Being a student at an Anglican school I'm often presented with this argument.

"There is no evidence that God does NOT exist, therefore it's still possible"

Hmm, there's no evidence that I can't sprout wings, breathe fire and roar, "I am the Gatekeeper" but apparently that's a lot less likely than an infinitely powerful and self-contradictory (free-will/ omnisciences ) entity existing in a universe with a limited amount of energy.


Anyhoo, I've decided to come up with this thread, purley to get a better understanding of how a theist overcomes the insane logical leaps that are required to believe in a god. And also to present my own arguments for how gods must not exist.
So to start us off.

According to accepted physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, while there is an insane amount of energy in the universe, an infinite being could not exist with a limited amount of energy.

Sorry to repeat myself, because I've just said something very similar on another thread, but here goes: You're assuming here that God is subject to the physical laws of the universe, yet if 'he' created the universe then he must have originated outside the universe, where these laws do not apply.

Can you explain what it would mean to exist "outside" of reality?

I was referring to God existing outside of the universe, not outside of reality, but no, I can't really get my head around what it must be like exactly. We know that there is an edge of the universe, so outside of it must exist, but trying to imagine what that must be like is a bit like a fish trying to imagine what it's like outside its pond - only more so.

Just to expand on my previous post, scientists believe that the laws of physics - the passage of time included - are characteristics of our universe and so do not operate outside it. So what there is outside the universe, goodness knows. The eternal moment, I guess.

Those same scientists would tell you that it is literally meaningless to claim that there is an "outside" to reality.

To refer back to my last but one post (post #4 in this thread), I've never referred to outside of reality, only to outside our universe, i.e. outside this expanding 'bubble' which began with the big bang.

In this context they are one in the same. The universe contains what is, Reality is what is.. So the question still stands, what could it possibly even mean to speak of being outside of reality?

Answering XTimmy's original post: indeed, there's exactly as much evidence against (or for) the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for Yahweh.

That's why I take both exactly as seriously.

(Though, the FSM's heaven has a stripper factory and a beer volcano, and priests dress like pirates. Hmm... I must reconsider this, perhaps...)

(Hmm... I think I'll post this in the blog. Thanks for the idea.

This post was last modified: 12-24-2006 03:58 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

That reminds me of a point I meant to make, that being that there is exactly the same amount of evidence that there is an "outside" of reality/the universe as there is for the judeo-xn god, which is to say that both rely upon contradictions!

And your claim that there is no outside of the universe isn't a contradiction? What, then, is the universe expanding into?
Happy solstice holiday to everyone, by the way! (I think we can agree on that much!)

Wouldn't any past universes be "outside" our universe, but not outside reality?

This post was last modified: 12-25-2006 05:51 AM by Einsteinmonkey.

Wouldn't as "past universes" (if such things could exist) simply no longer exist?

A lot of people think of the universe as the result of the big bang. Theoretically, it could have happened more than once in the past.

That would simply mean that the universe has changed sizes (expanding and contracting universe theory) not that it was an entirely new reality/universe.

Your assuming it needs something to expand into, the dimensions within which we live, (we'll ignore time for now, as it's nature (curved, straight etc) cannot be defined), are simply that, dimensions, they warp round themselves so that if you where to travel in one direction around the edge of the universe for an insane amount of time, you would eventually come back to the same place you started from, that is the EDGE OF ACTUAL SPACE, the edge of the dimensions, as far as we know, is the barrier to the physical space we live in, it is not matter, it is not even energy, if it was matter, yes it would require space to expand into, however it is not, the three dimensions (Height, width, depth (subjective terms of course)), do not require space THEY ARE SPACE.

NB: When I say "Time cannot be defined" I meant it HAS not been defined. Just clearing up that massive pot-hole.

This post was last modified: 01-04-2007 03:37 AM by XTimmy.

Yet surely it is possible that there is an *outside* to this physical space we live in, even though it might not have dimensions as we understand them or comply with the laws of physics as we know them?

What, however, have you observed that suggests the existence of that?

Quantum Physics explicitly states that in every moment, there are two or more possible paths for our universe to take, and that IN FACT, reality takes both. This is shown in the famous thought experiment: Schrodinger's Cat.

What this ultimately means is that of all the different possibilities that could have happened in our universe, ALL OF THEM have actually really happened. Every logically consistent universe ACTUALLY does exist.

-micah
Rock & Roll Can Save The World

From Wikipedia:

In other words, the suggested experiment was supposed to be absurd...

It was intended to be absurd, because the framers of the thought experiment did not think anyone would be willing to accept the conclusion reached. However, that conclusion WAS reached, and WAS validated as true. Also from Wikipedia, the same article:

The resolution presented here is the "Copenhagen Interpretation", in which direct observation by a human observer causes the universe to choose one of two directions.

So the Schrodinger's Cat situation is recognized to REALLY be a superposition of two alternate states, but the claim is that these states collapse to one state when a human observes. But this "human observation" claim is the essence of mystical thinking; and is the source of all of these "quantum physics proves you can levitate" books.

If you read further in the article, they discuss the Everett many-worlds interpretation, which is what I hold to. It says that the math is consistent and that quantum physics is TRUE, and that when the math says there are two superimposed states, there REALLY ARE two superimposed states. This means that our slice of history that we observe is only one of the many histories that exist.

This is the viewpoint held by many of the leading physicists, including (if I remember correctly) Stephen Hawking.

Are you serious? Do you even realize the insane illogical leaps it takes to believe we are all a cosmic accident? That their is NO evidence to support evolution?

How about "There is plenty of evidence evolution does NOT exist, therefore it is not possible"

Whoever tries to use your quote to prove the existance of God I will admit is a moron, and obviously doesn't care enough to know. The proof of the existence of God is evident in his creation, for starters.

The Bible is really easy to prove as well as being divinely inspired. I'm talking evidence of a divine intelligence that exists outside of our boundaries including time that you will not find in any other book that has ever existed on the planet. Let me show you some examples:

Proverbs 25:2
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

Prophecy alone should be enough to prove the authenticity of the bible, but we don’t have to stop there. Here are just a few of many interesting facts about the bible:

Fact #1:

Over 300 different detailed prophecies of Jesus Christ….all fulfilled.

Isaiah 46:9,10
“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,”

Mathematicians have calculated that to fulfill just 8 of the over 300 prophecies of Jesus Christ would come to a chance of 1 in 10^28 (10 with 28 zeros after it)!

The same odds of filling the entire state of Texas with silver dollars to a height of 2 feet, and be able to pick blindfolded by chance one randomly placed marked silver dollar mixed among them.

Fact #2:

Let’s take the genealogy from Adam to Noah in order, as it is listed, with the meaning of their names shown next to them:

Adam – ‘Man’
Seth – ‘Appointed’
Enosh – ‘Mortal’
Kenon – ‘Sorrow’
Mahalalel – ‘The blessed God’
Jared – ‘Shall come down’
Enoch – ‘Teaching’
Methuselah – ‘His death shall bring’
Lamech – ‘The despairing’
Noah – ‘Rest, or comfort’

In paragraph form it reads as follows:
‘Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching (that) his death shall bring the despairing rest.’

Fact #3:

In the book of Genesis God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son whom he loved, Isaac, on one specific mountain top named Golgotha as it is known today.

Isaac asked Abraham in Gen. 22:7 ‘Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’, Abraham responded with ‘My son, God will provide himself the lamb for the burnt offering.’

Though Isaac was not sacrificed, and a ram took his place, that was a prophetic statement about a son that was to be sacrificed. That son was Jesus Christ, sacrificed 2000 years later on that very same mountain top!

The elevation of Golgotha is 777 meters!

Isaac was not mentioned again until he received his bride. This parallels the idea that when Jesus returns, he will receive his bride(church).

Fact #4:

Let’s compare the event known as Passover with events that took place with Jesus. In Passover, a lamb was to be sacrificed using its blood on the door to protect the first born sons from the angel of death.

a. Inspection of the lamb began on the 10th day of Nisan – Jesus arrived as king of Jerusalem on the 10th day of Nisan
b. The lamb was to be unblemished – Jesus, or ‘The Lamb of God’ was perfect.
c. The sacrifice of the lamb took place on the 14th day of Nisan – Jesus was crucified on the 14th day of Nisan.
d. Not a bone was to be broken with the lambs – One fulfilled prophecy about Jesus was that not a bone was to be broken. A Roman soldier disobeyed a direct order by piercing Christ’s side instead.
e. The positions of the blood on the door before Passover were to be placed in a way that if a line were to be drawn through them, would form a cross, mimicking where Christ would bleed himself.

Fact #5:

Noah’s ark touched ground the very same day of the year Christ rose from the dead, as the Bible specifically points out, when adjusting for the difference of 7 months between the old and new Jewish calendars. Both events represent a ‘new beginning’.

Fact #6:

A simple example of ELS (equidistant letter sequencing) can be found in the actual verses in Genesis dealing with the creation of vegetation. Hopping to every third letter through these verses in the Hebrew text sequentially reveals all 25 trees mentioned in the Bible.

Fact #7:

Numbers chapter 1 and 2 describe specific rules for encampment around the tabernacle (mobile temple). When calculating the amount of people in each direction, an aerial view would reveal a giant cross. In the Old Testament!

My belief in God and his true word has virtually none to do with blind faith. There is also an abundance of Historical, Geographical, and archeological evidence to support it. If one chooses to be willfully ingorant of it, no amount of facts or evidence will be enough unfortunately.

Remember these verses:

Proverbs 28:26
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

Jeremiah 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things , and desperately wicked: who can know it

This post was last modified: 01-14-2007 10:45 AM by Biblenut.

You do realize that this is purely circular reasoning right?

As to your assertions concerning creation and evolution, do you have anything whatsoever to support them? Clearly they are false (such as your assertion concerning evolution) so I have to ask whether you are using the notion of truth as correspondence to reality or some arbitrary bastardization of the notion of truth which means something along the lines of "agrees with the xn doctrine despite reality?"

A similar question must be asked concerning your use of the term "fact." You are using it to express pure opinion and empty doctrine, when the term "fact" refers to statements which accurately represent reality. How do you reconcile these two facts?

Notradamus if read "correctly" has an even better track record, so therefore he must be jebus right?

You do realize that the claims of the prophecies and the claim of the fulfillment of the prophecies come from the exact same VERY MUCH self interested source right? This is akin to my telling you that I made 1000 prophecies and that I was correct every time. Would you really fall for it were I to say it? Would you so boldly and baselessly assert that it was a fact that I had made those prophesies and that I was correct in each?

You place enormous weight on pure coincidence. Place similarity is not coincidental by pure accident but by direct intention of those using this tool to control the masses, as well as to sway them into believing. There is no evidence that any of the events you mention occurred at all, much less occurred where, when, how you claim, much less that there is any relationship between any two of them. Not only is this "fact" you try to use to support your assumptions not a fact, it never even gets off the ground at all, nor could it get any grip (logically speaking), even if it could.

As noted, there exists no evidence to support the belief in any god, particular the judeo-xn notion of god which is inherently self-contradictory and impossible. Claiming otherwise and putting together peculiar coincidences does not change this very real and verifiable fact.

Since you claim that it is "illogical" to believe in reality, and then use a host of logical fallacies and arguments which fail miserably to support the conclusion, perhaps a bit of reading on the nature and meaning of logic would be in order. I would recommend The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy as a wonderful text which is easy to read for the layperson.

If it is circular, then you should have something to prove evolution. Oh, that's right, there is none. There is plenty of evidence to DISPROVE it. There is no evidence to disprove what the Bible claims. See my point? Your so called circular reasoning can be devided by those who are willing to put their pride away, and those who are willfully ignorant.

Truth not only leaves evidence to show for it (i.e. the flood), but it is also not afraid of investigation.

There is abundant evidence (or to you non-reality imaginary facts?) that also supports a young earth, completely pulling the rug not only from evolutionists, and those trying to marry old earth views with the Bible, because they are under the false assumption Darwin represented truth or had a leg to stand on.

Why does everyone bring up Nostrodamus when I speak of prophecy? Was anything he 'predicted' really worth a darn? Can you also show me a detailed prophecy by Nostrodamus that was fullfilled? Was he correct 100% of the time? A better track record? Are you serious too? 100% fullfillment is an earmark of God. As it states in this verse:

Deut 18:20-22
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Nostrodamus didn't cure the blind, walk on water, or raise himself from the dead. Until I find out different, I'll stick with Jesus. If you made 1000 detailed prophecies and was right everytime, you would have my attention.

How exactly are the 'Bible facts' not facts? Check them out yourself. Don't believe me.

You my friend are proof and evidence of the existence of God.

One more thing, coincidence happens more than once. You should be able to then, show me these same examples in another religious book right?

This post was last modified: 01-14-2007 11:37 AM by Biblenut.

Clearly you are not familiar with the meaning of a circular argument. A circular argument is one in which the conclusion appears as one of the premises (either stated or unstated). In this instance you claim that the proof of your impossible entity exists in the form of that which "he" created. For "him" to create anything "he" must exist, therefore ""god" exists" is one of your premises. Since this is also your conclusion, the argument is necessarily circular.

Ample evidence for a "young earth??" Again you must be redefining the term "evidence" as explained in the previous post. Certainly the concrete proof that various man made objects existed well over the mere 5K years that the "young earth" cultists claim is the age of the earth is sufficient to disprove any such claim. And that does not even go into the dating of rocks, or mountain ranges, the tetonic plates, etc.

Pick ANY religious book and you will find the exact same tactic used.

BTW since you say that you will simply mindlessly believe me if I claim that I have made a thousand prophesies which came true. allow me to now make that claim. Now if you are an honest person you will abide by your statement, and now acknowledge me as your lord. My lone commandment? LEARN, THINK, OBSERVE. Oh btw, I also raise myself from the dead on a routine basis, Walk on water at least once a year, and cure blindness when the whim strikes me. Since you need but one self-serving source, those claims must be taken as "facts" as you employ the term.

As to why the contradictory claims of the judeo-xn bible are not actually facts, the reasons are many, but the self serving nature combined with the lack of corraborating evidence should suffice. The fact that you must employ a double standard in order to defend those claims also should suffice. The fact that necessarily they are not verifiable, nor reasonable, should also suffice. You would not believe any other source which made such outrageous claims in the exact same circumstance, as clearly you deny the near infintie proof of evolution from literally thousdands of sources.

I made the statement you are proof of God, but that wasn't my argument. I rather show proof of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Once one can agree with that, debating on Gods existance isn't an issue anymore, or the accuracy of the Bible. I will pick a random 'religious book'. The Book of Mormon. Oops, none of those exist. Care to describe one? How are they using the same tactic? They aren't. They use a completely different one. They tell you to trust the giddy feelings in your heart, and ignore the evidence against it.

Let's try another one. The Koran. Oops, none of those exist in it either. Do you know one? Just one? You claim it is the exact same. Are you going to give me the run around like you have been doing? Have you looked into how the Muslim belief started?

Yes, man, I am talking concrete proof of a young earth. You say proof of man made objects that existed well over 5k years? What proof? Carbon dating? The same carbon dating that will show creatures that are alive when tested to be over 40k years old? The same carbon dating that will show the guts of a mammoth 20k years older than the hair, and the food in its mouth to be 10k years older than that? What is your definition of 'concrete proof'? Your own mind?

If you think a Bible believer is part of a cult, you should look more into what a cult is. By your standards, your athiest, worshipers of themselves crowd would be a cult too.

Like I said before, The Bible is extremely verifiable, by examples that I showed, historically and archeologically. Do I need proof of everything? No, just proof its way more than what you got, or other religions carried by deception that try to convince by confusion such as yourself. You want proof of a young earth, go to http://www.drdino.com and watch the videos. They are free.

Overall, I am confused as to what you consider proof, because it seems you are much more liberal on facts/proof and not as strict as I am. Pride is the #1 truth blocker.

Of course not because that is purely circular reasoning. Imagine if I told you the exact same thing, but used the flying spagetti monster everywhere you use the inherently contradictory notion of a god. Would you mindlessly accept that the FSM must exist? If not, then you are employing a double standard.

You consider mindlessly buying into whatever your priest tells you to be a stricter definition of proof than correspondence with reality? Come on.

I stongly recommend a basic introductory course in critical thought, critical examination and reasoning. Short of that I recommend reading The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy. Here you will begin to learn about the basics of sound reasoning, as well as the gross and simplistic errors which constitute the whole of your posts. Basic elements such as validity and soundness, true premises, and necessitation which are all entirely missing in your posts, can be clarified and explained in terms that even the layperson can easily grasp.

BTW I take it that you are not at all familiar with the methods of archeology since you pretend that carbon dating (about which you make indefensible false assertions without any hint of a shred of evidence to support) is the only method available despite the fact that it is only one of the many tools available to the rational person. Soil layering, half lives, waste accumulation, and many other indicators reveal with great precision the age of various artifacts.

I notice that again you have simply ignored that which is contrary to your desired conclusion, such as the science of plate tetonics, mountain growth, and the like. You try to use the absurd claims of folks who have not met a rational thought as the basis for denying everything that disagrees with your baseless position. Remember when your beliefs collide with reality, it is NOT reality which is mistaken.

The book of mormon does in fact use the exact same tactics, as it is merely an extension of xnty. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that it is a different religion as opposed to simply another xn sect. Also, I note that you simply deny that the identites exist without once offering any evidence.

I also notice that you are failing to worship me, as your argument necessitates that you must. Is consistency of thought not a requirement for your method of determining what you will stipulate is true despite reality?

CAre to explain how being a reasonable individual makes you a member of a cult as you assert it must?

This post was last modified: 01-14-2007 01:29 PM by TXStorm.

Dude, enough with hiding behind this 'circular reasoning' thing. The truth has evidence, you have shown me none.

Want me to believe in your FSM, Is there evidence to prove it - like - need I remind you again since you seem to be dodging it - Evidence from the Bible that I have shown, that you or anyone else could not show me evident in any other book that has ever existed. Show me this FSM sees the end from the beginning through prophecy, then show me the historical, geographical, and archeological evidence to prove your FSM. Why do you keep avoiding this? Why do I have to keep saying it? I believe nothing on claims alone. I want to see evidence. I have seen the evidence to support the Bible's claims. I have seen the evidence against evolution and for a young Earth. I have seen the evidence that other religions are far different. To answer your 2nd to last question early, you can show me none of this to support the pretend claims you make about your divinity (I know its all in good fun). BTW, I never said I would worship you, I said you would have my attention.

I have no priest. The Bible is my authority, not man. I have no organized, institutionalized religion.

While we are recommending books, read the Bible. You shouldn't argue Smithians (mormons) with me, I've lived in Utah my whole life, you will get smoked. I'll give you all the proof you want. Here is my email addy: jaihawk@comcast.net

Ok you want to talk archeology, if your examples even fall under the archeological category. Soil layers - Geological column, exists nowhere on Earth. You want to talk about circular reasoning, apparently the age of the layer is determined by the fossil in it, and the age of the fossil is determined by the layer its in. It's made up! Usually for more funding. No, they don't use carbon dating to determine this

The half-life of carbon 14 is highly inconsistent, depending on the situation. Go ahead, ask me to show you in more detail on how unreliable it is.

Waste accumulation actually supports a young earth, especially when consdidering ocean salinity, mud deposits, or moon dust. Your 'great precision' is a lie.

Mountain growth - why do mountains have sharp edges on the top?

Your conclusion is desired and biased no less than I. You accuse me of being baseless, when your base is your own fancy 'empty' literature attempts. Instead of trying to sound like you love yourself, give me something to hang my hat on, which I have shown, that you continue to ignore. Show me you are more than a self-absorbed guy that puts way too much faith in himself and so called science and the deception you refer to as 'reality'.

I don't doubt you are a reasonable guy, but no amount of reason or intelligence is going to prevent you from buying into deception. To answer your last question, you, with your great intellect assumed I was part of a cult. There are tell signs of a cult, which I am not part of. So I figured if a belief alone, qualifies as a cult, then you are part of the athiest cult. Evolution is a state funded religion, whether you want to believe that or not.

Watch those videos!!! You criticize my knowledge, take it from someone who does know. Don't be scared.

This post was last modified: 01-14-2007 03:32 PM by Biblenut.

The bible is not evidence of any sort for anything other than the inherent evil nature of the xn religion, and the inherent contradictions of the judeo-xn religion. The bible is a RELIGIOUS TRACT not evidence. It is not factual, it is not researched, it is not verified or even verifiable. It is not consistent, it is not reasonable, it is not empirical, it is not knowledge.

I have shown this repeatedly using counter-examples and by bringing to light that even you do not accept in principle the exact same basis for your claims.

As for hiding behind reason, if you were familiar with reason you of course would not try this ad hominem tactic. There is no hiding here, other than by you. Face reality, face facts. Your entire argument is invalid in form AND has entirely false premises. A sound argument is an argument in which the argument form is valid and all of the premises are true. A valid argument form is one in which the premises necessitate the conclusion. Your argument has neither of the conditions which are necessary to prove a conclusion is true. This is not hiding, it is sound reasoning.

As I have shown there exists EXACTLY the same amount and type of evidence to support the FSM as there does to support the judeo-xn notion of god, and the FSM has one great advantage when comparing the two: the FSM is not self-contradictory like the judeo-xn god necessarily is.

All you have offered as "evidence" are the self-interested claims of those who sought to control the lives of others. Nothing you have offered is fact, can be verified, is even potentially objective, or has any weight to it at all. None of it has been true (remember "true" means corresponds to REALITY not to your desired conclusion). You have not offered one whit of evidence whatsoever, so perhaps you will consider dropping this false claim.

You should not presume your own omniscience without possessing it. You have no knowledge of my knowledge and experience, thus no basis for making such wild and absurd claims. Since you have not thus far offered any hint of any evidence or anything remotely close to a valid argument form, much less a sound argument, it seems quite likely that you are not familiar with what it means to actually prove a point at all.

There is nothing deceptive about reality or about reason.