Does anyone have a strong argument against God?

[SeddyRocky]

A great flood myth is not unique to Christianity, but is actually a part of many native religions (I believe Shintoism has a nice story on the subject). If you want to pull straws from the Biblical scenario, try having all the animals fitting into the ark, which has fairly specific measurements if I recall correctly. And compare to the Christian viewpoint of that God created all life (aka, no evolution so species we know exist and that exists today must have been on the Arc) the math doesn't add up.  Then again, maybe God made it larger or stretched it's dimensions somehow...

But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).

I can actually kindof understand that. From your viewpoint, it is probably something of the metaphorical kind similar to seeing people intentionally hurting themselves or rejecting good things. It would be the spiritual simile to having a winning lottery ticket and tossing it into the fire. Now the fact that you'd actually care about people turning away from God, and not in a "You pray or you burn in the fiery depths of HELL!" kind of way, speaks for you embracing fairly good moral values from your standpoint.

Now from my perspective, I could see people turning away from sanity and wasting their lives trying to please a cosmic teddybear. That's not actually my view, but if you google cosmic teddybear you'll find a recognizable name. But I do see religion as something that has given many people comfort and something which I believe fills a void in many peoples lives. But I also see religion as something causing murder, child abuse (spare the cane, spoil the child anyone?), authoritarian rule (not just on a national level) and many other things this world could do well without in my opinion.

Edit: I didn't supply links related to the flood as I assumed that people knew that there are scientific claims for that there was one. Not that it happened like in the Bible though. BP also supplied backup so... Goodnight ^^

[funplay]

I decided to make a new one...the other one is already long enough^^

@Polka: And actually i have sth. to write too...quite urgently actually.  i completely agree that i should have finished that before coming here...

But i will start with BP first:

Imo, the word "believe" already disqualifies for any kind of discussion on a scientific level about the existence of god...

1) Belief is always subjective (as BP pointed out really well in his first post here, imo). Faith does not need any proof, as you cant prove the spiritual.

2) Whereas science values objectiveness above all. Subjective perceptions are not accepted as objective enough.

Just an fyi....
Whenever I see theory from a scientific standpoint, I dont see it as any more than a belief. My beliefs are collections of things I have experienced first hand. Have also looked into, and looked at from many different angles. The Facts are one thing, but I dont buy the bullcrap of a theory being higher than a fact. It is a collection of facts, but an assumption is made from that collection. Assumptions may or may not be true. And they certainly arent higher than a fact.

If I say 1,2,3 what do you think comes next? 4 is what 99% of people will say. What if I told you 5 comes next though? You see 1,2,3 and assume I am counting based on the fact that I said 3 successive numbers, however, in reality, I am adding. 1,2,3,5,8,13 ect I know that is just using 1 fact, and not a collection of facts, but its just meant to illustrate my point.

Just take a look at Poppers theories below. Though i reduced it to a very simple concept (not sure though if i translated them right^^), it might help to agree on the concept of scientific theories...i think we both agree that a theory without any kind of confirmation, can simply be dropped as useless.

The problem of personal experiences as a fact, is, that its personal...not to be validated by objective (meaning measurable) means.

In my sociology and psychology classes both put much emphasis on proving that they are actual sciences with reliable data...but they still have a much harder time proving their theories as nature science, imo.

And i might clear one possible misconception: I dont want to claim that scientific theories are superior to belief, but simply they are different!

Concerning your link to the disagreement on Radiometric dating: Its late here and i just read through the articles once...while i have absolutely no problem with admitting that suggesting a radiometric dating isnt foolproof, i do have a problem with the argumentation of that article in three ways:

1) I really wonder if this argumentation about different results of radiometric dating could be used consistently? From what i have in that article, there is the Grand Canyon where some samples cause different results with different methods...what about the other thousands of datings where the results where fitting?

2) The article attacks the assumptions of radiometric dating.
a) The concentration of potassium was different in the past, so reference charts might off. -> Sure, that could be. But as radioactive decays are exponential, even some major differences would change the results even close to the bible
b) you are aware that attacking assumption 2: the speed of radioactive decay has changed would mean that the laws of physics had changed during the last...whatsoever years? Afaik, giving the choice to to assume natures laws changed a lot and accepting the assumption that these rocks are actually that old...you know what i choose
3) You might have seen this one coming: again, the article denies the scientific results and offering only one alternative: the bible. see above and below for my opnion about this method of offering evidence.


So now for Polka...take your time answering, i will off...need to hit the sack and will try to avoid looking here before i have finshed my thesis

I just made a small collection:

The Bible does not say how old the earth is, it merely says that creation took six days.

Our interactions and social customs /demand/ our morality, and thus the creation of moral law.

I am not the one who decided why one God, it just is.

...when I myself didn’t have any evidence for his existence.

What evidence have you of evolutions existance?

I, personally, have never felt the instinct to preserve "the species", have you?

What evidence that the earth is Billions of years old? I have seen none.

It might be a good restart of this discussion, if we could agree on the meaning of “evidence” and “proof”. Cause right, were runinng in circles...you demand evidence by the others, they demand you giving evidence...and so on.

One of the main problems here is imho, that both parties here have apparently different conception of evidence, proof and truth...or rather the source of them.

@Polka: I just picked out some of words. Please correct me if im wrong, but i came to the conclusion that your own experiences, the logic you use and the bible are major sources of evidence?

Whereas I (and probably quite some people around here) wont accept the bible and personal experiences as reliable sources of evidence. I believe in the “truth” of science. There is evidence/proof if something can be tested/evaluated on are repeatedly large scale. 

But as you wont accept our “data” as you havent seen/experienced it...hard to agree on sth.??

Truth does not come in shades of gray. Either something is true or it is not.

I disagree and this conception of truth of yours might be another reason why were casting glass beads at each other (i really like that metaphor) 

Imho, History of science has plenty of examples, were man thought the knew the truth about something...e.g. the earth being the center of the universe with the sun circling the earth. Or early chemist being convinced that the elements contained “phlogiston” (the fire essence) leaves elements when burned...it took centuries of discussion and research, but in the end the former “truth” had been proven WRONG!

I think it was Popper at the beginning 20th century, who choose a good path for “truth” in science...he claimed that a scientific therory is true, as long not proven wrong (well, much more sophisticated...but thats the bottom line, iirc).

Furthermore, a thing could only be called a “theory” if:
a)   there was some reference point to it
b)   there was a reproducable method to explore and support the theory by experiments
c)   if there was a way to disprove the theory

Unfortunately, most of your arguments dont follow these set of rules. Theres nothing wrong with that...but we simply argue on based on different...hmmm...late, cant find the word for it^^

E.g. you claim that sth. simply is like you said (like “God just is”) -> fails rule C...as belief will alway do...

If it's my job to explain why God exists and atheists shouldn't have to explain why he doesn't, then certainly it's your job to explain why natural selection exists and why it's not my job to explain why it doesn't (though I believe I could do it).

Or ask people stuff like: prove WHY there is evolution -> why doesnt matter, Evolution fits all three rules

Concerning ID vs. Evolution: I will happily read all your “evidence” concerning ID. Ill enjoy that, honestly.

Please keep in mind: Your evidence should

a)   have a method to explore the validity of ID: so how do you actually prove that its right?
b)   Have a way that it can be proven wrong.

I am really curious about b) though, as I am strongly convinced that ID is NOT a scientific theory, as it just cant be disaproved, which puts it into the realm of belief.

Again, some clarification: I dont have a problem with ID itself...as I mentioned at the beginning, i cant prove the there is no god. It just have MAJOR problems with ID claiming to be scientific. Cause it isnt.

I just searched my PC for a nice conciliative position of an preacher, i wanted to discuss in one of my classes...but i cant find it anymore I think he suggested that there is no problem with god vs. evolution, if one accepted the idea that god created evolution... maybe even without influencing it

I didn't ask if you wonder what made the grass green and the sky blue, I asked if you wonder why it was that way. Do you sit around and think: "why does chlorophyll make grass green instead of purple? I don't think that you do, but my point is that nothing would come of the activity.

Sure, I do! And of course some knowledge comes from it. Sry, cant resist:
Fyi: As green is the color cause the ability of chlorophyll to absorb light on the edges of the visible spectrum (absorbtion peaks at about 400 and 650 nm). The absorb energy is used to to power the fotosynthesis...as light at the lower area of wavelengths (ultraviolett, 400nm and lower) contains more energy then higher wavelengths, absorbing low wavelengths results i quite a high energy gain for the plant.

If the grass was purple that would mean it could absorb light from the green and red area (around 500 nm and above)...but these wavelength contain fewer energy, so the plant would not be able to produce that much glucose as if it was green...to go one step further: there probably were some purple mutations during that millions of evolution. But as they were less well adapted as their green “cousins” they have been ousted...actually there are some strains of cyanobacteria that come close to your random choice of “purple”...but they fill different ecological niches, so then they are the “winners” as they are better adapted to the environment

[BluePriest]

You pointed out the whole reason I dont count in your own post. Even though they are a collection of facts, they can be proven wrong. Especially if its something we want to be true. Earth being the center of the world is something that sounded good, so people took it. I relate this to evolution. It sounds good,

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I believe this is the REAL driving force behind evolution, and is one of the reasons I take it with a grain of salt. Why do I believe this? Because every time I say that I dont believe in evolution, no matter the forum, I am told that I must be a creationist, or at the very least, religious. Perhaps, if when I point out things with evolution, this wasnt how I was responded to, then I would have less of a problem accepting it as a good theory. Right now, seems more like a joke though.

[QuantumT]

Since Polka Tulk is getting fatigued, I suppose Ill jump in on the responses.

I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?

*cough* Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp) *Cough*

By far the prevailing opinion is that the Coconino sandstone was formed under desert conditions, not by some flood.

But here's the bigger question. Where did all the water come from? And where did it go?

Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/radiometric-dating)

I recommend you read an unbiased, intelligent view of radiometric dating, instead of one that admits that it's biased. I mean it says

Since the Bible is clear about the earth’s age of thousands of years, the popular assumptions are wrong.

i.e. I don't want it to be true, therefore it's wrong!

If you really want, there are scientific reasons why it's false, but if the above is the kind of argument that you're going to use, then all the proof in the world won't change anything.

I'm sorry, I honestly thought it was a kind of joke.

So you take offense to people calling your beliefs a joke, but you have no qualms about doing it do others?

Maybe so, but this moral law instinct seems very complex and intelligent for an instinct.

I'm not sure if the core, shared values are really all that complex. I think that most of the complexity comes from what we're taught and isn't really built in. The ideas like don't murder, don't steal, and don't lie are really pretty simple.

Sorry, the linked page isn't avaliable.

Fixed evolution link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.htm)

According to the Bible, all the water came from rain and the animals survived because they were brought onto Noah's ark.

But where did enough water come from to have enough rain to flood the planet?

Have you ever studied the water cycle? The idea is that water isn't created or destroyed, just moved around.

Radiometric dating can be used to determine the ages of meteorites that have struck the earth. From this, the age of the earth can be determined.

Yes, but from what I understand the process seems rather circular. How do we know this dating method is true?

Radioactive decay can be shown to progress in a decaying exponential (quantum mechanics also separately predicts this) fashion. Minerals can also be shown to form with distinct proportions of different elements in them. From this, you get radiometric dating.

Sorry, I should have left out the word metaphorical. What I meant was that from the Biblical discription; the days described do not seem to be 24 hour type periods.

The point remains. You've decided that the bible is using a word in a way that's different than it's literal meaning (ie metaphorically).

Here is a list. Some examples:

-Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

-Jesus descended from which son of David?
 Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
 Nathan(Luke 3:31)

I don't quite see it saying that Jesus descended from Solomon in one passage and Nathan in another. They are just geneologies (excuse my spelling). Also, I don't see a contradiction in the first two verses, partly because I can't understand what they're saying. Could you find a different translation, the different ones I looked at had no contradicions.

Fixed contradictions link (http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm)

Matthew 1:16 clearly states that Jacob is Joseph's father. Luke 3:23 says equally clearly that Heli is Joseph's father. They can't both be right.

Oh. Well, as I said before, I find Christianity to have the best expalinations. About the multiple Gods, I can't think of many religions that do have multiple Gods, but my personal belief is such because just as you see no evidecne for any God, I see no evidence for many gods, while at the same time I do see evidence for one God.

Hinduism is the third most popular religion in the world.

Yes, and the answers are chlorophyll and refraction respectively.

I didn't ask if you wonder what made the grass green and the sky blue, I asked if you wonder why it was that way. Do you sit around and think: "why does chlorophyll make grass green instead of purple? I don't think that you do, but my point is that nothing would come of the activity.

Maybe I'm just odd like this, but I wonder about that kind of thing. Chlorophyll is green as opposed to purple because that choice allows it to absorb energy more efficiently.

This kind of thinking is also very useful in applications like engineering. Trying to figure out exactly how and why plants work is a big area of study for people interested in solar cells.

Claiming the universe requires a cause, claiming that cause is god, then saying that god doesn't require a cause is special pleading, pure and simple.

Maybe so, but do you think it would make sense if there was just and endless chain of causes and no beginning? I believe God is the beginning.

Why not just call the universe the beginning?

Most people don't really have a good understanding of statistics. The thing is, even though some things are unlikely, they are bound to occur to somebody. That one person thinks it's a miracle, and nobody else notices because nothing odd happened to them.

Let's say I give you a coin and tell you to flip 10 heads in a row. You pray to god, and you succeed. You think it's a miracle, but I asked the same question of 1023 other people who all failed and thought nothing of it.

I see what you mean, but that still doesn't mean that it was indeed a coincidence and that it could not have been a miracle.

If it occurs at  the rate that statistics says it should, it is a coincidence.

Why can't new writers add new books to the bible?

I'm sure some have, they just haven't been addedd to the... official(?) Bible. Have you ever seen an author write a series of books, publish them, and then seen some other random guy come and write more books to the series that were accepted, published, and endorsed by fans?

You mean like the bible?

I'm really very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I definitely didn't mean to be smug, but I could understand how it might come out that way. But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).

To be honest, that really isn't any better. I'll show you what I mean.

But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject intelligence. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with intelligence and they reject me.

I think I'm probably done with the point-counterpoint discussion for now. I'd really prefer to just talk about the ideas one at a time, instead of in a huge mess like this.

WOOT!! 1000th post!

[Kael Hate]

I think its funny, that you are arguing books and science and you can't actually proove that time is constant or yesterday even existed.

God or no God, you, being human are limited by perception to such an extent that you can only assume. If I strike your head and you suffer amnesia and I give you a perception of what occured, do you know that that actually occured or not?

The point is there is no need to argue against God or for God because it doesn't matter.

If all the men of the world came together and tried to build a tower to heaven and God denied them all by giving them different languages then he must have a reason or powers of notion. If it became that so many people developed so many variations during misinterpretation of communication and thats why everyone speaks different languages then that is plausible to. It might even be that God created the second event or the second event was misattributed to god. But all that matters none so ever because currently at this moment of perception humans have a range of different languages.


Until any of you become omnicient. I'll consider all you notions to be both plausible and implausible.


btw, I'm agnostic.

[funplay]

You pointed out the whole reason I dont count in your own post.

I assume you meant my post?...Im sorry, but i understand "i dont count in your own post"...could please explain that in other words?

Even though they are a collection of facts, they can be proven wrong.

For me, thats the way of life. I might be wrong, but i have the feeling that you dont agree on the idea that most knowlegde might be proven wrong or faulty at some time?

Especially if its something we want to be true. Earth being the center of the world is something that sounded good, so people took it. I relate this to evolution. It sounds good.

I assume you are aware of the initial reactions on Darwin?
When Darwin first published his theories, i shook the foundation of society. There were A LOT of people quite qutraged, how Darwin could even dare to suggest that men derived from apes. It took centuries of careful studies and some refinement of Darwins initial theories.

Lets take a look at the alternatives:

My own knowlegde of Christianity is limited to some years of religiuos classes in school, some additional classes to prepare for confirmation and having read the bible once...but this is what i took out of it, if you take christian belief and the bible quite literal...:

A) Man was created by God. Man is meant to be most important spezies on earth and i will always stay this way. Everything in life has purpose (known to god).

This set up looks quite comforting and appealing to me. Life has a purpose. The natural order was meant to be the way as it is.

B) Mankind is the result of random process (that followed certain mechanics). The existence of mankind and its conscience doesnt mean that there HAS to be God. Life has no given deeper meaning then reprocucing and surviving, as man are nothing more then highly developed animals.

This raises much more troubles with personal identity then A does. You have to find your own purpose of Life. It somehow "degrades" man on the same level of animals.

So, imo, the Theory of Evolution is really something that you believe in cause it sounds good...

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I believe this is the REAL driving force behind evolution, and is one of the reasons I take it with a grain of salt.

I really have to read Dawkins sometime...For me that implies, that science in general and the theory of evolution specificly has the intention of achieving sth.. I dont percieve it in this way.

Why do I believe this? Because every time I say that I dont believe in evolution, no matter the forum, I am told that I must be a creationist, or at the very least, religious.

Some more implications i sense here. You do feel offended by somebody telling you this? I, too, had the impression that you are at least leaning towards the ideas of creationism (looking at the links you provided e.g.) and that you are religious. If im right, it looks like you belong to a minority, which is always difficult...I think, belonging to a minority is always not easy, cause you can easily get the feeling that people are almost mobbing you, because most people will argue against you just because they are the majority (like Polka mentioned that this 15 vs. one is becoming tiring).

Dont know if this helps, but im really happy that you are here and sharing your beliefs with us.

Perhaps, if when I point out things with evolution, this wasnt how I was responded to, then I would have less of a problem accepting it as a good theory. Right now, seems more like a joke though.

Your right it the aspect that telling you thing you already know (your belief) is not a valid argument.

I hopes i wasnt doing that? If so, please explain which points you disliked... I am honestly interested if we can agree on a common base of argumentation. So, I would be very happy if you take another look at my post and reply to it. 

Edit: Never mind...i just saw that other thread on Evolution and Creationism/ID...so i will have read thorugh these pages what already has been discussed...but probably on the weekend

[Daytripper]

I can't resist a short reply. What funplay said was really good. The difference between evolution and faith is that evolution doesn't require anyone's belief in it. Also, evolution is based on observations and countless resarch papers. Scientific theories are constantly being refined. Naturally that means not every detail is the absolute cemented truth as such. If anyone claimed that, there would no longer be science. The main idea of evolution has held since Darwin, though. What about Newtonian physics? Has not exactly been refuted. It can't tackle quantum mechanics but it can solve conventional problems, which means there ought to be something in it.

Then people come in here, say evolution has been refuted or is at least controversial. Then they post some religious links and say creation and the flood have more support. What a skewed form of reasoning! ID and the flood have maybe a handful of ''serious'' publications. If you held ID to the same standards as evolutionary theory, it would absolutely have to break down. The flood requires so many divine interventions to make any sense it is not even funny. Please understand that when you take this step: ''And then God intervened because otherwise the whole thing would have fallen apart,'' it isn't a theory anyone can work with. If you believe it, it is your faith, and that is totally fine for you. Such argumentation would never hold in the scientific community. So I don't understand how you could seriously pit ID against evolution. It is the same as putting ID before the meat grinder. If you think the flood can stand on its own without any miraculous savings, I will happily take you on. The flood story must fail under the geological/fossil record. It must fail under engineering and logistics.  It must fail for physics and logic contradictions. Any of those six reasons will do really, and there is more if you think hard.

I have to go, I'll happily discuss this in detail in another thread some day.

[Tarias]

I'm really very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I definitely didn't mean to be smug, but I could understand how it might come out that way. But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).

THAT is exactly the reason alot of Atheists and Agnosts get pissed at Christian people. You have to understand that we don't give a shit, and we don't want to hear your stupid bullshit. I'm very sorry you are depressed because we don't believe the stuff your parents brainwashed into you when you were a kid, but PLEASE, PLEEAASSEE stop trying to "reach people with god's love".

[Kamietsu]

God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?

[Tarias]

God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?

If your parents, your family, the teachers in school and the rev in church all tell you he is real often enough, while you are between 1 and 4 years old, you will most likely believe it, and never stop believing it. Exceptions are very rare.

[Kamietsu]

God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?

If your parents, your family, the teachers in school and the rev in church all tell you he is real often enough, while you are between 1 and 4 years old, you will most likely believe it, and never stop believing it. Exceptions are very rare.

I would expect you to have some sort of proof to back up this claim? Because you just described my childhood and low and behold, I do not believe. For awhile I didn't believe because I knew of nothing else. It was a default option. But as I grew, physically and mentally, my mind opened up to other ideas, other beliefs, and did not stay confined to what I was told. If you were told by everyone that the Earth was flat, and grew up believing it, that doesn't make you right.

But everyone telling me God is real isn't God revealing himself to me. It is others telling me about him. it's like your friend telling you that his friend has a PhD and is only 15 years old. You'd be skeptical until you actually saw this friend of your friend and saw his credentials.

[Tarias]

God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?

If your parents, your family, the teachers in school and the rev in church all tell you he is real often enough, while you are between 1 and 4 years old, you will most likely believe it, and never stop believing it. Exceptions are very rare.

I would expect you to have some sort of proof to back up this claim? Because you just described my childhood and low and behold, I do not believe. For awhile I didn't believe because I knew of nothing else. It was a default option. But as I grew, physically and mentally, my mind opened up to other ideas, other beliefs, and did not stay confined to what I was told. If you were told by everyone that the Earth was flat, and grew up believing it, that doesn't make you right.

But everyone telling me God is real isn't God revealing himself to me. It is others telling me about him. it's like your friend telling you that his friend has a PhD and is only 15 years old. You'd be skeptical until you actually saw this friend of your friend and saw his credentials.

I don't know of any english books/papers, but I'm quite sure there are plenty Nature/Nuture debates are very popular. But this subject has been extensively covered in my filosofy classes, and a recently published and very popular dutch book by a popular neurscientist also supports this claim. It might have been translated, if it has I'd reccomend you read the book. It's very well written and very informative. (Wij zijn ons brein, by Dick Swaab. Translation would be We are our brain.)

And like I also stated, there are exceptions. However, I don't know more then a few people who were raised as a Christian that didn't turn into Christians themselves (coincidence or not; These are all inteligent people now studying some kind of science or engineering, this is however a different discussion.) I also don't know ANY people that weren't raised as a Christian and then turned into one later. Offcourse there are also exceptions here, but those are quite rare as well.