Disproving the existence of God

[Iggy]

Yeah, you're right. I believe there's a creator and deserve ridicule.

What your belief deserves is debatable. What I'm telling you it doesn't deserve is exemption and protection from ridicule. Are you clear on that now?

[iNow]

Until there's objective evidence that can prove there is no creative force responsible for our universe and explain why we came into existence, then it's fair game.

Nice try, but no. It's not fair game to believe in unicorns because you cannot prove they aren't there. It's not fair game to believe in the easter bunny because you cannot prove it's not there. It's not fair game to believe in leprechauns because you cannot prove it's not there. It's not fair game to believe in Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Poseidon, Mothra, Godzilla, or Puff the Magic dragon because you cannot prove it's not there. Likewise, it's not fair game to believe in Yahweh or Allah or some "undefined amorphous energy that's beyond the universe" because you cannot prove it's not there.

 

That's just not how it works. Even from a mere logical level, you cannot prove nonexistence in the way you're suggesting.

 

This has been explained before, but I'll try again. Beliefs and speculations and conjectures are not accepted as true until someone else shows that they're not. We don't accept beliefs as valid or as fair game until it's been demonstrated they are lacking substance. No... They are accepted when they are shown to have merit, or evidence in their favor, or when they stand up to scrutiny... and EVEN THEN they are poked and prodded and attacked to find flaws. When it comes to intellectual honesty in the field of academia and beliefs, Appolinaria, it's not "innocent until proven guilty" as you've been here repeatedly suggesting. What we've been trying to tell you is that the only way to ensure we cling to quality ideas and progress humanity forward is to assume for everything that it's "wrong until shown to have merit or evidence." You have neither, and hence your belief is rejected as delusion, or wish thinking, or even childish nonsense. If you want so desperately for us to stop saying these things, then it's easy to make us stop. Provide evidence or good reason we should accept the idea as valid. People smarter than both of us have been trying to do exactly that for thousands of years and have consistently failed in spectacular fashion, so good luck.

 

 

Also, I agree fully with Tres Juicy on this one. Sure, there could very well be uber intelligent aliens somewhere out there in the vastness, and sure maybe they've broken through barriers we didn't even know were there. They may have found things of intense awe and wonder and be able to do things that would boggle even the most brilliant human mind. Sure... I think that's certainly possible. Still... That's hardly a case for a creator, and most certainly not evidence of one.

Edited January 15, 2012 by iNow

[mississippichem]

Yeah, you're right. I believe there's a creator and deserve ridicule.

 

Until there's objective evidence that can prove there is no creative force responsible for our universe and explain why we came into existence, then it's fair game.

 

Prove that unicorns don't exist. Until you do, you must respect my belief in unicorns and seriously consider the possibility that I'm right. My belief that unicorns created the earth is just as valid as your silly big bang and stellar accretion disks until you can prove me wrong.

 

Appolinaria,

 

From past correspondence with you on the forum I know that you are better than this type of argument.

 

Relativity and QM deniers in the speculations section use that tactic too.

 

Don't make fun of my unicorn worship until you can prove me wrong. Until then my beliefs are just as valid as your belief in your sky fairy. Mine just happens to walk on four legs.

[Appolinaria]

Given our sample size of inhabited planets is one, calling statistical significance might be a little premature

 

 

Haha, oops. I was really referring to Drake's equation, that kinda thing.

 

What your belief deserves is debatable. What I'm telling you it doesn't deserve is exemption and protection from ridicule. Are you clear on that now?

 

 

Well, I think ridicule altogether is unnecessary, I've had this discussion before, and it carries into religious beliefs... so I definitely do not agree with you, but I wont deny that what you're saying is clear.

 

Nice try, but no. It's not fair game to believe in unicorns because you cannot prove they aren't there. It's not fair game to believe in the easter bunny because you cannot prove it's not there. It's not fair game to believe in leprechauns because you cannot prove it's not there. It's not fair game to believe in Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Poseidon, Mothra, Godzilla, or Puff the Magic dragon because you cannot prove it's not there. Likewise, it's not fair game to believe in Yahweh or Allah or some "undefined amorphous energy that's beyond the universe" because you cannot prove it's not there.

 

That's just not how it works. Even from a mere logical level, you cannot prove nonexistence in the way you're suggesting.

 

This has been explained before, but I'll try again. Beliefs and speculations and conjectures are not accepted as true until someone else shows that they're not. We don't accept beliefs as valid or as fair game until it's been demonstrated they are lacking substance. No... They are accepted when they are shown to have merit, or evidence in their favor, or when they stand up to scrutiny... and EVEN THEN they are poked and prodded and attacked to find flaws. When it comes to intellectual honesty in the field of academia and beliefs, Appolinaria, it's not "innocent until proven guilty" as you've been here repeatedly suggesting. What we've been trying to tell you is that the only way to ensure we cling to quality ideas and progress humanity forward is to assume for everything that it's "wrong until shown to have merit or evidence." You have neither, and hence your belief is rejected as delusion, or wish thinking, or even childish nonsense. If you want so desperately for us to stop saying these things, then it's easy to make us stop. Provide evidence or good reason we should accept the idea as valid. People smarter than both of us have been trying to do exactly that for thousands of years and have consistently failed in spectacular fashion, so good luck.

 

 

Also, I agree fully with Tres Juicy on this one. Sure, there could very well be uber intelligent aliens somewhere out there in the vastness, and sure maybe they've broken through barriers we didn't even know were there. They may have found things of intense awe and wonder and be able to do things that would boggle even the most brilliant human mind. Sure... I think that's certainly possible. Still... That's hardly a case for a creator, and most certainly not evidence of one.

 

Well I think it's evidence that there's probably a lot of complexity beyond it all that we can't understand, and won't understand in this lifetime. What if there's an explanation, something infinitely unfolding that is responsible for space, time... all of it. Maybe that's my creator.

[iNow]

I think ridicule altogether is unnecessary

And, you're welcome to believe that, but that doesn't mean it's an incontrovertible truth. Attempts to silence ridicule are almost always attempts to repress people... attempts to protect despotic power... attempts to avoid rebellion against unsupportable doctrines.

 

 

http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/ridicule-an-instrument-in-the-war-on-terrorism

 

Used as a means of positive persuasion, humor can be an important public diplomacy tool. “If I can get you to laugh with me,” said comedian John Cleese, “you like me better, which makes you more open to my ideas. And if I can persuade you to laugh at the particular point I make, by laughing at it you acknowledge the truth.”

<...>

In nearly every aspect of society and across cultures and time, ridicule works. Ridicule leverages the emotions and simplifies the complicated and takes on the powerful, in politics, business, law, entertainment, literature, culture, sports and romance. Ridicule can tear down faster than the other side can rebuild. One might counter an argument, an image, or even a kinetic force, but one can marshal few defenses against the well-aimed barbs that bleed humiliation and drip contempt. Politicians fear ridicule. Some take ridicule well and emerge stronger for it; others never recover from it. The perpetual circle of democracy absorbs and even breeds ridicule against individuals and ideas, while the system itself remains intact. While ridicule can be a healthy part of democracy, it can weaken the tyrant.

<...>

Dictators, tyrants, and those aspire to seize and keep power by intimidation and force can tolerate no public ridicule. They generally harbor grandiose self-images with little bearing on how people really think of them. They require a controlled political environment, reinforced by sycophants and toadies, to preserve an impenetrable image. Some are more tolerant of reasoned or principled opposition but few of satire or ridicule. The size of their egos may be seen as inversely proportional to the thickness of their skin. However, few are true madmen; most are rational and serious.

<...>

The best ones spread because they speak the truth, and the truth leads to freedom. The joke is quietly shared and spread; the people know that they are not alone. “Every joke is a tiny revolution,” said George Orwell. “Whatever destroys dignity, and brings down the mighty from their seats, preferably with a bump, is funny."

<...>

Americans have used ridicule as a potent weapon to cut its enemies down to size since the Revolutionary War. Ridicule served two wartime purposes: to raise the people’s morale by helping them to laugh at their enemies, and to dent the morale of enemy forces.

 

Well I think it's evidence that there's probably a lot of complexity beyond it all that we can't understand, and won't understand in this lifetime. What if there's an explanation, something infinitely unfolding that is responsible for space, time... all of it. Maybe that's my creator.

None of that provides reason to accept the concept of a creator as valid until shown fallacious. That was the context of my comments. You asserted that any belief is fair and acceptable until there is scientific evidence suggesting it's not. You were wrong.

[Appolinaria]

Prove that unicorns don't exist. Until you do, you must respect my belief in unicorns and seriously consider the possibility that I'm right. My belief that unicorns created the earth is just as valid as your silly big bang and stellar accretion disks until you can prove me wrong.

 

Appolinaria,

 

From past correspondence with you on the forum I know that you are better than this type of argument.

 

Relativity and QM deniers in the speculations section use that tactic too.

 

Don't make fun of my unicorn worship until you can prove me wrong. Until then my beliefs are just as valid as your belief in your sky fairy. Mine just happens to walk on four legs.

 

Thanks for that nice statement, mississippichem. Of course I don't deny relativity or QM or anything science has accomplished. But at the moment, I don't mind looking possibly a little out there in order to have a fruitful conversation (in my opinion). I teeter back and forth very frequently with my own spiritual beliefs, so the argument from atheists is really what I want to get my paws on. It's necessary for me to question these things.

[StringJunky]

Well, I think ridicule altogether is unnecessary, I've had this discussion before, and it carries into religious beliefs... so I definitely do not agree with you, but I wont deny that what you're saying is clear.

 

You can take consolation from the fact that there are people that believe the Universe popped into existence from nothing which is equally as "absurd", logically, as a Creator. A Universe coming from nothing is as 'valid' as Sky Fairies, Pixies, Unicorns et al.

 

The people that ridicule religion do nothing to further the dissemination of science amongst those that may hold religious beliefs...they forever maintain the divide. For people that are supposed to be clever their attitude is very thick and short-sighted when one considers the aim of this forum is to primarily educate.

Edited January 15, 2012 by StringJunky

[Appolinaria]

And, you're welcome to believe that, but that doesn't mean it's an incontrovertible truth. Attempts to silence ridicule are almost always attempts to repress people... attempts to protect despotic power... attempts to avoid rebellion against unsupportable doctrines.

 

 

http://www.iwp.edu/n...ar-on-terrorism

 

 

 

 

None of that provides reason to accept the concept of a creator as valid until shown fallacious. That was the context of my comments. You asserted that any belief is fair and acceptable until there is scientific evidence suggesting it's not. You were wrong.

 

To repress people, protect despotic power, avoid rebellion. War on terror. Okay great, but in the context of a science forum, I think it's unnecessary.

 

I understand you're fighting being repressed by the system, by religion, etc. but a creator existing or not has nothing to do with raging against the machine.

 

I won't dismiss the years of evidence that silencing people is usually done to repress them, but I'm not going that far.

 

I simply don't think ridicule makes for a healthy environment, I think we learn this in preschool... and I think the only ones attempting to repress anyone's ideas are those who can't accept that I may believe in a creator and still have a rational brain.

[iNow]

Perhaps now is as good a time as any to quote Dr.Rocket from another thread recently:

 

Note that while an ad hominem argument is not valid in the context of formal logic, it is not necessarily poor reasoning in the larger context. We engage in ad hominem reasoning every time that we request a citation from the peer reviewed literature, or cite an expert opinion.

 

In the modern environment in which the ability to publish, easily and widely, is afforded to anyone with a keyboard and internet connection it is in fact necessary to discriminate among those who publish. Life is just too short to spend time dissecting in detail the rantings of the numerous nut cases found today on the internet -- and science forums attract more than their fare share.

 

I know of no instances in which great ideas were lost to ridicule. Pythagoras may have received criticism when irrational numbers were discovered, but his ideas survived the death of the man. Einstein's was work, in the darkest days of the Reich was called "Jewish physics", but Einstein's ideas and reputation seem to have prevailed over those of his detractors. Valid ideas seem to always win out in the end.

 

But let's be realistic. Revolutionary valid new science never has and will not ever arise from the rantings of some delusional amateur in an internet science forum. The first step in doing research and developing radical new valid science is understanding what is already known, the basis of that knowledge and the limits of its applicability. That requires serious intense study. There is a reason why almost all research scientists have Ph.D. degrees.

 

I seem to observe that purveyors of tripe take any criticism of their ideas ortheir grasp of subjective matter as personal attacks. Thus criticism of ideas is interpreted erroneously as an ad hominem attack. I also note a tendancy for some to be more concerned with the "self esteem" of fringe posters than in content or intellectual honesty (note the degree to which positive and negative "reputation points" are cast on the basis ofsuch concerns rather than technical content). This goes to the point where requests for homework help that are in essence outright cheating are tolerated because "the professor should forsee this possibility". Sincere newbies deserve consideration and tolerance. But kid gloves are not for wackos, cheaters or even just lazy students.

 

The railing against ad hominem arguments by the lunatic fringe is simply a tactic used to promote nonsense, and an attempt to have absurdities given apparently serious consideration. In a venue without the mollifying influence provided by an academic environment and peer review, the risk of intellectual chaos promulgated by articulate and prolific lunatics is real (think Farsight or your favorite creationist). It is therefore expedient, and in fact necessary, to learn to discriminate between arguments and sources that are deserving of the expenditure of intellectual capital and tripe that should be dismissed out of hand, not even read fully. This is ad hominem reasoning at its most productive, and it is necessary for those who wish to learn real science in a finite lifetime.

 

---

I think the only ones attempting to repress anyone's ideas are those who can't accept that I may believe in a creator and still have a rational brain.

But nobody is repressing your ideas. You are free to believe any damned silly thing you want. You're simply not free to share them openly while being protected against ridicule, mockery, and dismissal. BIG difference.

 

Just as Iggy said earlier:

 

What your belief deserves is debatable. What I'm telling you it doesn't deserve is exemption and protection from ridicule. Are you clear on that now?

[Appolinaria]

You can take consolation from the fact that there are people that believe the Universe popped into existence from nothing which is equally as "absurd", logically, as a Creator. A Universe coming from nothing is as 'valid' as Sky Fairies, Pixies, Unicorns et al.

 

The people that ridicule religion do nothing to further the dissemination of science amongst those that may hold religious beliefs...they forever maintain the divide. For people that are supposed to be clever their attitude is very thick and short-sighted when one considers the aim of this forum is to primarily educate.

 

You're right, StringJunky.

[iNow]

I may believe in a creator and still have a rational brain.

I've already stipulated many times that you can be an otherwise rational person and have an otherwise rational brain if you're a theist. That was never in question, and is really little more than yet another red herring. We're talking about your belief in a creator in the complete absence of any evidence or reason to believe whatsoever, and that belief is therefore not a rational one. I'm sure your brain is just dandy. We're talking about a specific belief expressed by that brain, though, not your brain itself.

[Appolinaria]

I've already stipulated many times that you can be an otherwise rational person and have an otherwise rational brain if you're a theist. That was never in question, and is really little more than yet another red herring. We're talking about your belief in a creator in the complete absence of any evidence or reason to believe whatsoever, and that belief is therefore not a rational one. I'm sure your brain is just dandy. We're talking about a specific belief expressed by that brain, though, not your brain itself.

 

Well why don't you just let my brain be, let me be human.

There's no objective scientific evidence for magenta either, but is it real to you?

[iNow]

---

So... Some Christians are crazy for their faith, but it isn't right to ridicule faith that looks more like yours. I'm sure there's nothing intellectually dishonest about that.

 

How about "God hates fags"? Is that so stupid that we can all laugh at it, or is it like "God created the big bang"... something that is too special not to be protected from INow's viscous tongue? The real crime here is that you think you get to decide. How natural it must feel to call some Christians crazy for believing the former and telling INow that he has no right to ridicule the latter.

 

and people who think like that are happy +ing your posts to oblivion...

That's why I really don't take the rep system very seriously.

 

---

There's no objective scientific evidence for magenta either, but is it real to you?

Do you think this is an accurate comment? It's trivially easy to show false.

[Appolinaria]

Is it?

[Tres Juicy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magenta

 

Done and done

 

Appolinaria, on 15 January 2012 - 05:38 PM, said: I may believe in a creator and still have a rational brain.

 

Just because you have a rational brain does not make you right.

 

Hitler had a rational brain, he justified everything he did rationally not only to himself but to countless others as well.

 

Just because you have not been proven insane does not mean that you dont hold views which are either wrong, dangerous, stupid, cruel, ignorant or just plain ridiculous.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[Appolinaria]

Magenta has no wavelength, I would like objective scientific evidence that it exists.

[Moontanman]

Magenta has no wavelength, I would like objective scientific evidence that it exists.

 

 

I think his link did a pretty good job of that but if you want to get technical color is indeed in the eye of the beholder, it's how our brains sort the info of differing wave lengths of light.

 

As for disproving the existence of God, disprove I have a invisible dragon only I can see or feel in any way and we can talk, until then I'll let the believers show some evidence God exists...

[Appolinaria]

I think his link did a pretty good job of that but if you want to get technical color is indeed in the eye of the beholder, it's how our brains sort the info of differing wave lengths of light.

 

As for disproving the existence of God, disprove I have a invisible dragon only I can see or feel in any way and we can talk, until then I'll let the believers show some evidence God exists...

 

There's no objective evidence of that. But there is objective evidence that our universe exists.

[Moontanman]

There's no objective evidence of that. But there is objective evidence that our universe exists.

 

 

And the existence of our universe is evidence of what other than it exists?

[Appolinaria]

And the existence of our universe is evidence of what other than it exists?

 

It's finite, idfk.

 

Unicorns?

[Moontanman]

It's finite, idfk.

 

Can you show evidence of that?

 

Unicorns?

 

 

No, dragons, unicorns are silly....

Edited January 15, 2012 by Moontanman

[Appolinaria]

Can you show evidence of that?

 

 

 

The Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago? But I might be misinterpreting that as the beginning of the universe, and it might just be the beginning of the expansion?

[Moontanman]

The Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago? But I might be misinterpreting that as the beginning of the universe, and it might just be the beginning of the expansion?

 

 

It might also be evidence of colliding branes in a multidimensional bulk space or it might be an illusion of perspective or something else we are not aware of, it most certainly is not evidence of a creator... or it could be turtles all the way down....

Edited January 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[Iggy]

No, dragons, unicorns are silly....

 

that high pitched screeching sound is a horde of millions of angry adolescent girls declaring jihad

[doG]

Just wondering, is there anyone here that believes the existence of some deity beyond the understanding of mankind is absolutely not possible? Not even as a remote possibility?