The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Svartalf]

Gode exists... actually, I know a lot of places in france where you can find a multiplicity of godes.

There are also godes explicitly mentioned by name in Norse sagas.

[Seth]

The problem is that if God, being a sentient and powerful entity, does not want to be tested by science, he will arrange things so that science finds nothing and will only reveal himself to the faithful.

God is not a natural phenomenon that can be induced to produce predictable results, if he exists, he's a thinking entity that does not have to react predictably.

So, unless God wants science to find him, science won't do so.

Of course this does not mean that God does not exist, because just because science cannot investigate something does not mean that thing does not exist.

Seems science has something of a conundrum on its hands.

Actually, if it cannot be demonstrated either by the evidence or by logical/mathematical inference, then there is no reason to accept it in the first place.

Do you believe in love?

Science does not advance the theory "god does not exist"

Quite right, legitimate science does not do so, but pseudo-scientific wannabee Atheist religious zealots misusing science make that claim a thousand times a day, and THEY are the one's I'm refuting. Actual scientists, many of whom are deeply religious, find no conflict between nature and God because they understand that God, if God exists, is part of nature and that their scientific investigations may proceed whether or not God does exist because God has given the world to them to investigate using science...something God did not have to do but decided to do by giving humans free will (or so they tell me).

you are advancing the theory that one does, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it, not to just stand it up and say "prove it wrong". You have to prove it right, or the theory can be discarded without further consideration.

Nope. I'm rebutting the specific claim made by Atheists that "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." That's not, as you note, a claim of science, which reasoning I agree with and which is the whole point of my argument. But Atheists like to think, and claim, that they are being "scientific" in their rejection of the existence of God, so what I'm doing here is subjecting THEIR explicit claim to the same sort of rigorous logical and rational evaluation that they demand of theistic arguments.

Counterproductively, all you're saying here is "I can't prove a thing and that means I'm right!"

Indeed.

Evidence doesn't work that way, and you're never going to win a convert (much less an argument) if that's your debate style. It's like if I were to say, "All neutrons are orange!" and then deflect all arguments against it by just saying "You've never seen one, so you don't know!" I'd be dismissed as a crank, and properly so.

But it is not I who is making the claim, you see. I'm not the one who said "there are no gods" or "God does not exist," Atheists are. I'm just applying rigorous logic and reason to that argument, which quite rightly should result in the claimant being dismissed as a crank because whenever I demand, according to their own pseudo-scientific ethos, that they provide critically robust rigorous scientific proofs of the non-existence of God, which is what they demand for claims that God does exist, I'm met with pettifoggery, obfuscation, derails and evasions rather than the simple, logical, rational admission that the claims "there are no gods" and "God does not exist" have exactly as much truth value as any other claim about God: Precisely zero.

And I'm not attempting to convert anyone to anything, I'm just holding you and everyone else to your own standards, and I'm observing the wriggling and evasions that are typical of Atheists when this is done.

So. This, fundamentally, is what you're up against. I put it to you that the idea that the world was created by a god or gods was no more than a primitive attempt to explain the world our ancestors saw around them -- in its way, saying that some god(s) did it was a scientific theory, but only in that it was an attempt to explain events. It wasn't a proper theory in that it did not make testable predictions, and does not conform to physical reality. We have much better observations now, much more comprehensive theories... and not one single shred of concrete, repeatable, incontrovertible evidence that there's any such thing as a divine power of any variety.

Indeed. But that still does not lend one single shred of concrete, repeatable, incontrovertible evidence that there is NOT such a divine power. And THAT is my point.

And even if there were, such evidence would be utterly indistinguishable from that left by an extremely advanced extraterrestrial intelligence -- that is, we could not distinguish between a god and an alien, and given a choice between the two, Occam's Razor points us inevitably to the alien since that is the simpler explanation. It does not require adding anything undetectable to the universe.

Yup, exactly, as I pointed out in detail rather a long time ago.

If you want to have your theory that some sort of divine power exists taken seriously, then you have to find a way to first, demonstrate it, and second, differentiate it from the alien hypothesis. Finding ways to continually excuse the lack of proof is essentially an abandonment of your theory.

I don't have a theory about divine power, which is something you've utterly failed to notice. Don't worry, this is a very typical Atheist misunderstanding. Atheists, you see, cannot conceive of the notion that there might actually be a person who is not a theistic believer who is willing to argue the question of the existence of God with them from a position of philosophical opposition to the classic Atheist claim "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." They typically assume that if someone doesn't agree with them that the notion of God is nonsense and bunkum that the individual must inevitably be a theist trying to convert them to belief in God.

It's unremarkable how dense Atheists can be in this regard however, and it's just another proof that Atheism is a religion with it's own belief/practice set and irreducible dogmas that the faithful cling to every bit as much as the most zealous of evangelical theists.

Let me be once again perfectly crystal clear: I do not believe in God or gods. I'm not a closet theist or Catholic. I just choose to challenge the irrationality, unreason and illogic of religiously zealous Atheist believers when they spout nonsense and try to cloak it in the "Scientific Method." That position requires me to have a good deal of knowledge about religion and philosophy, but the sign of a superior intellect is the ability to entertain a thought without believing in it.

After all, it may well not be possible to prove a negative -- but it is entirely possible to fail to prove a positive.

Let me know when you prove the positive assertion that "there are no gods" or that "God does not exist." Until then, my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.

Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."

That would be a true and unassailable claim, but it's the one claim that is virtually never made. Atheistic religious belief is always couched in the positive assertion "There are no gods" and "God does not exist." We can see it on Atheist billboards these days, and it makes Atheists look like idiots when they do so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Strawman much?

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

God does not use Multi Quotes (Borrrrrrring!).....therefore Seth is not God.

FACT.

[HomerJay]

:tsdr: *







too seth; didn't read.

[Blind groper]

my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.

Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."

I get the very strong impression, Seth, that you generalise too much about atheists. There is no such thing as a typical atheist belief, or a typical atheist argument. The thing that united non believers, whether atheist, agnostic, or merely apathetic, is a lack of belief in deity. Within that lack of belief, there is an enormous range of ideas. So to launch an attack on atheist ideas, as if they were all the same, is a fallacy.

[Woodbutcher]

my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.

Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."

I get the very strong impression, Seth, that you generalise too much about atheists. There is no such thing as a typical atheist belief, or a typical atheist argument. The thing that united non believers, whether atheist, agnostic, or merely apathetic, is a lack of belief in deity. Within that lack of belief, there is an enormous range of ideas. So to launch an attack on atheist ideas, as if they were all the same, is a fallacy.

Oh fuck, now you opened up a can of Seth! His assertion is that atheism is a belief...In his intro he admitted to being a Trollerist!

[mistermack]

But what they will tell you is that if you have faith, the proofs will be given to you that your faith is valid. Knock and the door will be opened. Seek and ye shall find. But you have to seek with an xxxhonestxxxx fucking gullible heart and in faith, not with skepticism and an agenda to disprove the divine.

Glaring error corrected !!!

[Svartalf]

Interesting point...

Back in the time when I hadn't entirely rejected chretinity, I was proselityzed by mmormons. They gave me a copy of their book, and asked me to read it and pray for god to tell me if it wasn't true... I did. and of course the "answer" I received was that this was one of the worst and most blatant religious forgeries in the history of the christian faith, since the times when they had enough "relics of the true cross" to reconstitute a fair sized forest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Interesting point...

Back in the time when I hadn't entirely rejected chretinity, I was proselityzed by mmormons. They gave me a copy of their book, and asked me to read it and pray for god to tell me if it wasn't true... I did. and of course the "answer" I received was that this was one of the worst and most blatant religious forgeries in the history of the christian faith, since the times when they had enough "relics of the true cross" to reconstitute a fair sized forest.

Circularity fail!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Svartalf]

You don't expect believers to encourage a rational and non partisan approach to conversion do you?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't expect believers to encourage a rational and non partisan approach to conversion do you?

They wouldn't be believers if they did.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I get the very strong impression, Seth, that you generalise too much about atheists. There is no such thing as a typical atheist belief, or a typical atheist argument. The thing that united non believers, whether atheist, agnostic, or merely apathetic, is a lack of belief in deity. Within that lack of belief, there is an enormous range of ideas. So to launch an attack on atheist ideas, as if they were all the same, is a fallacy.

Seth is about as religous as my Bumhole. He just seems to think that he is intellectualising Atheism by playing the Devil's Advocate.

Whereas in fact he is just bringing boredom to a higher level - a level that even the Pope struggles to acheive, whilst mumbling in Latin for 12 hours

[Seth]

my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.

Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."

I get the very strong impression, Seth, that you generalise too much about atheists.

Really? Who, me? Generalize? Paint with a broad brush? Characterize all Atheists in the same insulting way? Disparage them openly and broadly without any consideration for their individual characters and beliefs? Say insulting things about them as a unified group without the least bit of regard for individual differences? Accuse them of being stupid, gullible, ignorant, biased, bigoted and irrational as a whole without acknowledging or recognizing that they are individuals who, despite holding beliefs I might not share, could be perfectly nice people who never buggered a child or hurt anyone?

Now why on earth would I do such a thing to poor, benighted and oppressed Atheists do you suppose?

Think about it for about five seconds and see if you can figure out why I might choose to sauce the gander.

There is no such thing as a typical atheist belief, or a typical atheist argument.

Oh but there is, and it's so very obvious and predictable and commonplace that atheism is now properly defined as a religion and those who believe in the doctrines and dogmas of the Atheist religion are themselves big-A Atheist religious zealots and intolerant bigots who are every bit as mindlessly hateful as the bigoted religious zealots they oppose.

The thing that united non believers, whether atheist, agnostic, or merely apathetic, is a lack of belief in deity. Within that lack of belief, there is an enormous range of ideas. So to launch an attack on atheist ideas, as if they were all the same, is a fallacy.

The thing that unites religious Atheist zealot bigots is mindless hatred of religion and anything or anyone associated with religion, which is pretty funny, given the fact that Atheists themselves demonstrate most of the very worst traits of the other religious zealots that they rant and rave about endlessly. Atheism is so obviously a religion that even one of the Atheist elite attending the world Atheist conference in Australia admitted that Atheism has taken on the character of a religion.

You can deny it all you like, but the core of fanatically religious Atheism is it's virulent and mindless antipathy and intolerance towards other religions and people of theistic faith, and there has grown up around this bigoted dogma an entire industry and world-wide church of radically fanatic Atheism. That there are many sects of this religion is not in the least unusual nor does it change the obvious truth that Atheism has become what it purports to despise.

[Seth]

my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.

Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."

I get the very strong impression, Seth, that you generalise too much about atheists. There is no such thing as a typical atheist belief, or a typical atheist argument. The thing that united non believers, whether atheist, agnostic, or merely apathetic, is a lack of belief in deity. Within that lack of belief, there is an enormous range of ideas. So to launch an attack on atheist ideas, as if they were all the same, is a fallacy.

Oh fuck, now you opened up a can of Seth! His assertion is that atheism is a belief...

It's not an assertion, it's an observable fact.