On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:25:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause
>> cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is
>> something that would not be disproven over time.
> 
> We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
> You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things
> don't have certain properties.

True, but when it comes to scientific proof of something "supernatural", 
there's always room for doubt (as there's always room for some degree of 
doubt in a scientific proof).  Most who ask for proof of God's existence 
are looking not for scientific proof, but absolute proof.  Perhaps you 
are different from most who engage in this type of discussion.

>> In a purely logical sense,
> 
> Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also.
> There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic,
> almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a
> universally-quantified negative that can be proven.

Fair point.

>> Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove
>> (logically and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to
>> God?  Or that Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just
>> because we can't fathom how such an event would take place does not
>> constitute proof (as I know you know).
> 
> I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they
> truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.

Well, you and I are on the same page there - I guess that was more or 
less my point.  Those things that constitute "proof" with regards to the 
commonly referenced book of record (the Bible - and yes, I do realise 
that there are debates about its historical accuracy, and to some 
readings, serious doubts as to it's historical accuracy; I personally 
look on it as a moderately interesting collection of mythological 
stories).

>> The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it
>> could've been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used
>> as a communications device.
> 
> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without
> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that, but it makes sense to me that 
such an argument could be put forth in a convincing manner.

>> Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it
>> didn't happen?  Not really, no.
> 
> That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that
> things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example,
> it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what
> genesis says (iirc).

That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again, 
with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say with 
a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way 
described in Genesis, we can't say 100% for certain that (a) they didn't, 
or that (b) the way it was recorded in Genesis was an accurate reflection 
of the events that did occur.  What I mean by that is that if the story 
was passed down to Moses by God, perhaps Moses wrote it down wrong.  We 
don't know if that's the case or not, and as discussed earlier, that's 
essentially a non-provable point (unless someone with a time machine and 
knowledge of the language of that time can step forward and demonstrate 
what actually transpired).

After all, history is (re)written by the victors.

>>> I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very
>>> quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.
>> 
>> I'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
> was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)

Fair point, and in fact many who make such claims are declared to be 
insane.

> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
> always won wars of oppression against them.

I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and 
also happened to have identical life experiences.  So this type of event 
is fairly non-anthropic, since free will is part of the human condition, 
and identical life experiences require a sort of symbiotic relationship 
that doesn't exist between humans.

> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.

I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books 
were in fact essentially the same.

> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.

There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The 
Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North 
America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of 
Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the 
LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would 
constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?

> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
> after.

That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good 
people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we are 
not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.

> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth
> defects.

How many people make up a religion?  I'm sure we could find this 
situation happening in any moderately sized religion.  Personally, I 
believe that everyone believes something different, and that religion (or 
maybe more appropriately, spirituality) is entirely a personal 
experience, so with that definition, anyone with a child without birth 
defects would fit the criteria.

What would constitute "religious parents", for that matter?  Again, I see 
that as an intensely personal thing.  I have a friend up in Oregon (whom 
I may have mentioned before) who has kids, but for her and her husband, 
their brand of "Christianity" is one that falls outside of organised 
religion; they travel to places like El Salvador to help people, because 
in their view, helping those less fortunate is a very Christian thing to 
do.  They use the bible as their guide.  Does the fact that they do not 
participate in an organised church make their brand of religion any less 
valid?  If so, why, and if not, then the fact that their son has no birth 
defects would seem to meet this criteria.

I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is 
arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough that 
you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter was 
made.

> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
> touch.

> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
> believe faith can move mountains.

Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but 
based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but was 
being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".  And many 
individuals have - we only have to look at world leaders to see people 
who have changed the world.  Or people who invent things - you could say 
that someone like Tim Berners-Lee changed the world - figuratively, he 
made the world smaller, and made it possible to communicate with people 
on the other side of a mountain (as I'm doing right now, in fact, as I 
believe part of the Rockies are between the two of us), so in a 
figurative sense, he moved the mountain between us (or rendered it moot).

> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
> disaster or even lightning.

There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already 
happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church 
(for that matter).

>> I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would
>> really have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must
>> have meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that
>> happens in the world (and that happened to them).
> 
> I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.

It's a way of justifying "bad things happen to good people".

> I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans.
> (I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some
> leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)

Well, God must've meant for that to happen as part of his greater plan 
for the world. (That's what I mean)

>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening that provides them
>> with the comfort of their beliefs.
> 
> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also
> have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But
> if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink
> those too.

The thing is, historically, God/gods/religion have been used to explain 
the inexplicable.  (This is part of the reason I don't believe in a god, 
because it seems to me to be the "easy way out" for explaining something 
that defies explanation).  The second reason they exist is to provide 
comfort to those who need comforting (like my mom, whom I mentioned 
before, I believe).  For those people, like I said, if it works for them, 
that's great - it doesn't work for me.

>> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
>> without faith, I am nothing.
>> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and
>> so therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
>> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)
> 
> The flaw there is that it's using logic.

Yes, but that's what makes it work; it is in the context of a humourous 
work of fiction.

>> Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition
>> is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's
>> evidence, you don't need faith.
> 
> Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence
> in the world isn't going to help.

Yes, true, but the thing is that in a discussion about whether a 
"miracle" has occurred (which several of your proof points seem to 
imply), you can't really get to a point of any of those defined as p 
would allow you to infer the "q of God's existence" with anything even 
approaching 100% certainty.

It's late and I don't know if what I said there even makes sense now; I 
guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of those were to happen, I 
can see that the counter is "well, that's impossible, so there *must* be 
some other explanation and I'm just not seeing it".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:39:05 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Those of us who fit that "otherwise logical and rational" description
>> get frustrated when the counter to logical and rational points is
>> "because God said so" or "because God made it so" or "Because it's
>> God's will".
> 
>   And thus it's completely rational for them to use their irrational
> counter-argumentation even against people who are trying to converse
> about the topic in a calm, rational basis?

Well, exasperation tends to occur (at least for me) when the "calm, 
rational basis" to the religious person's point of view appears 
irrational to the logical person's point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:04:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Well, this is one common argument. That the good outweighs the bad of
> it. But, you just described in pretty clear terms above that it *isn't*
> doing them all that much good at all, even if they spend a lot of times
> telling themselves it is, and feeling all warm and fuzzy about how
> everyone agrees with them on the matter. But no, arguing with someone
> too far gone isn't productive at all. One is forced to simply hope that
> something happens to jar them into questioning matters, and hope that it
> is, how ever much you would prefer otherwise, painful enough that they
> truly question why it happened. Some people never escape, such as the
> people in one church recently that where betrayed completely by their
> priest, and didn't just leave, they closed the church. Some of them
> might take a real hard look at their beliefs. The rest will just dive
> head first into some nearby church with the same sort of leader, the
> same double standards, the same comfortable lies, and 10-20 years down
> the road it will happen all over again.

Actually, for my mom (and let me state clearly - she is not a member of 
the LDS church - I realise I might've been unclear on that point, but it 
is the Lutheran church she's a member of), at her stage of life, she's 
not looking more at the evolution of life, but rather the end of hers.  
She's over 70 years ago, and my father passed away a couple years ago at 
89.  The church has given her comfort in losing my dad, and individuals 
in the church have counseled her through some extremely painful childhood 
experiences that she repressed for more than 50 years.  So when it comes 
to my mom's experience, you're damned right that the good outweighs the 
bad.  We're not talking about a church there that has people believing in 
creationism, we're talking about a church that - all pastoral issues 
aside - genuinely tries to help people.  That's a rare thing, in my view 
of religions.

I certainly won't deny her her beliefs because they bring her comfort at 
her stage of life.  She talks to me frequently about "when I'm gone" or 
"when I'm with your dad"; the subject makes me uncomfortable, because in 
all honesty the truth of our existence sure seems to be that we're flying 
on this rock through space, doing our thing, and then we vanish from the 
universe one day.  It might be a fire, it might be a disease, it might be 
a bus hitting us, but we're here one minute and gone the next.

If some want to believe in an afterlife or a God who has a greater plan 
for us, who are we to deny them if that brings comfort and meaning to 
their lives?

But like I said, that right to a world view stops at the point at which 
they try to impose it on others.  And I think this is the point at which 
your point of view and mine come together.

If someone wants to believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, 
did it in 7 days, and it went exactly like the book of Genesis says, I 
won't begrudge them that belief.  If they ask what I think, I'll tell 
them I think they're insane for that belief because of all of the 
geological evidence to the contrary, and if they try to convince me I'll 
tell them to stop, because I have my own beliefs on the origins of the 
planet based on the scientific evidence.

If they want to put it in the schools, I'll fight it to my dying breath, 
because we need the schools to turn out people who have the ability to 
think and reason, and cramming creationism down students' throats does 
not give us that kind of populace.

> And, when 48% of the country thinks that evolution "is" invalid and
> creationism makes more sense, trying to point out to the gullible masses
> that the DI doesn't intend to stop with that, but to undermine
> ***everything***, just goes right over their heads.

Which is why I would fight that within my area as stated earlier, because 
we need to have thinkers.  Critical thinking skills in the US (in 
particular) seem to be at an all-time low.  Societally, we are, I think, 
fairly lazy when it comes to thinking and fact-checking, preferring 
instead to be entertained by reality TV.  At the same time at which 48% 
of the country thinks evolution is invalid and creationism is correct, 
even more significantly, a larger percentage of people vote on American 
Idol than do in the presidential race, and we end up with the fanatics 
dictating policy because the fanatics are the only ones who care enough 
to turn out to vote.  Everyone else is looking to see what trouble 
Brittany Spears or Linday Lohan are in.  (Great, now I need to wash my 
keyboard again, I've soiled it with those two names)

The problem here isn't religion (though it is perhaps a part of the 
problem), the problem is apathy, procrastination, and this need for 
instant gratification and constant entertainment like we're fresh from 
the womb.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T 
>> WORK.
> 
>   So that means that even if someone wants to explain in a completely
> rational fashion some detail of the Bible, it's a perfectly valid form
> of counter-argumentation to throw back irrational straw men?

Nope. Nor did I do so. I merely pointed out what the Bible said. Josh 
was the one that came up with the unsupported rationalization.

What's a straw-man about pointing out that eating the Tree of Knowledge 
gave us the same knowledge as God has?

>   "Science", in a broad term, is not always about hard science, about the
> mechanics of the universe. Science can also refer to the study of sociology,
> culture, psychology, philosophy and logic. Something can be argumented
> logically even if it doesn't necessarily refer to an actual physical
> phenomenon.

Yes, but to be science, it needs to be based on some sort of 
observation. What observation is "God's smarter than you are" based on?

I quote Joel here:
> God is able, but whether he's willing is a matter more
> complex than of "yes" and "no". It is a "yes", because
> he will do it at his own pace, and it is a "no", because
> he will do it at his own pace.

So what does Joel base this on? Sure, it's possible, but it's presented 
as "God is able". How does one know? What evidence does one base that 
on? While possible, what makes it more likely than my approach. I'm not 
saying Joel's wrong. I'm saying he didn't support his contention. It 
seems a strange argument to say "The facts I present are right and 
you're wrong *because* what we're arguing about is incomprehensible to 
either of us."

Especially given the text of Genesis, wherein he condemns all humans and 
all serpents to suffering for something they had no blame in, and then 
wipes out almost every living creature on the earth not too long later.

Have you read Job? He's a sadistic SOB in that book. It sure doesn't 
sound like a good and loving God to me. And here I am, with the 
knowledge of good and evil. Yet I'm being told to shut up, ignore what I 
read in the Bible, don't think about it, because God is so much smarter 
that what he does can't make sense, including not making sense to the 
person telling me this.

How long is God going to wait before he gets rid of the evil, if he's 
doing it in his own time? I mean, according to Revelations, there's 
gonna be a huge load of evil in the last 7 years of life on earth, 
followed by unending eternal torment for large numbers of people. I'm 
pretty sure unending eternal torment for large numbers of people falls 
under the "evil" category - it certainly does when people do it. So when 
does God get around to eliminating evil, if not by the Rapture?

>   You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even want to
> have a rational conversation about different points of view. 

I do. You told me it would take too long to explain.

And it's not like the "You're mistaken, it's not really evil because God 
is smarter than you are" isn't an old, old argument. I mean, have you 
heard the expression "The Best Of All Possible Worlds"? People have been 
making fun of that argument since long, long before *my* country existed.

> You just want to be right, and you will not concede anything.

I have conceded that the Bible's translation might be messing up my 
understanding of it. I've conceded that I might be wrong about whether 
God exists, including a sample list of events that would convince me. I 
even, in a past discussion, conceded that dying for your belief can be a 
convincing way to faith. What more do you want me to concede?

> You have decided that your arguments are the only valid arguments, 

Nope. I just haven't seen a valid argument yet. That you haven't 
convinced me is not proof that I'm unconvincible.

> you don't want to listen nor
> understand what the other is trying to say, 

Nothing hasn't been said that I haven't heard dozens of times already. I 
roomed for a semester in university with a guy whose father was a priest 
and had done all the studies to be a priest himself. Do you really think 
I haven't heard the "it isn't really evil because it's all part of God's 
plan" argument before?

Don't tell me I'm not listening. I asked "how do you know it's God's 
plan?"  Answer the question I actually ask, instead of accusing me of 
arguing unfairly because I ask difficult questions.

> except to see how you could
> come up with yet another counter-argument. That's not listening.

I *am* listening. I quote:
>   2) You don't care anyways, so why even bother?

In other words, you gave up when I actually asked you to support your 
statements. That makes it hard to have a rational discussion.

>> They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep 
>> on trying, right?
> 
>   That's a perfect example of a straw man in this context. You are trying
> to make my arguments (and my point that some of these Bible things can be
> approached in a rational basis) look more ridiculous by comparing them to
> something extreme.

Remember the subject line.

You wanted rational arguments. What's rational about saying "God does 
evil for reasons you can't understand"? In particular, how can you know 
that's true, if you can't understand the reasons? How can you 
distinguish "God does evil because he enjoys it in ways we can't 
understand" from "God does evil because he is required to in ways we 
can't understand"?

Sure, some of the stuff in the Bible can be approached from a rational 
basis. I already conceded, also, that if you use the Bible as a 
fictional work full of allegories and investigate it to see which ones 
work for you, without expecting me to necessarily take away from it the 
same values, then I don't have any problem with it. So now you're 
telling me you ignored the "rational" parts of *my* statements?

>> I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I 
>> do?
> 
>   Yes. Show your righteous indignation. You must be right, who has the
> right to even claim that you might be wrong?

No, you're not reading what I'm writing. It's easy to *assert* that you 
know what God is thinking. But if you want to argue rationally, you 
can't just make an unsupported assertion and call it quits.

I said God allows evil. Joel says God has a reason to, or that it's not 
really evil because God wouldn't allow it. While I've heard this 
argument before, it's not supported by the text of the Bible, and it's 
not supported by observation. If God created life, then yes, people 
*are* smarter than God, as evidenced by all the flaws in life.

>   Listening to other people is very, very hard sometimes.

I have listened to other people, both here and elsewhere, on this 
subject. You are once again falling back on the tried and true "the only 
reason you don't agree is you don't really understand" argument, which I 
already pointed out once. You've given no evidence that I don't 
understand other than that I disagree with you. You merely asserted that 
you are right, but unable to explain why. (Granted, that's what faith is 
all about.) Hence, your implication that I'm not actually listening to 
what people are saying is unsupported and irrational.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again, 
> with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say with 
> a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way 
> described in Genesis, 

Of course they didn't. There aren't any Ice Giants mentioned at all.

Why does the argument always seem to be "why do you think the Bible is 
wrong", instead of "why do you think Thor isn't in charge of thunder?"

>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>> always won wars of oppression against them.
> 
> I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and 
> also happened to have identical life experiences. 

Or that, maybe, God actually told them the same thing. By "believed the 
same things", I mean "believed the same things about their religion". 
Not "agreed in every way that blue is the prettiest color."

I.e., that after 500 years, you don't have 3000 warring sects. No 
buildings with statues of one group of Christians standing triumphantly 
on the heads of other Christians that just didn't follow the same humans.

>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
> 
> I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books 
> were in fact essentially the same.

Well, if they were word-for-word identical, I think that would count. 
I'd even go with the creation in 7 days in the same order (yes, I know), 
the flood, and a few other bits like that.

The real kicker is that if *humans* came from some other world, you have 
a lot of explaining how evolution made that happen to do.

(See the "Giant's Star" novels.)

>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
> 
> There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The 
> Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North 
> America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of 
> Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the 
> LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would 
> constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?

Rapture? People *actually* coming up out of graves to greet him? Demons 
with giant scales weighing you and dragging you off to pits of hell in 
shackles, as depicted on churches all over europe?

How about "Jesus actually returning to actual Earth after the invention 
of the television camera"?

>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
>> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
>> after.
> 
> That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good 
> people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we are 
> not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.

Yeah. "You're too stupid to understand. But *we* understand why you're 
too stupid to understand. *We* understand God well enough to know that 
His grand plan requires suffering now."

Of course, Jesus disagrees, and says you shouldn't go to doctors, but 
just trust in God, and all your medical problems will disappear. Funny 
how that doesn't happen either.

>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth
>> defects.
> 
> How many people make up a religion?

Now you're arguing details. Obviously, it has to be a large enough 
population to make such a thing statistically unlikely.

> I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is 
> arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough that 
> you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter was 
> made.

See above.

>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
>> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
>> believe faith can move mountains.
> 
> Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but 
> based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but was 
> being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".

Except this story was in response to people being amazed that Jesus 
could kill an innocent tree just by cursing it. They said "Wow, how can 
we get that power?"  And he said basically "Believe in me."

Sure, it could be figurative, and an allegory. And as I've said numerous 
times, I have no trouble with people who treat the bible as fictional 
allegories and cherry-pick the bits they want, as long as they don't 
expect me to agree with them.

>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>> disaster or even lightning.
> 
> There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already 
> happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church 
> (for that matter).

Again, it has to be big enough to be statistically unlikely. If you're 
going to say *this* church is the only church for its entire religion, 
then sure, that can happen.

I think you know what I'm getting at. You're just arguing that I haven't 
provided enough details.

>> I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.
> It's a way of justifying "bad things happen to good people".

Right. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

>> I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans.
>> (I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some
>> leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)
> 
> Well, God must've meant for that to happen as part of his greater plan 
> for the world. (That's what I mean)
> 
>>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening that provides them
>>> with the comfort of their beliefs.
>> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also
>> have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But
>> if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink
>> those too.
> 
> The thing is, historically, God/gods/religion have been used to explain 
> the inexplicable.  (This is part of the reason I don't believe in a god, 
> because it seems to me to be the "easy way out" for explaining something 
> that defies explanation).  The second reason they exist is to provide 
> comfort to those who need comforting (like my mom, whom I mentioned 
> before, I believe).  For those people, like I said, if it works for them, 
> that's great - it doesn't work for me.
> 
>>> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and
>>> without faith, I am nothing.
>>> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and
>>> so therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
>>> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)
>> The flaw there is that it's using logic.
> 
> Yes, but that's what makes it work; it is in the context of a humourous 
> work of fiction.
> 
>>> Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition
>>> is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's
>>> evidence, you don't need faith.
>> Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence
>> in the world isn't going to help.
> 
> Yes, true, but the thing is that in a discussion about whether a 
> "miracle" has occurred (which several of your proof points seem to 
> imply), you can't really get to a point of any of those defined as p 
> would allow you to infer the "q of God's existence" with anything even 
> approaching 100% certainty.
> 
> It's late and I don't know if what I said there even makes sense now; I 
> guess what I'm trying to say is that if any of those were to happen, I 
> can see that the counter is "well, that's impossible, so there *must* be 
> some other explanation and I'm just not seeing it".
> 
> Jim


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:12:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That, for example, the Burning Bush incident didn't happen.  But again,
>> with scientific proof, there is room for doubt, so while we can say
>> with a high degree of certainty that things didn't happen 100% the way
>> described in Genesis,
> 
> Of course they didn't. There aren't any Ice Giants mentioned at all.

:-)

> Why does the argument always seem to be "why do you think the Bible is
> wrong", instead of "why do you think Thor isn't in charge of thunder?"

You know, that's a good question.  I've occasionally wondered that myself 
in debates with my religous friends.  Maybe it's because today the common 
context isn't a polytheistic context, but the monotheistic context of the 
varieties of Christianity (and the related religions).

Possibly because we know today that God isn't in charge of thunder, but 
that it's caused by the rapid expansion of air caused when charged 
particles move to the ground or another cloud?

As I said later, religion is often used to explain the inexplicable.  
Some people need/want that sort of comfort in their lives - that 
everything has an explanation.  The "mysteries of life" today don't 
revolve around how the sun crosses the sky or where thunder comes from, 
but focus more on "what's it all about?" types of questions.

>>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>>> always won wars of oppression against them.
>> 
>> I don't think that could happen, unless all members were automatons and
>> also happened to have identical life experiences.
> 
> Or that, maybe, God actually told them the same thing. By "believed the
> same things", I mean "believed the same things about their religion".
> Not "agreed in every way that blue is the prettiest color."

Even still, I don't believe that even two people who receive the same 
message will interpret it the same way.  The telephone game kinda proves 
that to an extent.

In other words, you not only would have to have the same message 
delivered, but you'd have to have identical interpretations.  Given how 
many ways people interpret something that many consider to be as 
important as the Bible, I think that's unlikely.  Within some religions 
(I'm thinking Judaism), members are encouraged to explore their own 
personal interpretation (so I understand).

> I.e., that after 500 years, you don't have 3000 warring sects. No
> buildings with statues of one group of Christians standing triumphantly
> on the heads of other Christians that just didn't follow the same
> humans.

Why does it have to be Christians, though?  How's about Buddhism?

>>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
>> 
>> I would think this would invite debate about whether or not the books
>> were in fact essentially the same.
> 
> Well, if they were word-for-word identical, I think that would count.
> I'd even go with the creation in 7 days in the same order (yes, I know),
> the flood, and a few other bits like that.

Again, though, there would be interpretive questions.  Word for word in 
what language, for example?  Even today, there are serious questions 
about the translation of the books from one language to another - for 
example, for a long time, the interpretation of the word defining the 
"pain of childbirth" that was the punishment for Eve's original sin was 
translated as meaning "pain" - as in "this should be painful as a 
reminder of the original sin".  Some scholars have determined that the 
word's translation was incorrect, and that it really should have 
translated to "work" rather than "pain".

There is apparently some debate about this still, but just the idea that 
we can't come to a common understanding of what the words even mean in 
the Bible makes this increasingly unlikely, because in order to do "word 
for word identical" or even "getting events in the same order" we have to 
have a common definition to start from on Earth, and we don't even have 
that.

> The real kicker is that if *humans* came from some other world, you have
> a lot of explaining how evolution made that happen to do.

Absolutely.

> (See the "Giant's Star" novels.)

Will have to look them up.

>>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
>> 
>> There have been people who have claimed that this has happened.  The
>> Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus did return to Earth in North
>> America.  They've got entire books devoted to the subject (The Book of
>> Mormon is one book; it might also be covered in other books used by the
>> LDS church).  So that then leads to the question as to what would
>> constitute proof that it was in fact Jesus?
> 
> Rapture? People *actually* coming up out of graves to greet him? Demons
> with giant scales weighing you and dragging you off to pits of hell in
> shackles, as depicted on churches all over europe?

There again, you defined it as a return, not the Rapture, armageddon, or 
whatever word fits.  "Return to earth" is exactly what the Mormons 
believe happened.  So again, it's a question of definition and details.

> How about "Jesus actually returning to actual Earth after the invention
> of the television camera"?

Didn't Jim Jones claim that he was Jesus?  How would one prove that 
someone claiming to be Jesus was in fact Jesus?

>>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer,
>>> and spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs
>>> shortly after.
>> 
>> That brings about the discussion of "why do bad things happen to good
>> people" which often ends in "it's part of God's grand plan, which we
>> are not privy to".  It would be great if that happened, of course.
> 
> Yeah. "You're too stupid to understand. But *we* understand why you're
> too stupid to understand. *We* understand God well enough to know that
> His grand plan requires suffering now."

I don't think it's "We understand" but "we have faith that there's a 
reason for it".  There's a big difference there.

> Of course, Jesus disagrees, and says you shouldn't go to doctors, but
> just trust in God, and all your medical problems will disappear. Funny
> how that doesn't happen either.

Some people believe that, yes.  And I think that's nuts, and in 
situations where someone puts their child's health at risk for that 
belief, that's when society needs to step in.  It's one thing for an 
adult to make that decision for themselves; quite another IMO for them to 
decide that about someone else.  Falls under my "as far as my nose" (or 
perhaps "others' noses" is a better analogy) rule for letting people 
believe what they like.

>>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth
>>> defects.
>> 
>> How many people make up a religion?
> 
> Now you're arguing details. Obviously, it has to be a large enough
> population to make such a thing statistically unlikely.

Well, yes and no.  But the situation set up is one that requires the 
question be asked, because religion is defined in so many different ways 
to different people.  It need not be organised, 

I use the definition "Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence 
for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or 
practice of rites or observances implying this." (OED, 2e, definition 3a) 
when discussing religion.  Knowing people who follow Wiccan beliefs, some 
of those religious rites or observances are done in a solitary fashion, 
and I don't think I've ever met two who defined their beliefs in the same 
way.  But they certainly can be very religious people, too.

>> I'm not saying it has or hasn't been met in this instance, but it is
>> arguable that the stated requirements of the proof are vague enough
>> that you can come back and say "that doesn't count" when such a counter
>> was made.
> 
> See above.

Well, the devil *is* in the details, no? ;-)

>>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So,
>>> move a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week,
>>> and I'll believe faith can move mountains.
>> 
>> Was Jesus being literal or figurative?  We have no way of knowing, but
>> based on my upbringing, I'd have to say he wasn't being literal, but
>> was being figurative, as in "anybody can change the world".
> 
> Except this story was in response to people being amazed that Jesus
> could kill an innocent tree just by cursing it. They said "Wow, how can
> we get that power?"  And he said basically "Believe in me."
> 
> Sure, it could be figurative, and an allegory. And as I've said numerous
> times, I have no trouble with people who treat the bible as fictional
> allegories and cherry-pick the bits they want, as long as they don't
> expect me to agree with them.

Well, and you and I certainly agree on this point.  Discussion with 
someone who firmly believes the JWs have the right interpretation is 
always interesting, because in my experience, that sort of cherry picking 
is what they tend to do, but then when you debate in kind, they say 
"well, you're taking that out of context".  It does make for an 
entertaining (and occasionally high-spirited discussion).

>>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>>> disaster or even lightning.
>> 
>> There again, not terribly difficult to prove that this has already
>> happened, given the variety of what constitutes a religion or a church
>> (for that matter).
> 
> Again, it has to be big enough to be statistically unlikely. If you're
> going to say *this* church is the only church for its entire religion,
> then sure, that can happen.

See, that's the problem with it.  Big enough to be statistically unlikely 
becomes difficult to quantify consistently.  10 churches?  20?  a 
hundred?  What constitutes a disaster?  There's a lot of wiggle room 
there for "that doesn't count".

> I think you know what I'm getting at. You're just arguing that I haven't
> provided enough details.

I do know what you're getting at - and my list actually would be very 
similar.  I just know, though, that the response from someone who is 
truly religious is going to poke those kinds of holes in the required 
proof.

My friend Al (the JW that I have debated with) often liked to counter 
with a pointer to the book The Invisible Watchmaker, and then would say 
"does not a watch imply a watchmaker"?  That was fairly pointless to 
debate, because he sees order in the world where I see chaos.

We're not so different in points of view, Darren - I hope you do see 
that.  I perhaps don't go as far as describing myself as atheistic 
(probably closer to agnostic, but even that's not entirely accurate, 
because agnosticism holds that there are things that are unknowable, and 
I don't think that's the case - I think it takes time to learn them, 
sometimes more than a lifetime, but that knowledge grows with each 
passing generation; this is easily provable to be the case), but I do 
have a healthy dose of skepticism, don't practice a mainstream religion 
of any sort these days, I know there are things that I don't know, and I 
don't feel a need to explain them away with some sort of mystical "god".

I have an interest in a variety of points of view, and try to understand 
what I can from them, even though I probably won't agree with them.

I hope this has been an enjoyable conversation for you, it has been so 
for me.  This sort of discussion gets me thinking and analyzing about 
what I think and believe, and I enjoy that immensely for some reason.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Note to Patrick: you might think that if I tell you I am an atheist that 
>> you know what I think and how I should behave. Believe me, you haven't 
>> got a clue.
>>
> 
> Odd. And here I thought I mentioned the whole "herding cats" concept at 
> some point. lol But seriously, as long as you are not one of those, "If 
> we are nice to the wackos, then eventually we will win!", types, we 
> might get along. 

Me? I  am one of the wacko's, I'd think.

> If you are, then I would remind you that we have been 
> trying that for the last 150 years and they **still** think we are the 
> spawn of Satan, out to destroy them, and too militant, strident, close 
> minded and/or confused and ignorant of the truth as they did 150 years 
> ago. 

Somewhere I mentioned that I am dutch. Things are a bit different here.

> At best, the fact that nothing they have claimed to be true, or 
> tried as an alternative to secular solutions, has worked as well (or 
> some times at all), is the only reason we are winning the battle. And as 
> fun as it is to watch fools throw water balloons at the castle wall, 
> while disdaining the open gate, which merely requires that they agree to 
> play by the rules to get in legitimately, I have to start to wonder how 
> effective playing nice still is, when they stop using water balloons and 
> start trying, however poorly, to construct ladders and primitive 
> catapults. The fact that 90% of the time the ladders fall apart and the 
> catapults are aimed in random directions doesn't matter much if they 
> manage to accidentally launch enough priests over the wall. Sadly, some 
> fools on our side of the wall are just as susceptible to some types of 
> woo as the people standing around outside.
>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious 
>> way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical 
>> says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can 
>> from here on deduce anything.
>> [snipped some invalid conclusions].
>>
>> I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I 
>> hope not).
>>
> 
> I quote: "As just another atheist I'd like to point out that atheism is 
> a religion too."

Oops, you're right. Please replace 'is' by 'can be' and restart this thread.

> 
> That hardly sounds like a vague assertion that its sort of kind of like 
> one, in some ways. All my conclusions lead from this assertion of yours.
> 
> Oh, and just to be clear. I am using the definition for religion that 
> ***religious*** people most often claim it is, and the definition of 
> atheism that is most common among atheists. 
Bot sure if these definitions are as universally true as you think. I 
don't live in the US.
> That your definition 
> deviates from those isn't all that relevant, especially since it also 
> deviates from most dictionary definitions too, which pretty clearly do 
> not include anything other than disbelief in gods in one, and list a 
> whole mess of stuff you have to believe to be the other. But, what ever 
> definition or denial floats your boat. ;)
> 
AFAIAC an atheist is someone who does believe no God exists. I fit that 
bill. Don't know what I should be ascribing to more to be a genuine one 
in your book.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Mine wasn't a definition. It was a procedure to arrive at a set of 
>> morals. If you follow ethics through the ages you will see that in most 
>> cases ethics are passed down from one generation to another with or 
>> without minor changes. There are however discontinuities as a result of 
>> people (prophets) that follow my recipe.
>>
> Then, you just described precisely one of the biggest problems with 
> religions. You need to have *personal* definitions and *logical* 
> constructs to derive real ethics. Ethics that are passed down merely as 
> traditions can perpetuate injustice, immorality, etc., by any definition 
> that those who question would, in general, come up with. And that is 
> precisely what often happened. The people willing to question found 
> themselves invariably asking *if* the ethics they where taught made 
> sense in the context they where told to apply them, or even if they ever 
> did. The truly cynical ones invariably didn't live long, because they 
> had a bad habit of pointing out that just arbitrary, non-rational, 
> definitions invariably helped those that *taught them* than the people 
> that where supposed to follow them.
> 
Why do I suddenly think at this point that we agree?

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Or, as one fictional character phrased it:

> You can't use logic on religious people, if you could, there wouldn't be 
> any religious people. -Dr. Gregory House

  I think that's a prime example of flawed atheist thinking. It strongly
makes the assumption that:

1) All religious people who believe in God are unable to think rationally
   and logically.

2) No rational person who things logically and scientifically can seriously
   believe in God.

  There's also the less direct assumption that:

3) Any logical-sounding statement defending religion made by a religious
   person must be flawed. It's not possible to approach religion in any
   logical and rational way. Religion always equals irrationality and
   illogical thinking.

  Of course in a very "scientifical" way all atheists have plenty of
"proof" of this. They just have to say something like "look at all those
ID people and their 'logical' arguments". This, naturally, proves that
*all* religious people use flawed argumentation and are unable to think
truely logically and rationally.

  Usually atheist thinking also has strong prejudices, like:

4) Any religious person telling something in defense of religion in a
   calm and rational way is trying to convince me that God exists and
   that his religion is the truth, and thus I must fight against him
   with counterargumentation.

  It seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of a completely
normal, intelligent and rational person, perhaps one with a degree in a
scientific area of expertise, talking about something like religion in a
more or less philosophical way, without trying to "convert" anyone to his
religion. "He is defending his own religion" always equals "he is trying
to convert me into his religion, I must fight back".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message