasionally "religion", but we'll ignore that for now) is not properly defined which means that in a discussion where two debaters think they are both talking about "God", they might actually be talking about different things which means the discussions can never end since there will be premises that are both true and untrue. Therefore, I find it necessary to form either a belief or a non-belief (or otherwise) for every single version of the word "God".

Now, of course in most discussions it is not relevant. If you're talking to a literal Christian, there is little or no use in pointing out that "God" could mean anything, because you know which version he/she is talking about anyway. I find that the primary difference is compared to atheism (and to some extent agnosticism). I cannot deny any version of "God" as long as I cannot be sure that "God" doesn't refer to stuff like Bic pens or bar stools.

Theological non-cognitivism is also interesting because it directly claim agnosticism as wrong (which not even atheism or most theisms do). The claim that a premise is unknown or unknowable is simply not true for all premises. There is stuff that I am sure about and without proper definitions, I cannot say that any of those doesn't directly mean the existence of anything that could be "God".

Now, many theists say that I am an atheist since I disbelieve their gods, but as long as I cannot accept the central principle of atheism, I cannot see how that could be true.

Many seem to believe that if you allow "God" to transcend definitions, then that reflects his ultimate nature, when in reality, that just makes him indistinguishable to mundane objects or concepts like Bic pens (they are my favourite example).

 

I think you'll find that every persons mention of their god entails the truth. A faith cannot exist if its own premises are false.

So you don't really form any particular non-belief or disbelief if you find the premises to be false, you just don't form a belief.