Why do you people even care?

[Holy Shit]

The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its beginning, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being.

The above has been taken from the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic.

[Kune]

It's true enough that there could be a being much more advanced than us or even evolved and based on a completely different plain.

Still the idea of a guy who watches from up in some clouds with really strict moral laws, who communicates with and donates all of his world power to a few douchebags is pretty laughable. Even as laughable as the idea that doing away with religion will end all war.

[bung]

Being that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator acts as evidence in itself against the existence of a creator.

[Hare_Geist]

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the God-believers who luckily had the concept of faith to get out of a tight spot.

If I came up to you and said "Believe in the Shit Monster" and you said no, there's no evidence and that's just silly, I bet you would be really pissed off if I started going around saying "well, it takes as much faith to not believe in the Shit Monster as it does to believe in him, so you might as well believe in him just in case."

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-14-2007).]

[Lord. Better Than You]

Or what if we KNOW the supreme being and we're just not aware of it?

Like we are limited within infinite conciousness, and the only way to get out of it is to find "spiritual enlightenment"?

Feelings of inadaquacy etc make people aspire for me. (I'm not one of those people)

[Kooper0]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the God-believers who luckily had the concept of faith to get out of a tight spot.

If I came up to you and said "Believe in the Shit Monster" and you said no, there's no evidence and that's just silly, I bet you would be really pissed off if I started going around saying "well, it takes as much faith to not believe in the Shit Monster as it does to believe in him, so you might as well believe in him just in case."



Exactly. Faith is belief without evidence, not belief without proof. And there is plenty of evidence for no deity (no evidence for it itself being evidence).

[RAOVQ]

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

Exactly. Faith is belief without evidence, not belief without proof. And there is plenty of evidence for no deity (no evidence for it itself being evidence).

thats not evidence. if god appeared tommorow you could not say "you weren't here yesterday or the day before, therefore you cannot exist".

the only thing that can be said is that there is no evidence that points towards any kind of supreme being. therefore, god is found innocent of existing.

[Hare_Geist]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

The only thing that can be said is that there is no evidence that points towards any kind of supreme being. therefore, god is found innocent of existing.

The very concept of a God is not likely, let alone which God.

I like the argument that the universe is everything that ever was and is, so to ask what was here before something was here is absurd. That's what you're doing when you're positing God as the creator of the universe.

I also like David Hume's arguments, that goes something like this:

quote: 1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and 'purpose'.



2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.



3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design.



4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?



5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)



With all evidence pointing otherwise and every theist failing to prove the existence of God scientifically or through a-priori methods, you're silly to believe in God.

There is a probability for the existence of God, but it is so small that I highly doubt it. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

EDIT - in short, I agree with you to an extent.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-14-2007).]

[cakezone]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

Being that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator acts as evidence in itself against the existence of a creator.

No. It really doesn't.

It may be highly improbable that there is a creator, but that in no way acts as evidence against a creator.

quote:The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 02-14-2007).]

[Q777]

The existiace of a God is as unknowable as Russles teapot(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). While you can not know for sure if the fsm exists. Evidence and lack of evidence can make its non existence more probable than his existence. Evidence (or lack of) such as that we have never seen a teapot in orbit, or we never put a tea pot in orbit.

As for God we as you stated nothing indicates his existence but there could be. Evidence such as some sort of a apparent supreme being controlling every thing, if the physical laws changed at whim of this supreme being if we appeared to be designed and no sort of evolution took place, or if the earth solar system was the only one, if pray yield regular results or if there was only one religion.

Although none of these would prove the existence of a God but it would make his existence more probable.

[corruptgoldfish]

our upbringing surrounded by religions have been the only reason to think there even had to be a "creator"

labotomies=bad idea

electroshock therapy=bad idea

persecute the jews=bad idea

take over the world=bad idea

RELIGION=BAD IDEA



we learned from our other mistakes, why not this one?

[bung]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:



No evidence for a creator decreases the probability of a creator existing, thus, while it may not be direct evidence, I would say it is a form of evidence. Think unicorns, leprechauns, etc..

If there is no evidence linking someone to a crime, there is no reason to assume said person committed this crime, of course, that doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime, but it is the most likely conclusion, as no court would ever convict this person because it would be stupid and unjust to do so if no evidence even points towards them being a suspect.

So yes, the lack of evidence can act as evidence disfavoring somethings' existence, but cannot act as evidence in favor of somethings' existence.

[ArmsMerchant]

Interesting tht so many folks seem to brag about being ignorant, regarding God. The main problem, I think, is that the prevaling definition of God is obsolete, an irrational artifact of the Piscean Age. God as a Supremem Being is--for want of a more precise term--nonsense, if you define "being" as some sort of discrete entity--an old white dude with long hair and a beard, for instance.

God IS essentially spirit--but then so are we all. This is contrary to the prevailing superstition of materialism, but that will change, is changing, as the human species evolves.

[Daz]

Lobotamies are the shit though.

[cakezone]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

No evidence for a creator decreases the probability of a creator existing, thus, while it may not be direct evidence, I would say it is a form of evidence. Think unicorns, leprechauns, etc..

If there is no evidence linking someone to a crime, there is no reason to assume said person committed this crime, of course, that doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime, but it is the most likely conclusion, as no court would ever convict this person because it would be stupid and unjust to do so if no evidence even points towards them being a suspect.

So yes, the lack of evidence can act as evidence disfavoring somethings' existence, but cannot act as evidence in favor of somethings' existence.

Decreasing probability does not mean evidence. A lack of evidence for one thing only means that it is less probable, not that it is impossible, or that there is evidence for the other side of the argument. If a person is acquitted in a court of law because there is no evidence linking them to a crime, they are released as a result of lack of evidence, not evidence proving that they did not commit the crime. There is probability, and reasonable doubt. Neither of those two things equate to actual evidence, however.

[Kykeon]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:



Look around your room. Do you see an elephant? Probably not. Does that mean that there is definatley no elephant in your room? Not really. It's possible that there is an invisible elephant sitting in the corner, it's just unlikely as hell. Still, would you argue that there is no evidence for the lack of an elephant in your room? I hope not.

[cakezone]

quote:Originally posted by Kykeon:

Look around your room. Do you see an elephant? Probably not. Does that mean that there is definatley no elephant in your room? Not really. It's possible that there is an invisible elephant sitting in the corner, it's just unlikely as hell. Still, would you argue that there is no evidence for the lack of an elephant in your room? I hope not.

Thats a terrible example because there is rather conclusive evidence that there is no elephant in my room. I have a better understanding of my bedroom than humans do of the world around them, hence I am more qualified to make conclusive decisions about it.

For instance, there is no physical way for an elephant to get into my room. It has one doorway, and two windows, neither of which accommodate an elephant. Aside from that, my house is locked when I am not inside, therefore, even if it was physically possible to fit an elephant inside of my house, it wouldn't have been able to get in without causing severe structural damage to my theoretical elephant-sized doorway.

Next time, I would go for an example that actually holds a point to the topic.

[Hare_Geist]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Thats a terrible example because there is rather conclusive evidence that there is no elephant in my room. I have a better understanding of my bedroom than humans do of the world around them, hence I am more qualified to make conclusive decisions about it.

For instance, there is no physical way for an elephant to get into my room. It has one doorway, and two windows, neither of which accommodate an elephant. Aside from that, my house is locked when I am not inside, therefore, even if it was physically possible to fit an elephant inside of my house, it wouldn't have been able to get in without causing severe structural damage to my theoretical elephant-sized doorway.

Next time, I would go for an example that actually holds a point to the topic.

You don't get metaphor, do you? Or were you just skirting around his valid statement?

[cakezone]

I understand what he was trying to say. The problem is that it is not a valid statement because the parameters of the situation he described were much different than they are when people ask for evidence/lack thereof of a higher deity.

In that situation, I already know everything about an elephant. I know what its capabilities are, and I know the physical limits of my room. These things are not so when talking about a deity.

If you have some other viewpoint on this, by all means, share a rebuttal.

edit: and please do not waste my time with the flying spaghetti monster, or any similar arguments. While I understand and agree with the points they make, they only show that it is highly improbable that there is a god, and that it would certainly be silly to believe in a god given the lack of evidence. They do not however, provide any evidence against a god.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 02-15-2007).]

[bung]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Decreasing probability does not mean evidence. A lack of evidence for one thing only means that it is less probable, not that it is impossible, or that there is evidence for the other side of the argument. If a person is acquitted in a court of law because there is no evidence linking them to a crime, they are released as a result of lack of evidence, not evidence proving that they did not commit the crime. There is probability, and reasonable doubt. Neither of those two things equate to actual evidence, however.

ev·i·dence (ěv'ĭ-dəns)

n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

evidence. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://tinyurl.com/yvnvb7

The lack of evidence and extreme improbability of a creator have helped me form my judgments as an atheist, thus, they are evidence.



[This message has been edited by bung (edited 02-15-2007).]

[cakezone]

For the record, I am referring to proof when I say evidence. If the exact definition of the word is really whats causing all of the confusion, then this certainly clears a lot up.

That being said, another definition of the word from the site you referenced says:

"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

So the exact wording seems to make a difference here.

[Twisted_Ferret]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

In that situation, I already know everything about an elephant. I know what its capabilities are, and I know the physical limits of my room. These things are not so when talking about a deity.

Ah, but you do not know everything about invisible elephants. In fact, maybe you don't know everything about normal elephants either. Maybe those Discovery Channel specials were faked. Maybe everyone's been lying to you and elephants are actually quite small. Maybe it's an invisible BABY elephant.

Maybe you need to refute the idea behind the metaphor, not a single form of a single metaphor designed to show a different point.

[cakezone]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Ah, but you do not know everything about invisible elephants. In fact, maybe you don't know everything about normal elephants either. Maybe those Discovery Channel specials were faked. Maybe everyone's been lying to you and elephants are actually quite small. Maybe it's an invisible BABY elephant.

Maybe you need to refute the idea behind the metaphor, not a single form of a single metaphor designed to show a different point.

1. The example said elephants. Not invisible elephants. I am confident that current scientific data about elephants is fairly accurate.

2. I've heard this said to me twice. Would you like to enlighten me as to the point of the metaphor, instead of telling me to just "get it"?

What I'm gathering is that his argument is "even though I can't see an elephant in my room, it would be stupid to say that there is no evidence against there being an elephant in my room." The problem with projecting this example onto the argument of whether or not there is evidence (in the sense of proof) against a higher deity is that there is rather substantial proof that there is no elephant in my room. The fact that I know what I'm looking for (an elephant) and that I can clearly see the extents of my room make that "metaphor" irrelevant, because it does not follow the same parameters as the original argument. On the other hand however, I do not know what I am looking for in a higher deity, and I do not know the extents of the universe in which that deity can reside. You can say that this is nitpicking at individual components of this "metaphor", but the fact is that those individual components are what makes up the logic behind using that example. That example, and the flying spaghetti monster example are excellent tools in an argument about why it might be unreasonable to outright believe in one particular defined god (and it is, in my opinion) but it does not give proof that there is no higher deity.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 02-15-2007).]

[Kykeon]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

1. The example said elephants. Not invisible elephants. I am confident that current scientific data about elephants is fairly accurate.

2. I've heard this said to me twice. Would you like to enlighten me as to the point of the metaphor, instead of telling me to just "get it"?

What I'm gathering is that his argument is "even though I can't see an elephant in my room, it would be stupid to say that there is no evidence against there being an elephant in my room." The problem with projecting this example onto the argument of whether or not there is evidence (in the sense of proof) against a higher deity is that there is rather substantial proof that there is no elephant in my room. The fact that I know what I'm looking for (an elephant) and that I can clearly see the extents of my room make that "metaphor" irrelevant, because it does not follow the same parameters as the original argument. On the other hand however, I do not know what I am looking for in a higher deity, and I do not know the extents of the universe in which that deity can reside. You can say that this is nitpicking at individual components of this "metaphor", but the fact is that those individual components are what makes up the logic behind using that example. That example, and the flying spaghetti monster example are excellent tools in an argument about why it might be unreasonable to outright believe in one particular defined god (and it is, in my opinion) but it does not give proof that there is no higher deity.





Actually, my example did say "invisible elephant". Scroll up and read it again if you don't believe me. This is entirely insignificant to the argument, though. Shame on you for trying to inflate your post and dance around the point.

The point being: there isn't substantial proof that there isn't an invisible elephant in your room. You can't see it. Never having seen it, you can't possibly know what it can or cannot do. Maybe it can walk through walls, too.

It's not supposed to be proof that there is no invisible elephant/deity. That's impossible, you couldn't definately prove or disprove such a thing. It's evidence against their existence, and there is a huge difference.

EDIT: Whoops, just read your (cakezone) explanation of your views on evidence vs. proof. Disregard the post, then. In the future, you should really use words the way they are really defined to avoid silly mishaps like this.

[This message has been edited by Kykeon (edited 02-15-2007).]

[cakezone]

quote:Originally posted by Kykeon:



[/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, if my wording/usage was confusing I apologize. He was referring to one sense of the word, whilst I was referring to another.