Burden of proof on us?!

begt · May 6, 2011

No, what I was saying is that you can't be certain about God's existence so you say "without absolute certainty" (I doubt my beliefs), for all practical purposes (I double doubt my beliefs), god cannot exist unless proven otherwise (triple doubt?).

Ok, quick response here as I don't have the time.

I really don't doubt that I'm right that much--- to say the least. But I'm not excluding the possibility completly- that would be unscientific. It's just that I'm 99.999999999999999999% sure that there's no christian/muslim god or whatever.

mulimulix · May 6, 2011

oi_antz said:
LOL! Did you miss what I said in post #72? I'll say it again:

Sorry, I was on my ipod for the last 4 hours of the conversation, so I have had limited capabilities in the way of quoting and clicking links.

oi_antz said:
I just want you to be 100% sure that your definition of faith is authoritative before we compare it to these sources. I would say that someone who freely admits and exercises faith will no doubt trump an observer who doesn't exercise faith. Are you sure that your definition of faith is authoritative?

Well, like a lot of words, I think the definition has changed over time, as well as meaning something different in day-to-day conversation, similar to 'Theory'. When I use the word 'Faith' in everyday use, I usually mean something which is unlikely to happen. Weird example, but when I play basketball with friends and one of my friends who is a horrible shooter takes an important shot, I would say that I have faith he would make it. I know it is unlikely he will make it, but I pretend that he will as it would come at a greater good. But, by definition, I think I would also have 'Faith' that I will wake up tomorrow morning, even though it is overwhelmingly likely. I think in everyday conversation, the meaning of 'Faith' is what I said it to be, but in a religious context, I suppose it is what you said.

Having said this, I would, by definition, have faith in scientists and evolution, but there is no way I have more faith in them than someone does in god/Jesus. By which I mean, something which requires more faith would have less evidence to support it than something which requires little faith, such as me waking up tomorrow morning.

oi_antz said:
The Bible is evidence of God. Jesus is evidence of God. Jesus' disciples are evidence of God. Creation is evidence of God. You just seem to have some sort of problem that prevents you from accepting all this evidence. Are you aware of what might be causing it?

Alright, that is where I think you have a lot more faith in that than I do in evolution. I have contemporary evidence of transitional fossils, as well as new species being created right before our eyes. Not only this, there are mountains of evidence which can be tested, verified and, if necessary, changed. This is something you do not have. No evidence for god, Jesus or miracles can be tested or verified as they all conveniently happen behind closed doors; something which only one person, here or there, will claim to have seen or heard which may suggest nothing more besides the fact they had a hallucination, often while on drugs.

A single 2000 book, published in a time where allegorical literature was extremely common, which makes claims as extraordinary as a man walking on water or turning water into wine (things which had been alleged to have been done before) is not enough to convince most atheists they are wrong, and never will be.

chris4243 · May 6, 2011

mulimulix said:
First, we need to define 'faith'. I define it as a belief in something with little or no evidence. If we can agree on that, i have no faith in scientists or evolution as both are accurate and reliable. Thoughts?

I think you're defining "faith" to mean "blind faith".

Faith applies wherever there is no proof. I don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have very strong faith that it will. I've only verified a very few scientific studies, but I have faith in the honesty of the researchers in general and faith in the system to root out any mistakes or fraud. I take it on faith that quarks, leptons, etc exist.

The Bible talks about both faith and evidence.

Jarnold4108 · May 6, 2011

Again - why do Science and Religion have to go be 'enemies' pursay? If evolution is legit(there's plenty of holes in evolution, too), why couldn't that have been a tool by God to get us where we are today? If man can 'think up' the theory of evolution ... couldn't God have easily created it? He is much smarter than you or I, after all.

This is, of course, if you take the Old Testament word for word and believe the Creationist stuff(which I do not). I am of the thought process that God does not snap his fingers and make something happen immediately, that he more or less has a big scheme plan and puts it into action, than lets it happen - using us as puppets to spread his word and love and uses other experiences to do that spreading, too. It may tick some people off and make them non-believers that he doesn't stop every evil thing from happening, but -- that's why he gave us free will so, we can live our lives -- it's up to us to believe or not.

Dragons87 · May 6, 2011

I still don't believe that Christianity necessarily stands against evolution. I am becoming more convinced that evolution was the method God brought forth life on earth - bit by bit, a quiet revolutionary, which seems to me to be the general way God operates.

That forms my interpretation of the following recent article: BBC News - Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

especially this bit:

"This whole process, the bits coming together of the various elements to produce a recognisable human face, requires great precision. To fuse correctly the three sections must grow and meet at precisely the right time in the womb. If the timing is out, by as little as an hour, the baby may grow up with a cleft lip or cleft lip and palate, which can be extremely disfiguring. Around the world one in 700 babies are born with clefts."

Random selection remains too far-fetched for me to believe for something that, as the article states, precision, and within the hour. That is the experience of 99% of babies. 699 out of 700 babies experience that precision. Randomness just doesn't cut it. So for me the most believable theory is that God designed everything, but allowed his designs to develop piecemeal, rather than go for creating everything within exactly 144 hours - not a second more, not a second less. Then at the right point, he infused humans with the desire for "eternity" (Ecclesiastes 3:11), and began a relationship with us.

So I agree with evolution, because it is what humans have discovered so far about our biological past. But I believe that this unfolded within God's exact plans and designs with mathematical precision.

In that way, my faith and my understanding of science do not clash.

begt · May 6, 2011

"Random selection remains too far-fetched for me to believe for something that, as the article states, precision, and within the hour."

Maybe you haven't read my post in this thread which dealt with the basics of evolution. Evolution is not a random process. Evolution by NATURAL selection is not random because nature only let's well fitted individuals and populations survive.

Mutations are the ultimate source of variation, mutations are extremely rare mistakes that occur when DNA is not copied properly. Random mistakes therefor occur, some are corrected but some are not. Most mutations are slightly deleterious or harmful, but a few are actually beneficial. These favorable mutations then tend to get more common over time in a population. The allele frequency of the population changes, we say that the population evolves.

So you see while mutations per se are random, harmful mutations do not tend to spread in populations because natural selection and sexual selection act against individuals that carry them.

This is a wonderful video by Richard Dawkins. You see that the principle of evolution is used in aerodynamics as well. Nature, over time, finds the best solution available (based on the raw material). Nature is the designer

youtube.com/watch?v=9uzVYgPVtjQ

Dragons87 · May 6, 2011

begt said:
"Random selection remains too far-fetched for me to believe for something that, as the article states, precision, and within the hour."

Maybe you haven't read my post in this thread which dealt with the basics of evolution. Evolution is not a random process. Evolution by NATURAL selection is not random because nature only let's well fitted individuals and populations survive.

Mutations are the ultimate source of variation, mutations are extremely rare mistakes that occur when DNA is not copied properly. Random mistakes therefor occur, some are corrected but some are not. Most mutations are slightly deleterious or harmful, but a few are actually beneficial. These favorable mutations then tend to get more common over time in a population. The allele frequency of the population changes, we say that the population evolves.

So you see while mutations per se are random, harmful mutations do not tend to spread in populations because natural selection and sexual selection act against individuals that carry them.

This is a wonderful video by Richard Dawkins. You see that the principle of evolution is used in aerodynamics as well. Nature, over time, finds the best solution available (based on the raw material). Nature is the designer

The terms "selection" and "design" imply intelligence and some sort of active intervention. Nature doesn't "design"; it only reacts to physical laws. In a sense that's not "random", but in a sense, it is as well. Is that clear...in a way?

begt · May 6, 2011

"The terms "selection" and "design" imply intelligence and some sort of active intervention. Nature doesn't "design"; it only reacts to physical laws. In a sense that's not "random", but in a sense, it is as well. Is that clear...in a way?"

Selection and design are not words that necessarily require intelligence as I've just shown. Nature does design, but it does not design with a purpose in mind. It's a blind watchmaker. I think this becomes clear if you watch the video.

Dragons87 · May 6, 2011

begt said:
"The terms "selection" and "design" imply intelligence and some sort of active intervention. Nature doesn't "design"; it only reacts to physical laws. In a sense that's not "random", but in a sense, it is as well. Is that clear...in a way?"

Selection and design are not words that necessarily require intelligence as I've just shown. Nature does design, but it does not design with a purpose in mind. It's a blind watchmaker. I think this becomes clear if you watch the video.

My goodness! 10 minutes of 1980s life!

What the video shows really is quite amazing, and although I'm not sure I understood it all, nature is not "designing"; it is merely responding to a set of physical laws and circumstances to increase efficiency - the "optimal" result, as the video suggests.

I guess my main point of contention is one of language...to me "design" implies agentive intervention, so for me, an atheist cannot claim that "nature designs", because nature doesn't have a mind to think about what to design. Although, to be fair, I don't know what term I would replace it with...maybe "natural reaction"?

Ah. Whatever.

begt · May 6, 2011

I agree that nature is not designing in the way the word "design" is most often used. But it's hard to find a better term.

EazyMack · May 6, 2011

I feel no burden to prove my faith... because if I'm wrong, I suffer no eternal consequences.

But if the atheist is wrong...

EazyMack · May 6, 2011

Disclaimer: though I say I feel no burden to prove my faith, this does not mean that I feel it is unimportant to witness, and to have an understanding of the case that I make. I <3 apologetics.

begt · May 6, 2011

That argument makes no sense I'm afraid, EazyMack.

You think you have nothing to lose, but if you are religious you are obliged to suspend your critical thinking in some ways. Who knows, if there's a god chances are it's not the christian god but perhaps one of the other millions of gods that humans claim to have.

IF you only believe to escape punishment.. isn't that rather pathetic. Do you think that a god would be pleased of that? Doesn't make sense, it would be impossible to trick god in that sense.

Btw QualiaSoup has a good take on Pascal's wager:

YouTube - Betting on infinity

Jarnold4108 · May 6, 2011

You only have to sacrifice critical thinking if you believe the Old Testament word-for-word and take it literally. A lot of those stories were used to teach us lessons and I personally, do not take it that way. The New Testament a bit moreso. So, I'm still quite able to critically think ... but -- I think God plays a role in everything, including science and the creation of everything -- It was not pure coincidence.

Jarnold4108 · May 6, 2011

begt said:
Who knows, if there's a god chances are it's not the christian god but perhaps one of the other millions of gods that humans claim to have.

Considering two of the largest faith organizations(Christian and Jewish) are probably preaching to the same God(obviously some differences on Jesus) than I do not feel how you can say 'chances are it's not him' when a large, large population for a long, long time have prayed to this God.

The Muslim God has a lot of similarities to our God as well, obviously the teachings and practices are different ... but -- again -- those are man made things, not his work. I'm more in the line of thinking that a lot of us are probably praying to the same man, just in different ways. The part where I think a lot of us contest is Jesus Christ. I feel he was the Son of God. Jews and Muslims do not.

leftrightleftrightleft · May 6, 2011

mulimulix said:
That is simply not true; bring some evidence and sure... And no, I did not prove the point. The acowist can EASILY be shown evidence for cows. As an atheist, I am yet to be shown evidence.

Did you read the cowist thread? The exact point is that even if people bring evidence, the acowist rejects it because its not "real" evidence. So my example that cows are real: I go show you a cow. But, as a stubborn acowist, you reply that this thing I've just shown you is not a cow, it is just a mechanical device that looks biological and cows, as living, breathing, natural organisms, don't exist.

The same can be applied to God. I think there is ample evidence for God, DNA is one such thing that seems highly improbable to form. Sexual reproduction forming via natural processes also seems slightly chicken-and-the-egg. The fact that the force laws (Coulombs Law and Newtons Law of Gravitation) are of the exact same form. The fact that seemingly unrelated quantities end up being second derivatives of some other quantity to give an equation of the form (1/2)ab^2 (ex. acceleration, kinetic energy, bernoullis principle etc). The fact that music exists and creates powerful emotions bringing joy and tears cross-culturally despite being functionally useless in terms of strict evolution. Near-death experiences which almost always feature a light followed by a feeling of warmth; cross-culturally, near-death experiences are strikingly similar. The fact that humans are never really satisfied with life, always seeking always wanting more as if they have some hidden knowledge that there is more to the universe than meets the eye and they wish to find it (remember, it is this drive which brought about the scientific method in the first place). The fact that life's sole purpose is to live and there is seemingly no reason why inanimate atoms and molecules should have such a purpose when put together in certain configurations.

Most of these things can be explained by evolutionary biology, genetics and brain chemistry. Just as you can explain away a cow when someone shows it to you by saying that its just a mechanical contraption. So you will likely discount this "evidence" I have presented but its not like I really expect someone to become a believer in God via an internet forum anyway...

(There's also things like the Bible that are compelling towards the reality of God but that's a whole other can of worms for you).

EazyMack · May 6, 2011

begt said:
You think you have nothing to lose, but if you are religious you are obliged to suspend your critical thinking in some ways.

Or so you say.

I am skeptical by nature, and many of the great apologists were. I've questioned Christianity. The New Testament is just too convincing for me to simply overlook and write off as religious garble. It was written by folks who had nothing to gain, and willingly lost everything, because of their having witnessed the resurrected Christ.

Something happened to cause these people to abandon the status quo that they once lived by... to go to death for their convictions. And they all agreed that the reason they were willing to go to the grave was because they saw the resurrected Christ, who had done all that He said He would do up to that point, including returning from the dead. They weren't just some looney terrorist martyrs. They knew what they saw, they knew what it meant, and so they knew to keep talking about it, even when facing the prospect of imprisonment, torture, & death.

Christianity also makes more sense than the other world religions, mainly because everyone else's idol/prophet/guru is... well, dead. Also because Christianity is an all-or-nothing deal, and if I am convinced of the deity & resurrection of Jesus, it leaves no room to also believe what Mohammed or Buddha or Krishna or Oprah Winfrey tell me, because it would be contradictory.

So, I'm convinced, and you're not... it's an ongoing issue, and will be until Jesus returns. If I were you, I'd try to be a little more open-hearted about it. And I hope you do!

EazyMack · May 6, 2011

By the way, witnesses of Christ have continued to exist since that time, including myself, and always will.

Compare the testimonies of a born again Christian to that of someone of any other religion. Other religions are family traditions that are forced down from generation to generation, usually due to the influence of the culture. Either that, or they are adopted by people who are seeking to become religious (though the former is still more common).

Most Christians become Christians because of what Christ did for them. Yeah, for some people it's just a religion that they got from mom & dad... but most people have a real testimony as to what a difference Christ has made in their lives. It's a real matter of the heart, not a matter of religion.

Dragons87 · May 6, 2011

begt said:
...if you are religious you are obliged to suspend your critical thinking in some ways.

Ha. Depends on what sort of "critical thinking" you mean. I definitely suspended my critical thoughts of other human beings. I was no longer really shocked at people doing shocking things. T'is but the result of our sinful natures...

But if you mean the kind of critical thinking that leads one to ask questions that challenge assumptions, such critical thinking renders one rebellious, not atheist. Lots of people, after a process of critical thinking, come to the belief that there has to be more in the world than just what can be seen. Just because you are an atheist and you employ critical thinking doesn't mean that only atheists can think critically. Lots and lots of inventions, scientific discoveries and politically astute decisions were made by religious people.

begt · May 6, 2011

Yeah, of course religious people can think critically. It's just that they tend to wall off a part of their brain- the religious part...

Burden of proof on us?!

Newbie

Free Thinker

Advocate of Truth

Newbie

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

Newbie

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

Newbie

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

Newbie

EazyMack

Guest

EazyMack

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

EazyMack

Guest

EazyMack

Guest

The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency