Prime Factor

First of all i am happy my favorite “foe” is back, welcome back Cryptic… just don’t call be dogmatic again, i really don’t like that :smile:…

Second, i think all the discussion on religion cannot end with the rhetoric we are all using (CC, F_alf, me, yb), because they often take “evidence” from observation.

Exemple; god is the opium of the people (Marx)

While this argument can be consider valid by a lot of sociologist, it is not for everyone. Why ? because it is based on empirical knowledge, so very unstable, we can discuss for years if god is or is’nt the opium of the people… and even if it was; this cannot be a proof agains the concept of god.

Also, the burden of the proof is on theist’s shoulder… not atheist. It is very hard outside mathematic to prove something that does’nt exist, really does’nt exist. (Try to prove the tooth fairy does’nt exist). In the other hand, proving something that does exist, really exist is easier. So like i said, the burden of the proof in on theist’s shoulder.

Soooo… proving god exist is hard. I will just ask that;
i want the rational proof that the concept of god is needed in the explanaition of the creation.

If your answer is; we cannot, then the concept of god cannot be taken seriously in science, only in faith.

A concept can be consider a valid theory only if it can explain something, if it cannot give anything to the theory, it must be consider invalid. Thats the occam’s razor.

The occam’s razor is; “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.”
It is NOT “the simplest answer is propably the good one”, like most people think…

A little explanaintion of the occam’s razor; If im looking in the sky, i see a big, black cloud. If i follow the logic behind occam’s razon, i’ll think its a natural phenomena, if not, i can say it’s in fact the blood of a giant invisible bird, fighting the humanity’s survival in the space. You cannot prove my concept is false, only it is useless to explain the black cloud… so we won’t use it.

Definition of God; An higher, superior, personnal being.
In short; not the Pantheist’s God, only the Theist’s god, and maybe even the Panentheist’s god…

I wish this way we will conclude… Not that i think i will convert anyone to Atheism, i just want to make god concept retreat where it belong; outside science, outside logic, outside physic, only in personnal faith.

Note; i am still working so i won’t have time to answer this week, only the weekend…

I’ll use a metaphor. We’re blind. And we’re arguing over the color of the sky. Some people tell us the sky is blue. Some tell us that the sky is red. Some people tell us that the color of the sky is unknowable. Some say that you have to have faith to believe that the sky is (insert color). Some say that logically the sky would be (insert color) because to think that it is (insert color) is laughable, or too complicated.

The sky is one color, definitely one color. But without looking at it we can never really be 100% sure either way.

Then you are an empirist, but i am not. I do not need to see to integrate concept in my vision of the woorld. But the fact GOD is a concept useless in creation of the universe and in everything is a very good argument against it…

God either exists or He doesn’t. The Atheist believes that God doesn not exist. The Theist believes that he does. The Agnostic doesn’t really believe either way.

The Atheist has a burden of proving God does not exist.

The Theist has the burden of proving that God does exist.

The Agnostic has no burden of proof.

That is a complete non-sence. Those who believe X concept is valid must try to proove it IS valid. But those who believe it is not valid; they have nothing to proove at all. If we were working with your looking we were certainly not as advanced as we are, because if each time a X person invent a Z theory everyone try to proove it exist or not; we would loose time. Like i said, it is hard to proove that something that does not exist, really does’nt exist. Try to proove to me;

• Santaclaus does’nt exist
• My mother is’nt Gaia
• The tooth fairy does’nt exist

You will (i wish) ask for proof, you have no burden to proove i am wrong, because sometime (tooth fairy) it is VERY hard to prove the inexistance of a concept.

Anyway, I have two points. The Atheist does have a burden of proof. Otherwise he is an agnostic. Which is why it is such a muddy debate. Both sides have burdens of proof which they are hard-pressed to fulfill well, let alone perfectly.

I am atheist because i think the concept of god is useless, nobody demonstrate it can be useless in understanding the creation of the universe, or any other physical laws.

An agnostic is someone “not sure”. He think theres maybe something behind the theist’s argumentation, while the Atheist believe it is all crap.

bordel… it was me :smile:

• true, true, true, related. We Christians, scientists included (please let’s pretend that this hopelessly romantic prairie boy without the rational that God gave his dog is somewhat of a scientist) have absolutely no tangible proof that God exists etc.

Im not even asking for proof, i just want an argument, without any logical falacy, to just put a personal god in the rank of Theory in the creation of our universe. We can even do that with contradictary theory, so it’s not asking for a proof.

And if i use the creation of the universe; its because the bible and christian believe god is the creator of the universe, and by using the creation of the universe i can bypass useless empiricist argument for Theist & Atheist (miracle & personnal contact for the first one, sociologic & psychological argument for the second).

An exemple between A & T, a is the atheist & T the theist.

T - God must have create the universe because we need a desinger for every design.
A - I can explain the desing of a mountain without using the concept of god.
T - But god create the mountain.

That is circular logic, completely invalid, so theres no discussion needed. The only thing you can argue is if the desing of the mountain is or not explained, but if it is not A will speak of even simplest desing totally understood by mankind. While if you are speaking about miracle it would never end because it is subject to interpretation.

T - I have personnal contact with god, you cannot say its not true !
A - Well i can, this is just a psychological reaction to the fear of death
T - no it’s not
A - yes it is
T - no
A - yes

Ad infinitum… (or maybe Ad nauseam)

We have a historical document that you shoot down as being a fairy tale.

Well… not fairy tale; mythology, but it is close…

The apparent reversal of entropy from the big bang to present, irreducible states of complexity within physiological systems are unexplainable by science, and written off as atheists who refer to the Catholic Churches censure of 15th century scientists.

Still. The theist don’t use the unknow to base coherent theory. They point the finger at it while shouting “it’s god !”. Sure, we don’t know everything… but that’s science, the day we will know everything i wish i’ll be dead (and i will :smile:).

The last thing we need in science is a religion that is trying slow us with conformism. Religion always retreat, just a question of time.

Witnessed miracles since time immemorial, real experiences (in so far that we can claim to have them) with a loving and personal saviour, a personal faith more effective than any other happenstance in a believer’s life (including torture and death) are written off as delusions, psychosis, lies, and irrational beliefs in fairy tales.

Exactly, and you’ll have an hard time using that AS AN ARGUMENT because empiricist is a very hard method of understanding, thing are rarely what they seem.

You have done it FinsterniS. You have asked a question that we can not answer.

Nia nia, i win, you loose, loossssser

No, seriously :smile:

If the concept of god cannot be even usefull.
Then rejecting it is the only logical option.

And i am sure you will agree useless concept cannot be integrate in any domain of knowledge.

At the same time, the questions that people of faith ask scientists are answered by the most flacid and tenuous “scientific” arguments with much inferrence, and little basis in fact as well.

In science we often believe we know much more that we really do.

Faith (well, Christianity) needs science: To keep it honest. To provide the physical explanation that underlies the statements in the bible. To help elevate all people in almost every discipline. At the same time, science needs faith (not religion - this is too easily dismissed as a series of superstitious rituals): To keep it honest. To keep people searching out new truths. To provide a balance. To keep us aware that not everything can be mastered and measured.

To keep it honest… and to keep it pollute science with preuso-theory like “creation science”. The very existance of Creationism is fallacious…

About science being honest WITH religion, i really don’t understand. I am doing my job in science, without any Wall. If i discover X, it won’t interfere with Y religious doctrine.

Why am i not honest with Science ?

by the way, glad i’m your favorite foe, you dogmatic church trasher you :smile:

and you dogmatic arch-nemesis of science :smile:

by the way, i did have an interesting experience while overseas, and can see more clearly your anger at religion, your claim that “God” (i’d say more accurately “religion”) is dying, amoung other things, but we can get into this in another series of posts . . . .

That’s in part why i am very proud of being European. Still i am very jalous of the asiatic in their scientic method, they work really more in symbiosis than we, occidental. And they seem to understand more easely all science are not independant but all linked under the same tree of knowledge (not refering to bible).

And, no there is not more evidence that Bigfoot exists than God. How many miracles have been attributed to Bigfoot? How many people have used logic to prove (or try to prove, depending on your point of view) Bigfoot?

You are very boring with your miracle, only a blind man would think this constitute some sort of argument. In logic we call that “Anecdotal evidence”, it is rarely of any value and often classified as a logical fallacy.

I will just give you an exemple where dogmatic & empiriscist were one; A study proove payer help people to heal faster. So god must exist ! (the inevitable conclusion). But then… a more recent research prove that you can pray NOBODY, GOD, ODIN, SATAN or ZEUS, you will still help the person to heal faster. Why ? We don’t know… certaibly something linked to morphogenetic fields. Still the first theory (god) seem to be, as always, compromised. oh i am sure you will be able to find some way to gently retreat. But the fact is we don’t need god anymore to explain why prayer work.

And like i said, every religion has miracle… so they are all true ? even when they are in complete contradiction ? You have a “poor understanding” (to use your expression) of history if you think only jesus make miracle, and even is miracle are subject to questionning. Some of his miracle are in contraction with roman text of the time.

And for your “logic”, i’m still waiting for logical argument, its not the first time you speak of “logical evidence”, while it seem they are quite rare… You are always using old and invalid theory… Every single logical argument you’ve made were completly fallacious.

“Gott ist Tot”

• Friendrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)

“Chacun prend les limites de son propre champ de vision pour celle de l’univers”

• Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

[ This Message was edited by: FinsterniS on 2002-06-16 15:56 ]

[ This Message was edited by: FinsterniS on 2002-06-16 15:59 ]

FinsterniS - i think you are aware of my arguments by now.

What argument ?

Also just because you call it a myth does not make it so.

True, and just because you call it reality does not make it so.

Furthermore, even if something is a myth does not mean it didn’t happen (or couldn’t possibly have happened). Religions both living and dead have many “myths” that closely parallel stories of the bible.

For me a myth is a story conceive by human mind to explain things. Sure their is common theme in religion, but when you speak at parralell, you must not forget Christianism was created upon Islamist, who was created upon Egyptian mythology in some part.

The more common theme in religion are justice and post-mortem existance.

There is much anthropologically and scientifically to support (not prove) intelligent design.

I do not agree. The fact is the human race lack so much creative logic… it is very sad. We are intelligent; so universe must be created by an intelligence cause. We have emotions; so the creator must have emotions. We are human; so the creator must look like human. We are (were) a society dominated by male; so god must be male.

THAT is creativity ?

Theres not a sigle domain we have mastered where religion, where the concept of god, is still needed…

The better argument i’ve heard to support god evidence is; god exist because god exist.

For theists God is above useful. The question for us is not “is God useful to us?” (in explaining the world, say) but rather are we useful to God.

You misunderstood, certainly not because of you but because of my poor english. I was refering to logical concept such as Occam’s Razor.

Also, there is more to life and this world than mere utility.

I agree

I think it may be inappropriate to dismiss a concept (such as God) out of hand due to it’s utility.

Well… yes & no.

If A is not useful when we try to explain X, The it would not be logic to integrate A in the understanding of X.

Also there is much that is of little use that still has a belonging (conceptually) in the realms of knowledge etc.

We are certainly not using the same definition of utilit :smile:

I think if we limit our imagination to those elements that may be verified by the sense and instruments, then we limit our experiences too.

Again you seem to limit atheism to empiricism. I personnaly think observation & experiance are not the best way to aquire stable knowledge because of the inhability of induction.

What you just said make a lot of sence to me, and in the world i have very few certitude. I’m a little of a lot of theory, i’m a little rationalist, a little agnostic, a little empiricist it make a agnosto-empiro-rationalist :smile:. But when the discussion is on god; i’m a pure atheist, and i’m becoming more and more anti-religious with time…

Still; what i ask for in the first post was a rational argument, not derive from empiricism.

Naturally as a porported anti-scientific empiricist, i can spout this kind of dogma without shame. (would you believe i teach biology and organic chemistry? - my summer job).

You should be proud, biology is a beautiful science… well… like all science :smile:

… still its not a reason to create such pseudo-theory as “Creationionism”. If religion was only a personnal affair i would’nt care, but it is not. It’s “infecting” every science.