Debating an Atheist About Disproving God
78Many Atheists are Truly Agnostic
In an article I wrote titled "Questioning whether the concept of God can be disproved," I called Atheism a religion, and challenged any atheist to debate the topic based on scientific and mathematical possibility. A fellow Helium author took me up on the challenge recently, and it resulted in a friendly exchange of e-mails that ended with this conclusion: "I think we just think of atheism differently. You view it as only those who outright claim there is no god, to which I agree takes faith. And I define it as all who don't have faith in a god's existence."
During the debate, I was offered this definition of atheism: "Atheism simply defined is a lack of belief in god(s), very very few actually say there is definitely no god." While I agree that may be a simple definition, it is not the dictionary definition, which is "(1) the doctrine or belief there is no God; (2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
This is one of the problem that self-declared atheists need to consider: a can opener can be proved to be a microwave oven if we accept the simple definition that both are kitchen appliances. It makes no sense to contend something is other than what it is, and, in fact, is a major problem with society today. People have no regard for words, and accept slang or altered definitions. I suppose they think it is "cool" to do so, or should I say "hot?" Oh well, it matters not because neither word means what is meant.
If two scientists often regarded as atheists denied they were atheists, why do atheists use their principles to prove the religion's point? The two scientists I am referring to are Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. When asked about his religious beliefs, Darwin replied that he had never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." Einstein not only said, "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer," he also said "what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." It makes absolutely no sense to regard these two scientists' principles as infallible, and totally disregard their own beliefs about the existence of a God or gods.
Today's science is built upon these two scientists' theories. Darwin's model of Natural Selection is perfect. Whether you wish to accept it or not, you believe in it if you accept these two premises: (1) children of animals have characteristics of both parents, but are identical to neither; (2) dead animals don't have babies. If you reject either or both of those premises, I would love to hear the explanation!
Einstein's theories are not so perfect, and there is newer science that might explain some of what Einstein theorized must exist in order to explain errors in linear gravity theory. Einstein contended there must be something so small it had not been discovered, yet so massive that it affects gravitational pull, and called it a graviton. To Uncle Albert's credit, he died in 1955. It was not for another four years that a physicist named Hermann Bondi theorized that physical laws would apply inversely to entities that are smaller than zero in mass. Bondi also theorized that the universe basically balances to zero, though in much more complex terms.
Had Einstein considered "sub-mass" rather than the graviton, he may have altered the direction of his research. However, Einstein's perfect model is his Theory of Relativity, which, on a very simple level, means once something is born or created, it begins aging. On a secondary level, it means we can relate things based on age, distance, and space. As such, though he did not get to consider Bondi's theory, Bondi got to consider his theories.
I'll illustrate this on a simple level. We cannot actually see holes. What we see is that which surrounds the hole, and we trust that there is a hole. I learned at a young age that we can be deceived by this appearance. While in the hospital as a child, I shared a room with a kid who ran into a pane of glass believing that a sliding door was open. He trusted there was a hole there, and he was incorrect. Holes are negative mass. To prove this, if we take a rock one cubic foot in size, and place it in a hole three cubic feet in size, we are left with a hole two cubic feet in size. If we were to place the rock on the pile of dirt beside the hole, we would have mass of four cubic feet.
Linear gravity theory suggests that the more massive entity consumes the less massive entity, which would happen. The rock would consume one cubic foot of the hole. However, in an ironic twist, the hole also consumed the rock! When applied in reverse, the physical law of gravity proved to also be true in that the larger sub-massive entity consumed the entity with negative sub-massive attributes (the smaller sub-mass). Despite this evidence, we still cannot see holes, and are wise to advise children to make sure the sliding glass door is truly open.
So does this prove a God or gods exist? Absolutely not. However, it also does not prove a God or gods do not exist, for we are unable to see what exists during the positive cycle of light where the quantum particle would interact with whatever a sub-massive proton is. That is one-half the cycle of light, which, when balanced with the half that can be filtered through our eyes, equals zero. It seems to me that Bondi's theory is valid because I cannot find any way to dispel it.
When considering whether Atheism is religion or not, I will offer up that the organization known as American Atheists do preach, offer "atheological" propaganda, and even has a speaker's bureau similar to their evangelistic counterparts. Furthermore, Buddhists do not believe in a God or gods, and are, by the correct definition, atheists. As such, Buddhism would also not be religion, which is a rather preposterous concept.
During our friendly debate I was offered the logic that saying there is no God is "like saying there is no such thing as a purple golf ball on earth." I wish it were that easy, for if purple golf balls do not exist, we can make purple golf balls exist. Further, if we were to make purple golf balls, could we not prove they are truly the compilation of other components?
In the end, I agree that our disagreement is that we do not define atheism the same, and that, unless he were to espouse that "there is no God," he is also agnostic.
*
Sources:
Charles Darwin on Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Einstein: Science and Religion: http://einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html
Hermann Bondi on Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Bondi
Defintion of "atheism": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
American Atheists: http://www.atheists.org/
The Buddhist Channel: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,2859,0,0,1,0
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
As long as it makes you feel better, go ahead and spread the word of no God in evangelical manner contending that it's different when you cite flowers and other life as proof you can see no God all around you!
I prefer to have uncommon sense over common sense. It's a gravity thing.
Well, if God made everything perfect, we would never learn anything. Besides, we have made things that aren't perfect. Most have been improved on. The funny thing is we build imperfections into products so they don't last forever. How long would a battery company stay in business if their batteries never failed.
God made man, and procreation is the reason man has persisted throughout the ages. If you stop and think, deformities are sometimes the product of our environment. Evolution is real, but who is to say God didn't create that, too?
Even scientists have adopted a non-religious term for God. They call many things a product of intelligent design. They don't, however, define where the intelligence comes from.
One fact that is quite interesting is our minds are wired for prayer. The parts of the brain that are responisble for keeping us calm are most active when we pray or meditate. I don't know if I can call that an accident.
charley sutton: at the risk of being directly offensive to you, I have to say that your line of reasoning is entirely unreasonable and contradictory. It made me laugh, and that's why I'm posting this comment- because it's going to be fun.
"If God made everything perfect, we would never learn anything"
In itself, that statement is ignorant. You're saying that in an imperfect state, we would have room to grow by learning. So you're implying that if we learned all there is to learn, we would be perfect. But you contradicted that implication with the first part of the statement-"if God made everything perfect..." If God made everything perfect, we wouldn't need to learn anything! We would be perfect!
My laughter continues as I read on. You then make a comparison of God's creation of Man to a battery company's creation of batteries. You're saying, in effect, that God benefits monetarily by making us imperfect. You're liking God unto a business that deliberately deceives it's customers so as to make more money. Nice comparison! And do you mind telling me who might be God's customers? Who is God selling humans to?
Finally, you infer that our tendency to pray in times of trouble and unease is by design of God. This is a common line of reasoning, and I don't think it is funny like the rest of what you wrote. But as long as I'm posting a comment to you, I'll tell you my take on this reasoning.
The only thing that our tendency to pray indicates is simply that- our tendency to pray. And I would venture to say that that comes from social conditioning. I've prayed many times when I had no other means of solving a problem. But all it did was comfort me. It didn't solve the problem. I solved the problem myself after thinking it through some more. Prayer is only a function of our minds. It isn't an actual communication with an outside entity. It only presents itself as such. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
Hi Maestro. I kept your comment up because I believe in free speech. People can make their own decisions on what you have to say. I'd have prefered if your comment was about the Hub, and not a rip on a comment. However, it appears that Charley's comment was also in response to a comment, and not about the Hub.
Thank you for the comment. I'll check your Hubs out.
to alcholic poet
i thought it was an amusing statement to say the least for you to make.... "imposing our beliefs on you".......children are TAUGHT by law in schools YOUR athiest ideas....i have seen someone point out ACTUALL mistakes in those textbooks but they are never taken out.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
it's funny i found your website after i posted quite a similar topic about atheism being a religion. the reason why i came up the atheism being a religion is why are these atheists really persistent convincing christians about atheism. these athesist are starting to become fanatics with their beliefsplease visit my blogs about it. thankshttp://josepherdon.blogspot.com/2009/03/atheism-is
People often use the bible to disclaim that God exit by pointing out all the flaws in it when in fact the bible was written by men. Those people are not disclaiming God existent; they’re disclaiming men’s idea of God. Spirituality exists and it’s real. What You Don’t Know Is Bigger Than You. I will say it again “What You Don’t Know Is Bigger Than You”. No one can disprove an idea that does not fallow the laws of logic. Spirituality is not a theory, it’s a belief, you can either accept it or don’t. I believe that there are more dimensions than three and until men have the ability to explore those dimensions, they will always question the existent of God. We live in a world of appearances created by the human mind and what we interpret as truth, is all part of the belief system that the human mind has created. Sometime a person mind can be so full with false knowledge that it becomes blurry, confuse with imaginations that leads to no where. I am a metaphysical minor and I search for spiritual goal in consciousness, using a laser beam of thought I search. I search in plain sight without the walls of religions.
Thanks for breezing by, Cool!
There are probably eleven dimensions, but people tend to think of the world in only three. A fourth dimension that is within the grasp of common people is the dimension of time. For us to see something, it must have height, width, and depth, and it must exist presently. The trees that once stood where your house now stands have three of the dimensions, but lack the dimension of time. Likewise, the trees that will one day stand where your house now stands also lack the dimension of time.
A fifth dimension is one of light. It must be visible during the negative cycle of light particles. If something has height, width, and depth, but those measurements are less than zero, we will not be able to see it.
Eyes filter reality, as do all our senses.
Thank you for your reply Tom. Your insight is greatly appreciated.
What you have described above is real and certainly cannot be understood by most. You’ve made an excellent point and perhaps because of your expertise on the subject, you’re able to derive to these conclusions. But for someone like myself who is not an expert at anything, my only tool is my six senses and my gifted ability to reason. This is why I have said in the pass that everyone has three eyes.
Two of which are the material sense of the person, and the other is their mind’s eye. I feel there is too much seeing through the physical ones and not enough through the internal. There will never be complete communication and understanding between people of this world & the spiritual one until we start increasing the vision of our internal eye. Our inner eye will give us more “truth” than our outer eyes. As you have described “in order for us to see something, it must have height, width, and depth, and it must exist presently”. Many people are mistakenly using the external vision to give them the reality of everything when in fact they have neglected the fourth dimension. As you have eloquently described “The trees that once stood where my house now stands have three of the dimensions, but lack the dimension of time”. This is why I said until human beings can explore those dimensions, they will forever debating the existent of God. We live in a world of appearances, but the three dimensions that are seen through the eyes are only a small percentage of what reality is, like the iceberg of which only ten percent is above the water, and ninety percent is not to be seen. Therefore it is with our inner eye, that we comprehend the truth and it is with it that we can explore the fourth dimension.
Another metaphor implies that human beings have wings, which they know nothing about. These wings are mental and are made of thought and can take a person to mental heights they never thought they could reach. By using these wings they can fly higher than the eagle. I only hope that many more can join us and flight.
The fifth dimension is even more mind bugling because it is precisely those attributes that have prevented men from understanding spirituality. They seem to think just because they cannot physically feel, touch or see something with their naked eye it does not exist. Even the smallest molecule observed under a microscope has been proven to bounce against useable atoms which cannot be located under the microscope. But with the six senses you can feel things that are not seeable with the naked eye. Although you can’t explain it, doesn’t mean it's unexisted.
The best quote I have read about what you describe as "the third eye" comes from Jonathan Swift: "Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others."
Our visions are the palettes upon which our senses paint pictures for us. Most people limit their pictures to five senses. You have wisely chosen to use a sixth. However, you did not say whether the sixth is intuition, imagination, or calculation. You can easily go beyond six, and maybe already have without realizing it.
Some people say "seeing is believing." Fewer understand that "believing is seeing." Those are our artists and inventors.
The quote you sited is an excellent one indeed but what I’m not sure about is the context in which vision is used in the quote. In order for this quote to make sense to me, I had to envision that the way “vision” is used in this quote implied long term prospect. That is to say, by using the third eye, the human is able to look forward in time and predict possibilities that cannot easily perceive through the physical eye. Without this comprehension, “vision” can also be interpreted as the one seen through the physical eye. In another word, I am simply saying that the “vision” interpreted by Jonathan Swift is not the physical one but instead the third eye vision. With that understanding lies the reasoning that human cannot see what is invisible through the physical eye but only the third eye which is mental.
However, the quote I adore most is the one that you have come up with “Our visions are the palettes upon which our senses paint pictures for us”. This one is clear, no one can dispute it. It is logically sound as the idea without oxygen we all obsolete.
Stated by Tom: However, you did not say whether the sixth is intuition, imagination, or calculation. You can easily go beyond six, and maybe already have without realizing it.
Well, my friend I think it’s all of the above because all that you have mentioned, I have applied. Tom said: Some people say "seeing is believing." Fewer understand that "believing is seeing." Those are our artists and inventors.
Your eye is the tunnel which helps you understand the truth about the paper being on the table. To know the truth you must understand that the table is composed of the smallest invisible particle of matter when bounded together create a density that can hold the paper. We take it for granted because we're brought up with the understanding that wood is solid, although we don't know why but we know it can hold paper. The truth has always relied on prior knowledge; maybe it is that prior knowledge about intuition that is missing which has prevented us from understanding it.
Those who believed that “seeing is beliving” also believes that the world is flat and Christopher Columbus discover America.
I have stated in the pass, since our judgments are base on information, our judgment tends to depend on our perceptions to interpret the information. As we acquire new information on an object, our perception of the object changes and subsequently changes how we judge the object. Since our judgments tend to depend on our ability to think and feel, we prefer to look for details and facts. Sometime what one perceived for being a fact, may not necessarily be fact. In this case the person's judgment is offset by his or her perception.
I believe the context in which Swift cites vision as an art is similar to my statement that it is a palette. It is from his quote that I derived my thought on describing vision. It is not sight, yet sight may be part of vision, but not to a blind person.
We take much for granted without truly knowing. However, the more we learn, the more we know how little we truly know. The wiser we become, the less certain we can be about how things really work. For example, you cited Christopher Columbus discovering America, but he thought he was somewhere else. That notwithstanding, the land he "discovered" was inhabited. So, didn't the inhabitants discover it first? Perhaps they were always here, but even that is in dispute.
It boils down to a residue of faith. However, if our faiths are faulty, does it change truth? I believe that which is true is true regardless of one's faith. Faith does not change truth; it changes only us.
Hi Tom!
You right about the quote – my confusion, excuse my spelling by the way, English is my third language but I’m learning though. As you said the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. Actually that’s exactly what has encouraging me to learn. Whereas those who think they know enough somehow restrict them from opening their minds to learn more.
Well, Christopher Columbus may have discovered America for Europeans, since they weren’t aware of this land within the Americas, the region of the western hemisphere but not to the indigenous people of the Americas who lived there way before Columbus arrival. Besides, the Moorish people were here before Christopher Columbus. Anyhow this is irrelevant, we’re not discussing that. Your next statement below is even more interesting.
I have never thought of that before “If our faiths are faulty, does it change truth?” I agree, you right - faith does not change truth but however, what is true for one may not be true for someone else. Truth is a factual occurrence which mean it can be proven and calculated, but what if the fundamentals of what constitute a fact is faulty, then it’s no longer a truth. We have seen this phenomenon in mathematics, Wigner's work have proven some mathematical theory like the law of gravitation, Maxwell’s equations which were accepted as truth, and to have had faulty identifiers. Wigner's work came alone and make some adjustments.
Therefore, we can say what is factual is what most accept as being true, but no one can say that the possibility for another person with a totally different thinking pattern can’t prove this fact to be faulty. So what is true is relative to society in which it belongs. Whereas faith is not back by fact it relates more with intuition. Faith and intuition are both part of the fouth and fifth dimension you have discribed.
I apologize for not replying sooner. I needed to think about a couple of the things you said.
"What is true for one may not be true for someone else" is a statement I agree with, but I was not so sure about "truth is a factual occurerence which means it can be proven and calculated." The first statement deals with relativity factors. One person may be able to cross a river without a boat, even though someone else may not be able to swim. However, taking it to a level of God's existence, I'm not so sure that God exists for some people but not for others. I also question whether it can be calculated to prove God exists or does not exist.
After a couple of days thinking about it, I still am not sure, though I suspect that if something can be proven, it is true for all whether they accept it or not. Some people are certainly more willing to accept new information to adjust their thoughts. However, if Einstein, for example, had not accepted Hubble's evidence that the universe is expanding, it does not mean that the universe Einstein was in was not expanding. It would, instead, have meant that Einstein preferred his personal prejudice for a stable universe over the truth. Though he may have found comfort in that, it would have stunted his significance in history.
If truth is relative to the society in which it belongs, then was the king wearing clothes or not? Societal truths are, in my opinion, merely choosing popularity over responsibility, or, perhaps, safety over risk.
I never attempt to debate the existent of God on factual occurrence. If I were to try that I would fail and beside, I’m not sure is anyone can. Believing in a God is base on faith not facts. Whereas facts can have variable attributes, faith does not. A person either believes in God or he doesn’t. That is not to say that all facts have variable attributes because two people witnessing an object fall a break is a factual occurrence for both. The only different here is that, depending on which angle they observe this happening, each observer may have different details of the effects.
I think the misunderstanding that we have here, relates to what is factual should remain fact under all circumstances. I think we both agreed on that, my attempt for this conversation is to have you understand that although what is a fact will remain factual indefinitely, gives no merit to those people who believed that this “proven fact” is faulty. The problem here lies within they ignorance. Those having the inability to notice what is factual led them to believed something else that is not factual. So therefore what they worship as being factual is really not but people in that society considered it to be so.
Tom “if Einstein, for example, had not accepted Hubble's evidence that the universe is expanding, it does not mean that the universe Einstein described was not expanding. It would, instead, have meant that Einstein preferred his personal prejudice for a stable universe over the truth.”
Well, if Einstein had not accepted Hubble’s evidence that the universe is expanding, those who believes in Einstein theory would be ignorant of the truth. Einstein explaination would be considered factual to those who believe in it. However, if Hubble’s who’s totally from a different society proves Einstein theory to have fault, those people in Hubble’s society would adapt to his explanation and therefore believes his theory as being factual. So in this sense, we can say that it is people in a society that can gives value to what is to be considered “truth”.
"Truth is a factual occurrence which means it can be proven and calculated." By that I mean as long as what is considered to be “truth” remain truth to most, it’s a fact, but by no way it means that this fact is true in all society. To say that, it to admit to the fact that all society are capable of examine the attributes that produces a factual result and we both know that 's not true.
If I were to witness an apple fall from a tree and claimed it to be a fact, although the probability for this occurrence is plentiful, gives no value to the fact that I just witness an apple fall from the tree, nor does it mean that what I’ve just witness with my own two eyes is not factual. It only mean until people in that society agreed that what I’ve witness is indeed a factual occurrence, it will always seems to be untrue to most people in that society. So yes in that case “truth is relative to the society in which it belongs”. The more educated a society is, the harder it becomes to have them accept a faulty fact.
If truth is relative to the society in which it belongs, then was the king wearing clothes or not? Well, some truths are primitive, so basis that they’re apparent to all society. Perhaps what I should have said was “Some truths are relative to the society in which it belongs” I think that could have held more value or maybe you can prove that one wrong too, which would be find because then, I would learn something.
I didn't mean to insinuate that you were arguing about the existence or non-existence of God. I meant only that if God exists, then those who argue against it are incorrect rather than correct in their own realm. I also do not wish to disprove what you said about the relativity of societal truth. I believe you are correct in that statement, which was the reason for me saying that one person may be able to cross a river whereas another person may not. You are inspiring thought, and for that I thank you.
If you witnessed an apple falling from a tree, but could not convince society that you did not pick the apple, the apple still fell from the tree. Society is simply incorrect, even if they believe you picked the apple from the tree. Something that is untrue is untrue even if it is popular. That is a major shortcoming of democracy: wrong times fifty-one percent does not equal right.
Perhaps rather than considering something like that "truth," it may be better to consider it "reality." Though it may be "true" that the river can be crossed without a boat, it is not "reality" for everyone. There can be many factors that change the reality on an individual basis, but all it takes is for one person to prove that it can be done for it to be proven as truth. Without the proof, though, it was still true, just not proven.
You said "the more educated a society is, the harder it becomes to have them accept a faulty fact." I believe it would be better stated as "the more educated a society is, the harder it becomes to have them accept a fact that is contrary to their education." That coincides better with your previous statement that some people close their minds when they believe they are educated. There is no such thing as a faulty fact. If it is fact, it is not faulty. If it is faulty, it is not fact.
With that, educated people accept that "two plus two equals four." What they may not consider is that "two times two" and "two squared" also "equal four." While it makes no difference when the factor being considered is "two," it means the difference between "five, six, or nine" when the factor considered is "three." By accepting that addition was the function in the equation, they may calculate the fact correctly, but have only a one-in-three chance of being correct. Even if they are correct, it was only by chance and not because of education. They will have substituted vision with education to arrive at a faulty conclusion, or the correct conclusion accidentally.
The faulty fact is a contradiction. You right for correcting me. I realized I made a mistake but didn’t get to correct it on time, but I new for certain that you would not let this slip by without catching it, so in a way I was expecting you to correct it.
Well, I guest you right, perhaps I should consider “reality” instead of “truth”. As you put it, it may be "true" that the river can be crossed without a boat; it is not "reality" for everyone. In another way, although the variables that contribute to a factual event may seem different from individual to individual, still does not change its reality. Although people in a society maybe all confused about a factual even doesn’t mean that the one person who’s not confuse is wrong, it simply mean that those people have the wrong interpretation of what reality is. I think you right, thanks for your understanding.
Tom, I found your hub quite interesting. By the fifth paragraph, however, I knew you had taken your premise to a level beyond my comprehension and I also knew I was not intended to be in your targeted readership. Still, you did make me think and that, I am sure, was part of your original motivation.
Although never a student of logic, I always believed that it was a crucial part of learning and essential for separating the wheat of knowledge from the chaff. One principle of logic I picked up along the way was that one can never prove a negative. If I understand this correctly, it is then impossible to prove that God does not exist. Conversely, logic could possibly prove that God does exist even though this has never been done.
Therefore, am I correct to conclude that the non-believer who emphatically proclaims there is no God because His existence has never been proven is, in fact, being as irrational as the believers he accuses of irrational faith? In other words, would non-believers be more logical to profess that God might exist but they choose not to believe it until it is proven?
Q.
Hi Quill,
Thank you for stopping by and commenting on my Hub. I'd first like to say that your ability to comprehend exists; however, you will not discover it until you believe you have the ability. Humans are amazing animals that seem to hold the key to understanding infinity, except when we prejudicially limit ourselves through negative self-talk.
We actually can prove negatives, which are common in medical practice, and even more commonly with electricity. We can do both with tests, or with faith.
Using electricity as an example, we may trust that a light bulb has burned out if we flip the switch, and it does not work. We can test it with a meter, if we wish, but most of us probably get a new bulb to see if that fixes the problem. If the new bulb works, it does not necessarily mean the old bulb was bad. It may not have been in tightly enough, or we may have a faulty fixture or switch that has an intermittent problem. If the new bulb does not work, it does not necessarily mean that the problem is elsewhere. Perhaps the new bulb was jarred enough to break the filament. The point, however, is that we can test for the absence of electricity rather conclusively.
You asked: "Therefore, am I correct to conclude that the non-believer who emphatically proclaims there is no God because His existence has never been proven is, in fact, being as irrational as the believers he accuses of irrational faith?"
That would be better attributed as Einstein's thought. My thought is that both the belief in God's existence, and the belief that God does not exist, are based in faith to the same degree. To those who believe that God is all powerful, then would it not be within God's power to not exist? If so, then one God and zero God may both be correct. If we place more emphasis on the one and zero than on the God, we then have the binary combination for all possibility, and can narrow our search for the truth using the same logic as our computers, except that we are not so limited as are our computers. We, as humans, are capable of deducing from infinity, whereas our computers are finitely limited.
You asked: "In other words, would non-believers be more logical to profess that God might exist but they choose not to believe it until it is proven?"
That was not the point. My point was that the term "atheist" refers to "one who has faith that God does not exist," and excludes "one who merely has no faith in the existence of God, but who falls short of saying God does not exist."
Thank you, Tom, for addressing my questions. You have provided more food for thought. I will have to think abit about testing as a method of proving a negative. To me, a positive result when testing for the presence of electricity proves that it is present and, therefore, it exits. A negative result may prove that electricity is not present but it doesn't prove that it does not exist at all.
Again, I thank you for a stimulating hub.
Q.
You make an interesting point about it not being present at that point in time, but we know that electricity exists elsewhere. I'm going to ponder that on proving negatives. Thank you for bringing it up that way.
Tom: I have a question. Why do you suppose that Athiest make so many assumptions about God? Like the statement made before that if a perfect God existed he would have made a perfect world? They reason that God would not have put flaws in his creation. My first thought was: Why not? If that was his perogative to do so for his purpose, why would he not do that? My second thought was: How do atheist measure creation? To what do they compare the earth to determine its perfection or imperfection? But, my main question is why do you think that atheist make such assumptions about God?
Hi Jeff! I presume the reasons range from a true belief there is no God, to the desire to be popular with a clique, with many more reasons in between. Probably the easiest way to determine the reasons is to consider why people believe in God, and presume that atheists have equal but opposite reasoning. Kant suggested that one reason people claim belief is because they want to "put their egg in that basket" considering the eternal consequences if God does exist. To the opposite side, some people like taking risks.
My experiences with atheists suggest they discredit God in favor of science. This would hold more water, in my opinion, if scientists were, by nature, atheists. However, many are not, and are in awe of what seems to be intelligent design.
Personally, I have a problem with the concept of God as a man. If God is gendered, She would likely be female. Males are simply dominant, but females are superior, especially in promoting life. Given a 100 to 1 ratio, any species has a better chance of survival if the 100 are female. Males are just not that necessary. On the other hand, I don't believe God is female.
To me, God is a combination of Mother Nature, Father Time, and Infinity.
Tom: 1st, to debate religion or politics is the activity of a fool. Debate requires argument. To win an argument one must provide proof/s. There are no proofs to be provided by either debater. All that can be provided is opinion and conjecture. 2ndly, As a student of man's religious history, my request of you is this: pls provide scripture from any monotheistic writing that defines this god thing, that you believe in, factually. If you cannot, all you write about in your hub is based 100% on guess and imagination. Factual does not mean trite opinion. 3rd, there are no atheists. The definition of atheism is: " to deny the existence of god." If one cannot define this god thing factually, if it cannot be known, if it is inexplicable and exists only as an abstract concept, then there exists nothing to deny. One can only deny the object of the concept.
qwark.
Well, if you want to call yourself a fool, who am I to argue?
The debate was not whether God exists, but whether it can be proven that God does not exist. Therefore, it was not required that I prove God's existence. Of course, that is stated in the Hub, but maybe you did not read it.
I do not know why I would produce scripture based on a challenge when I claim to be Agnostic. Again, I would suggest that you read the Hub, and maybe even the underlying article in which I challenged anyone of atheistic faith to debate whether it could be proven that God does not exist.
Your third claim is easily disproven. I've provided a link to American Atheists, and another to Buddhist Channel, both of which are Atheists by their own admission.
Tom, thanks for the reply. I dont think you understood my point. I'll try again. Pls define this god thing factually. One cannot consider the premise of your "Hub:" Debating an Atheist About Disproving God77, until it is known what this god thing is. There is no factual definition of "it." It is but an imagined concept. If this god thing cannot be defined as a matter of fact, then there are no atheists because the definition of "atheism" is to deny the existence of god. How can one deny the existence of that which is but imagined. Nothing exists to deny. All of man's god's, down thru time, have been created by his imagination. What would make the creation of this contemporary imagined god any different? My premise stands. Only a fool would want to debate that which exists only in the mind and cannot be defined or proved. Isnt the object of debate to win? There can be no winner in this requested "debate."
77
I agree that God is a concept created to explain that which would, otherwise, be inexplicable. The creation of the universe and life fall into that which is difficult to explain and understand unless something powerful is brought into the explanation to fill the void.
With that said, there is design in the universe. For example, trinities seem to exist on many levels, as do waves and photons, each of which is difficult to explain.
That which you have bastardized your name from, quarks, are theoretical. They have never been seen, and are believed to exist only from patterns created through collisions between electrons and protons. They seem to be integral in protons, so, theoretically, dissecting a proton destroys the quarks.
Since quarks only exist in theory, do they really exist? If so, then they exist via one's imagination of that which is creating the spatter pattern. If not, then whatever is creating those spatter patterns must be explanable some other way like "they just happen."
As for me, God is a concept comprised of Father time, Mother Nature, and infinity. The truth lies at the "intersect zero" of life. I find no reason to defame great scientists like Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, and find no reason to support Aristotle who singularly made incorrect verifications for the Bible and is the father of biology, the basis of atheism. While the former sought truths to explain that which had not before been explained, the latter sought the limelight from both sides of the God debate.
So, before we go further down the road of an agnostic defending the concept of God, let's take a trip down the trail of one who believes that we are what we are until we aren't.
Animals have two sets of measurable electrical function: brain and heart waves. Einstein contended that energy could not be destroyed, but could be altered. What happens to that measurable electricity at death?
In mathematics the equals sign means that both sides are the same. In language "is" means equals. If "seeing is believing" is true, then is "believing is seeing" also true, or are both false?
If the universe began with a big bang from nothing, where did all the matter and energy in it come from?
Is it just a coincidence that atom and adam sound exactly the same? Well, there you go, Tom. That is my amazing contribution to this hub. Again, you amaze me with your logic and with your intelligence. This is the second time I've read this hub and all the comments. I don't pretend to understand it all any better than the first time, but I do like that you debate in an intellectual way instead of being pushy with what you believe or don't believe to be truth.
Hi Connie! I don't know the answer to your question! I do, however, appreciate both it, and the nice compliment!
Here is a summation of my belief in God: time reveals factors never before considered; nature always wins; anything is possible.
The compliment was real, the question really wasn't, as I assume that Adam in Hebrew and atom in Hebrew are really two quite different words. Still, it was the best that I could come up with in a pinch.
ty tom..I must admit that you "tapdance"well..:-) Quarks can be proved to exist with mathmatics and eperimentation.... for example, when we bounce electrons off of protons and neutrons, the pattern of scattering angles observed is characteristic of point-like spin-1/2 scatters. The relative rates for electron versus neutrino scattering is that predicted from the quark electric charges. The process of electron-positron annihilation to quark pairs gives similar characteristic predictions, all these are also confirmed experimentally. The accumulation of many such results, where experiments match predictions based on quarks, convinces me that quarks are real. Can you perform the same type of math and experimetation that can be used to define this god thing you imagine created "ALL?" My premise relating to this imagined god thing stands. Respectfully, you "hub" well but you ignore the history of the creations of all man's imagined "gods" and why he evolved a propensity to believe in them. I am with you on this comment: "... let's take a trip down the trail of one who believes that we are what we are until we aren't. " I will add one "surety:" that "trail will be the last" trail" you and I will traverse as "conscious" creatures.
Thank you, Qwark. You may dance well, but you don't sing lyrics quite so good.
I never said God created everything. You only said I have. It is a prejudice I find common in those who don't believe, and think there is only belief or non-belief. Since I won't espouse non-belief, you conclude that I believe despite my disclosure of my belief in time, nature, and infinity as the concept of God.
I agree that death will be the end of the conscious being that I am. However, I am not convinced that the electrical charge ceases to exist since that seems to contradict physical laws.
I also believe in quarks, so there is no need to convince me that things we cannot see exist. I also believe germs existed before they were discovered.
So, will you answer the questions I asked, or do you prefer to hide behind your prejudices?
Thank you, Connie. I'd say you are as sweet as you are good looking, but I don't think anyone is that sweet! Pinch away as you desire!
Thats a little BS, Tom, but I like it. Pinch, pinch....
Hi Tom...naw, you tapdance well and I agree with you I cant carry a tune in a tub...lol. In reference to your question, I cannot "Hub" about this god thing until I know what it is...so I plead guilty of "ignorance." Until we as a species get wiser and can answer, factually, questions regarding the alledged "supernatural," I must sit back and wait. Reason has to do with the faculty of logical thought. Logic and reason, for me, must have it's foundation in "fact." Soooo...until I know what this "god" thing is other than it being an abstract concept, I cannot consider "it." thanks again for your welcome thoughts.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Connie. I hope you smiled when you read it, and that's no BS!
Qwark, I didn't ask you to Hub about the "god thing." I asked very specific questions that relate to science and logic. If you do not know what happens to the electrical charges that are inherant in animals, then just say so. If you think "seeing is believing" is true, then, logically, you should understand that "believing is seeing" is also true; otherwise, we have no inventors or artists. If you cannot understand how all this energy and matter sprung from nothing, then I'd ask you to consider holes. I wrote a Hub about how I believe it all reconciles.
I summed up my belief in the concept of God. It works with evolution and science. To the extent that time, nature, and infinity are all real, which they are, God is real. That said, I don't believe God exists as a super-being. However, when we pass from the physical to the sub-physical, it will all go in reverse. In this realm, the objective is to defy gravity. In the sub-physical realm, the objective is to defy levity. You will never see that with your eyes because you only see that which is visible on the negative cycle of light.
Finally, it is I who thanks you for bringing your thoughts to my Hub.
Thanks Tom...This comment you posted makes clear to me what this "god" thing seems to be to you: " I don't believe God exists as a super-being. " I have to define this god thing much like Einstein and Spinoza do. It is a generic thought. If anyone wishes to refer to nature and the natural way of ALL as being "god," so be it. I could assign a personal name to the natural, lets say I'll refer to it as "dunklessbrote." In fact, the word "dunklessbrote, god and nature," would represent the same subject. Gotcha! We have no idea what existed prior to our appearance. All we can do is conjecture. Who can say, at this point in our conscious evolution, that the alledged "big bang," wasn't the "yo yo" effect of a universe collapsing back into itself and compacting to the point that atoms had no way or reducing thier kinetic energy and collide with one another creating nuclear fussion resulting in a massive explosion? it's all guesswork at this point in time. If we humans continue to exist and our intellectual abilities increase as our knowledge and understanding evolve, those questions will be answered. All we can do now is "guess." I think our "chat" has reached a conclusion...eh? :-)
If you wish for it to be concluded, then it is.
I tend to think that the bang is sort of a collapse in on itself. What existed before was the previous universe. What will exist next is the succeeding universe. I believe we are living in sort of a universal ripple in time.
If we don't talk again, may dunklessbrote bless you.
Heres my problem. Atheists do not have a meeting hall. Getting atheists together in one spot is like herding cats. Secondly everyone is an atheist to something.
You didn't do your research, did you?
Here's an Atheist Church: http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_churc
Here are Atheist Meetup groups: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq
Here are Atheist meetings: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE
Quite to the contrary of your claim, Atheists gather regularly to discuss their faith.
Alright, Now cross reference that with the population of atheists. Its an extreme minority. Like the Christians who bomb abortion clinics or protest military funerals, which are an extreme minority of Christians. To say that most atheists have a community is a huge jump.
The definition given to you by that atheist is wrong. Everyone is an atheist, unless that person partakes and actively pursues every faith imaginable.
Most atheists are just as bad as Christan's when they choose what to read. Christian's read only the bible, atheists read only their favorite atheist authors, rarely either step in to philosophy where a substantial ground work of thought was put into place.
The problem is every word have multiple definitions, like every religion has multiple sub-factions.
Can you picture a bunch of atheist meeting up in one location? If they do what would they talk about? If someone took minutes on a atheist meeting, what would the minutes be about?
Probably just about everything but talk of religion, belief and what not. Because atheism, is the negation of metaphysical.
A faith as you refer to seems to be what you picture a church session would be stripped of everything symbolic to metaphysics. How could a faith group, based on lack of faith establish a doctrine and hold meetings in the same way?
American Atheists is not a good example of an atheist group because they are more of a lobbyist group.
Now the Atheist Community of Austin is a different story. But from what I understand all they do is community service work and go to bars to chat.
Most people, let alone atheist have not read Darwins book. Its a difficult text to get through, and is not a text to establish a doctrine with. At is core it is a Scientific Theory. And the theory started in that book is not the same one that is the evolutionary theory it is now a days.
It has no parables it says nothing about how one should life their life. There are no moral lessons. Theres nothing in the book where someone could establish an Atheistic service upon.
I suppose it would be possible, but it would be no different then the gnostic take on the bible.
Why would I need to cross-reference it? The claim was that Atheists don't gather to discuss their faith, and don't have meeting places. That claim is incorrect regardless of how densely they do so.
I have no idea what they discuss, and it sounds like you don't either. I would guess that they discuss that God does not exist, and try to explain how things work without God. It is likely the opposite, but to the same degree, as what believers discuss.
On the other hand, one can easily attend Buddhist churches. Buddhists are, by their own claim, atheists. They do discuss moral living.
I agree that the definition of atheism the debater gave me is incorrect. That is the point of the Hub. I disagree also with your definition of atheist. If someone believes in God, but does not believe in all the various Gods from each denomination, they are not atheist. They are still theists. If someone is an atheist, they believe there is no God, not just the God that another religion espouses exists. There is no doubt, lest they are truly agnostic.
As for evolution, I would be interested in hearing theories not based on Darwin's model of natural selection. Evolution is real, but the premise that it proves there is no God contradicts Darwin's own beliefs. He described himself as agnostic. He also majored in Theology in college. He was a universalist, not a Christian, but he denied being atheist, as did Einstein. Therefore, that The Origin of Species does not contain moral lessons on life follows because it is a book on science, not on faith, and especially not on faith that God either exists or doesn't exist.
The problem with sayings A minority of people in a group are this, so the rest of the group must be like this too is just prejudice.
I could say Christian's bomb abortion clinics. Yes its true. Some do, but the statement associates guilt to Christians as the cause.
Sure atheist hang out with each other. But a majority do not.
Yea sure they are theist to the Christian god, and atheist to the Hindu god.
The problem with definition of atheistism as the belief that there is no god is the world belief in the definition.
Then again theres people like me who believe the act belief is downright harmful; god or no god.
I agree with you on the Darwin, its not moral Lessons its theory.
I never said "all atheists are alike," nor did I say "all Christians are alike." The claim was made that atheists don't have churches, nor do they regularly gather for the purpose of discussing their belief in no God. When the claim is "none exist," proving "one exists" disproves the claim. There are far more than one regardless of how many participate.
You may be correct that those who attend are the most radical, but I would also dispute a claim by Christians that there are no radical Christians just because the majority of them don't bomb abortion clinics. Some do, so the claim that "none do" is simply incorrect.
I also dispute that someone who believes in God of any type is an atheist if they don't believe in all Gods. Atheists believe in no God of any type. Changing the meaning of the word is another point I make in the Hub. One who is certain God exists is a theist. One who is certain God does not exist is an atheist. One who is uncertain, regardless if they lean toward belief or non-belief, is agnostic.
I Don't think I understand your definition of church. Because if thats the case, anyone who goes to the bar to talk about football are going to church.
What would you call the belief when a Hindu looks at Christianity? Yes the hindu remains a the hindu theology, but is atheist to the Christian one.
(dictionary.com)
a?the?ist??
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I see this definition, and see Being (singular) and Beings (plural). And seeing how this apply to the theist looking at other theologies.
You seem to like to throw weird ideas out, and then have them accepted as if they are true. Here are some excerpts from the link I provided, had you cared enough to challenge your prejudice:
"They had all left religion after losing their faith, but they still wanted a "Sunday morning experience" where they could enjoy the fellowship and sense of belonging that comes with church attendance. Now, the North Texas Church of Freethought (NTCOF) in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas, has a membership of over 200, and is believed to be the largest congregation of atheists in the world. They call themselves a "church for the unchurched," where nonbelievers can gather on Sunday mornings for the same social and community benefits that other churchgoers enjoy."
"As an adult, married and with a family, Gorski noticed that what he missed about church was the sense of community and weekly ritual that church attendance offered. In 1994, after discussing the idea for several years, Gorski and a friend named Mike Sullivan, along with their wives Deborah Boak and Marilyn Sullivan, decided to start a church of their own. It would have all the social and community structure of conventional churches but devoid of what they call the "supernatural" or "superstitious" content."
"With Gorski as the pastor and Mike Sullivan its Executive Director, the church has grown from an initial congregation of 40 to its present membership of over 200. A model for other non-theist churches, including two in Houston and one in Rohnert Park, California, the NTCOF has inspired others to establish churches that prize community and rationalism over theology. In fact, atheists from as far as England and New Zealand have heard about the success of the NTCOF and have contacted them for advice in starting their own churches."
What would it matter what I define church to be? These folks are calling their institution a church, and are not sitting in a bar getting drunk and discussing football.
Saying that a Hindu is atheist because he or she does not believe in the Christian God, which I do not know is fact, is like saying someone who shaves his face does not shave if he or she does not shave his or her legs. Regardless of whether the person shaves in the same places as another does, if he or she shaves, then it is incorrect to say he or she doesn't shave because the legs are unshaven.
When you read the dictionary definition compared to your analysis, you have changed "or" to "and." Those words have significantly different meanings. If someone believes in one "or" the other, he or she is not atheist.
Me Prejudice? Hey screw you buddy i was just asking questions.
So, you read the write up about the atheist church, and concluded that they are getting drunk and talking about football?!
I wasn't trying to be antagonistic. I believe you were.
No I wasn't trying to be antagonistic.
I does matter what something is called and who defines what and how. If I call a pigeon a pig, then pigs can fly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
My problem here, is that what sets up the definition of a religion doesn't work well with Atheism. Atheism is the lack of a cause, nature and purpose of the universe, which has no specific set of fundamental beliefs except for the lack of them. Atheist might agree on the lack, but thats as far as it goes, anything else agreed on would not be something which could be tacked on to the definition of atheism.
Now with that in mind applying it to the word church becomes extremely difficult. Because everything that makes up what a church is is wrapped tightly together with how religion is defined.
Those atheist may very well call what they do a church, but does it stand up to what is known about a church?
Now taking the church of The Sub-Genius and Church of The Spaghetti monster, I would almost take those to be atheist churches if it weren't for the fact of all that goes into them to parody religions.
I think one of the bigger differences between a Religious church and a Atheist church is that Most, not all religious churches people go their out of dogma, or out of some need in a belief. An atheist going to an atheist church or group or what ever goes there because he or she wants to.
If you consider the realm of infinity, one does not need to call a pigeon a pig in order to make a pig fly. All one needs is a catapult. The landing is a bit of a problem, so it is probably more humane to make dead pigs fly than live ones, but it is possible for pigs to fly.
You sent me to two references that contain possibility for an atheist church to exist:
Church (13) a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
Religion (2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. (Buddhists are atheists.)
(6) something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
The word "atheist" relates to God, albeit "no God." A theist has "faith that God exists." An atheist has "faith that God does not exist." Neither can be proven. If you were to turn it around to say an atheist has "no faith that God exists" to make it sound like there is "no faith," then it is equally true that a theist has "no faith that God does not exist," so both would be equally based in "no faith." It is merely twisting words.
Though I haven't researched it, I would guess that the Church of Free Thought is established as a non-profit institution under the same tax rules as any other church. From a legal standpoint, it would be classified as a church. They may even ordain their speakers so that they can conduct legitimate weddings, much the same as any other denomination does.
Your argument is really with the people who formed and attend the Church of Free Thought, not me. Once you get them to believe that they do not religiously attend a church, maybe you can work on the Buddhists.
Church (13) a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
What is an atheist worshiping?
Which Buddhism? Some belief reincarnation. Some belief nothing exists. Some belief life is suffering. Some meditate some don't. Some chant, some don't. Some belief in life is happiness. Some belief that life is an illusion.
Buddhist might call them self atheists, but they don't make good atheists.
In order to religiously attend a church, there has to be Religion. Atheists don't have religion. Theists do.
There is an old saying: "You can pick your seat and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your relatives."
It would be nice for theists if they could pigeon-hole abortion clinic bombers and jihadist terrorists into a category of "theists that aren't good" in order to exclude them from the group. However, it doesn't hold water to do so.
There are a lot of people who believe in God or gods, but who are not zealously religious. Likewise, there are a lot of people who do not believe in God or gods, and are rather zealous about religion. It matters not whether they are zealously religious that makes them theist or atheist. It only matters whether they believe in God or gods, or not.
I'd argue that both Theism and Agnosticism require dogmatic points of view, while Atheism does not require a dogmatic point of view. Some Atheists are dogmatic, and may call themselves Atheists because of some emotionally driven purpose, but that type of motivation is unnecessary. Here's why. No evidence.
Both Theism and Agnosticism require the person in question believe in the possibility of something that can violate the laws of nature at will and remain, to those skeptical of the existence of such a being, devoid of any observable evidence. You have to accept this being on belief alone. If there were actual observable and verifiable evidence for God's existence this discussion topic would likely not even exist (or at least, would remain marginalized to a few quacks, like Moon Landing deniers for example).
Essentially, what I'm saying is that a belief in God is rooted in the unknown. Mankind's collective knowledge is limited and the concept of God remains tucked away (and used as the answer to) in the things we (as a species) are unable to adequately explain at this point in time. Theism is nothing more than a vague God of the Gaps argument, and Agnosticism is nothing more than a noncommittal God of the Gaps argument.
Is that evidence that God doesn't exist? No. But Theism and Agnosticism require a person to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence, and propose the existence of something that can violate all the laws of the universe which we observe. Atheism requires none of those failings.
Hi Shawn! That is one well-reasoned argument. I take some exception to putting agnosticism in with theism, but I do agree with your point about God being the God of Gaps for thiests. More than that, most theists refuse to accept scientific proof that contradicts their dogmatic beliefs.
Some agnostics, to be sure, are merely non-commital on their belief or disbelief in God. However, I think many agnostics take the position that God is a concept, not an entity or being. For example, God, to me, is a concept that consists of Mother Nature, Father Time, and infinity. I cannot speak for Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin, who were also agnostics and not atheists, but I do not need to use God to explain "gaps in knowledge." These "gaps" are simply something unknown that is explicable, and may or may not be resolved in time. These "gaps" are not the work of a super-being that created everything. I do not believe that God is a super-being or a spirit. Simply, I believe God is a concept.
I have some questions that atheists seem to avoid, or that they do not seem to want to back up with science.
First, Einstein contended that energy cannot be destroyed, but it can be altered. What happens to the energies that creates brain waves and heart beats upon death?
How did all the mass in the universe come to be if the universe began from nothing? If you don't believe it began as nothing, what did it begin as and why is it expanding? If it didn't begin, why can we age it?
If "seeing is believing" is true, is "believing is seeing" also true, or is the premise that seeing is believing incorrect?
I'm glad that you happened upon the article, and were compelled to comment on it. Again, I think you present a well-reasoned argument including the unnecessary dogma that some atheists bring forth. My problem with atheistic viewpoints is the lack of science that goes into discounting God. If it is simply a belief, then it, too, is a leap of faith.
Thank you for responding, Tom. I just happened across your post and found it interesting on a variety of levels. I'm always interested in trying and understand the thought processes of people who vary greatly from my own. Anyway...
A major hurdle for me when I discuss God with anyone (as I am an Atheist, as you likely had guessed from my previous post) is that people make God a constantly moving target. Maybe I'm off base here, but it seems like you're guilty of the same kind of "definition changing" you make a case against (regarding atheists) in your article by merely defining God as a concept.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: God
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
As I look through those definitions I have a hard time seeing how you can cast away the implicit sentience inherent with the term God without being guilty of what you're arguing against, regarding the changing definitions. The 3rd definition is the closest I suppose, but(as I understand it), applying that definition to the "concept of God" would be taking the definition out of context. The 3rd definition, the only one that doesn't imply some manner of supreme intelligence, is properly used in terms like, "Hostess is the god of junk food" or "Conan O'Brien is the god of self-deprecating humor". Perhaps I've just misunderstood something here, but I think your argument may be (to some degree) internally inconsistent.
Let's see ...alright. I'll see if I can give you some of those honest answers you seem unable to get from people like me :)
First of all, a disclaimer: I AM NOT A SCIENTIST. I don't claim to be an authority figure regarding any scientific field of inquiry, so I may be wrong. Now, to your 1st question...
"What happens to the energies that creates brain waves and heart beats upon death?"
Firstly, this question seems a bit redundant (in regards to the 'energies that create brainwaves... part). In your original post you display a rather robust understanding of many scientific principles, so I'm a bit confused by (at the very least) your phrasing of this question.
But, brainwaves and heart beats are just the firing of neurons. That energy isn't created out of nothing. I'm not a biochemist, but I believe neurons utilize glucose to function properly. If a person is dead, and isn't ingesting and distributing sugars throughout the body anymore, the available energy for use by the neurons in the body is finite, and their function will eventually cease. That energy doesn't go anywhere, it isn't converted into brain waves or heart beats in the first place.
" How did all the mass in the universe come to be if the universe began from nothing? If you don't believe it began as nothing, what did it begin as and why is it expanding? If it didn't begin, why can we age it? "
Quite a bit to address here.
1st part: "How did all the mass in the universe come to be if the universe began from nothing?"
No one really knows what happened before one Planck time. There are hypotheses out there. If I knew, and this isn't meant as an insult, I wouldn't be wasting my time talking to you. I'd be hard at work, writing the paper that would win me a Nobel prize and a coveted place in history among the world's greatest minds. The chances of that actually happening look pretty slim at the moment though. So the answer is, I don't know ...however, I do have a favorite hypothesis.
Are you familiar with the work of Joao Magueijo? He's a theoretical physicist at the Imperial College London. He wrote a book I've been fascinated with called "Faster Than the Speed of Light". If you haven't read it I'd suggest picking it up. If you have, the following absurdly reductive summary of the book(which itself is an absurdly reductive summary of his papers) will make more sense.
But specifically regarding your question, in context of consideration of Magueijo's hypothesis(if for nothing else than argument's sake), mass and energy could be created from nothing in a never ending seesaw battle between Mass&Energy and Lambda (the cosmological constant). As the the universe cools, finally reaching the Dark era, Lambda becomes more dominant. When Lambda becomes dominant Mass&Energy are created, which forces Lambda back into the background, and the process repeats forever, without the need of a beginning or end to the chain of creation and destruction of infinite universes.
^extremely reductive, and doesn't address a myriad of questions that can be raised in opposition of it in the context I've written it in. In short, this is one of several possible ways that the universe could've come from "nothing" sans God. Doesn't mean it did happen like that, Just a possibility based on more than simply blind speculation.
2nd part: "If you don't believe it began as nothing, what did it begin as and why is it expanding?"
Don't know. No one does. Again, before one Planck time, everything is a mystery in the year 2009.
3rd part: "If it didn't begin, why can we age it?"
We don't know if the universe had an actual beginning or not (meaning it didn't exist in any form at all, then it did exist in some form). But let's say it didn't have a beginning as your question would imply. We could still age it. While the time span from one Planck time to now would only be only a finite span on an infinite time line, all the evidence indicates a change from that time to now. The question is whether that length of time (we regard as the age of the universe) is a substantial percentage of the actual age of the universe or just the lower limit to what we are able to ascertain of an infinite timescale?
" If "seeing is believing" is true, is "believing is seeing" also true, or is the premise that seeing is believing incorrect? "
I'm reminded of Alice in Wonderland, talking to the Mad Hatter and the March Hare.
If I see a walking pink panda made of jell-o in my house, but no one else does, and there's no evidence that a walking pink panda made of jell-o was ever inside my house, while you can't prove 100% percent there was no walking pink panda made of jell-o, I'd have to consider the panda I had seen wasn't actually there. If I see a white toaster in my house, and everyone who comes to my house sees it and uses it, it's safe to assume the toaster is really there. Your question is cute, but ultimately pointless. What people see or don't see on an individual basis is inconsequential. I've never been to Australia, but I'm inclined to believe it's actually there for a number of reasons. Every person who's claimed to have seen God, Bigfoot, or Aliens have yet to provide the same verifiable evidence. Maybe they really did see those things, but it doesn't mean they were actually there.
" My problem with atheistic viewpoints is the lack of science that goes into discounting God. If it is simply a belief, then it, too, is a leap of faith."
Not a question, but I wanted to address this.
I discount God (as I am an Atheist) for many reasons, one of which is that (as I said in my initial post) there is no evidence. That doesn't disprove the existence of God. True. But I don't need Science to disprove the existence of my jell-o panda either to discount it. Maybe there actually is a walking pink panda made of jell-o in my house and I just haven't seen it yet. I don't know. But I have no reason to believe there is at this point in time.
I think a large part of theistic views and agnostic views (meaning leaving the door open to the possible existence of some supreme being) is a side effect of mankind's psyche, which finds patterns and creates stereotypes in nature as a survival mechanism.
Stereotypes and pattern recognition are necessary for our survival. Say two people see
You're an interesting person, Shawn, and I thank you for inspiring thought in me and providing thoughtfulness in your reply.
You say that I make God a moving target based on the definition of God. I contend it would be more appropriate to consider the definition of agnostic and agnosticism as validation for me doing so. Otherwise, the presumption is that I am a theist in the conventional sense, and am only claiming to be agnostic to keep the target in motion.
ag·nos·tic (?g-n?s't?k) n.
(1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
(2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Cultural Dictionary
agnosticism [(ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm)]
A denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not a God. An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one.
That puts me in the same category as Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, which I believe is intellectually sound. As I said in my first reply to you, I do not believe in God as a supreme being, but rather as a concept comprised of nature, time, and infinity. That means I fall short of being either a theist or an atheist. It is not a lack of commitment. I believe both are impossible to prove, and both are based in faith that either God exists or does not exist.
I appreciate your reference to "Faster than the Speed of Light." I'll be interested to see if his thoughts and mine coincide on what is faster than the speed of light. My thoughts are that things smaller than a light particle can exceed the universal speed limit. I don't know how anyone would ever find it, but I think there may be a "life particle" that, if found, would reset the speed limit to the speed of life.
As an offer to you for some thoughts to consider, I would suggest Hermann Bondi. In 1959 he proposed that physical laws would still apply when a mass, or lack thereof, is less than zero, except they would apply inversely. He also proposed that all the mass and submass in the universe would balance out to nothing. It's an interesting theory that has never been disproven, but which we don't hear much about when scientists discuss things like black holes, dark matter, and empty space.
Also to be fair, I'll try to answer my own questions:
Where does the energy that creates heart beats and brain waves to upon death?
It goes back to its source, where ever that is.
How can all the mass in the universe exist if it began as nothing?
It came from the creation of holes which would also exist as seperate entities. Figuratively, it would be like buying a car with no money. You get the car and a debt. Both exist. One is physical, and one is a hole. The mass, in essence, is merely borrowed from the holes.
If seeing is believing, is believing is seeing also true?
Yes. Otherwise we would have no artists or inventors. It is all there in infinity. There truly are no new ideas. There exists in infinity everything that has existed, everything that will ever exist, and everything that will never exist. Nothing is impossible, not even a walking pink panda made of Jell-O! However, proving God exists is virtually impossible without actually seeing God. Disproving God is virtually impossible.
So, while you look at agnosticism as "leaving the door open," I see it as the belief that is not based in faith that there is absolute truth in the existence of God, or not.
I still contend you're guilty of what you've charged some atheists of doing, changing the definition of a word. If you look God up in the dictionary, your categorization of God as 'a Concept' is no where to be found.
I'll look more deeply into the work of Hermann Bondi. I have a rudimentary understanding of his contributions regarding background radiation, black hole accretion discs, and his (for a time) work with Fred Hoyle supporting the idea of a steady-state universe. I check it out though.
" If seeing is believing, is believing is seeing also true?
Yes. Otherwise we would have no artists or inventors..."
Funny you should mention this, as I am a freelance artist (or starving freelance artist, more often than not).
"...There truly are no new ideas. There exists in infinity everything that has existed, everything that will ever exist, and everything that will never exist. Nothing is impossible, not even a walking pink panda made of Jell-O!"
Is this a reference to Plato's Forms, or something similar?
Regardless, this is just an assumption and an assertion, not an argument. Simply stating everything exists in an infinite number of alternate realities doesn't give the idea credence.
And, If some of the things I've drawn/painted over the years are actually real to somebody somewhere in a possible different dimension, I feel really sorry for those people. Things much worse than walking Jell-O pandas are denizens of my imagination.
" However, proving God exists is virtually impossible without actually seeing God."
Even seeing God is not evidence, in and of itself. Take my Jell-O panda. Say I see it, talk to it, interact with it everyday, but no one else ever does, or can see evidence of its existence. Is my panda real, or is my brain is not functioning normally? I'd be inclined to argue for the latter. Even more so in this day and age, as every aspect of our lives can be documented with technology.
...and it looks like a section of my extremely long post from before got cut off, so I want to address something that is rarely discussed (at least as far as my experience is concerned), and that is what role human Psychology plays in the Theism/Agnosticism/Atheism debate.
I mentioned stereotypes. Stereotypes are an essential survival mechanism for many animals, and I contend that when combined with human ingenuity and imagination, this survival skill itself gives rise to (oddly enough) 'the concept of God', and is yet another reason I don't belief any God(s) exists.
People seek patterns in life. It's necessary. Say you're crossing the street, and someone driving the exact same car you own roars past, almost killing you. Then the next day as you're crossing the street, a strange car, who's make you've never seen is bearing down on you. What do you do? You get out of the way. Why? Even though you've never seen that model car, the thing moving towards you (in your mind) meets the stereotype your mind has built of a car. Even though you've never seen it, you recognize it, and the danger. You recognize it similarities. But this ability, in humans, extends beyond that. We are the sole creatures on Earth capable of creating coherent works of art.(And I emphasize COHERENT. Gorillas have made abstract paintings, but don't have real themes or recognizable images).
Take faces. We recognize faces and expressions. They're stereotypes. It's a necessary skill for social interaction, which in turn is necessary for survival of a communal species like ours. But take this into consideration...
http://media.photobucket.com/image/smiley%20face/s
...we see a face here. Why? It isn't a face. It's a circle, two ovals, and an arc. The reason is it contains enough elements of a face, in a recognizable pattern, for our minds to interpret it as a face. We've IMPOSED the stereotype onto something, where it doesn't truly exist. A smiley face isn't actually a face, we just see it that way.
This extends to all our senses. Something buzzes by our head, we move, because of the stereotype of a stinging insect, even though it could be something harmless. the same applies to something crawling on us. That old Halloween feel game comes to mind, where a covered bowl of spaghetti is instantly converted into brains or something in our minds.
Now, is the idea of God applicable in the same way? I think it is. We see patterns in the universe, have a limited scope of perception, things our senses can't fully analyze. Our minds try and interpret what we see and conform that information into recognizable categories, regardless of whether they actually belong in them or not. It's an inescapable part of the human condition. The difference however ( I believe) is that some people seek to recognize that, and try not to intermingle assumptions based on constructing stereotypes into a view of reality.
Whew, Shawn, you say a lot, but, thankfully, it is intellectually stimulating and not just hyperbole.
You may well be correct that the dictionary does not define God as a concept. However, Spinoza did. He said, in essence, God is nature, and not an outside force that controls nature. Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's God. I have added the elements of time and infinity to that which I conceive as God. Though I don't generally offer my definition to those who believe in God as defined by the dictionary unless the setting is such that it does not interfere with my job or the reason for a gathering, I find the idea that God is a spiritual entity that created the universe rather preposterous. On the other hand, I believe that there is a realm in this universe that is sub-massive, and that humans have spirits and souls.
Since I fall neither into the theist nor atheist camps, I consider myself agnostic. So, while the definition of God you've given is not something I believe in, I also believe there is more purpose to life than existing then not existing. I believe that our spirits can live more than once, but our souls, which are seperate from our spirits, do not. One is the equivalent of light; the other the equivalent of gravity.
I did not take my idea on infinity from Plato's Forms, though I may have inadvertantly drawn my conclusion similarly. Mathematically we cannot add to or subtract from infinity and increase or decrease it. It remains infinity. Neither can we multiply it or divide it in an attempt to alter it. It, simply, includes everything.
Applying logic to it, then, it is understandable that there are no new ideas or inventions. Ideas and inventions we have not before seen were merely plucked from infinity where they must have existed lest we would be able to add to it.
Time is infinite. I use my time doing what I do, and you can use the same time for something else. That I used the time does not mean that it was not there for you to use. The conclusion is that I can draw from an infinite source, and my subtraction of it did not alter your plans for you also can draw from it the same amount I did and use the identical time for something else.
These are not things I learned from sources. They are things I thought about sufficiently to arrive at my conclusion.
I have not thought about infinity being a realm or a place, but that does not make sense to me. To that end, I do not contend that art we have not seen exists somewhere else, but, rather, that the artist drew the inspiration from infinity and placed it on the palette for us to enjoy, or not enjoy, depending on how we see what the artist saw.
Whether it has credence to you or not is up to you. It may not have credence to me tomorrow. I do not try to hold onto ideas that I once had when I find them faulty based on better understanding. That said, I think it is fine for my granddaughter to believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny for now. I take joy in watching her unwrap a gift and gather eggs the sources of which are fictional.
As for the pink panda made of Jell-O, if you halleucinate it, and claim it exists, it does not exist even though you have seen it in a halleucination. If, however, you make, or someone else makes, a pink panda out of Jell-O, then it exists even if those who have not seen it do not believe it. Whether or not you, or someone else, ever does make one, it will not be new for it already is a possibility in infinity.
I think I understand what you are saying about the stereotypes, but I believe it to be overly simplistic. Your examples are also so, for if I waited until I owned a car until I started recognizing them as dangers to crossing a road, it's unlikely I would have lived long enough to own a car.
The idea that moving cars are dangerous are generally built into our minds by our parents, whose opinions are like light to us. We believe what they say because everything is new, and, at some point, we may not believe what they say if what they say does not come to fruition often enough to believe them. At that point, what they say changes from light value to no value.
As social beings, humans feel the need to belong. We look for those we can be friends with, and give their beliefs grave (gravity) value. We also establish pecking orders within our groups of friends, so popularity, which is the opposite of responsibility, is important. If all of our friends believe God exists, and that is important to the group, then we will tend toward that belief without much thought in order to remain with the group. If skateboarding is the thing with the group, and no one cares whether a person believes in God or not, then some will and some won't believe, depending on other groups they belong to, but skateboarding will be cool for all within the group, even if some don't like skateboarding as much as others.
Whether it is among groups that believe, or groups that don't believe, there will be varying degrees of commitment to the belief depending on the individual's desire to become a leader of the group, or to merely populate the group. To me, belief or non-belief is not important. I prefer to associate with people who enjoy karaoke, sports, and motorcycles, and people who don't enjoy things I enjoy are not people I want to spend a lot of time with. I also enjoy things that are intellectually stimulating, so, even among people who enjoy similar things, I don't want to spend time with people who make any one or all of them everything they do unless they also can hold a conversation.
Have you given much thought to how gravity affects thoughts to create "common sense?" I believe that was the basis for how Edison intended to record the words of Jesus. If he had completed the project, it could also have been used to tell whether Socrates was portrayed accurately by Plato and his other proteges. It probably would not, however, have been of much use for finding the words of common individuals, for their words would be garbled in the gravity of other common individuals.
Does that make any sense to you?
Frankly the concept of comparing 'God' to any physical object so as to prove or disprove is going to take us nowhere.
Okay.
Spinoza was a smart man(and obviously Einstein as well), but that doesn't give either of them carte blanche to change the meanings of a word to fit into their philosophy. The word God implies sentience, and no matter how much smarter Spinoza and Einstein were than me, God is exactly as I defined it. Arguments from authority don't impress me.
I don't care if the argument being made comes from Albert Einstein or Paris Hilton, I just care about the veracity of the claim being made. It just happens to be that Einstein was many magnitudes smarter than Paris Hilton, and as such, was much more inclined to arrive at a logical and verifiable position. But, simply because Einstein and Spinoza called the laws of nature God doesn't make their definition of the word the right one. A high IQ doesn't grant anyone the ability to strip words of their meaning in order to distance themselves from a group and/or philosophy they don't feel they're associated with.
If someone eats nothing but vegetables, but dislikes the term vegetarian, and says they aren't really a vegetarian because [insert smart person] called apples 'chicken', vegetarians (if not other groups) are going to be confused. Pantheism (in a similar fashion) perplexes me.
I don't believe in souls and all that other metaphysical stuff you mentioned (and I don't feel like grilling you on the brainwave thing), but we both agree on the absurdity of a sentient all-powerful intelligence. I'm confounded when the term created to define a sentient all-powerful intelligence is then used to describe the laws of nature. I don't see why it's necessary. The laws of nature (whatever they are in their yet to be discovered entirety) are just that, the laws of nature. Why call them God? I just don't understand it.
"...the part I really don't understand: if you're looking for self-help, why would you read a book written by somebody else? That's not self-help; that's help. There's no such thing as self-help. If you did it yourself, you didn't need help! You did it yourself. Try to pay attention to the language we've all agreed on" -George Carlin, on people who use self-help books.
...and for the other thing, I'm not talking about social pressures. I'm talking about the way the human mind interprets the world. Instead of stereotypes perhaps archetypes is a more accurate description.
The car analogy. To you it may be absurd (because of your objection of not realizing cars were dangerous until you owned one [...]), but what if you were replaced in the analogy with two tribesmen from deep inside the amazon, who'd never seen a car?
Suppose they were wisked away from the jungle and dropped near a road somewhere. As one of them crosses the road they're flattened by a convertible electric sports car (who keeps on going after the accident). As the other tribesman goes to investigate, a semi roars towards him. Though he'd never seen an electric convertible or a semi before, because of the previous accident, he'd likely recognize the danger in the approaching semi, even though they share few observable similarities. The person's mind would use the limited information available and categorize this new object in a similar fashion to that of the previously lethal car. It's a survival skill, and can't be overcome.
The same mechanism of the mind that would associate the two vehicles also is used to recognize other things, like faces. As I said, it's necessary for social interaction. Being able to interpret the emotions of other people is crucial. But this natural ability can extend beyond its normal function (meaning not for the purposes of self-preservation). A smiley face isn't really a face, but it contains enough familiar hallmarks of a face that our minds interpret it as such. Our minds impose the face onto something where it doesn't truly belong.
Perhaps this is a bit of a tangent from the rest of our exchange (as it might not pertain to you per se), but I wonder what role (if any) that ability plays in people who believe in a antropomorphic God? Do they (with their limited understanding of the laws of the universe, a trait all people share) impose a unity and order in the universe, comparable to mankind's own fingerprints of creation (like computer monitors for example) onto the universe itself and then attribute that (unnecessarily) imposed intelligent order to "God"?
You certainly make sound argument, Shawn, but there are grey areas at time between definitions and function. One that comes to mind would be in music. The dictionary definitions for "washboard" and "jug" do not include musical instruments. However, some people use those items to make music. When used to make rhythmic sounds to which people can dance, are they musical instruments, or, because the dictionary definitions for these items do not include musical instruments, is the rhythmic sound created not music?
Perhaps the person who eats only vegetables but is not a vegetarian so classifies himself as "not a vegetarian" because he would be willing to eat meat if he so desired. Would only his actions matter in the classification, or would his mindset have some bearing? I will grant you, however, that apples are not chickens even if [some smart person] says so.
Humans go beyond simply natured. We are also principled, and to varying degrees. While most predators serve nature by removing the sick and the slow from the gene pool of its prey, humans have the capacity to alter and defy nature positively or negatively. Personally, I do not believe that this is a talent given from a God who is an all-powerful spirit, but I also do not believe that this just happened without cause or purpose.
I started my comment before your second one posted.
I agree with you on the association between two vehicles and the smiley face.
If instead of two people being put into the city, there were three, and one did not witness the accident, the witness may tell the other that things with eyes that shine are dangerous and to watch for them as they cross the road, or he may tell the other that our limit is this side of the road lest a powerful god strike you dead for trying to go to that forbidden side.
This goes along with the association of the smiley face to a face. One person may say it is a face, another person may say it is only geometric shapes and not a face, and a third person may say it is geometric shapes that can be mistaken as a face and that it is reasonable and understandable for it to be mistaken for a face.
The first definition of instrument(according to
merriam-webster.com), 1 : a device used to produce music; also : a singing voice. That means ANYTHING used to make music is, by definition, an instrument.
Furthermore, the definition for washboard DOES include use as a musical instrument.
Washboard 3 a : a corrugated rectangular surface that is used for scrubbing clothes or as a PERCUSSION INSTRUMENT.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/washboar
The definition for Jug doesn't say anything about music, but there is an entry for Jug Band,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jug%20Ba
No matter what item you mention, if it's used to make music, it's an instrument. Music requires instruments (if only a voice), and anything used to make music is an instrument. The definition of the word and anything you could mention would have a corollary relationship, QED.
The definition for God doesn't imply the same kind of transcendence as I've argued earlier in this thread.
"Perhaps the person who eats only vegetables but is not a vegetarian so classifies himself as "not a vegetarian" because he would be willing to eat meat if he so desired. Would only his actions matter in the classification, or would his mindset have some bearing?"
Now that's interesting. But, I'd still classify someone as a vegetarian if they went their whole life eating only vegetables, even if they weren't necessarily opposed to it. (I'll try to keep this somewhere in the boundary of good taste, but...)If someone goes through life without having intercourse, but they don't want to be called a virgin because they weren't opposed to having intercourse, whether they like it or not, they're a virgin.
"Humans go beyond simply natured. We are also principled, and to varying degrees. While most predators serve nature by removing the sick and the slow from the gene pool of its prey, humans have the capacity to alter and defy nature positively or negatively. Personally, I do not believe that this is a talent given from a God who is an all-powerful spirit, but I also do not believe that this just happened without cause or purpose".
True, humans don't react in the way most animals do, but I think this is merely a byproduct of our superior intellect. And we're a part of nature, so we aren't really defying it. Our intellect (as a species) has allowed us to act much differently than other animals would. While the sick and slow are a severe drain and liability for pack animals and the like, we are able to act in a less callous fashion due our intellect and the unique methods of survival we've created as a species.
" If instead of two people being put into the city, there were three, and one did not witness the accident, the witness may tell the other that things with eyes that shine are dangerous and to watch for them as they cross the road, or he may tell the other that our limit is this side of the road lest a powerful god strike you dead for trying to go to that forbidden side. "
Yep. No objections here.
"This goes along with the association of the smiley face to a face. One person may say it is a face, another person may say it is only geometric shapes and not a face, and a third person may say it is geometric shapes that can be mistaken as a face and that it is reasonable and understandable for it to be mistaken for a face."
I meant to imply (in all my arguments) that the person in question was healthy. I'm not sure if that's what you're driving at here, but the 2nd person in this premise would be either a liar or have a severe mental disability.
Even people with severe prosopagnosia (or face blindness) can recognize abstract faces.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-prosopagnosia.htm
(Third paragraph I believe)
There may well be some mental condition were a person with good eyesight is unable to recognize a smiley face as a face, but it certainly would not be a result of personality or a healthy nervous system.
Hello Tom:
There are no "atheists.
In english "atheist" is defined as: "...one who denies the existence of god."
That would imply an understanding of what this "god" thing is.
Since this "god" thing is not defined in terms other than that which is imagined, and exists as only an abstract concept, then only the "concept" can be denied.
Evolving "man" has imagined the supernatural since it gained the anomaly: consciousness. Why would the "god" of contemporary man have been created any differently?
Study the scripture of all 3 major monotheisms and it will become obvious that there is no defintion of this "god" thing that describes "it" in terms other than opinion and conjecture.
As man became a more sophisticated "animal," his imagined "god's" followed suit.
There are, extant today, in excess of 40,000 differing protestant interpretations of corrupted biblical scriptures and the number is increasing as I type. They ALL claim to have the truth. Ahhh, but the capitalistic corporation: catholicism "knows" IT is RIGHT! LOLOLOL..
Atheism? Theism? Aesops fables? Grimms fairy tales? All fall into the same category of being products of an evolving, conscious life forms fertile and infantile imagination.
We are evolving........very slowly and tortuously!
Qwark
Let's get this back on track, Shawn. I didn't claim God, to a theist, is a concept. I claimed that God is a concept to me. If that means that I don't believe in God as a superior being, that is consistent with being agnostic or atheist. Since I do believe in human spirit and soul, and things similar to Heaven and hell, I am not an atheist.
Qwark came in and challenged me to define "this god thing," and that is when I said to me God is a concept comprised of time, nature, and infinity. That the dictionary does not define God that way is not so much me making God a moving target as it is to say that, as an agnostic, I do not believe in God as the Bible describes God.
You are an interesting person, and I appreciate your debating skills. You taught me to check other sources besides dictionary.com, which does not define a washboard as a percussion instrument. You also taught me about prosopagnosia by calling me on a mistake I made by covering a literalist twice depicting one as a person who would contend that a smiley face is not a face.
However, I cannot define God as more than a concept to me. I realize there are people who believe in God as the Spirit that created the universe, but I am not among them. To me, the universe makes sense as coming from nothing with all mass being reconciled by holes. I also believe in evolution, and do not find it inconsistent with agnosticism.
At this point, I would find it more interesting to discuss how gravity affects thoughts to create common sense than to continue trying to establish that God can be a concept when, clearly, God is not defined as conceptual.
Okay, Qwark, then you, too, must be agnostic since you cannot be an atheist, and are obviously not a theist.
Hi Tom:
Nope, not an agnostic.
Agnostic is defined as: "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."
Until this "god" thing can be defined as "it" being something other than an opinion, guess or an abstract concept, I cannot even consider "it."
Once "it" has been defined, I can then consider "it," classify "it" and make decisions about "it."
Until that time, the word "god" has no meaning to me...:-)
Qwark
Well good for you, Qwark!
Brilliant really brilliantly written hub here!
Thank you Mrs. Atoms!
And I re-re-re-re assert that saying God is a concept is a misuse of the word. I'm not saying you have to "pick a side" as you mentioned earlier, but if you're going to try and redefine the language to suit whatever position you want to defend (or possibly avoid) that's up to you, but people like me are going to be confused by your abuse of the English language. Whether you're a theist, agnostic, atheist, or any combination of those things along the Dawkin's scale, the definition for God remains the same. Nothing you've said thus far in this hub explains why you're using the word God to describe something that doesn't exhibit any of the characteristics of what the word represents. I just don't get it. God is God, the laws of nature are the laws of nature. Why blur the line between the two? What's the motivation? What's the rational?
As for the gravity/thought topic, I'm not familiar enough with the works of Hermann Bondi (regarding negative mass), so if that is part of your argument in any sense, I don't feel I'm prepared to argue for or against it. You said , "It seems to me that Bondi's theory is valid because I cannot find any way to dispel it". Well, from what little I know about this (Bondi's negative mass) I will say the LHC has the potential to destroy this idea. If the LHC is actually successful in confirming the predicted existence of the Higgs boson, would that not answer some of the questions answered by Bondi's negative mass hypothesis (thus rendering it as another brilliant, but wrong, hypothesis)?
If so, we can only wait and see what the results are when the LHC is functioning at peak capacity.
Shawn, let's take this to two different places. In the article, I am not using the "concept of God" as "God." The existence of God, as the dictionary defines God, can neither be proven nor disproven.
The concept of God that you are tying to this was in response to a comment by someone who claims both that everyone is atheist and atheism does not exist. You have adequately proven to me that my definition for my purposes is flawed, and I both acknowledge and thank you for that.
Bondi has nothing to do with the gravity of thoughts. He also has little to do with negative mass, except for his theory that physical laws apply below zero but change attributes. It is from that thought of his that I suggest that gravity also works in reverse when masses are less than zero. It is also from that thought of his that I suggest that in masses less than zero, positives would attract positives and repel negatives.
I don't see how the discovery of the Higgs boson would dispel the theory of mass coming from holes. It would just be additional mass that came from a compensatory hole that must exist, but will not be seen or found. They talk of vacuum relative to the Higgs boson. The way vacuum is created is to have greater pressure flowing into lesser pressure. When you have nothing, the lesser pressure is created by having less than nothing. It will all come to light some day, but not literally, for, if the Higgs boson is found, it will be found to exist on the negative cycle of the light particle, lest we will never see the results.
The gravity of thoughts is more from the thoughts of Thomas Edison, who believed it possible to record the words of Jesus posthumously. I do not regard Edison as a quack, nor do I believe that his experiments and notes on the project were seized by the government and classified for no reason. If Edison were to record statements made in the past, one would have to consider whether he would travel in time, or if he believed that the sound waves still exist. Since he was not into time travel, I suspect that he believed the waves still exist, and must be discernable from other sound waves that must also exist. I believe he was considering the gravity of the words, inasmuch as words that are seldom spoken have little gravity compared to words that are commonly spoken and, therefore, would amass as heavier waves and the sources would be less discernable as a result.
I apologize for seemingly flipping and flopping over whose teachings I state to arrive at my conclusions. I do not believe we can follow a line to the answer. The universe is not made up of lines; it is made up of spheres.
Where did you get your information regarding Edison believing it's possible to record the words of Jesus posthumously? I've googled several variations of the idea, trying to link Edison to this idea, and have come up with nothing. Also, it seems a little odd to me that the man who said, " I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul... No, all this talk of an existence beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life - our desire to go on living - our dread of coming to an end " would advocate this type of thing. It's also a little odd that you'd use Edison as an example to support your views, since you've previously stated your support of the exact opposite of what he said in that quote. I'm not saying that proves or disproves anything. I just think it's a little weird.
The machine was called a spirit phone. It was purported to have been a prank or a joke in 1920 when Edison mentioned it for an article, but there are also claims that he worked on it until his death in 1931.
Here is a 1920 NY Times article that refers to it: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1
I tried to find a credible source, but found mostly paranormal sites crediting it. Most of the "credible" sites claim it was a joke. Here is an article from Electronic Voice Phenomena that discusses it in conjunction with phenomena experienced by other inventors: http://evparchive.com/tesla_evp.htm
I cannot find the source that mentioned the government seizing his research on it, though there are plenty of sources that say he was working on it and plenty more that say that no research on it exists.
It seems, though, that he believed that, if possible, it would be the result of "life entities" that exist after death. Though there is no dispute from me that he made the statement in 1910 that you quoted, there is evidence that his beliefs evolved.
Again, though, I don't follow lines on these things. It leads to mistakes, like thinking Edison would be searching for sound waves with the least gravitational force rather than trying to connect with life entities that may exist in the universe. I still, however, believe that once sound waves are created, they continue to exist. Furthermore, that the more the sound waves are repeated, the heavier they become forming a gravitational source of "common sense."
Science is not out there to disprove God. Atheists believe what they want. So do you. Why make an argument about it? Can't we all just get along here? Really, here in The Windy City, we have people of all kinds and we don't go around fighting about what church you go to, or whether or not you go to church.
What's the big deal, anyway? Just believe what you want and let others alone.
Unabashed Liberal Jake from Chicago
Theists came up with the god concept, in that they believe in god.
Atheists came up with a response to the atheist assertion, namely, that they believe there is no god.
Atheism is a conclusion and a response to theism. To say that atheism is a religion is not only silly and laughable, but such a claim shows how unintelligent the person making the claim is.
Science is not in the business of proving or disproving anything, especially god claims. Science is in the business of studying "what exists". And this is what primarily angers theists. Their god has no existence and hence cannot be studied.
Similarly, atheists are not in the business of proving your god does not exist. They just respond to your claims.
Just because theists can't convince themselves of the existence of their god, they should not be pointing fingers at others in order to make themselves feel better.
Sometimes I wonder if you atheists actually read the Hub, or if you just presume that I said God exists.
Let's see, fatfist, Buddhists are atheists. Is Buddhism religion? American Atheists have the right to exist under "freedom of religion." They are licensed and incorporated the same way churches are. They preach their beliefs, and try to change policy - much the same way churches and religions do.
I don't go to church. I'm not religious. I don't believe in God as Christians depict Him, but I am also not an atheist because of other beliefs I have. I recognize that it is faith in my beliefs, but atheists tend to deny that they have faith God does not exist.
Still, you should read the Hub rather than to presume the content before commenting.
(Sometimes I wonder if you atheists actually read the Hub)
Your polarization prevents you from comprehending what is wrong with that statement. Hint: substitute "blacks" for "atheists", then you might understand.
Anyway, there are tons of stuff to read on the net; make it short and to the point and "people" will be less inclined to skim thru it.
(Let's see, fatfist, Buddhists are atheists. Is Buddhism religion?)
Buddhism is a belief system, with an ideology, and a messed up one because it includes contradictions and absolute truth. It's a religion because it suggests an afterlife. Buddhists pray to statues, worshipping them. Nirvana is heaven for Buddhists. They talk of spiritual things which are eternal, like their own spirit or the spirit of Buddha, who was a fat man that preached moderation.
Buddhists believe there are "Noble truths", which are eternal. These are their absolute truths that are always existent. Absolute truths are the hallmark of any religion, and are used to brainwash people – especially useful in getting certain people to fly planes into buildings, as we’ve seen. Anyone who believes in absolute truth is religious whether they know it or not.
Yes, ALL people (atheists, blacks, scientists, construction workers, etc.) have beliefs, as beliefs are a part of human reality. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow; we can’t prove it; when tomorrow comes, the belief becomes a truth. 99% of what humans do are based on beliefs; reasoned beliefs. So what if atheists preach their “reasoned beliefs”? Doesn’t the president preach his reasoned beliefs? You are confusing beliefs with faith. Faith is a blind subjective belief, and believed for no reason at all, other than someone telling you. That’s what absolute truth is, and is “the” indicator of a religion. Atheism has neither an ideology nor absolute truth. Atheists have the right to open their mouth and yap all they want, but that doesn’t make them religious as you seem to indicate.
(but atheists tend to deny that they have faith God does not exist.)
Yes, atheism does not preach “faith” in that god does not exist. That is blind subjective “feel-good” belief and is used by theists. Atheism is a conclusion and a response to the proposition posed by theists: “god exists”. Atheists believe there is no god. And that is supported by logic and rational arguments – hence objective belief; like the sun will rise tomorrow kinda thing for lack of a better analogy.
Why would I substitute "blacks" for "atheists?" The Hub is 13 paragraphs long. It is rather concise. The length is due to the comments, many by atheists talking about "my God." Since I don't claim God exists, I conclude that many of the arguments presented about "my God" are prejudicial presumptions that I believe in God as do theists.
I will, again, point out that American Atheists is set up the same way any religion is set up. There are atheist churches, and, as you concede, Buddhism is religion despite them being atheists.
You contend that atheists do not believe there are any absolute truths as an absolute truth, yet you fail to see the irony in your statement.
That you may not attend an atheist church does not mean that they don't exist any more so than a theist who does not attend church could contend that theist churches do not exist, and be correct.
The President does preach "reasoned beliefs." He has faith that his "reasoned beliefs" are true.
So, while you try to split the hair between "belief" and "faith," I'll just go about saying "I don't know."
(American Atheists is set up the same way any religion is set up. There are atheist churches)
If you call atheist gatherings and meeting places as churches, then you can use whatever label you want. Anybody can use your line of reasoning to just as easily say all schools are churches, all governments are churches, all public washrooms are run like churches, all businesses are run like churches, etc. Yes, everything with a roof over it can be labelled as a “church” – so what?
What you haven’t done, is prove your bald assertion that atheism is a religion. You can’t. I already logically proved to you in my previous comment that atheism is a CONCLUSION as a RESPONSE to theism. But you continue to make irrational claims. Without any rational argument to support your position, you are certainly entitled to your subjective beliefs.
(and, as you concede, Buddhism is religion despite them being atheists)
Who said Buddhists are atheists? Nobody but you - and for the purposes of falsely trying to rationalize the following invalid argument out of ignorance:
P1. Buddhists are religious, believe in eternal things, they go to church.
P2. Buddhists can also be labelled as atheists.
P3. Atheists also attend meetings in places which we can label to be “churches”.
C. Therefore Atheism IS a religion.
Your use of ridiculous labels, non-sequitors, and fallacious arguments are comical, if not intentionally used for the purposes of being intellectually dishonest for making your “empty” arguments.
You already know that Buddhism is a religion, but contradicting yourself by calling it atheism in order to establish an erroneous link to atheists to support your fallacious argument. Do you honestly expect to fool anybody but the fundamentalists with this nonsense? The Baptists and the Pentecostals will buy this stuff – go sell it to them.
(You contend that atheists do not believe there are any absolute truths as an absolute truth, yet you fail to see the irony in your statement.)
That atheists do not believe in absolute truth is NOT an absolute truth in itself. It is a PROVEN truth. Please learn what absolute truth is, because you continue to diminish your position as an intellectual person with every mistake you make. Truth cannot be absolute when it depends on a proof. Absolute means eternally true, forever and ever amen! No such truth is possible because ALL truth is proven. Obviously you disagree – fine! Then please show me a statement that is of “absolute truth” and then show me another similar statement in the same context, that is just “truth”. Now tell me what the difference is between those 2 statements. When you do that, then you can sit back and laugh at me and call me stupid and show that you have stumped me – until then, go to school and learn what truth is.
You haven’t produced 1 absolute truth that atheists hold as “absolute truth”. This is the “hallmark” of any religion, including yours. Please do show just one – we’re all waiting... You haven’t even shown an atheist ideology, or any atheist scriptures, bibles, or any atheist spirits, or anything ETERNAL about atheists. You can’t! Atheism is a conclusion that you are bunk – nothing else! This is what is eating you up at night.
(That you may not attend an atheist church does not mean that they don't exist)
Well here is your problem. As used in your statement above, define the word “exist” so that it consistently applies to this so-called atheist church AND applies to your so-called god. When you can do that, then you will have PROVEN that an atheist church exists, just as your god exists. Until then, they are your subjective belief - a part of your imagination. Remember: 1 truth statement about a church is all that is required to prove the church exists. And 1 truth statement about a religion is all that is required to prove that the religion exists. You haven't shown any such truths about atheism.
(The President does preach "reasoned beliefs." He has faith that his "reasoned beliefs" are true.)
Wrong! The president has an induced and reasoned belief that what he “preaches” has a reasonable expectation to be the case – hence objective in nature. Conversely, there is some less-reasonable expectation to not be the case. This is what you fail to understand. Logic and rationality is not your forte, but that’s ok cause nothing is wrong with subjective beliefs – they make people feel good about themselves.
(So, while you try to split the hair between "belief" and "faith,")
There is no splitting of hairs – trying to obfuscate the issue will not work here.
There are humans who have subjective belief (faith – with no rational argument) and there are humans who have objective belief (inductive – with a rational argument). There are humans who have subjective beliefs and believe in absolute truth (with no proof) like you and all theists do, including your buddies the Buddhists. And there are humans who have objective beliefs when they have no other data to deduce truths from.
For example: the sun will rise tomorrow is an objective belief as we can induce it has always risen, and we have no data showing it won’t rise (metaphorically). When it does rise tomorrow, then it will be a truth – until then it is only a reasoned belief. When we have the ability to show a truth, then a belief will automatically become a truth. Unfortunately for you, and detrimental to your case; is that you haven’t shown any truths in your dissertation.
(I'll just go about saying "I don't know.")
Yes, when we don’t know we can either accept something on faith (subjective belief), or we can establish a rational argument to accept it on the grounds of some “reasoning”- hence a “reasoned” belief! Or the other option is to just say we don’t know, we don’t care, and disregard it.
You are referring to The North Texas Church of Freethought (NTCOF).
---------------------------------------
On May 18, 2006, the Texas State Comptroller's office granted tax-exempt status to the NTCOF as a result of actions taken by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who had previously secured tax-exempt status for the Ethical Society of Austin. This status had been previously denied to the NTCOF and other non-traditional churches because they did not profess "a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power."
Because the NTCOF characterizes itself as a church, it has been the subject of mixed opinion by atheist groups; for example, an attempted donation to American Atheists was once rejected, and Paul Kurtz, founder of the Council for Secular Humanism, discouraged the NTCOF founders when they approached him with their idea.
-------------------------------------------
Aha! Well, you conveniently left out this important tidbit of information. Yes, they WANT to be called a CHURCH because they have a hidden financial agenda - tax exemptions and donations. It's all about being "dishonest" for the bottom dollar - the money! Hell, give ME tax exemptions and donations and I'll call every property I own a church too; and I'll even call my body a temple. LOL.
This obviously explains "why" they insist on being "viewed" as a church even though they don't believe in absolute truth, god, etc.
And of course, as I pointed earlier, you dishonestly took this out of context (thinking that people are too dumb to check this out), in order to promote YOUR agenda about your subjective beliefs, and fallaciously show that atheism is a religion with a church. Your lame attempts are laughable at best.
There is one thing you don't understand: dishonesty is not only a god-given quality to theists and televangelists, but is also an ungodly quality that ALL people can possess - including yourself and atheists like the ones at the NTCOF. Atheists are not exempt from dishonsty as you assumed - they are people like yourself too.
What your dishonest comments have shown is that you are no better than the NTCOF. This is sad, really.
Like I said before: Fundamentalists like the Pentecostals will buy your stuff – go sell it to them. And they will pay you money for it, oh trust me, they pay!
Quark said:
(There are no "atheists. In english "atheist" is defined as: "...one who denies the existence of god.")
No! There is a hidden but important issue that must be realized before accepting the etymological ancient definition of atheism, as is generally done by most who are primarily focused on dictionary root definitions. Such definitions establish theism as the default position; that is, they not only suggest a god exists, but they “mandate” that a god exists. The word was actually first used as an insult against anyone in conflict with the established religion or rule of the land.
The word "atheism" etymologically originated from the ancient Greek word atheos, which among many things, meant "without the gods." But in ancient Greece, atheos did not imply “atheist” from any logical or rational perspective. In ancient Greece to be atheos not only meant to be “without the gods”, but also meant to be "abandoned by the gods", or to have “abandoned the gods”, or “the gods have abandoned you”, or “denies the gods”; with the presumption that such gods EXIST. Back then, even political and social activists we referred to as atheists (even though they believed in the gods), because as part of their punishment, the establishment deemed that they were “abandoned” and “forgotten” by the gods.
Today we would like to think that we have no such rule over our lives as to what we must believe when it comes to gods. This is why atheism is simply a conclusion and a response to theism (the guys making the initial assertion that god exists).
Theists subjectively believe there is a god – they can’t prove it, but believe it in their heart and soul.
Atheists respond by concluding with their objective belief, that there is no god – they can’t prove it, but have many objective arguments to support their position.
Nobody can prove there is no generic “god”. But we can easily prove there are no specific gods by using the evidence provided by their scriptures. This is the reason why theists are very hesitant to define their god. Once defined and positively predicated, a logical and rational argument can easily be devised to prove their god does not exist.
Your assertion that there are no atheists is completely wrong. Yes, many people claiming to be atheists are really not atheists, as they can’t really explain to you what they are, but that’s not the issue.
Atheists will exist as long as theists exist.
Feminists will exist as long as misogynists (male-ists?) exist.
Racists will exist as long as races exist.
....and so on.
alcholic poet says:
18 months ago
The impossibility of a supreme being is disproven by simple common sense. i'm not by any measure a very scientific person and do no wish to debate you on that level. I would surely lose.
however, the very notion of the world being created by a god is illogical given the flaws of everything in the world. A perfect being would create perfect flowers. Perfect animals. Perfect men. A supreme being would not 'create an image in his own likeness' that would mar said likeness. A supreme being would not eternally punish those who were simply mistaken or otherwise misled.
When you get right down to it, a god, as it were, would have no need for the likes of us. So even if it did exist it wouldn't matter. We'd be nothing to it. Cockroaches and ants.
I can't help but laugh at the idea of heaven. Can you say afraid to die?
The notion of a deity was born of primitive people in ancient times. A coping mechanism. Nothing more. We've dismissed the roman and greek gods as mytholoy. I think it has more to do with power and money why the christian myth still persists. Most people believe in what they are taught. Children are religionized at very young ages. Literally brainwashed.
The easiest way there is to prove god doesn't exist is the examine the world.
A loving god wouldn't use pain as a way to keep us alive. A vengeneful god wouldn't tolerate disbelievers. All choices of god being exhausted we are left with nothing.
Atheist is not a religion. It's a hatred for those who would impse their beliefs upon us.