| Challenges (for theists) |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (8:30 pm) Good challenges. Atheists by definition believe that there is no god. Interestingly though it requires a set of beliefs though, which may be the actual important part as far as being human is concerned. As far as the existence of god goes, that's always a little tougher, but here is the scientific proof. Take all the scientific equations for the universe and what do you get. Well, you can reverse the equations to take it back to a big bang type incident. However, knowing a little bit about math, there are some things that can't be proven with math or equations, and in equations sometimes lines approach limits at infintely closer amounts but never reach a point. Take these ideas and the idea that the equations that support the theories of the universe show that the Big Bang either doesn't exist, or is a limit that isn't reached or something of the sort. One way or the other, The Big Bang started from a point that ultimately is non existent yet contains every piece of matter and energy and doesn't occupy space at the same time. All of it a bunch of impossibilities, logically and mathematically. Except that there have been some experiments that tend to support the Big Bang theory. One big one measured temperature differences in space and where they were and where they were heading, etc. The results apparently determined a shape that could have formed microseconds after the Big Bang. All that being said a shift in paradigm is necesary, one way or the other. A person needs to take a leap of faith and believe the science is right and that all this is actually here and real, because the says it shouldn't actually have started in the first place. A person can also take a leap of faith and believe that whatever it is that is beyond space, time, energy, and matter, whatever it is that gave the spark to it all that shouldn't exist, but obviously does one way or the other, is that thing which could be called god in its most basic form. None the less, a paradigm shift and a leap of faith can occur, but it doesn't mean it needs to change a person's morality. A person can be a good moral person without believing in a god, just as easy (and we all have many examples) as a person can be a bad person who does believe in god. Anyway that's just a little mental exercise without mentioning the Bible. Thanks for reading. posted by: JamesYerian (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (8:34 pm) Dragon, write a blog proving that a God doesn't exist, and I'll give your challenge a shot. And don't rely on what you can observe, because we all realize that what we observe is open to different interpretations-- after all, it's all relative, right? Good luck. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (8:44 pm) Matter is unchanging; we can't take any form of matter and make it disappear, nor can we make something out of nothing. When we attempt to change the form of matter--like burning a log, or boiling water, it is still matter; whether log and smoke or water and steam. Matter exists, as it has always existed; it's an absolute and irreducable. The "Big Bang", (if that theory still holds true), was created from matter. It's a false metaphysical premise to believe that an entity could have created matter out of nothing. Nothing isn't something--it's nothing. What could God have used to create everything if there was nothing? It would be anti-reason to believe that he did perform this physical imposibility. So, if there was "nothing" before God created "something", then what was God made out of? Only by the joy of being alive can I submit my proof of the non-existence of God. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (8:46 pm) Reply to: JamesYerian James, I believe I have proved the non-existence of God. (see above)... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (8:57 pm) Reply to: magicjoejoe Thank you for taking this challenge in the spirit it was meant. I think it helps us all to try and think of ways to explain our beliefs or non-beliefs in purely rational ways. And I think you are right, that ultimately it comes down to a leap of faith, either in the direction of science or religion. I don't think the two are exclusive of one another, but that there is a basic matter of faith in regard to the nature of existence. I particularly like your conclusion that morality doesn't depend on religious belief- that's not a point easily accepted by many theists. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of deism as opposed to theism? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (9:05 pm) Reply to: JamesYerian James, this challenge was not intended to spark anger, but intelligent discourse. I never said that God's existence can't be proven; in fact, I think there are logical arguments for God's existence. I don't necessarily agree with them (obviously), but I was trying to promote a dialogue in which religion could be explained through rational thought. If you would like to participate, that would be great- just please keep it to logical and rational reasoning and leave the anger out of it. I can't prove beyond a doubt that God doesn't exist, but I can give you reasons why I don't believe in God if you'd like. I get the feeling you don't really want that though. All I want is to gain a better understanding of those whose opinions differ from my own. If you're interested in the same, please comment- I would like to hear your perspective on this topic. I'd also like to know how you feel about atheism, and you can use all the anger you'd like in discussing that subject, just keep it rational when (if) discussing God's existence. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (9:06 pm) Reply to: Nivek Interesting, thank you. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (9:07 pm) Reply to: magicjoejoe Basically, science is a means of finding facts. Facts are truths. There can not be "faith" in facts and truths... they are absolutes and concretes. Though one may have faith in a theory, but a theory must have facts to uphold it, even as a primary. In the case for God, one must have faith in that which has no proof of its existence. Within reason, the lack of proof of an existent renders it a nonexistent. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (9:11 pm) Reply to: Nivek I agree that it is only reasonable to dismiss God's existence due to a lack of evidence; however, I do think the ultimate question of existence does boil down to faith in science or religion. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (10:08 pm) Reply to: Nivek The problem with your argument for the non-existence of God is that it doesn't entirely dismiss the possibility of a supreme being that created the universe. Rationally, your point makes sense- that no being could create something from nothing- but this rationality still doesn't repudiate the possibility of a supreme, divine, magical being. It still leaves open the possibility of faith to explain our existence. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (10:17 pm) True. Though it's only my opinion, I have more faith in carbon testing than the Shroud of Turin; more faith in the probable than the improbable; more faith in reason than the lack of such, and much more faith in the happiness that one can create in a short life, than to immolate all will, thought, reason, love, spirit, and existence to a delusion of no means whatever. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (10:21 pm) Reply to: Nivek I absolutely agree with you. posted by: sjelly (reply) post date: 01.29.04 (1:53 am) How do atheist define a God? A person like any other who is subjected to the laws of science? Or being not limited to time and space? The Christian God is not limited by time and space, God can certainly make things out of nothing. God can certainly do anything outside the laws of science. With that definition in mind, let's see if there is such being which fits the definition of God. The big bang like everybody says, is the bang that created everything out of nothing. Then arguement one is "What is before the big bang?". Well, there is no such thing as "before" the big bang. The laws of physics weren't put into place yet. There for there is no law of time before the big bang. A split second after the big bang, did the laws of physics come into place. Nivek's theory of "we can't take any form of matter and make it disappear" is definitely not true. This is proven by the famous scientist Albert Einstein. That's how we get E = mc^2. Nivek says "Basically, science is a means of finding facts. Facts are truths." Wasn't there a time where the brightest minds in the world though that the earth was flat? At that time, it was "scientific truth" to them. Wasn't there a time when the atom was thought to be the smallest matter in the world? until it was spilt open and we found "quarks". But the theory of God has existed for 10,000 years and billions of people are still supporting the theory. That itself is a proof of the existence of God. The logic is simple, if you cant prove it does not exist, it does exist until someone proves it to be non-existent. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 01.29.04 (5:44 am) I think atheists commit the same fallacy in their minds as theists, that being the acceptance of the notion of a god as bearing any meaning at all. To state whether or not god exists, one has to accept that the concept of a god makes sense. An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't think the notion makes any sense at all in the first place and avoids being drawn into a pointless argument. An agnostic also avoids making assertions that cannot be backed by any evidence or logic. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.29.04 (12:33 pm) Reply to: sjelly Atheists don't define God because atheists don't believe God exists. It's kind of difficult to define a non-existent being. I understand your point though- athiests, and anyone else, must first assume that a God exists and then determine whether the evidence provided supports that theory, and atheists obviously don't think the evidence does. Now, your definition of God as a being that is not limited by time and space is the typical definition of a supreme being. And this is the problem with proving God's existence- there is no evidence of a being that is not limited by time and space. I don't quite follow how it is logical to say that proof of God's existence lies in the fact that so many people have believed this theory for so long. This is a theory that can't be absolutley disproven. I say that because it is counterproductive to try and prove a negative such as this- it makes no sense to try and prove something doesn't exist. Most people would agree that Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, for example, don't exist. However, it is impossible to prove that they don't exist. Most would agree that it is only a myth or a story, but it could still be argued that Santa does in fact exist. At the very least, one could argue that the spirit of Santa exists. Logical thought cannot explain how something does not exist. That being said, I would argue the opposite of your final statement. You said, "The logic is simple, if you cant prove it does not exist, it does exist until someone proves it to be non-existent." I don't think that is logical. It is more logical to assume something doesn't exist until given proof of its existence. The interesting thing about a discussion like this is that there are no definitive answers. We each must ultimately decide for ourselves what to believe, what is logical, and what is best for us. Thank you for your comments, and feel free to add more. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.29.04 (12:41 pm) Reply to: If you state that the notion of a God bearing any meaning at all is absurd, aren't you stating that there is no God? If the concept of God makes no sense, wouldn't you agree that God must not exist? I agree that both atheists and theists use faith to rationalize their beliefs on the matter of God's existence. I think we all think our assertions are based in evidence and logic- what evidence and logic we follow is dependent on our individual views and our concept of reality. The argument itself may be pointless, as there are no definitive answers, but the discussion is productive, I think. I think it's important and beneficial to examine why it is we believe things. posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 01.29.04 (7:05 pm) Here's one thing about science that has recently come to light. All the equations of quantum physics, and all of relativity, and all of Newtonian physics work fine in their own dimensions. However, they do not extrapolate, and therefore are absolutely false. How's that? That means everything about science is wrong, right? Wrong, you have to take a leap of faith and believe that something's right. Or else do we even exist? That leads to the other point, it seems everyone is stuck on a god that is seperate from this universe as its energy and matter and time. Why not god is this universe and its energy and matter and time. And we just tiny specs of it. That's as sound a provable theory as any. Because there has to be a belief in some type of existence. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 01.29.04 (11:41 pm) Reply to: sjelly The Big Bang, by any term or sense, had to be created by matter. Some theorize that it was an extremely concentrated pin-point of matter that finally let go. But, as DragonBait said: it boils down to either faith in science or religion. When people thought the world was flat, it was merely an assumption, or at best not given much rational thought. Humans are natural explorers in whatever we do--an intrinsic curiousity to what may be, or what can be. The more we explore--the more we conceptualize reality-- the more we learn. By this, we not only discovered that the world was indeed not flat, but we can send spacecraft far beyond Pluto, still sending data back to our fragile Earth. Existence exists, plain and simple, and the search for an omnipotent entity who knows all and controls all, hasn't gained much in return. More people have died in the name of God than by any other means. How does that profit anyone? I must have been sick the day my professor discussed the part in the theory of relativity where you can make matter disappear. Even in another dimension, matter has to exist in some realm. If you can go between dimensions, the matter, in fact, would have to be in that other dimention. Facts are truths. Once a discovery is made, like discovering the world was not flat, that became a fact and a truth. God has supposedly existed for 13, 800 or so years with no facts, no discoveries, (well, except for the Shroud of Turin, which seems to be the one item closest to fact, not to mention the couple of boards supposedly part of Noah's Ark), which leads to no truth, in my opinion. One more point: Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Will the battle ever end? If they thought with reason, maybe it would... posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 01.30.04 (12:23 am) Reply to: sjelly Nowhere in the theory of relativity is it mentioned that matter can be created or destroyed. E=mc^2 relates to the behavior of time and space, not matter. Replacing the variables with their full names: energy=mass x velocity^2 Nothing about creating or destroying matter there. Moving on...evidence to support the theory of evolution is much stronger than the non-existant evidence to support creationism. That we have a fossil record that demonstrates evolution, that we have seen evolution at work in short timespans (bacteria), that genetic analyis has proven beyond doubt the heirarchical relationship between species and the fact that matter cannot be created from nothing all pose serious threats to the completely unsubstantiated claims of creationism. Should we ever find life outside of our planet, things should get very interesting in creationist circles. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 01.30.04 (1:37 pm) Saying that the concept of god itself makes no sense is not the same as asserting that god does not exist. For most definitions of a god, it makes as little sense to claim non-existence as it does to claim existence. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.30.04 (5:26 pm) Jeez, I miss a lot when I don't check the blogs for a few days. Interesting discussion, just a few points: 1) I think that if matter comes into contact with anti-matter then both are annihilated. But I was text messaging people during that lecture and only half paying attention, so let me know 2) Even if you somehow prove the Big Bang theory (which does not state that matter appeared out of nothingness- it merely postulates the expansion of the universe) and all the other current theories of the creation (if there was one) of the universe incorrect, that does not prove the existence of God. Maybe we just haven't come up with the right theory yet. Maybe we never will. 3) Faith, as I usually define it, is belief without reason. It is not unreasonable to believe your friend when he tells you a story, even though that is your only evidence of the story, assuming that the story itself is reasonable and doesn't conflict with other facts you know of. It is not unreasonable to believe that the earth revolves around the sun (no, us atheists are NEVER going to let you live that down) if the people who tell you that have facts and evidence to back up their statement that make sense. Part of a rational mindset is the realization that at any time you could learn facts that would force you to change your mind about almost anything. It's about recognizing faliability. That doesn't mean we have 'faith' in science- it just means that we are always willing to listen to ideas, and either accept or reject them. 4) Sure, there COULD be a God, in the same sense that my Mt Dew mug COULD suddenly turn into a giant dragonfly with magical powers. And if there is some sort of reason to think this will happen (like maybe it was a transformer mug the whole time and I didn't know it, or it got radioactive or something) then I am not going to believe that it will. 5) As far as defining God, I remember a quote that somebody said- "Any sufficently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from God" hey, at the rate us humans are going, in a few thousand years we'll be cloning dinasours on Mars, and maybe in a million we will be Gods. Now wouldn't that be ironic- if reason, not faith, ended up fulfilling faith's promises posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.31.04 (6:29 am) Reply to: jimmytherighteous "Should we ever find life outside of our planet, things should get very interesting in creationist circles." Interesting, yes. But even if life is found elsewhere, the theory of God will survive. The definition of God can be changed to fit any situation or mold to any circumstances, and that is the nature of the problem of proving God doesn't exist. |
|