Is Belief in God Merely a Matter of Faith or Can It Be Proven?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. The evidence to the claim that mythologies are only mythologies is too common knowledge for me to cite. The average human already knows it, without doing research. Because of this, I feel no need to tell it to you. If you have not taken this knowledge and applied it, then do it. If you can't, then perhaps you're unaware of origins of religion. Nevertheless, it's to obvious statements to take the time to type.

I am beginning to wonder just what sort of "scientist" you are. A true scientist knows not to make statements without accompanying evidence that supports his/her claims.

I am also wondering if you shouldn't change your name to "IllogicalAtheist." Explain to me why you believe "mythologies are only mythologies" addresses anything I said to you.

Regarding my awareness of the origin of religions, I am degreed in religious studies, and have continued my research for the last 25 years. I am quite aware of their origins, but you are obviously not since you want to characterize the whole of religion as mythology, which is patently incorrect.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
2. Regarding my knowledge of the subject. Uhm, again this is common knowledge, I have yet to meet a human who did not have the knowldge in their memory that I do regarding this. Perhaps they hadn't put it together to support this claim, but it was still there. I really don't think asking someone to post information as common as "the sky is blue" is appropriate. If you don't have this, then I would say that you're not knowledable to speak on the subject at my level.

You are right, I'd have to unlearn majorly to sink to your level of understanding. But if you believe you can out reason me, or that you are better informed about either religion or science, I would welcome any challenge you care to send my way.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
3. From your final little rebuttle, it appears you do fall into the mythopath category. I'd urge you to disallow yourself to be tied up into a claim emotionally. If you learn to like only the truth, you'll never be disappointed. It would better not only yourself, but humanity as well.

What nonsense. You might be surprise to find out that I am not religious. I simply have undertaken to study the cause of it because I became interested in the conscious phenomenon of "enlightenment." It seemed to attract a lot of attention those times it has occurred throughout history. I do think the major religions today have decended from people trying to undersand and be part of that experience (whatever it was), but I don't think religion itself has anything to do with the genuine enlightenment experience.

It just might be that "enlightenment" is some sort of evolutionary leap consciousness is just beginning to make, or maybe not. In any case, I can tell you don't know anything about religion OR enlightenment, which means you are incessantly speaking at a science site out of ignorance. Just how "logical" is that?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I'm not going to adhere to the games you're trying me at. People are here to learn, to discuss, etc..., and I'm not going to take your instigations and ruin it for others. Thus you're now on my block list. So, I won't be able to respond to you. No one comes here to hear what you've put forth. (I won't) see you around.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is a too narrow and theoretical issue.
Firstly, what makes you think, what in the world urges you or necessitates you to even think or postulate something like a God should exist, and to declare it's existence, without a proper well-defined theorem, the debate becomes totally abstract and meaningless.

What if I were to say I had first hand experience? Would that make me even more credible? Somehow I don't think so. And yet if it were possible that God did exist, then it no longer becomes a matter of "if," but of "how?" Which would then put me at a different vantage point than others, to say the least! So where others are busy trying to solve the "if," if at all, I'm already working on solving "the how?" And yet there's a big gap that exists between the two. And perhaps I'm not prepared to go through the whole tedious process of applying for the patent, when in fact the patent already exists, and has existed long since before I came along? You know why bother?

Physcis talks about things sometimes, that don't exist, but they talk about it for a reason. For instance the top quark was first postulated from theory, and only found later by obeservation.

And yet what if it was more than just postulation? Of course you may not know for yourself, but wouldn't that give me the right to be the least bit ornery? Well perhaps ... Why should I squander the whole thing by those who don't appreciate it?

Now what is the theory that says God must exist then?

To name one candidate, ("God created the universe; the universe existt => God must exist") this can be disargued from the point of view that the universe does not need creation.

Argument: suppose we would say, the universe itself was not existent in all time. Then comes the need for a "creation" of the universe, and hence a "creator" is needed. But all we did, was just shift the problem of the existence of the universe, to the existence of God. Who created God? Well, this is then solved, by declaring God existed all the time, in all eternity.

But why did we have to invent God, instead of declaring that the unvierse itself could exist in all eternity. Hence, the existence of God is not needed to explain the existence of the universe. We just need to declare, the universe existed in all eternity.

I think the most plausible way for me to explain it, as evidenced by many of my threads, would be by means of cognizance and what that entails, which I think I was beginning to hit peak in the following thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2264" ...

Please feel free to take a look and provide any comments you may have, and perhaps I'll refrain from getting too ornery? Hey you never know!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I'm not going to adhere to the games you're trying me at. People are here to learn, to discuss, etc..., and I'm not going to take your instigations and ruin it for others. Thus you're now on my block list. So, I won't be able to respond to you. No one comes here to hear what you've put forth. (I won't) see you around.

You might believe this, but I've been trying to help you. But go ahead, continue making an ass out of yourself in public by trying to act like a genius in front of people who clearly see how foolish you are.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I became interested in the conscious phenomenon of "enlightenment." It seemed to attract a lot of attention those times it has occurred throughout history. I do think the major religions today have decended from people trying to undersand and be part of that experience (whatever it was), but I don't think religion itself has anything to do with the genuine enlightenment experience.

It just might be that "enlightenment" is some sort of evolutionary leap consciousness is just beginning to make, or maybe not...

Interesting! How exactly do you define enlightenment? I often look to the role that science plays in the philosophy of religions. Often it seems that information and events conspire to create leaps in thought or concept that ripple through religions and cultures...such as the renaissance period.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Cite what you have studied, show us how extensively you have delved into the reports of God.

Which reports (of God)? Facts, please.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
A true scientist knows not to make statements without accompanying evidence that supports his/her claims.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Ivan Seeking, I'm not sure what you meant in
your response to my message.
A few points I'd like to make that may be
relevant to what you said:
1. Science is merely observation and application
of various reasoning to it of the type that
does allow further progress in improving
this observation. Science is not faith.
2. Science says nothing about things it does
not observe. As a consequence, science has
nothing to say about God, religion, pink
flying ellephants or my cat being God because
it has no data of this. It can niether confirm
or deny this or indeed adress it in any way.
Is this connected to what you said ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by drag
Science says nothing about things it does
not observe. As a consequence, science has
nothing to say about God, religion, pink
flying ellephants or my cat being God because
it has no data of this. It can niether confirm
or deny this or indeed adress it in any way.

Completely and totally wrong. As I just posted in another page, it seems people underestimate the power of the scientific method and of general investigation.

These two things have long since remove the existence of any God from reality. I am truly suprised at the amount of people who claim otherwise, as it means they do not grasp the scientific method, and thus do not understand the essence of science.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
These two things have long since remove the existence
of any God from reality. I am truly suprised at the
amount of people who claim otherwise, as it means
they do not grasp the scientific method, and thus
do not understand the essence of science.

I see...
What is the scientific proof for the inexistance
of God, please ?

Thanks.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - Read. You're asking a question that is way to dynamic. Read, and learn.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - Read. You're asking a question that is way
to dynamic. Read, and learn.

Is that going to be your response every time
you are asked to explain something you consider
correct but got no clear idea why ?
Or, maybe, in some cases you'll just prefer
to ignore such requests as you did in another
thread here ?

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by drag
Is that going to be your response every time
you are asked to explain something you consider
correct but got no clear idea why ?
Or, maybe, in some cases you'll just prefer
to ignore such requests as you did in another
thread here ?

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

You're missing the point. I can explain easy things here. If one is asking to understand such a large area of science, it tells me that person is not very well versed in the essence and fundamentals of science.

I'm not going to copy out for you the text of books of scientific material.

It's your duty to, if you want to speak on a subject with reason, to properly investigate ALL current knowledge.

I wouldn't ask you to show me all the historical evidence of gravity.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You're missing the point. I can explain easy
things here. If one is asking to understand
such a large area of science, it tells me that
person is not very well versed in the essence
and fundamentals of science.

Oh... It's SO complex that my poor knowledge
is by far insufficient to understand this proof ?!
Wow !

Nice talking to you LA !
BTW, I do have one last bit of advice for you -
you may wan'na consider changing that
signature with the "rules" you often use...

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

One can easily see that God is mentioned within the pages of books that are dated as "old".

TO suggest that anything in those pages applies to reality takes on the burden of proof. You seem to not understand this fundamental.

If I wrote down a sentence with a claim, on a piece of paper.

Your mere observations shows it's a sentence on a paper.

To say that the burden of proof lies on you to prove that the claim is not true in reality, is absurd.

It's also breaking a fundamental of science.To you at least know this much? We'll take it in baby steps.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which reports (of God)? Facts, please.

It's a waste of time Alexander. I did that for you several times at the last PF site, and you didn't investigate them then. The truth is, you only are going to study that which supports your position, and dismiss anything which doesn't as nonsense. So the bad news is you get no more evidence, but the good news is I think you and LogicalAtheist are going to become great friends.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It's a waste of time Alexander. I did that for you several times at the last PF site, and you didn't investigate them then. The truth is, you only are going to study that which supports your position, and dismiss anything which doesn't as nonsense. So the bad news is you get no more evidence, but the good news is I think you and LogicalAtheist are going to become great friends.

See Alex? It's funny that someone who only reads evidence supporting their idea actually thinks it's the others who are only reading one side?

One can be as twisted as the neurons in their "brain". Can they not?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
One can easily see that God is mentioned within the
pages of books that are dated as "old".

TO suggest that anything in those pages applies
to reality takes on the burden of proof. You seem
to not understand this fundamental.

If I wrote down a sentence with a claim, on a piece of paper.

Your mere observations shows it's a sentence on a paper.

What ?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
To say that the burden of proof lies on you to prove
that the claim is not true in reality, is absurd.

And yet you clearly said that science DOES
talk about God and DOES prove there is NO God.
Do I need to quote you on this, as a reminder ?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's also breaking a fundamental of science. Do you
at least know this much? We'll take it in baby steps.

Thanks for being gentle with me.

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The truth is, you only are going to study that
which supports your position, and dismiss anything
which doesn't as nonsense. So the bad news is you
get no more evidence, but the good news is I think
you and LogicalAtheist are going to become grea
friends.

How about me, objective enough for you ?
Care to try ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drag
Is that going to be your response every time
you are asked to explain something you consider
correct but got no clear idea why ?
Or, maybe, in some cases you'll just prefer
to ignore such requests as you did in another
thread here ?

Drag, I don't think you understand yet. LogicalAtheist is beyond having to explain himself to the pea-brains here at PF. He is a 23 year old college grad, who works in science! In fact, he is so far past normal intelligence, he, like a doctor of philosophy, is creating new principles of reason and standards of proof.

I think best we just surrender to his brillance and wait, with bated breath of course, for the next intellectual jewel his is going to drop on us. I've already set up a file to record his wisdom for posterity so future generations can benefit from this modern day prodigy.

As for you Drag, I suggest you humble yourself a little more in his presence, as I am doing.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Mmm, drag I think you'll find sleeth will - if you do not agree with him - say that you too are one-sided. It's his crutch.

Drag - I am not attempting to insult YOU. I am however questioning your lack of understanding of the scientific method.

You seem to have mis understood me. Let me question you one some scientific fundamentals. If you do not agree, then I can't speak the same language as you. And thus this ends.

1. Do you understand that in science, the burden of proof of what is known as a singular claim of existence, lies on the side claiming such an object exists?

If you say yes, we continue. If not, then you're not agreeing with logic and science, and thus in whatever system you wish to think, think.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drag
How about me, objective enough for you ?
Care to try ?

Live long and prosper.

I will if you want, but don't you remember our discussions about the history of people who practice "union" or samadhi meditaion that I have spoken about so often? Their reports are different from those that merely speak from "faith" because they have pursued a direct experience. I do not say their reports are proof, but I do say it is evidence, and virtually no one who argues against the possibility of God is familiar with it. To me, that is an incomplete investigation of the evidence. Therefore, conclusions drawn without fairly considering it are not trustworthy conclusions.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Sleeth's strange comment reminds me of the quote:

"... You owe me more than fear. You owe me awe."

As twisted as was the person who spoke those words, so speaks Sleeth.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Sleeth's strange comment reminds me of the quote:

"... You owe me more than fear. You owe me awe."

As twisted as was the person who spoke those words, so speaks Sleeth.

Hmmmm . . . I like this. When are you going to start?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Interesting! How exactly do you define enlightenment? I often look to the role that science plays in the philosophy of religions. Often it seems that information and events conspire to create leaps in thought or concept that ripple through religions and cultures...such as the renaissance period.

Rather than divert this thread (any more than I already have), you might read the thread on "Buddhism" MajinVegeta has going where Wuli and I debate enlightenment for a couple of pages.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
As for you Drag, I suggest you humble yourself
a little more in his presence, as I am doing.

Nah... I like head-to-head - great way to learn,
at least until and unless you discover there's a
wall in between or you crack your own skull - which
is also good because you can then reshape it accordingly.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mmm, drag I think you'll find sleeth will - if you
do not agree with him - say that you too are one-sided.
It's his crutch.

He has not yet, so far. And he has been around
for awhile.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - I am not attempting to insult YOU.

Don't worry about that. Insulting me is a
very difficult task that has to be undertaken
with great seriousness and dedication.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You seem to have mis understood me.

That's what you seem to tell me repeatedly,
and yet you repeatedly refuse or avoid clearly
explaining yourself so that I COULD understand you.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Do you understand that in science, the burden of
proof of what is known as a singular claim of
existance, lies on the side claiming such an
object exists?

If you just allow me to change the word
"existance" to "likely validity" then I agree.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
If you say yes, we continue. If not, then you're
not agreeing with logic and science, and thus
in whatever system you wish to think, think.

Overall, like I said, the answer IS positive.
So ?
It is YOU who made a claim, not I.
Let me explore a certain direction for a moment
which may be what you're getting at - possibly
what you're implying is that since there
is no evidence of God, the term is not defined,
it is wrong to adress this concept at all then.
O.K. such a viewpoint is indeed relevant.
BUT, what YOU said was that there IS PROOF for
the INEXISTANCE of God. So, you adressed
something undefinable, so far, and said you
can prove it does not exist. Now, is THAT reasonable ?

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I will if you want, but don't you remember our
discussions about the history of people who
practice "union" or samadhi meditaion that I
have spoken about so often?

Ah... yes. In that case I appologize for my
poor memory, we went through this already.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - yes, we'll get to the other thing soon.

First we needed that agreement.

The example claim states that this singular object (event) exists.

EXAMPLE: A anatemol exists.

There's my singular object claim

Anatemol - A sphere, which contains within it another sphere, symmetrically placed within the first, and with a radius of half the outter sphere

Ok, so that's what an anatemol is.

I write down in a book I publish (a very short book) called ANATEMOL, the single statement.

"An Anatemol exists."

that's my book, thanks for reading it.

The burden of proof lies on my to provide supporting evidence of my claim. Just like Einstein provided proof in all his publications, of his concepts.

Such another claim is "A God exists".

God - object with no properties other than it is God.

Ok, there's another claim, and it's definition. Meaning that we need no defining factors other than if it's God than it's God. Let's leave that and not nitpick.

Ok, now. Let's add something to the Anatemol.

Double existence claim:

"An Anatemol exists which has a square inside it's smallest sphere."

See, now my claim is not singular.

I hope that we can agree that statistically, the more requirements of such a claim, the less likely it is to occur.

Just like, the chance that you drive to work on friday is greater than the chance that you drive to work and get into an accident as well.

Point being, the more requirements to a claim, the less STATISTICALLY LIKELY.

Ok. Now. We need to understand in a simple manner how this relates to, let's say, this good ole christian God of there's.


claim: "God exists" (meaning the christian one, pretend no other religions with God exist)

Definition of God - A "being" which defines each and every property listed in the publication which made this claim. That publication is both testaments of the bible. We would need to list every single property of God listed.

Remember, treat the bible as an independant text. The definition of this God needs to be all those things. If we find an object in reality that meets all but one, it is not God whatsoever.

So now, statistically likelihood of this God is low, because the amount of claims are high.

But statistics don't prove it isn't so.

Just establish that indeed this independant claim gets less likely as it's property requires more supporting claims...

 

[LogicalAtheist]

...Now.

We have looked at how unlikely a given written claim is in and of itself.

We have established that the burden of proof lies on the claim that such an event or object occurs or exists.

But. It still is good and fine to have not only the opposiing side waiting for this outrageous claim to have some proof, but to also take some time while waiting and find proven claims which contradict, and therefore disprove (to the satisfactory level of science) the claim we're waiting for proof of.

There's one thing that's important here. I don't mean to sound rude by saying that this is something most people mistake, and overlook.

The importance is that this claim of a god with the properties is INDEPENDANT. A given obbject is this item (God) if and ONLY IF it meets every requirement defining it.

Thus, if one defining parameter of it is proven to not be possible (through any of the many ways) it is considered not to exist.

NOTE: Science scrutinizes science, sure mistakes can be made. We need to care only about the here and now.

Let's leave it at that, you comment and when ready we'll do as said above and attack the paramaters.

I mean, we've been waiting for x thousands of years for the other side, we might as well have a go eh?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Ivan Seeking, I'm not sure what you meant in
your response to my message.
A few points I'd like to make that may be
relevant to what you said:
1. Science is merely observation and application
of various reasoning to it of the type that
does allow further progress in improving
this observation. Science is not faith.

I only meant that I have faith in the scientific process. Even though this faith is [edit: seemingly] justified by logic, "belief" still requires faith.

2. Science says nothing about things it does
not observe. As a consequence, science has
nothing to say about God, religion, pink
flying ellephants or my cat being God because
it has no data of this. It can niether confirm
or deny this or indeed adress it in any way.
Is this connected to what you said ?

Live long and prosper.

Exactly. Many people seek to use science as an argument for religious choices ; to believe or not to believe. All such arguments are anti-scientific by definition. Therefore, anyone who attempts to claim the death of God through science is violating the very precepts of their own proof. A religion born in violation of its own commandments? Baptism by heresy! .

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Just establish that indeed this independant claim
gets less likely as it's property requires more
supporting claims...

I will recognize this is likely because it seems
to support observation in most cases as well.
Yet, any time you're going to make a claim
that is not probabalistic but rather absolute,
or on the other hand does not seem to be supported
by presently availible observed data - and thus
unlikely, I will ask you to prove that claim (and
in the case of an absolute claim the
proof chain is likely to be infinite - thus
probably no proof).

As for your second post, I understand it mostly,
but I can only give it precise meaning once
you continue. Please, do.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Drag, I don't think you understand yet. LogicalAtheist is beyond having to explain himself to the pea-brains here at PF. He is a 23 year old college grad, who works in science! In fact, he is so far past normal intelligence, he, like a doctor of philosophy, is creating new principles of reason and standards of proof.

I think best we just surrender to his brillance and wait, with bated breath of course, for the next intellectual jewel his is going to drop on us. I've already set up a file to record his wisdom for posterity so future generations can benefit from this modern day prodigy.

As for you Drag, I suggest you humble yourself a little more in his presence, as I am doing.

LOL. Thank God, it's not just me.

And I thought I knew everything when I was 23. I didn't know anything compared to this guy!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Fliption
And I thought I knew everything when I was 23.

You WERE 23 ?! No way !

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by drag
You WERE 23 ?! No way !

Maybe. Maybe it was a dream. A very arrogant pig-headed dream

 

[maximus]

to believe is to accept as a truth without requiring proof. there is nothing anyone can say that will make you believe. i personally believe in nothing... observable truth is the path of my understanding.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by maximus
to believe is to accept as a truth without requiring proof. there is nothing anyone can say that will make you believe. i personally believe in nothing... observable truth is the path of my understanding.

Do you believe in believing in nothing ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by drag
Do you believe in believing in nothing ?

Nothing is a perfectly good religion.