All Bronze Age mythology does to my knowledge, but these days, I would imagine that the majority of Christians do not hold the Bible to be an accurate account of creation.
Disprove god!
- Thread starter Ondskan
- Start date
All Bronze Age mythology does to my knowledge, but these days, I would imagine that the majority of Christians do not hold the Bible to be an accurate account of creation.
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
I suppose so. But if this is not to be taken literally, why should any of it be? We can simply dismiss the story of Jesus as a fictional character who serves as a model for the ordinary Christian (or anyone, for that matter). If you would like to really dig deep with the metaphors, we can take God as not a real being but instead just a reminder to do the right thing. Such outlooks come back to bite the user in said way.
PS: Please disregard the Weird Al stuff, I'm trying to be as serious as possible right now
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It is true that scientific peer reviews can also be just a lot of words on a page, that sound intelligent. I am not even knocking science. Historians and scientist a like use words to convey thoughts. Even observable "facts" can be distorted. It is still in each person brain, that thoughts are accepted and rejected. IMO it seems sorta strange that even scientist who did not observe any thing that happened over 2000 years ago, still claim predictively what happened. This has been accepted as fact. Yet when people claim to record facts within generations of it happening, 2000 years later it is explained away by people who were not even there, but think they have a clear look into the minds of those who recorded such experiences.
Once again, I am not doing away with how people today think they know what happened thousands of years ago. Each person has to accept in their own mind what they want to accept. IMO though, both the scientific method and the historical method are on equal footing and neither have the upper hand.
Sure you could. But why do you require this sort of consistency? Not to mention that certain aspects of the Bible are more central to Christianity than others. You can disbelieve Genesis and still be a Christian. You can't disbelieve that God or Jesus exist and still be a Christian.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
For many the Bible is merely a guidebook to understand Jesus' teachings, which are the core values of Christianity. In what time and matter the Earth and all it's occupants were created don't have to be important.
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
Yes, that is true. But my point is, if Genesis is false, proven so by fact, and is not to be taken literally, why should we simply believe that the rest of it is not?
This is also true. The problem with this, however, is that too many people say they believe Jesus' teachings to be good, but don't follow them themselves. An example would be how Jesus gave all of the starving food and healed the sick, while Christian politicians do the complete opposite.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Before we get bogged down about the word "believe" I'll take it you meant: "assume". Not that you couldn't use the word there, but lets say I've been here before
Now, about your question. I think you've mentioned earlier that you're an atheist, which probably means you haven't discovered any evidence that the extra-ordinary claims made by Christianity are true. And sure enough, there is no scientific evidence to suggest it is. Faith in the Bible as a support of Jesus' teachings however is a personal conviction often based on personal motivations. So why would anyone believe that passages in the Bible are true? Because of a conviction they are. This conviction doesn't require any evidence or proof which can be conveyed to someone else. It requires faith based on a spiritual certainty.
Now the odd thing is that this spiritual certainty is very hard to define. It's made out of emotion driven motivators. It's like trying to phrase a scientific formula for love (which I think has been done using some sort of logical syntax, but for mere simple human beings as ourselves it's a very hard thing to define) Makes you wonder why some believers are really set on having that materialistic definition and scientific approach to prove any of it. It's like me wanting to specify my feelings for a loved one in the most unsatisfying manner possible ("look honey, I did some calculations ... "). But that's another matter
Bottomline: Why should we simply believe that the rest of it is not? We shouldn't. But if you feel it is, you could.
Well, there's also a couple of nuances to that. I agree that there are many who say they follow Jesus' teachings and are aware they're merely uttering the words without actually having the intent. And there are those who have the intent but fail to reach the standards set by Jesus because of human limitations.
The second group is many times smaller than the first. The same goes for lack of introspection. Always the focus on the sinful behaviour of others, almost never the focus on yourself. This also is one of Jesus' teachings. They're usually pretty damn tough, because most of them have to deal with our most basic and strongest urges. How come people are able to rationalise their greed away in spite of the unability of even-toed ungulates to travel through holes in sewing utilities? The message of the camel and the eye of the needle seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? Well, no you see, Eye of the Needle was a gate in Jerusalem. No you see, it's ok to be rich, as long as you share some of it. No you see, Jesus said it was hard, not impossible.
Having to deal with our primal urges which cripple us and having the strength to face them and defeat them is the message. And it's bloody tough to do so. So I understand the excuses. I'd be making the same ones had I been Christian. I'm only human as well.
Why shouldn't we?
That Newton was an alchemist doesn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics.
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
Certainly, but his theories were tested and proven; I just mean to look with a questioning eye, that's all. And nice explanation, Ziggy, but don't assume I have thoroughly read the bible; I read Genesis and couldn't handle another page of "When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. And after Kenan had Mahalalel, he lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters.." And so on, and so on...
Yeah, sure (and it's really weird that I'm defending the Bible of all people). It's just, when criticizing Newtonian mechanics, we shouldn't look at what Newton did with alchemy. Similarly, criticize the Christian concept of God all you like, but the validity of Genesis really doesn't have that much bearing on it (actually if I had to, using Genesis as a source would rather help me to argue that God is kind of a dick).
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
What, killing everyone who you don't like is bad?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
From your link and for Ondskan's reading pleasure:
Epistemologically speaking, burden of proof is always incumbent on the person who makes a claim, irrespective of the nature of that claim. But some claims are easier to prove than others. Weak claims have narrow scope, are more easily proved, and generally are not controversial.
Belief atheists like me make weak claims. I do not say that "there is no God". I say that "I believe that there is no God". The claim is about my belief. The only way my statement can be false is if it can be shown that I don't actually hold that belief, and since I'm ultimately the only one who really knows whether that's what I actually believe, it is very difficult for anyone else to disprove my claim. And if I really do hold that belief, my statement would be true even if it turned out there was a God.
The claim, "I believe in X" is a claim about the existence of a belief. If I actually do believe X, then that statement is true; I'm telling the truth about what I believe. If I don't actually believe X, the statement is false; I'm lying about what I believe. But that has nothing whatever to do with whether X itself is true or false. If I say, "I believe that pigs have wings", then if I really am deluded in that way, the statement would be true despite the fact that pigs do not have wings. (Yet. Wait until the genetic engineers get going.)
My statement that "I believe there are no gods" is a weak statement, and part of why it is uncontroversial is that even if my statement is a fact, it doesn't have logical consequences for anyone else's religious belief. It's a claim about me, not a claim about the universe.
It is true that I believe there is no God. My statement is a fact. But that fact doesn't disprove Christiantity; all it proves is that I am not a Christian.
If a Christian says, "I believe Jesus is the Son of God", then he speaks truly if he really does hold that belief. That is also a weak claim only about him. If the Christian really does hold that belief, an atheist must accept his statement as being true even though an atheist doesn't grant the existence of God. But an atheist also need not find that fact troubling. Even though it is a fact, it doesn't disprove atheism. All it proves is that the particular Christian isn't an atheist.
Some atheists like RA do nonetheless seem to find such facts troubling. Others like me do not.
If a Christian says, "It is a fact that Jesus is the Son of God" then he has made a strong claim, one which applies to the universe. If his statement is true, then atheism is wrong. But it is the Christian who is making the claim, and therefore the Christian assumes the burden of proof for that claim. If the claim is true it's a real problem for atheists, but atheists are entitled to ignore that Christian and his claim until and unless he actually does come up with unambiguous proof. We do not have to take his claim seriously until he satisfies the burden of proof.
And when a proof atheist says, "it is a fact that there are no Gods", then he too has made a strong claim about the universe. That is what the Raving Atheist does claim. And because he is the one making a claim, burden of proof is on him. If the claim is true, it's a problem for Christians. But until he satisfies the burden of proof, Christians may ignore him and go about their business.
He isn't permitted to say that Christians (or other theists, but it's Christians who are RA's target) must prove that God exists, and if they cannot then they have to grant that his strong claim is true. That's an example of a fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". He is the one who is making a claim, so he is the one who must provide proof if he wants his claim taken seriously.
The difficulty for proof atheists is that it's damned hard to prove a negative, especially one as expansive as this. The reductio ad absurdum is pretty much the only way to do it. If it can be shown that every conceivable religion based on every conceivable deity or pantheon of deities either will be required to claim something which can be demonstrated to be empirically false, or will be required to claim something which is logically impossible, then it means there cannot be any Gods. That's the burden on the proof atheist. If he wants his claim accepted as fact, that's what he has to demonstrate. But that's damned hard because he has to get them all. It has to be complete. If he only shows that some religions embody contradiction or empirical falsehood, it isn't enough. It isn't enough to prove that all existing religions are wrong. He also has to prove that any conceivable religion which does not now exist also is wrong.
On the other hand, if it can be shown that there is one hypothetical religion which does not lead to logical contradiction, and which cannot be demonstrated false empirically, then that is sufficient to demonstrate that the proof atheist cannot be complete. That means that the resort to reductio ad absurdum fails and does not prove the strong claim.
My contention is that the Theory of Fred as described below is such a counterexample. It is not possible to show that the Theory of Fred is false. Therefore I contend that I have proved that it is not possible to use reductio ad absurdum to prove the strong claim that there are no deities. And I don't know any other way that a proof atheist could prove that no Gods exist.
Unless proof atheists come up with some way to prove their strong claim, and then proceed to actually prove it that way, everyone else is entitled to ignore their strong claim.
Epistemologically speaking, burden of proof is always incumbent on the person who makes a claim, irrespective of the nature of that claim. But some claims are easier to prove than others. Weak claims have narrow scope, are more easily proved, and generally are not controversial.
Belief atheists like me make weak claims. I do not say that "there is no God". I say that "I believe that there is no God". The claim is about my belief. The only way my statement can be false is if it can be shown that I don't actually hold that belief, and since I'm ultimately the only one who really knows whether that's what I actually believe, it is very difficult for anyone else to disprove my claim. And if I really do hold that belief, my statement would be true even if it turned out there was a God.
The claim, "I believe in X" is a claim about the existence of a belief. If I actually do believe X, then that statement is true; I'm telling the truth about what I believe. If I don't actually believe X, the statement is false; I'm lying about what I believe. But that has nothing whatever to do with whether X itself is true or false. If I say, "I believe that pigs have wings", then if I really am deluded in that way, the statement would be true despite the fact that pigs do not have wings. (Yet. Wait until the genetic engineers get going.)
My statement that "I believe there are no gods" is a weak statement, and part of why it is uncontroversial is that even if my statement is a fact, it doesn't have logical consequences for anyone else's religious belief. It's a claim about me, not a claim about the universe.
It is true that I believe there is no God. My statement is a fact. But that fact doesn't disprove Christiantity; all it proves is that I am not a Christian.
If a Christian says, "I believe Jesus is the Son of God", then he speaks truly if he really does hold that belief. That is also a weak claim only about him. If the Christian really does hold that belief, an atheist must accept his statement as being true even though an atheist doesn't grant the existence of God. But an atheist also need not find that fact troubling. Even though it is a fact, it doesn't disprove atheism. All it proves is that the particular Christian isn't an atheist.
Some atheists like RA do nonetheless seem to find such facts troubling. Others like me do not.
If a Christian says, "It is a fact that Jesus is the Son of God" then he has made a strong claim, one which applies to the universe. If his statement is true, then atheism is wrong. But it is the Christian who is making the claim, and therefore the Christian assumes the burden of proof for that claim. If the claim is true it's a real problem for atheists, but atheists are entitled to ignore that Christian and his claim until and unless he actually does come up with unambiguous proof. We do not have to take his claim seriously until he satisfies the burden of proof.
And when a proof atheist says, "it is a fact that there are no Gods", then he too has made a strong claim about the universe. That is what the Raving Atheist does claim. And because he is the one making a claim, burden of proof is on him. If the claim is true, it's a problem for Christians. But until he satisfies the burden of proof, Christians may ignore him and go about their business.
He isn't permitted to say that Christians (or other theists, but it's Christians who are RA's target) must prove that God exists, and if they cannot then they have to grant that his strong claim is true. That's an example of a fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". He is the one who is making a claim, so he is the one who must provide proof if he wants his claim taken seriously.
The difficulty for proof atheists is that it's damned hard to prove a negative, especially one as expansive as this. The reductio ad absurdum is pretty much the only way to do it. If it can be shown that every conceivable religion based on every conceivable deity or pantheon of deities either will be required to claim something which can be demonstrated to be empirically false, or will be required to claim something which is logically impossible, then it means there cannot be any Gods. That's the burden on the proof atheist. If he wants his claim accepted as fact, that's what he has to demonstrate. But that's damned hard because he has to get them all. It has to be complete. If he only shows that some religions embody contradiction or empirical falsehood, it isn't enough. It isn't enough to prove that all existing religions are wrong. He also has to prove that any conceivable religion which does not now exist also is wrong.
On the other hand, if it can be shown that there is one hypothetical religion which does not lead to logical contradiction, and which cannot be demonstrated false empirically, then that is sufficient to demonstrate that the proof atheist cannot be complete. That means that the resort to reductio ad absurdum fails and does not prove the strong claim.
My contention is that the Theory of Fred as described below is such a counterexample. It is not possible to show that the Theory of Fred is false. Therefore I contend that I have proved that it is not possible to use reductio ad absurdum to prove the strong claim that there are no deities. And I don't know any other way that a proof atheist could prove that no Gods exist.
Unless proof atheists come up with some way to prove their strong claim, and then proceed to actually prove it that way, everyone else is entitled to ignore their strong claim.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You can only really disprove falsifiable claims.
The idea of God is generally not falsifiable, so it's impossible to disprove in any sort of meaningful way.
The idea of God is generally not falsifiable, so it's impossible to disprove in any sort of meaningful way.
Quite so. Lets just take the first paragraph:
Or maybe becouse there are infinite number of possibilities?...
Why would any of this be thrue? I mean if Fred has power to start something why He wouldnt continue it? Who says thats Freds Creation is finished product? By what Force this Creation continues and sustains itself if Fred is the only Source of this Creation. It actualy implies the contrary.
By soul is meant something immortal. If Fred is immortal and only Reality and if the Creation is started by Fred. Then it must be part of that Fred-Reality and in some way it shares his immortality aspect.
