Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[TripTango]

No when I say the burden of proof is on you. I have giving my evidence of gods existence and then the burden of proof is on you to discount that evidence. And this evidence that I give on the existence of god cannot be ignored because you don't think the burden of proof is on you.

I haven't ignored anything. There has been post after post explaining the flaws in your "evidence". Your arguments were unsound from square one. Therefore, as the one claiming evidence, the burden of proof has never left your shoulders, I'm afraid.

 

[RR7]

Good point if there was an absence of evidence.

absence of evidence? It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. There is a god because it has not been proven there isn't. Says nothing of absence of evidence.

 

[magnifier661]

No testiness -- promise. But the use of fairies as a metaphorical tool was DIRECTLY related to our discussion of belief. It wasn't tangential.

I got the metaphor; but disagreed with having an idea where that would take the thread into a tangent.

 

[magnifier661]

absence of evidence? It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. There is a god because it has not been proven there isn't. Says nothing of absence of evidence.

If you think that is my argument or evidence; then I assume that you haven't paid attention to the OP.

 

[magnifier661]

I haven't ignored anything. There has been post after post explaining the flaws in your "evidence". Your arguments were unsound from square one. Therefore, as the one claiming evidence, the burden of proof has never left your shoulders, I'm afraid.

But I have given rebuttal and even that rebuttal has mixed acceptance. Just because you believe they are wrong doesn't make my rebuttal wrong. I am simply explaining I disagree and why I disagree. Then that burden of proof rests back on your shoulders.

 

[Eastoff]

I completely agree that other rules govern the universe and our very existence. But a rule is a rule and cannot contradict. And as the saying goes; if you cut off the head, you kill the snake. And I see a very apparent contradiction here. This is the main reason why I question Atheism as a belief.



I didn't take it as an insult.

This is not "winning". I don't understand why people think of this as an absolute. I am questioning that Atheism is not a sound belief. I think I have provided evidence to support this claim so far. Hell, I haven't even gotten anything substantial regarding living organisms cannot be created without other living organisms. We are still on my first two arguments.

Just wait until I give my next three later tonight.

I just mean entropy conquers or takes over. I am not saying anyone wins. Additionally, atheism and the laws of physics/chemistry are not the same thing. There are plenty of religious people that accept the laws of science to be true, but still believe a god is behind things. That a god drives evolution or that a god started the big bang.

 

[RR7]

If you think that is my argument or evidence; then I assume that you haven't paid attention to the OP.

No, I read the OP. And read people replying saying you are misusing the science you are using as "proof" of whatever. And then you ignore the science part and say well prove the other portion of my 1-3.
That's like me saying the theory of gravity is X, and because jesus went beyond the theory of gravity, it is proof he doesn't exist, only I have X wrong. If X is wrong, and I am shown it is wrong, i don't get to say, well, still, I have shown he doesn't exist.

 

[magnifier661]

I just mean entropy conquers or takes over. I am not saying anyone wins. Additionally, atheism and the laws of physics/chemistry are not the same thing. There are plenty of religious people that accept the laws of science to be true, but still believe a god is behind things. That a god drives evolution or that a god started the big bang.

I am one of those that you just described. Like I already said. I have already learned a great deal and a lot of my opinions have changed since last week. In fact, I enjoy these talks and debates because I learn more and more every day.

I am questioning Atheism because the common misconception from certain Atheists believe; "Well we have science and it trumps your Magic". That statement is ignorant and not even close to logical for an individual, Christian or Theist, that actually can accept and agree with science, the possibility of evolution, the earth being billions of years old and the universe being billions of years old.

 

[magnifier661]

No, I read the OP. And read people replying saying you are misusing the science you are using as "proof" of whatever. And then you ignore the science part and say well prove the other portion of my 1-3.
That's like me saying the theory of gravity is X, and because jesus went beyond the theory of gravity, it is proof he doesn't exist, only I have X wrong. If X is wrong, and I am shown it is wrong, i don't get to say, well, still, I have shown he doesn't exist.

Not true, the original argument questions physics and microbiology. Still haven't received enough rebuttal to disprove the microbiology and I have made my rebuttals on the rebuttals given to me. The question of "Well that doesn't disprove God" is sound.

 

[TripTango]

But I have given rebuttal and even that rebuttal has mixed acceptance. Just because you believe they are wrong doesn't make my rebuttal wrong. I am simply explaining I disagree and why I disagree. Then that burden of proof rests back on your shoulders.

If you can't recognize the flaws in your use of thermodynamic principles, even when they have been pointed out to you, then the true burden is on you to educate yourself so that we are speaking the same language. You never addressed any of my points made regarding your fallacious use of the 2nd law, nor have you addressed the explanation provided in the paper I cited. In fact, there was nothing in your defense following my post to indicate that you had even READ the paper. Your defense, time and time again, has been either "but there are still unexplained mysteries" or "well, you can't prove that God DOESN'T exist, so there". Neither of these are valid arguments.

If you choose to stick to "belief in God just feels right, and so I believe", none here would argue with you. But you insist on coming into the realm of science to try and justify your belief, even though (as far as I can tell) you have no training in the area beyond Wikipedia and YouTube. Doesn't that strike you as a bit arrogant? That would be like me walking into a room full of architects and insisting that my Google Sketch drawing of a house is better than any of their lousy designs, and then flat out ignoring their attempts to show me how I could improve my design.

Your first argument and second arguments both misuse scientific laws, as has been discussed at length. Your third makes an assumption from absence of evidence, and asserts that if we can't explain something, it must be God. This is not proof for a higher power -- it is proof that we are not omniscient. So what am I missing? Every single one of your initial arguments has been demolished. You are clutching at the broken rubble and insisting that they remain a mighty fortress.

 

[RR7]

No when I say the burden of proof is on you. I have giving my evidence of gods existence and then the burden of proof is on you to discount that evidence. And this evidence that I give on the existence of god cannot be ignored because you don't think the burden of proof is on you.

But you haven't given evidence of existence. What you've shown is things that lack explanation. To you, to some, to many. And because they lack explanation, simple or otherwise, you make the assumption that god fills in that explanation. Or because it can not be explained or proven, it is god.

 

[magnifier661]

If you can't recognize the flaws in your use of thermodynamic principles, even when they have been pointed out to you, then the true burden is on you to educate yourself so that we are speaking the same language. You never addressed any of my points made regarding your fallacious use of the 2nd law, nor have you addressed the explanation provided in the paper I cited. In fact, there was nothing in your defense following my post to indicate that you had even READ the paper. Your defense, time and time again, has been either "but there are still unexplained mysteries" or "well, you can't prove that God DOESN'T exist, so there". Neither of these are valid arguments.

Link me to the actual post and failure to rebut. I am reading back and don't see it.

If you choose to stick to "belief in God just feels right, and so I believe", none here would argue with you. But you insist on coming into the realm of science to try and justify your belief, even though (as far as I can tell) you have no training in the area beyond Wikipedia and YouTube. Doesn't that strike you as a bit arrogant? That would be like me walking into a room full of architects and insisting that my Google Sketch drawing of a house is better than any of their lousy designs, and then flat out ignoring their attempts to show me how I could improve my design.

I am learning about something I don't know and I have questions and arguments on what I believe are contradictions. Arrogance would actually be you claiming I don't have a valid argument or concern because you have been taught in the field and you just know way more than me. I hope you see the contradiction there.

That would be like me telling you that you are wrong because you question some verse in the Bible and you haven't professed your faith in God. That would be arrogance on my part.

And I use only wikipedia, and lets say "youtube" because it seems like it is openly accepted in this forum. Denny uses it all the time; yet you don't call him arrogant. Funny how you ignore that fallacy.

Your first argument and second arguments both misuse scientific laws, as has been discussed at length. Your third makes an assumption from absence of evidence, and asserts that if we can't explain something, it must be God. This is not proof for a higher power -- it is proof that we are not omniscient. So what am I missing? Every single one of your initial arguments has been demolished. You are clutching at the broken rubble and insisting that they remain a mighty fortress.

Thanks for stating your opinion.

 

[magnifier661]

But you haven't given evidence of existence. What you've shown is things that lack explanation. To you, to some, to many. And because they lack explanation, simple or otherwise, you make the assumption that god fills in that explanation. Or because it can not be explained or proven, it is god.

OMG really? I have talked about things becoming organized or fine tuned; which from what I've read; is impossible for the laws of physics. "Fine tuning" is design or can be argued designed; therefor the possibility of a designer can be logically an answer. Tell me that in this context that isn't evidence?

And once again; I have brought up that there is no evidence that supports life (living organisms) can be produced without life (living organisms). And the rebuttal wasn't even close to disproving that. If that's the case; then a designer logically can be. Tell me that in this context that isn't evidence?

 

[RR7]

It's evidence that there isn't an answer to a question, and you filled in your belief in god to answer it for you. That is not evidence of existence. Because there is no evidence currently that life can not be created without life does not prove god. It could very easily be that the answer has not yet been discovered. Before the "discovery" of gravity, was the fact that we did not float away into space proof of god? you might say yes. And someone else couldn't really disprove it. Could they? But you can see how it isn't PROOF.

 

[TripTango]

Link me to the actual post and failure to rebut. I am reading back and don't see it.

I am learning about something I don't know and I have questions and arguments on what I believe are contradictions. Arrogance would actually be you claiming I don't have a valid argument or concern because you have been taught in the field and you just know way more than me. I hope you see the contradiction there.

That would be like me telling you that you are wrong because you question some verse in the Bible and you haven't professed your faith in God. That would be arrogance on my part.

And I use only wikipedia, and lets say "youtube" because it seems like it is openly accepted in this forum. Denny uses it all the time; yet you don't call him arrogant. Funny how you ignore that fallacy.

Thanks for stating your opinion.

Quoting YouTube and Wikipedia isn't itself arrogant. Neither is raising questions about something that is new to you. However, assuming that your experiences on YouTube and Wikipedia have adequately equipped you to argue the usage of scientific principles that others in the conversation have been studying for a decade -- yeah, I call that arrogant. You keep saying that you are here to learn, and you want to be educated, but your attitude has been one of rhetorical invincibility.

My original response to your arguments was post #99. Your following rebuttal did not even respond to a single one of the flaws I pointed out.

 

[magnifier661]

It's evidence that there isn't an answer to a question, and you filled in your belief in god to answer it for you. That is not evidence of existence. Because there is no evidence currently that life can not be created without life does not prove god. It could very easily be that the answer has not yet been discovered. Before the "discovery" of gravity, was the fact that we did not float away into space proof of god? you might say yes. And someone else couldn't really disprove it. Could they? But you can see how it isn't PROOF.

You just described what I've been trying to describe for the past 100 or so posts. A blind man cannot provide evidence to prove the color purple doesn't exist. We can only gather as much of "what we know"; question it and find the logical answer. Saying God designed the Universe can actually be "logical" in the context of my questions. You want black and white answers; I am giving you the option of gray areas.

Your comments are no better than some Christian that is telling you are wrong because you have no evidence God doesn't exist. See where I'm going here? That is the same the other way around. Just because it now goes against your beliefs, you are pissed it's being brought up. All of these questions have been the same questions I've received from people that don't believe in God.

You have faith that God doesn't exist. I have faith God does exist. And true atheism must disprove God in order to be logical; and Christians or other theists need faith in order to believe God.

BUT.... A Christian can question science; just as much as an atheist. They have just as much entitlement to give "REAL QUESTIONS" and ask for "REAL ANSWERS". And the same for Atheists questioning "God". Do you understand?

 

[magnifier661]

Quoting YouTube and Wikipedia isn't itself arrogant. Neither is raising questions about something that is new to you. However, assuming that your experiences on YouTube and Wikipedia have adequately equipped you to argue the usage of scientific principles that others in the conversation have been studying for a decade -- yeah, I call that arrogant. You keep saying that you are here to learn, and you want to be educated, but your attitude has been one of rhetorical invincibility.

No that's what you are seeing. Now lets tone this down a bit. Let's say you are the teacher and I am the student. I want to learn and I've done my own research either it be youtube, internet or reading books from PhDs in the field. I could be far from being right; but if I ask the questions in the manner that can be answered; then how is that arrogance. I've said this so many times. This isn't about what is right or wrong. We are questioning a belief. This would be just the same as one of you questioning me and my belief in God.

It's not my fault that I don't agree with the answers. I am reading them very carefully and trying to understand them. In fact, I've tried to repeat the answers as how I interpret it carefully to make sure I am answering the right question to me. That isn't arrogance; that is giving respect... I would like that same respect...

 

[RR7]

I am not saying your belief is wrong. I am simply saying you are wrong in believing that you have proven his existence. You have not provided proof. Yet you keep stating that you have. You have provided questions without a specific answer you are looking for, as I said, and filled in that gap with your belief in god. That's fine.
As for me needing to prove god does not exist to prove atheism, well, that has been mentioned many times, in this and other threads as being a stupid expectation. As has been said, you can not prove unicorns do not exist. You do not have to have a belief system in them. You can just say you do not believe in them. Do you believe in unicorns? No? Well that's not a sound belief. Prove yourself that it is a sound belief.
True atheism doesn't have to prove anything, the same way true belief in god doesn't have to prove anything. I don't believe in god. Do I have a 100% answer? Nope. I don't believe in him though. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone to not believe in something. You believe in god. Do you have 100% proof. No, you have your belief. And explaining it to me or anyone isn't a requirement for you to hold that belief. I can say here is why I don't believe in god. But, unlike this thread, I wouldn't start a thread saying, essentially, here's why you're an idiot for having as belief that isn't a belief. That's pretty arrogant. Especially when you have ignored people smarter than you telling you why your scientific proof of the existence of god, or the lack of existence of atheism, is false, or faulty science.

 

[magnifier661]

You are moving off-topic here. You asserted that YOU had evidence that proved atheism untenable. I am telling you that the evidence is bad. I am not trying to prove that God does not exist (which is impossible), I am merely showing you that your usage of scientific principles to argue for the certain existence of God is not viable.

Did you read the paper on entropy? Do you see why the 2nd law does not preclude evolution?

I responded to post 99. But I saw this after.

You said I was wrong on the first rebuttal; but didn't explain why. So yeah I ignored it. How can I respond when I don't even know what to respond to.

And the second law was explained on another rebuttal that I thought explained yours. I can find it and paste it for you. I am trying to avoid saying the same thing to different people. Have you read the others?

 

[RR7]

No that's what you are seeing. Now lets tone this down a bit. Let's say you are the teacher and I am the student. I want to learn and I've done my own research either it be youtube, internet or reading books from PhDs in the field. I could be far from being right; but if I ask the questions in the manner that can be answered; then how is that arrogance. I've said this so many times. This isn't about what is right or wrong. We are questioning a belief. This would be just the same as one of you questioning me and my belief in God.

It's not my fault that I don't agree with the answers. I am reading them very carefully and trying to understand them. In fact, I've tried to repeat the answers as how I interpret it carefully to make sure I am answering the right question to me. That isn't arrogance; that is giving respect... I would like that same respect...

How is that giving respect?

If a math teacher is telling me how a calculation works, and I don't get it, or say I just don't agree, and continue to just say, though i don't know, I disagree, even though you know more than me and have studied, I disagree, then it is a complete lack of respect.
In a similar fashion, though i don't believe in god, or believe that th ebible is the word of god, I wouldn't argue with someone that tells me what th ebible has printed in it. I have read it. I have not studied it as well as many. It would be disrespectful and arrognat for me to say I think the bible says god is coming to kill us all, and someone who has studied said no, it doesn't, you are reading the passages incorrectly, here is what that states, and I say no, I disagree. That's respect, because I want to learn? Bullshit.

 

[magnifier661]

I am not saying your belief is wrong. I am simply saying you are wrong in believing that you have proven his existence. You have not provided proof. Yet you keep stating that you have. You have provided questions without a specific answer you are looking for, as I said, and filled in that gap with your belief in god. That's fine.
As for me needing to prove god does not exist to prove atheism, well, that has been mentioned many times, in this and other threads as being a stupid expectation. As has been said, you can not prove unicorns do not exist. You do not have to have a belief system in them. You can just say you do not believe in them. Do you believe in unicorns? No? Well that's not a sound belief. Prove yourself that it is a sound belief.
True atheism doesn't have to prove anything, the same way true belief in god doesn't have to prove anything. I don't believe in god. Do I have a 100% answer? Nope. I don't believe in him though. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone to not believe in something. You believe in god. Do you have 100% proof. No, you have your belief. And explaining it to me or anyone isn't a requirement for you to hold that belief. I can say here is why I don't believe in god. But, unlike this thread, I wouldn't start a thread saying, essentially, here's why you're an idiot for having as belief that isn't a belief. That's pretty arrogant. Especially when you have ignored people smarter than you telling you why your scientific proof of the existence of god, or the lack of existence of atheism, is false, or faulty science.

Prove to me George Washington existed. You, I nor anyone in here hasn't seen George Washington; so no one can prove anything. What you can do is give evidence of his existence; via pictures, eye witnesses of the time; documents that are signed by him; and historical evidence of his existence.

One can't prove or disprove God exists. We can only find evidence that supports he does or doesn't exist. I hope you know the difference.

An Atheist believes God doesn't exist. That means the atheist must find evidence to support that claim. A Christian must provide evidence that God exists. A Christian cannot prove that God exists. There is a HUGE difference.

 

[RR7]

A Christian cannot prove that God exists.

Well, I agree with you here.

 

[magnifier661]

How is that giving respect?

If a math teacher is telling me how a calculation works, and I don't get it, or say I just don't agree, and continue to just say, though i don't know, I disagree, even though you know more than me and have studied, I disagree, then it is a complete lack of respect.
In a similar fashion, though i don't believe in god, or believe that th ebible is the word of god, I wouldn't argue with someone that tells me what th ebible has printed in it. I have read it. I have not studied it as well as many. It would be disrespectful and arrognat for me to say I think the bible says god is coming to kill us all, and someone who has studied said no, it doesn't, you are reading the passages incorrectly, here is what that states, and I say no, I disagree. That's respect, because I want to learn? Bullshit.

With that type of thinking; you have discredited every pioneer in science, art and philosophy. It is "free thinking" of those that question things and seek the evidence to give them a firm belief. One that says "Oh well Dr. Meatball said it, so I better not question it" would be a fallacy of progress.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, I agree with you here.

Just the evidence that supports the straw man of your thinking. Of course you agree with something that doesn't have to be logical, as long as it supports your belief.

 

[TripTango]

No that's what you are seeing. Now lets tone this down a bit. Let's say you are the teacher and I am the student. I want to learn and I've done my own research either it be youtube, internet or reading books from PhDs in the field. I could be far from being right; but if I ask the questions in the manner that can be answered; then how is that arrogance. I've said this so many times. This isn't about what is right or wrong. We are questioning a belief. This would be just the same as one of you questioning me and my belief in God.

It's not my fault that I don't agree with the answers. I am reading them very carefully and trying to understand them. In fact, I've tried to repeat the answers as how I interpret it carefully to make sure I am answering the right question to me. That isn't arrogance; that is giving respect... I would like that same respect...

Ok, I hear you.

What grates isn't that you are asking the questions, or even that you are suggesting answers. It is that you seem to readily admit not knowing much about physics in one breath, and then proudly proclaiming your physics-based arguments untouched in the next.

You DO have some arguments there -- they are well-known philosophical arguments. But, as tempting as it may be, you can't shoehorn the laws of thermodynamics, which were developed based on the behavior of the everyday world around us, into an argument for what was true at the beginning of the universe. We don't know what the rules of the game were at that incredible moment. Hell, we don't even have all of the correct rules of the game for right here and right now, let alone at the dawn of time.

 

[RR7]

Just the evidence that supports the straw man of your thinking. Of course you agree with something that doesn't have to be logical, as long as it supports your belief.

the strawman of my thinking? I said I agree christians can not prove he exists. You said it. I agree with you. I have no idea what this side tangent is. Sorry.

 

[magnifier661]

Ok, I hear you.

What grates isn't that you are asking the questions, or even that you are suggesting answers. It is that you seem to readily admit not knowing much about physics in one breath, and then proudly proclaiming your physics-based arguments untouched in the next.

You DO have some arguments there -- they are well-known philosophical arguments. But, as tempting as it may be, you can't shoehorn the laws of thermodynamics, which were developed based on the behavior of the everyday world around us, into an argument for what was true at the beginning of the universe. We don't know what the rules of the game were at that incredible moment. Hell, we don't even have all of the correct rules of the game for right here and right now, let alone at the dawn of time.

Okay I do apologize. Sorry for the disrespect on that regard. But I truly haven't found the evidence that explains this.

If you guys wouldn't mind; I will try and organize my second 3 arguments. It's gonna take some time to get it ready. I will post them on the OP and the last post on this thread. So you can see it's up.

 

[magnifier661]

the strawman of my thinking? I said I agree christians can not prove he exists. You said it. I agree with you. I have no idea what this side tangent is. Sorry.

Cool then you can agree that Atheists cannot prove God exists?

 

[TripTango]

I responded to post 99. But I saw this after.

You said I was wrong on the first rebuttal; but didn't explain why. So yeah I ignored it. How can I respond when I don't even know what to respond to.

And the second law was explained on another rebuttal that I thought explained yours. I can find it and paste it for you. I am trying to avoid saying the same thing to different people. Have you read the others?

1) I said that human ignorance is not proof for God, and never has been. You cannot simply say "we don't understand that, therefore it must be an all-powerful being". As evidence, take any number of natural phenomena that used to be considered magical, divine, and inexplicable -- lightning, chemical reactions, magnets... All of these were, at one point or another, complete mysteries. They are not any more. This is solid evidence that we cannot simply assume that mysterious phenomena will never be explained.

2) You responded to a different criticism of your 2nd law argument -- not mine.

 

[RR7]

burden of proof.
You can't disprove unicorns, but can still believe they do not exist.