The God Delusion

If you mean that you can’t disprove scientific theories using science then you’re wrong. That’s what science is all about.

If you mean that you can’t disprove the larger concept of science as a way of viewing the world then you might be wrong there too. We know that science works through observation and the very act of observing a phenomena affects it. Science is not a flawless doctrine. I think it may even have been quantum physics that showed this (that would mean science was used to discredit the scientific method).

While there are some who try to do this I wouldn’t say it’s the majority. I am open to hearing reasons not to believe in God, or to change my beliefs about God, but so far I haven’t encountered any particularly good ones - The God Delusion not withstanding.

Furthermore, I see your position as an atheist as a matter of faith. It is essentially unscientific to be an atheist is it not? You cannot disprove the existence of God so your belief in God’s non-existence is essentially a matter of faith. And so I say to you, “You will not prove your faith with science.” But I invite you to try, or perhaps convert to agnosticism.

Would you mind quoting and paraphrasing some of these ‘reasonable’ arguments for those who haven’t read the book recently, or at all. I think this thread would benefit from focusing more closely on what Dawkins has written.

Including quotes from our previous posts, I am 2,571 words into my refutation of your posts, Bombax. I was not able to finish it, as my roommate needed the light to go out and I cannot read from any of my sources. I hope to finish my post by tomorrow night, but as I have not much spare time from a full load of college courses in my senior year, I estimate that it will not be done entirely until Friday night or even perhaps Saturday. Thanks for your patience, I do appreciate it.

Edit: After seeing this post I am about to quote, I decided I need to do a relatively quick refutation tonight, before this poster stops checking this thread.

Atheism affirms that there is no God. Yet atheists cannot hold this position dogmatically, for to make the type of statement with authority, we would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he would be God. Thus, we can see that, unless the atheist is all-knowing, he cannot make a dogmatic statement on God’s existence. Therefore, he can only either logically state that he is uncertain whether or not there is a God–and this view is agnosticism–or he can accept the principles of atheism on faith–the very faith that atheism supposedly despises in religion.

Logically, then, the choice of pure reason is agnosticism. Agnosticism, by definition does not know whether a God exists. Therefore, in the search for truth, all agnostics should make an effort to know whether or not there is a God. Logically, then, agnosticism is not grounds for rejecting any religion outright, but rather for examining it.

Credit for this argument more or less goes to Josh McDowell and Don Stewart in their book, “Answers”

Just because some brainy intellectual says it doesn’t mean it’s true, you said that yourself.

You could use the same logic for intelligent design, we do not have to provide evidence for every little thing the argument to remain valid.
Also because the laws of science are continualy changing, that means that scientific laws and theroys don’t match the real world, and probaly never will, if you don’t know that half the stuff they have is correct know how do you know what is currently correct and what is wrong?
I’ll take an example from men in black:
Long time ago people knew, that earth revolved around the sun, while back people knew that earth was flat and right now we know that the big bang happened.
See what i mean, just about every generation has seen the world in a way that has been proved wrong, hor do we know that our current scientific belief are right or wrong?

Yeah i think it is.

We did, look at the first page of posts, and if you find no evidence in that, look at the actual book and see his arguments, and if you fail to see his lack of logic,(something that you have been saying we have none of) then take my advice and again deflate your giant ego, it must be bulging up and covering your eyes.
Yes i know, theres some faild logic in that sentece, but it’s true. You are the proof with your giant ego staring us all in the face! Ask anyone in this topic but you, your side or ours.

I did not do this to appeal to flattery, i wrote that because, i’m a nice guy and didn’t want to get in trouble with genuinly nice people for pointing out your flaws.
At the time i only wrote it so i would not get in trouble.

Now i sit back and watch as you tear up my argument and still fail to provid a compelling argument.

I totally posted a criticism of his proof against the existence of God on the first page. A proof you didn’t respond to…

Absolutely! Aquinas’s proof doesn’t really necessitate a Christian God in any sesne (though doubtless it was the existence of the Christian God that he was eventually trying to get to). He developed proofs for that too, but I can’t think of them right now (nor do I have the time, as I’ve got to get to class), but it seemed to me like the main debate was over whether or not it was logical to assume that there must have been a Creator. (Also, points for the Flying Spaghetti Monster reference!)

That’s exactly why I don’t believe in God.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that my teacup is empty, that gravity will hold true tomorrow, or that I am not currently dreaming. Nor does science know anything for certain in this “purely rational” and ridiculous way you describe. Still, we make statements to the effect when we are sure, and we are right to do so.

I - like Dawkins describes for himself in the second chapter of his book - am not the character of pure unreasoning that you picture. I cannot say that this vague concept of god does not exist in a way that is logically absolute and infallible: but nor can you say the same about leprechauns, faeries, invisible flying teapots, unicorns, or literally anything else I could dream up out of whole cloth.

We are not agnostic about everything. We, like scientists, consider the evidence and accept the best explanation. That best explanation in the case of these imagined deities is that they do not exist, and if they do: they do not affect our lives and are possibly unknowable, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

All evidence for these creatures is laughable and all too human. The same is true of imps, goblins, and other mythical creatures. I will not sit on the fence about everything there is to possibly consider in the universe. When my reason drives me to fall from that fence, I will not clutch it in a desperate attempt to appear “logically pure”. It is no more irrational to be an atheist than it is to cross the street after looking both ways, I will not take this ridiculous label of “Agnostic” on such topics.

Be agnostic about say, life in the universe. Do not be agnostic about Yahweh, Shiva, Bhagwan, Rama, Ek Onkar, Allah, Shen, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We have something to say about these things.

I simply don’t have enough time to address all of your arguments, so I will select only a few:

You are not allowed to “reverse” it as stated if you are arguing by the laws of logic. That is why there is a burden of proof. It is not my responsibility to disprove anyone else’s argument of existence, it is for them to prove it. Take the teapot scenario as an exemplum absurdum. Of course we do not wish to have knowledge on this form. That is why logic has a burden of proof.

And now Aquinas’ argument:

Non sequitur - it does not follow from “for in any such…” that “the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity”. In addition, we do no yet have any evidence that causes can proceed to infinity. (However, the Big Bang “theory”, does not even take this into account, but rather denotes the start of time, space, matter and energy).

Sentimental fallacy and non sequitur. It would perhaps be “pleasant” if God was the “first efficient cause”, but that does not mean it is true. Neither does it follow that if there is a first efficient cause, it’s denotion would prove God’s existence (non sequitur). Therefore, Aquina’s argument is invalid.

Give an example where someone said that, or you have made an invalid generalization.

It does not matter if you can imagine it or not. I can imagine God, but that does not mean that he exists. You have to provide evidence that an uncaused cause exists, AND that it is God. The Big Bang has such evidence (for example, the movement of galaxies). There is none for God.

Prove that this analogy explains the existence of God.

Argumentum ad baculum and argumentum verbosium - you are trying to intimidate me by writing this instead of actually presenting the arguments. In addition, a verbose and overly complex argument (verbosium) does not mean that it is correct.

This is getting on my nerves, but I will not turn this into an emotional debate. The “brainy intellectual” has provided evidence in his scientific paper for his claims - otherwise, it would not even get through peer review. These persons you have quoted have so far not provided any evidence at all.

Base rate fallacy, and false analogy. No, you cannot use the argument to support intelligent design, because intelligent design does not have any substantial evidence in favour for it, while evolution does. (And that’s not a small portion.)

Because science doesn’t predict nature to infintisimal accuracy, it is an approximation of reality. Today, the approximation for most theories is excellent but of course not perfect per definition. However, the lack of a perfect truth does not mean we cannot use something that is close enough, and that actually counts as a logical fallacy: the Nirvana fallacy.

Contextonomy - quoting out of context. You failed to quote that the initial post had a mod split message, meaning it in fact started as a post in a different thread. Regardless, it is irrelevant.

You did, but I subsequently proved that the evidence was faulty, and thus invalid.

Argumentum ad hominem.

No, if you wanted to do that in an efficient way, you would have sent a personal message to the moderators. By posting in the topic, you were signaling to others that your argument may be valid through the Appeal to flattery fallacy, which of course is invalid in logic.

Evidence is not opinion. Evidence can support opinion.

Okay I give up, this is not a dialogue, good luck everyone.

See, this is how I feel. I am one that never gets caught up in “Which religion to follow” In my mind, each has a certain puzzle piece to offer unto the entire big-picture. Whether it’s the Christian Father, Jewish Yaweh, Muslim Allah, or some indigenous tribes Clit-Clack. Atheism is all I cannot fathom. I know honestly, in peoples hearts of hearts they cannot seriously believe intelligence ceases with them, the human. Maybe not a “God” per say, but a higher power. A cosmic consciousness that organized, for lack of a better term, this universe. We are his/hers experiment. Pronouns serve no use when discussing intelligence.

I’d have to say the worst part it, atheist lack purpose. Before someone generalizes that, and becomes upset it’s true. You may be an atheist who helps people, spreading generosity being your purpose. There are many other good deeds one can do. With God however, every living inhabitant of Earth has a unifying purpose. We have been placed here to suffer a life of joy, pain, and consequence in order to be granted a state of Euphoric Godliness. God is the oldest known concept to man. Before fire, before the wheel… and waaaaay before Plasma Televisions & Cell phones. Out dated theory, maybe, possibly. Does that make it false, no. Does the old way of thinking and viewing the heavens needs to be updated. Yes, if for no other purpose than relevance to todays society.

It seems repetition is the only way to learn.

“The Big Bang is correct, God pulled the trigger.”
-Trip

“God/Philosophy/Theology answers the Whys with Science answering the Hows. Two necessary parts of the the same whole… The innate Human desire to question.”
-Trip

“I use to think God was a gardener, I’ve come to find He’s the garden as well.”

  • A. Einstein

“God does not play dice.” An argument of Professor A. Einstein against the Scientific community of Quantum Physicists.

We have a creator. This is not up for debate. Now how you want to interpret/perceive this intelligence is open for discussion. Believers don’t have it ALL right. But our foundation is strong, and belief system is sturdy. Our actions, need perfecting.

Im not saying your wrong here, but could you please provide some of this evidence?

Say that everything that exists is a painting.
One side says that this painting painted itself, and the other side says that some artist came poof out of nowhere and painted it.
Both explanations seem impossible to me.

Funny thing is, if you claim not to believe in God… you’ve already acknowledged the possibility of truth. Funny how everybody is fighting over God. No ones arguing over the possibility that the color purple can cook a pizza.

I say that to say this. If you have dismissed God, the fact he was/is in your thoughts at all is a testimony to his existence. People have been following the idea of a creator since the beginning of documentation.

If you believe in science you believe in God. One in the same, compliments of each other. God is the intelligence and design behind our universe, science has a purpose to uncover and explain the intelligence and construct of our universe. Same thing people.

And I leave with this…

It’s not that we need to quit arguing. It’s the fact there is no argument… Science and Religion are not on opposing sides. Kind of like heads/tails… which sides the quarter.

The question is why do you try to disprove the ones that believe in a god? Do you really gain anything through it? Anyone who believes in a god, however, would feel as though they are gaining something. They would be saving your soul, which they believe is an achievement. From this examine the following:

If there is no god:
And an atheist converts a believer to atheism, they both die.
And an atheist fails to convert a believer, they both die.

If there is a god:
And a believer converts an atheist, they both live for eternity.
If not, the atheist burns in hell for all eternity.

The last point there may sit on a believer’s conscience. There is still no reason for an atheist to care.
So once again I ask: why do the ones who don’t believe in a god want to convince ones that don’t, that there isn’t a god?

If someone is delusional, and believe that they can fly, do you try to prove them wrong?
If someone believes the world will blow up tomorrow, do you try to prove them wrong?
If someone has imaginary friends, do you try to convince them they don’t exist?

Most likely you don’t, or at least don’t try as hard as you do against the religious. This suggests that there must be a difference in the two. Perhaps with those examples you are 100% sure they are wrong, but with religion you aren’t. Perhaps you argue because you really don’t know that you are right.

Or perhaps you argue because God is truly present in your life, and you don’t want it to be, so you hide behind your theories, thus convincing yourself that there is no god.

With this argument, i have only fortified my faith. Have you?
Logically correct, or not; I know i have one this argument.
you can go ahead and refute all this with your fancy words that you use to make yourself look smart, but i wont care because i still know that i have won.(actually it would support my argument :tongue:)

*no hard feelings to anyone :smile:

A god that would cause infinite torture for unbelief disgusts me. I would gladly revolt against this ugly god of yours, even if the revolt be hopeless. It would be just. How would you enjoy your eternal life, knowing others are enduring infinite torment simply for non-belief? How would you enjoy your eternal life, knowing that an otherwise just person is condemned to infinite torture simply because of a thought crime?

I hope you do not get your morals from this same, petty god. To believe something out of such fear is neurotic. Free yourself from guilt and immortal fear. I argue these topics because I find the alternative liberating and healthy. Free yourself from this celestial North Korea.

This is not the same as an imaginary friend, why would I try to remove that from someone’s life? This is an imaginary oppressor.

It has been said that atheists have no purpose. That is not true, though it is true that Atheism conveys no such purpose; that is because it is only a position on religion, not a religion in itself. For purpose, we must look in other places, much of philosophy is dedicated to such a quest.

Some Atheists believe that religion is dangerous because it is often used to brain wash and exploit people to do things that aren’t righteous. However, I believe such Atheists, or followers of this idea, have confused theism (belief in god/s) with religion - and the two are most definitely not the same.

You can I’m sure sympathise with their concerns, after all the Catholic church is very rich, and with it’s money it could help people rather than hoard it all in the Vatican. To say the cliché phrase, what would Jesus do?

Fortunately, I’m a strict agnostic in that I don’t think we can really ever know the truth. Science is limited to questions of how the universe works and cares little for why things are the way they are. As such evolution and the big bang do not conflict with the idea of a God being the ultimate cause. In trying to find an answer to why, we must hold all possibilities, not just the idea of a creator, to be equally likely until evidence points to one - which of course it never will.

EDIT: Amorphis, I’d argue that no one forms their opinions through reasoning. When we see something we don’t agree with, firstly we nit pick it and then we start questioning the premises. When we do agree, we make every attempt to defend it. Rarely do we look at the content of an argument. Debate is all about persuasion through several different ways:

  1. Our own point is shown to be unworkable, and so we default to the arguer’s point instead (rather than consider if their point is unworkable too)

  2. The arguer’s point suits us more than our current held opinions

  3. We are continuously exposed to a certain opinion stated as fact, and so begin to agree with that opinion

There is nothing logical about an idea, it just has to sound logical and be well presented to be accepted as correct.

Bombax, do you need proof to realise that jumping off a cliff results in death? Even though lots of people tell you it will - but you’ve never seen it for yourself?

Surely it’s not so much about proof but more about what, in your mind, defines the existence or otherwise of a creator to be more or less likely?

Look Bombax, we can’t prove out theroys and neither can you, we’ve booth presented our proofs and our proofs are completly illogical. you’ve presented your book as we have ours. Both sides are so arrogant that we will continue with the debate until our bodys crumble away and the dust gets stuck in the keyboard :tongue:.

Now we can go on in one of three directions .

  1. WE can continue what we are doing, where we have a livly debate, and you come in and point out the christians flaws.
SPOILER - Click to view

Also i do not mean this to affect said debate, but it seems that you have been pointing out logical flaws in perfectly fine sentences because they did not provide proof out within the topic, while it could be found in obvious places outside said topic. I realize that i am not mentioning where this happened nor mentioning that you did the same thing, you shoul be able t find it easily

2.We can continue our livley debate with you taking part in the debate.
3. You leave the topic, or at least point out flaws via PM

The reason I point out your logical fallacies is to show you that your arguments are invalid, and that you must present new material to hold a debate regarding this matter.

A dialogue per definition means listening to others’ material, analyzing it, then making a contributing addition to propel the dialogue. So far, people have responded to each others’ arguments, and thus it is at least in part dialogue.

Exhaustively, I say again: Provide valid, logical evidence to show that it is so.

Non sequitur, it does not follow. Provide valid evidence that it is true.

It doesn’t make it true either.

By saying this, you are dismissing the logical fallacies I pointed out earlier against many of these quotes. Argumentum ad nauseam, because it is repeated does not mean that it is true. I suggest that you go back and indulge yourself with these logical fallacies to realize why they do not found support for your point.

Everything can be discussed - you cannot logically put a period and say that the discussion of something is over. Neither does your “strong belief” imply that your argument is truthful.

Most certainly. Here you will find an incomplete (meaning not all) list of evidence for evolution. Because I do not know if this material has gone through peer review, where logical fallacies are checked for, I cannot tell you if everything is logically valid, but I suspect the very most of it is.

False analogy. Everything that exists cannot be likened to a painting at all. For example, creatures replicate with genetic variation - paintings don’t. Therefore, this analogy is invalid.

Non sequitur. Provide valid evidence.

Non sequitur.

Everything can be discussed. False analogy. EVVVIDENCE.

The absolutely most reliable system we have in the world is the logical system, which, compared to the illogical system, is incomparably more sensible. But if you believe in something, despite having seen the lack of logically valid evidence for, you are being illogical (e.g. sentimental fallacy), and thus, unsensible and unattached to reasoning.

No, I’d let them convince themselves by asking them to prove it. If they fail to prove it, then, if they operate under the logical system (under which all sensible things operate) then they would convince themselves.

No, I do not “argue because God is truly present in [my] life.”

This demonstrates that you do not argue under the logical system and argue on a purely emotional level, on which any conclusion can be made. Then, what is the point of arguing with me? I know that you know that you will not refute your belief because it is completely emotional. Thus, we cannot reach a sensible conclusion and therefore, it is pointless to argue with you.

But I have seen proof/evidence that jumping off a cliff results in death. I have seen people die of severe injuries - I have seen that falling a long distance can cause injuries. Therefore it is sensible to conclude that falling a long distance can cause death, and should therefore be avoided.

I can, and would gladly demonstrate so.

This is not the case, it has to do with repenting for your wrongs, or whatever. If you are going to say that you don’t have any faults, then you are simply arrogant. You have not done your research if you think that way

so you wouldn’t remove an imaginary friend, because it brings joy? I assume. But you would remove God, who i might state also brings joy for those who believe in his existence, simply because you see him as an oppressor?

You’ve only read that jumping off cliff’s can kill you in the media. And the media isn’t exactly a scientific document, so if you believe the media, why not the bible? Inductive logic is all well and good, but it’s limited to your biased and opinionated knowledge of injury, death, and cliffs. You can hardly call logic a fair way of assessing things.

Mathematics is the only way to even start removing such bias.

Of course, concerning the bible, I think it’s likely to be a made up story to control people. That doesn’t discount the existence of a “god”

Knowledge does not have to be perfect to be useful (just perfect “enough”) as stated in the Nirvana fallacy. Thus, my “biased and opinionated knowledge of…” is good enough for a logical conclusion, because I have seen sufficient amounts of different kinds of evidence to make it. By contrast, I have not seen sufficient amounts of different kinds of evidence to prove that the bible is correct, and thus I do not make any conclusions based on it.