You're not a true believer unless you can...

[Mr.Bill]

Your use of the word 'proof' is innaccurate here, as there is no way to 'prove' beyond doubt that there is or is not a god.  However, to say that there is no evidence against the existance of god is almost as bad.  Because there is, lots of it.  I honestly would not be atheistic if I didn't think so.  But I'm not up for an extensive justification of the belief that god does not exist, so I'll give you the words of some other sources that can say it better than I can.

Quote[/b] ]Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the Transcendental Argument for the Non Existence of God or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary -- it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of non-contradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation -- one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG -- something that has yet to be provided.

Taken from here.

You might also try the following:
Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence
Big Bang Arguement
'Why Be and Atheist?' lecture thingy

Yadda yadda..  The same kind of arguements can be made for the oposite side, but they are generally less sound.  

As for the Bible..you seem to believe that truth is only found through it.  Hmm..but what about before the Bible was written and before Jesus walked the earth?  What did people believe in then?  Was it any less 'true'?  

Truth is a funny thing, since so many people claim to know it, and so many contradictions consequently arise.  I advise that you be more careful when assuming to know the truth because a book tells you it has the right answer, because there are plenty of other books that say the same thing.  The only way to find out for sure what is what is through valid, sound arguementation.  Otherwise you could end up absolutely anywhere.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Rithkil @ Oct. 16 2004,11:16)]

Quote[/b] ]I never said that since the majority of the world believes in a creator it makes me right. I said that there is too much evidence that there is a creator that how can there not be one.

You said, and I quote, "There are more people who believe in a creator than not...Not to make the ahteists seem stupid but, there has to be a creator."

By implying that atheists (who were in the minority) to be seemingly stupid, analytical thinking led me to suppose that your believed that theists (who are in the majority) were considered right. If that was not your intention, so be it. I can only go off the information you give me.

If there was this abundance of proof and evidence out there that leads to the conclusion that there IS a creator, then by all means, call us stupid. I'll even let you put a dunce cap on me. HOWEVER, this "proof" does not exist.

Quote[/b] ]Logical reasoning huh. Let me tell you a little analogy. 'Imagine you are walking through a large field. Suddenly, you come upon a watch. It is a very rare watch, and intricately designed. You open it up and see the gearworks inside of it. Each is fit perfectly into place. Thinking about it a bit, you come to the conclusion there is no watchmaker for this. You believe that some dirt drifted together and created it after a long period of time. Others say to you that there is a watchmaker and each gear was designed specially. You say there's no evidence yet. No evidence of a watchmaker.'

How about we actually go the source on this one. The following is from William Paley's "Argument to Design."

Quote[/b] ]1. If you were walking through the forest and happened to come across a stone, you might suppose that the stone had lain there since the dawn of time.
2. However, if you were walking through the forest and came across a watch, you would not suppose it had lain there since the dawn of time.
3. Inspection of the watch would reveal a complex organization of gears and other mechanical parts clearly designed for the purpose of keeping time.
4. As we know, a creative intelligence (that of humans) is responsible for the design of watches.
5. When we examine the structure of biological organisms (such as humans), they reveal an astounding complexity of design well suited to various purposes.
6. Thus, biological organisms (including humans) must have been designed by a creative intelligence.
7. We may call that creative intelligence God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

At first glance, this is a neat little argument. Unfortunately, it sabotages itself before it gets going. This argument rests on the premise that organized complexity must be the product of an intelligent designer, yet, in the conclusion, this very premise is violated. How? A being of organized complexity (God) is conjured up without a designer. The argument doesn't play by its own rules, since God would likely be the most complex being of all. This argument worked for a time, but has since been demolished by science. Science has shown that there was indeed a watchmaker, but it was the blind forces of natural evolution doing the designing--not a conscious, creative God. If we fix Paley's logical errors, we can create a powerful argument for atheism. Behold, Kyle Gerkin's, "Argument from Evolution""

Quote[/b] ]1. Organized complexity is the product of conscious design or natural selection.
2. Intelligence is an example of organized complexity.
3. Thus, intelligence is the product of conscious design or natural selection.
4. Intelligent beings are capable of designing intelligence (i.e. computer artificial intelligence programmed by humans).
5. However, only one mechanism has been discovered that can produce intelligence without requiring the existence of a prior intelligence. That mechanism is evolution through natural selection.
6. Thus, the first intelligence evolved.
7. Evolution requires:

a. Self replication (heredity) with slightly imperfect copying fidelity (mutation).
b. An environment that can favor one replicator over another (competition).
c. Time for (a) and (b) to manifest themselves.

8. None of the conditions in (7) were present before the existence of the universe.
9. Thus, intelligence did not exist prior to the universe.
10 Therefore, the universe did not have an intelligent creator.

Quote[/b] ]I am believing in the believable! No PROOF! Read the Bible, the holy word of God and tell me if theres no proof. There is NO PROOF against a creator. Theres NOTHING that can prove there is no creator. That's where there is no proof.

To quote one of my favorite movies, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. There is not EVIDENCE. Rithkil, if there were proof and evidence, there would be no need for FAITH.

 

[Rithkil]

Quote[/b] ]Your use of the word 'proof' is innaccurate here, as there is no way to 'prove' beyond doubt that there is or is not a god.  However, to say that there is no evidence against the existance of god is almost as bad.  Because there is, lots of it.  I honestly would not be atheistic if I didn't think so.  But I'm not up for an extensive justification of the belief that god does not exist, so I'll give you the words of some other sources that can say it better than I can

Yadda yadda..  The same kind of arguements can be made for the oposite side, but they are generally less sound.  

As for the Bible..you seem to believe that truth is only found through it.  Hmm..but what about before the Bible was written and before Jesus walked the earth?  What did people believe in then?  Was it any less 'true'?  

Truth is a funny thing, since so many people claim to know it, and so many contradictions consequently arise.  I advise that you be more careful when assuming to know the truth because a book tells you it has the right answer, because there are plenty of other books that say the same thing.  The only way to find out for sure what is what is through valid, sound arguementation.  Otherwise you could end up absolutely anywhere.

My use of the word proof is accurate. There is proof, but you have come to the conlcusion that there isn't any proof. If there is any evidence against the existence of God, tell me. I haven't heard any this far even though you have claimed there is.

Okay, before the Bible was written, God actually spoke to people. Wouldn't that work better than a book? I would think so. Let me give another little analogy. If somebody spoke to you directly to your face you would know that they existed. However, if some random person that you don't know e-mailed you, would you say they didn't exist because theres not enough 'evidence'? I wouldn't.

Look, everything in the Bible is true. Why? All the values in it are true. Now you might say that even though the values are true, that doesn't make everything in it true. But that would make it inconsistent. I agree that you should talk about a Book before you go by what it says. But you know what, people have alreayd done that with the Bible.

Okay, you know what. I think we should turn this forum back to the way it started. No people trying to convert other people. Save that for another forum. Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]There is no proof against a creator.

Prove to me that the Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

You can't. Why?

Because you can't prove something that doesn't exist.

Quote[/b] ]I know that not all atheists don't believe because they are stubborn (though some do). But to say that there is no evidence for a God when it is right in front of them is ignorant.

As I have said before, you need to understand the words PROOF and EVIDENCE. You have neither. If you had either of them, then there would be no need for Faith. Christianity cannot exist without Faith.

 

[Rithkil]

Quote[/b] ]Prove to me that the Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.

You can't.  Why?

Because you can't prove something that doesn't exist.

Okay that analgoy doesn't make sense. There is no PROOF or EVIDENCE that it exists. There is PROOF and EVIDENCE that God exists.

Quote[/b] ]As I have said before, you need to understand the words PROOF and EVIDENCE.  You have neither.  If you had either of them, then there would be no need for Faith. Christianity cannot exist without Faith.

What? There is PROOF and EVIDENCE as I have said time and time again. Why do you keep denying it? We do have both of them, and we still need faith. Because we cannot 'see' God. Humans cannot see the unseen. Of course Christianity cannot exist without faith. But without PROOF or EVIDENCE, extremely Scientific people like you would fall away. And we do have PROOF and EVIDENCE. Don't deny it.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Rithkil @ Oct. 16 2004,9:09)]

Quote[/b] ]Okay that analgoy doesn't make sense. There is no PROOF or EVIDENCE that it exists.

That just put a HUGE smile on my face. Welcome to the club. Now you know what a non-theist feels like.

Quote[/b] ]
What? There is PROOF and EVIDENCE as I have said time and time again. Why do you keep denying it? We do have both of them, and we still need faith. Because we cannot 'see' God. Humans cannot see the unseen. Of course Christianity cannot exist without faith. But without PROOF or EVIDENCE, extremely Scientific people like you would fall away. And we do have PROOF and EVIDENCE. Don't deny it.

Indulge me. Define these three words:

Proof.

Evidence.

Faith.

 

[Rithkil]

Quote[/b] ]Quote
Okay that analgoy doesn't make sense. There is no PROOF or EVIDENCE that it exists.


That just put a HUGE smile on my face. Welcome to the club. Now you know what a non-theist feels like.

You just took things way out of context. You forgot the whole last part. You are twisting what I said.

Quote[/b] ]Indulge me. Define these three words:

Proof.

Evidence.

Faith.

Need a little vocab quiz do we? Okay.

Proof-The act or process of proving. The establishment of a fact by evidence or a truth by other truths.

Evidence-That which makes evident or clear; an outward sign or indication.

Faith-Belief without evidence. Confidence; trust.

Since we Christians live by faith, we don't need evidence. As the definition implies.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]Since we Christians live by faith, we don't need evidence. As the definition implies.

And that is the fulcrum of this and every argument.

Rithkil, you do not have Proof of Evidence. You have FAITH, not evidence.

You believe in something that cannot be proven. If it could be proven, there would be proof. If there was proof, there would be no need for Faith.

Faith, however, IS needed because there is no EVIDENCE.

 

[Genesis1315]

Hey guys....again, while this is interesting, maybe a thread on creationism would be a good place to start this. I thought this thread was on Mark 16:16-17.

 

[Rithkil]

Quote[/b] ]And that is the fulcrum of this and every argument.

Rithkil, you do not have Proof of Evidence. You have FAITH, not evidence.

You believe in something that cannot be proven. If it could be proven, there would be proof. If there was proof, there would be no need for Faith.

Faith, however, IS needed because there is no EVIDENCE.

I live by faith nothing else. But I know there is PROOF and EVIDENCE and you shouldn't say there isn't any. I do have PROOF and EVIDENCE.

I have FAITH in something that can be proven but that can be believed in without evidence or proof. If there was proof, FAith would still be the deciding factor.

FAITH IS needed because you have to believe in something unseen. However, there is still evidence.

 

[Dark Virtue]

LOL, is it possible to keep ANY thread on track?

 

[Rithkil]

We are too lazy to start a new topic, LOL

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Rithkil @ Oct. 16 2004,8:55)]My use of the word proof is accurate. There is proof, but you have come to the conlcusion that there isn't any proof. If there is any evidence against the existence of God, tell me. I haven't heard any this far even though you have claimed there is.

Okay, before the Bible was written, God actually spoke to people. Wouldn't that work better than a book? I would think so. Let me give another little analogy. If somebody spoke to you directly to your face you would know that they existed. However, if some random person that you don't know e-mailed you, would you say they didn't exist because theres not enough 'evidence'? I wouldn't.

Look, everything in the Bible is true. Why? All the values in it are true. Now you might say that even though the values are true, that doesn't make everything in it true. But that would make it inconsistent. I agree that you should talk about a Book before you go by what it says. But you know what, people have alreayd done that with the Bible.

Okay, you know what. I think we should turn this forum back to the way it started. No people trying to convert other people. Save that for another forum. Let's try to stay on topic.

I have not come to the conclusion that there isn't any proof, I have come to conclusion that there is not enough proof to counter the contrary so as to merit a belief. I choose not to use faith to buffer my beliefs; that's what it is to be a freethinker.

I just gave you some good examples of the arguements against god's existance. I don't expect you to be converted, but you could perhaps entertain the idea that I am the way I am for feasible reasons.

Everything in the Bible is true ey? Because all the values in it are true? Now there's a logical conclusion.

 

[Genesis1315]

Time to let this one die?

 

[Mr.Bill]

It'll die when it dies...

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Rithkil @ Oct. 16 2004,9:34)]

Quote[/b] ]And that is the fulcrum of this and every argument.

Rithkil, you do not have Proof of Evidence.  You have FAITH, not evidence.

You believe in something that cannot be proven.  If it could be proven, there would be proof.  If there was proof, there would be no need for Faith.

Faith, however, IS needed because there is no EVIDENCE.

I live by faith nothing else. But I know there is PROOF and EVIDENCE and you shouldn't say there isn't any. I do have PROOF and EVIDENCE.

I have FAITH in something that can be proven but that can be believed in without evidence or proof. If there was proof, FAith would still be the deciding factor.

FAITH IS needed because you have to believe in something unseen. However, there is still evidence.

So what you're saying is that your belief is based on faith, but is suplemented by the existance of evidence? That is perfectly alright, but only if you are right. Faith first and evidence second is a not so great order, as faith can often taint what we see and interperet. If I have faith that the world is flat, and I look around me at the flat ground, I can use this as evidence to support my belief, despite the fact that it is incorrect. That is why I am an evidentialist, so I have both feet on the ground at all times.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Rithkil @ Oct. 16 2004,9:34)]

Quote[/b] ]I live by faith nothing else. But I know there is PROOF and EVIDENCE and you shouldn't say there isn't any. I do have PROOF and EVIDENCE.

If you live by faith and only faith, isn't it possible, conceivable, that you really don't understand what proof and evidence is?

I say there is no proof not to be condescending, but because there is no proof or evidence that satisfies logic and reason.

If there is, by all means, show it. By showing proof and evidence in God, you would be the first person in history to do so.

Quote[/b] ]I have FAITH in something that can be proven but that can be believed in without evidence or proof. If there was proof, FAith would still be the deciding factor.

If something can be proven, then there would be evidence and proof to back it up. If there was evidence or proof, then faith is NOT NEEDED, because then it would be a TRUTH.

Quote[/b] ]FAITH IS needed because you have to believe in something unseen. However, there is still evidence.

Exactly WHY do you NEED to believe in something unseen? Why is this a NEED?

 

[Rithkil]

Quote[/b] ]I have not come to the conclusion that there isn't any proof, I have come to conclusion that there is not enough proof to counter the contrary so as to merit a belief. I choose not to use faith to buffer my beliefs; that's what it is to be a freethinker.

I just gave you some good examples of the arguements against god's existance. I don't expect you to be converted, but you could perhaps entertain the idea that I am the way I am for feasible reasons.

Everything in the Bible is true ey? Because all the values in it are true? Now there's a logical conclusion.

I certainly understand why you believe what you believe. I personally do not agree with your reasoning. I have nothing against you personally, but I do not think your reasoning is accurate.

Did you read the rest of what I said about values in the Bible? Do not take things out of context or twist what I have said.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Genesis1315 @ Oct. 16 2004,9:36)]Time to let this one die?

I think we're fine.

No one was supporting the topic anyway, much to my dismay.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ] but I do not think your reasoning is accurate.

What is wrong with our reasoning?