There is no God

[Mr.Vicchio]

Lullaby, I don't recall claiming to not understand what is being discussed, rather I have a different take on the issue then you.

If it is not luck that produced this abundant life filled planet, and not a power higher then ourselves, what then is it? Order from Chaos? Athiesism requires faith just as much as belief in God. You firmly, faithfully believe that what is here, before us, is the sum extent of all that is.

[Lullaby Chainer]

You're still making false assumption about my beliefs. That's something even you dislike according to your post.

I don't deny the possibilities of something greater than ourselves. That's almost obvious in itself. This isn't the first time I've stated that yet you seem intent on distorting my beliefs for whatever reason.

I never ever said in this discussion that I believe the only thing out there..

"You firmly, faithfully believe that what is here, before us, is the sum extent of all that is."

Not only do you make a completely false statement, you go as far as declare that I am firmly and faithfully in favor of that beleif. Where you got that idea is beyond me. I clearly explained mulitple times that this is not so. Perhaps this time you will read what I am saying. I am a firm believer that there is much we don't know. But I also believe that religous gods are clearly the thought of humans to explain the world around them hence how early religous ideas were created, hence how many religions there are out there.

Please don't make assumptions about my faiths. You yourself even opposed such assumptions made of your own faith so I would expect you could do the same for me.

The popular definition of god is consistanley described as a being. Typically a supernatural being that is the origin of the universe but this part varies. But throughout any definition, god is a being.

To extend this further, a being is described by popular definition of the word 'being' as describing 'god' is something that thinks or can make decisions. I don't believe in that. But, I do accept the possibilities of a force or power beyond ours. But I'd like to call it nature. Once again, I've already explained this many times. Try not to distort it for your own purposes for the statement regarding my OWN faiths that you have made is completely and entirely untrue and unappreciated.

[rez]

Lullaby, I don't recall claiming to not understand what is being discussed, rather I have a different take on the issue then you.

If it is not luck that produced this abundant life filled planet, and not a power higher then ourselves, what then is it? Order from Chaos? Athiesism requires faith just as much as belief in God. You firmly, faithfully believe that what is here, before us, is the sum extent of all that is.

how does something that does not exist require someone to believe in it? I dont see pink elephants in the sky, therefore, I dont believe in it. Just because I lack belief in this concept does not mean I have a belief that an elephant does not float in the sky. What is so hard to grasp? How can you participate in other debates if you can't comprehend this simply notion?

Again, as Starboy once said....Atheism is not a belief just like bald is not a hair color.

[tusaki]

Tusaki, you have this false assumption I am anti-sciene. I believe Science and Religion are not exclusive, but rather compliment each other. I am not offended, never have been by science, I do however take umbrage at the false assumptions others make about my beliefs based on thier own belief they are right.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your previous post, I thought that because you specifically described a worldview "according to science(-tists)" with a bit of mockery, you meant that it was either this or that. Actually I still think your post implies that science is wrong and science is looking for ways to discredit religion, which was the point I disagreed with. I'm happy to hear this is in fact not the case. The comment about deists was more a general observation than a remark directed at you specifically :)

Again, as Starboy once said....Atheism is not a belief just like bald is not a hair color.

I disagree, it takes a strong leap of faith to claim god cannot exist.

[rez]

I disagree, it takes a strong leap of faith to claim god cannot exist.

What the hell are you talking about? god? what does this even mean? this god stuff seems foreign to me, I never seen it....what are you talking about...why do you claim it takes faith to believe in nothing?

[tusaki]

Because you believe that there is no god. or an all-mighty pink elephant, or a flying spaghetti monster. This requires faith. An active disbelieve is a believe as well. Or are you an agnost?

[Lullaby Chainer]

There does indeed take faith whether you are a Atheist or religous. But it is a different degree of faith required. Faith can be seen in all forms in absolutley everything. I must have faith in certain things every day. For instance.. I have faith that when I step onto my floor I won't fall through. You might have faith that when you eat, you won't starve. It is actualy IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything at all because you would need evidence of evidence. And you would need evidence for that evidence and so on. Even if there were a "god", he can't know for certain that he isn't just part of a bigger picture. Who's to say this god is omnipotent? He may believe that, but he may be wrong. In other words, you have to take some degree of faith in your life or you'll end up untrusting of everything around you. But there is a difference in scientific faith and religous faith.

It is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

There is a very big difference in faith of something with no evidence oppose to..
faith against something that has no evidence.

But the whole matter is very opinionated and debatable depending on what your definition of faith is and how big you believe the scope of faith is.

[dthmstr254]

I think if you're going to believe in the Christian God, it is reasonable to assume God could create such a being as Jesus. But that is entirely based on IF you believe in God. If you don't, you have to be skeptical of what Jesus really could have done. I won't deny you have your own evidence to support the existance of Jesus. That is very plausible but still debatable, but I have yet to see real evidence of a blind man seeing Jesus or any other supernatural thing. This doesn't mean there aren't records of him doing this, hence the Bible. But there are also records from other religions that state all sorts of equally unlikely things that I think most Christians would agree didn't happen. Written records is not proof. It is only proof that people believed in the matter at hand. If I scientist were to find a journal of a child stating that Santa came and gave him all the presents he had asked for, this isn't proof of Santa's existance or abilities, only proof that the child believed in such things. I would be delighted if you linked some sources for me to go over. I don't need you to write me a report or anything.. just some sources of where you're coming from would be nice if that's possible.

And "meeting God" is indeed a personal experience. Hence, it doesn't happen to everyone when an individual experiences it. That is what I am referring to as anecdotal evidence. Yes, these personal experiences may lead to conversion but it doesn't make them true. A person may claim to have been abducted but surely that doesn't mean it becomes true to everyone else who hasn't experienced the same thing. Sure it may be compelling but it doesn't prove a thing.

ok, I will list two reputable ancient historians for Jesus's existence. through Tacitus and Josephus we can get a secular view of Jesus. from those, historians have come to say that not only did he exist, but in the college history book, Traditions and Encounters, they say that people flocked to him for, among other reasons, "his ability to cure illnesses and disabilities." there is also plenty of backing to say that it was humanly impossible for the amount of fulfilled prophecies found in the Bible to have been fulfilled, and that isn't just in Jesus's time.Isaiah, who died 30-40 years before the exile of the Jews, and 120 years before they returned to Jerusalem, prophecied not only the length of the exile, but also the name of the king who would release them: Cyrus. Moses, even farther back, prophecied that the Israelites would ask for a king, the kings would lead Israel astray, Israel would be removed from herf homeland, and that Israel would leave in two stages (Israel then Judah), and then return in two stages (Judah during the reign of Cyrus, Israel returned after WW2). fast forwarding to 2 Timothy, we find prophecies regarding atheism and evolutionism, not in name, but in context. who but an all-knowing God could have dictated prophecies that were this detailed? shoot, in Daniel, we find written the name of the empire that conquered Babylon, and references to Alexander the Great, calling him the ram that defeated the Medes and the Persians. explain the accuracy of the prophecies without supernatural involvement. see, our faith is not blind. we base it on the accuracy of the Bible. it is common in courtrooms to use events unrelated to the issue at hand in order to show the character of the witness or defendant. given the accuracy of the prophecies, I have no problem accepting the other parts of the Bible.

[dthmstr254]

Even if there were a "god", he can't know for certain that he isn't just part of a bigger picture.

how would an all-knowing God not know everything. you leave out the possibility that God could know all. how would you explain this if the God that exists knows all. remember, in the realm of faith, something has to incite it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

-sigh-

You have yet to link your sources. I don't like just taking your word on evidence I've yet to come across. You should watch the movie "The God That Wasn't There" or atleast I think that's the title. It's an entire documentary that provides evidence that Jesus didn't exist at all. I'm a little skeptical both ways but I'm pretty sure I have yet to come across evidence that says he had supernatural powers which is why I'm asking you to link a source if possible. If that's not possible.. than all well, just let me know.

how would an all-knowing God not know everything. you leave out the possibility that God could know all. how would you explain this if the God that exists knows all. remember, in the realm of faith, something has to incite it.

-double sigh-

Yes.. but I was speaking hypothetically if you even read all of my post. The only being that would know he/she were all-knowing would be he/she. Just because this hypothetical god thinks he is all-knowing doesn't make it so. If he were all knowing, yes.. he would know he was all-knowing and he truley would be. But if he weren't, he may still think he is all-knowing because he has nothing else to go on. Even a god who thinks themselves as all-knowing may in fact be delusional. That god may be under the control of something even beyond it. And that something may think it is all-knowing and undercontrol of everything but in fact it can't know for certain that it isn't being manipulated by yet another thing beyond itself. This is called the Godel's Incompleteness theroem...

Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any consistent formal system which:

Is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary arithmetic
Has a decision procedure for determining whether a given string is an axiom within the formal system (i.e. is "recursive")
Gödel showed that in any such system S, it is possible to formulate an expression which says "This statement is unprovable in S".

If such a statement were provable in S, then S would be inconsistent. Hence any such system must either be incomplete or inconsistent. If a formal system is incomplete, then there exist statements within the system which can never be proven to be valid or invalid ('true' or 'false') within the system.

Essentially, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem revolves around getting formal systems to formulate a variation on the "Liar Paradox". The classic Liar Paradox sentence in ordinary English is "This sentence is false."

Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot even deduce that it is undecidable. (This is Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem, which is rather tricky to prove.)

The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well defined, so claims that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God are worthless in isolation.

One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.)

It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system. However, that would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists within the system. Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.

Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions.

Another frequent claim is that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever) cannot be both consistent and universally applicable. Religious texts are not formal systems, so such claims are nonsense.

There are a number of books which talk specifically about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and explain concepts such as axiomatic systems, consistency and completeness:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ernetInfidels/ Gödel's Proof by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman.
A thorough discussion of the argument in Godel's proof, as well as its limitations; plus an overview of its historical context.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ernetInfidels/ Forever Undecided: A Puzzle Guide to Godel by Raymond Smullyan.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ernetInfidels/ Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, also by Raymond Smullyan.
A more formal, but still very readable, overview of the theorems.

[dthmstr254]

-sigh-

You have yet to link your sources. I don't like just taking your word on evidence I've yet to come across. You should watch the movie "The God That Wasn't There" or atleast I think that's the title. It's an entire documentary that provides evidence that Jesus didn't exist at all. I'm a little skeptical both ways but I'm pretty sure I have yet to come across evidence that says he had supernatural powers which is why I'm asking you to link a source if possible. If that's not possible.. than all well, just let me know.



-double sigh-

Yes.. but I was speaking hypothetically if you even read all of my post. The only being that would know he/she were all-knowing would be he/she. Just because this hypothetical god thinks he is all-knowing doesn't make it so. If he were all knowing, yes.. he would know he was all-knowing and he truley would be. But if he weren't, he may still think he is all-knowing because he has nothing else to go on. Even a god who thinks themselves as all-knowing may in fact be delusional. That god may be under the control of something even beyond it. And that something may think it is all-knowing and undercontrol of everything but in fact it can't know for certain that it isn't being manipulated by yet another thing beyond itself. This is called the Godel's Incompleteness theroem...

Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any consistent formal system which:

Is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary arithmetic
Has a decision procedure for determining whether a given string is an axiom within the formal system (i.e. is "recursive")
Gödel showed that in any such system S, it is possible to formulate an expression which says "This statement is unprovable in S".

If such a statement were provable in S, then S would be inconsistent. Hence any such system must either be incomplete or inconsistent. If a formal system is incomplete, then there exist statements within the system which can never be proven to be valid or invalid ('true' or 'false') within the system.

Essentially, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem revolves around getting formal systems to formulate a variation on the "Liar Paradox". The classic Liar Paradox sentence in ordinary English is "This sentence is false."

Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot even deduce that it is undecidable. (This is Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem, which is rather tricky to prove.)

The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well defined, so claims that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God are worthless in isolation.

One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.)

It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system. However, that would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists within the system. Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.

Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions.

Another frequent claim is that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever) cannot be both consistent and universally applicable. Religious texts are not formal systems, so such claims are nonsense.

There are a number of books which talk specifically about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and explain concepts such as axiomatic systems, consistency and completeness:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ernetInfidels/ Gödel's Proof by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman.
A thorough discussion of the argument in Godel's proof, as well as its limitations; plus an overview of its historical context.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ernetInfidels/ Forever Undecided: A Puzzle Guide to Godel by Raymond Smullyan.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ernetInfidels/ Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, also by Raymond Smullyan.
A more formal, but still very readable, overview of the theorems.

the Bible is the backbone of Christianity. for an atheist to disprove God's existence, the easiest route, though not at all fun when used on a truly learned Christian, is to attempt to show inconsistency in the Bible. while I like your sources, I must cast doubt on one's true intentions. Dr Earnest Nagel is known as a proponent of Nihilism. he even coined the phrase that "life is but an episode between two oblivions. I want to know, what does it matter if you believe God or not if there is no God. there is no risk involved. but if a God does exist, and He gave instructions leading to Heaven and eternal life (the Bible), isn't it quite a risk to disbelieve??? I am not a gambler, so I want to be safe either way. hey, if you are right, I can't regret my decision after death. but if I am right, wouldn't it be quite something to regret if you missed out on this, what might be the last chance you have to believe God, and regret it eternally. some more implications of your beliefs include, but are not limited to:
loss of free will, because we are animals, and everything we do is simply caused by instinct.
loss of the mind, because brain scientists have now realized that the brain does not produce the mind.
subsequently, there is no such thing as morality
no thought processes.
no reason to live or socialize. subsequently, no reason to debate like we are now.

like the philosophical and psychological implications of your belief??? is it fun knowing htat you have no hope nad no reason to live??? why do people believe in God, because He is their last hope, and sadly enough, few or none of the ones I debate against have had a situation in which they were hopeless. I have. I have had to sit by while numerous versions of hell on earth blew up around my world. 9/11 came, I watched on tv as both towers were slammed into and as they collapsed. my family praying and wondering if my uncle had not been there on that day. God's providence showed through again, he never made it to the towers, due to the mechanical failure of a seemingly fineworking subway. I have had to go to 8 family funerals in the last year and a half alone. one of my friends shot himself with a cop-killer bullet and died in an hour. I used to be an atheist, using the same and more arguments, including many of the ones I have heard in the other boards. it doesn't matter how much faith you have in something, it matters what that something is. you can have a lot of faith in thin ice and it will break through, or a little faith in thick ice and it will hold you up. see the difference, believing in God just adds to the assuredness that you will not regret your choices in this life.

[tusaki]

the Bible is the backbone of Christianity. for an atheist to disprove God's existence, the easiest route, though not at all fun when used on a truly learned Christian, is to attempt to show inconsistency in the Bible.

An atheist doesn't have to disprove the consistency of the bible.

while I like your sources, I must cast doubt on one's true intentions. Dr Earnest Nagel is known as a proponent of Nihilism. he even coined the phrase that "life is but an episode between two oblivions. I want to know, what does it matter if you believe God or not if there is no God. there is no risk involved. but if a God does exist, and He gave instructions leading to Heaven and eternal life (the Bible), isn't it quite a risk to disbelieve??? I am not a gambler, so I want to be safe either way. hey, if you are right, I can't regret my decision after death. but if I am right, wouldn't it be quite something to regret if you missed out on this, what might be the last chance you have to believe God, and regret it eternally.

Seeing that the particular believe you hold is contradictionary to 90% of the other religions (each which claims to be the only true way to salvation) including other versions of christianity, there is a big chance you won't be "saved" either. Also, personally, I don't believe in a vain god who will send me to damnation just because I don't choose to believe in a particular form of religion. If there is a god, he will know why I made the choices I made, and love me for them, because my intentions have never been wicked.

some more implications of your beliefs include, but are not limited to: loss of free will, because we are animals, and everything we do is simply caused by instinct. loss of the mind, because brain scientists have now realized that the brain does not produce the mind. subsequently, there is no such thing as morality
no thought processes. no reason to live or socialize. subsequently, no reason to debate like we are now.

I disagree, everything you summarized above does not require religion. Why not just accept the world, indeed, reality, for what it is right now? Without purpose there can still be meaning.

like the philosophical and psychological implications of your belief??? is it fun knowing htat you have no hope nad no reason to live??? why do people believe in God, because He is their last hope, and sadly enough, few or none of the ones I debate against have had a situation in which they were hopeless.

Why is god their only hope? Why not accept buddhism for example? it's the most coherent and logical religion of the bunch.

I have. I have had to sit by while numerous versions of hell on earth blew up around my world. 9/11 came, I watched on tv as both towers were slammed into and as they collapsed. my family praying and wondering if my uncle had not been there on that day. God's providence showed through again, he never made it to the towers, due to the mechanical failure of a seemingly fineworking subway. I have had to go to 8 family funerals in the last year and a half alone. one of my friends shot himself with a cop-killer bullet and died in an hour.

I'm sorry to hear you had to endure all that, however, it is not providence. You just choose to interpet it that way, because it supports your existing set of believes (the psycho-analytical version, not faith or religion). That's ok, we all do it.

I used to be an atheist, using the same and more arguments, including many of the ones I have heard in the other boards. it doesn't matter how much faith you have in something, it matters what that something is. you can have a lot of faith in thin ice and it will break through, or a little faith in thick ice and it will hold you up. see the difference, believing in God just adds to the assuredness that you will not regret your choices in this life.

Yeah, faith has this effect, you believe you are making the right choices, you can confirm your believe to the teachings of a church, in your life the people important to you probably have the same religion, and you physically live in a place where everyone thinks the same. So you are happy. Good for you. However, know that many wicca's, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, shintos and the gazilion followers other religions also believe they have the correct view. And condemnation of others to hell JUST because they don't confirm to that particular religion, a thought very common amongst the different religions, regardless of how that person lived or what his intentions throughout life were is too close minded and cruel to me. I would say it must be pretty lonely in heaven.