Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

There is no "evidence" for love, either, but I'm guessing you believe in that. [/quote

Actual PP here. There is evidence for love. Emotions can be observed using brain scans.

No, love can't be seen on a brain scan. The brain's reponse to love can be seen on a brain scan. Big difference. Kind of like a lightbulb shows electricity. Giving off light is just a symptom of electricity. The brain's reaction to love is just a symptom.

You'll want to show why that "brain's response" isn't "love", but rather a symptom. That's like arguing there's no such thing as "blue": only wavelengths on the visible light spectrum and brain responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

This could be the oldest dodge in the book, and practically stinks of desperation. If you take issue with any of the points I quoted, you're free to make them. I'm guessing you're the one who was claiming that Occam's Razor can't possibly be used to question the god hypothesis because, gasp, William of Occam believed in God.

Your argumentation relies heavily on the use of straw men.

Ah, sorry. You concluded in your paragraph re: Occam and the inaptness of applying this in the case of the god hypothesis "The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God." You'll have to forgive me for reading your words, taking their plain meaning, and assuming you were arguing in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

There is no "evidence" for love, either, but I'm guessing you believe in that. [/quote

Actual PP here. There is evidence for love. Emotions can be observed using brain scans.

No, love can't be seen on a brain scan. The brain's reponse to love can be seen on a brain scan. Big difference. Kind of like a lightbulb shows electricity. Giving off light is just a symptom of electricity. The brain's reaction to love is just a symptom.

You'll want to show why that "brain's response" isn't "love", but rather a symptom. That's like arguing there's no such thing as "blue": only wavelengths on the visible light spectrum and brain responses.

What is arguing that? There is no way to prove that what I see as "blue" is the same thing you see as "blue." We can prove that blue = certain wavelengths and that eveyone can look at something and agree it is blue, we can't know what the other is seeing. We just can't.l

On a lighter note, this is often why I think there is "a lid for every pot" in the dating world. There are plenty of people out there who are dating and even married who I think are h i d e o u s. But someone else looked at them and thought "woah, gotta get me some of that." That is pretty good proof that we don't all see the same things.

[Anonymous]

Ox am did not have modern physics. We have no idea what he, a physics student, would say. But we di know what most physicists say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

I don't think anyone has said that God is impossible. I think the PPs here would just say God is unlikely.

Then no one is an atheist.

Only people who look at the preponderance of evidence and choose to have faith in some other explanation for our existence besides God.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods, not the claim to absolutely know that they do not exist.

It's also a term mostly used by "believers" to impugn non-believers. Why? Quick, what's the term for someone who doesn't believe in extraterrestrial visitors? The Easter Bunny? There is none. So far as non-believers (atheists, agnostics, whatever) are concerned, there's no special term needed. We simply think it's misguided.

Further, theists like the term "atheist" because it seems to put atheists and theists on a common footing. But theism is a belief system. "Atheism" (or whatever) isn't. It's a critique of a belief system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're assuming that unicorns exist on Earth. In a universe the size of ours, there's a distinct possibility that another Earth-like planet may have developed favorable to life, and that horses there have a horn. At least that's a coherent narrative. And, yes God is presumed not to be physically present in the world. The most obvious explanation for that is that gods don't exist.

That's leaving aside the scads of documentary evidence of unicorns in literature and art throughout human history.

Well yes, I'm arguing that God is more likely than unicorns on earth. I agree with you that unicorns are more likely if we include the entire universe.

"The most obvious explanation for that is that gods don't exist." But we aren't arguing for obvious explanations. We're arguing the relative improbability. At least God has a reason for not being seen. Do unicorns have a similar reason? As for the documentary evidence, if we were to credit it God would surely win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


But you can't prove something doesn't exist by failing to prove that it does exist. You just can't. It is like our court system. You can fail to prove someone guilty, but that doesn't mean they are innocent. Or guilty. Just means you haven't proven it.


I'm not saying there's proof the soul doesn't exist. I'm saying you can't prove it exists in the way you can prove love exists. Nor is there evidence that the soul exists the way there's evidence that love exists.

I'm not convinced you can prove love exists. All your study does is prove some people have a higher sense of altruism. Unless your argument would be that altruism is a symptom of love?

This is getting silly. Of course "love" exists. Not if you're looking for something you can bottle. But if you define love as an intense emotional attraction, it exists. No magical thinking needed. I think you're creating a conundrum where none exists.

Oh I absolutely agree love exists! And you can't bottle it. My point is that the only proof of love is the emotional feeling humans experience. I can't tell if my child likes something or loves something. Only my child knows. There is no test or measure. But I do believe love exists. But is just like that for other things - I believe souls exist because I can feel my soul the same way I feel love. If I'm feeling guilty about something, it weighs heavy on my soul, etc.

My point is only that there are some universals we all believe exist even with lack of evidence. Love is one of those universal "magical" things that can't be measured or bottled or scientifically proven. It is known and accepted and described in nearly every culture in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If you don't believe in God, do you believe in souls? Do you think you have a soul?

I don't believe in souls or think that I have a soul. Souls are a religious concept - no evidence of their actual existence.

There is no "evidence" for love, either, but I'm guessing you believe in that. [/quote

Actual PP here. There is evidence for love. Emotions can be observed using brain scans.

No, love can't be seen on a brain scan. The brain's reponse to love can be seen on a brain scan. Big difference. Kind of like a lightbulb shows electricity. Giving off light is just a symptom of electricity. The brain's reaction to love is just a symptom.

You'll want to show why that "brain's response" isn't "love", but rather a symptom. That's like arguing there's no such thing as "blue": only wavelengths on the visible light spectrum and brain responses.

What is arguing that? There is no way to prove that what I see as "blue" is the same thing you see as "blue." We can prove that blue = certain wavelengths and that eveyone can look at something and agree it is blue, we can't know what the other is seeing. We just can't.l

On a lighter note, this is often why I think there is "a lid for every pot" in the dating world. There are plenty of people out there who are dating and even married who I think are h i d e o u s. But someone else looked at them and thought "woah, gotta get me some of that." That is pretty good proof that we don't all see the same things.

And yet, we know that there is some objective phenomenon out there that maps to "blue". That's because, notwithstanding a small percentage of humans with a physical condition, people largely agree about the color "blue". This is actually pretty obvious. If you and I are looking at something blue, and a third guy comes along and we ask what color it is, without a hint, he'll say blue. So it's nowhere near as ambiguous as you make it seem.

Anyway, this whole "you can't put a microscope on 'love'" is a bit of a distraction. You can't put a microscope on fun, disappointment, or ennui, either. Do they exist? They're not evidence of the ineffable mysteries of the cosmos. Again, they're poetic license applied to emotional states. Hooray for those states! Still not evidence god exists, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're assuming that unicorns exist on Earth. In a universe the size of ours, there's a distinct possibility that another Earth-like planet may have developed favorable to life, and that horses there have a horn. At least that's a coherent narrative. And, yes God is presumed not to be physically present in the world. The most obvious explanation for that is that gods don't exist.

That's leaving aside the scads of documentary evidence of unicorns in literature and art throughout human history.

Well yes, I'm arguing that God is more likely than unicorns on earth. I agree with you that unicorns are more likely if we include the entire universe.

"The most obvious explanation for that is that gods don't exist." But we aren't arguing for obvious explanations. We're arguing the relative improbability. At least God has a reason for not being seen. Do unicorns have a similar reason? As for the documentary evidence, if we were to credit it God would surely win.

Okay, let's play "Why haven't we seen unicorns on earth?" It's because we're looking in the wrong place: they've got gills, and they live in the deep oceans. Either that or there are only a very few left, and they're tended (and kept hidden) by a secretive sect of religious fanatics in a remote area of Turkey. Heck, I could go on all day.

As far as "documentary evidence", I agree with you that obviously neither medieval tapestries with unicorns on them or the various "holy books" written by men through the ages are evidence of anything--other than that folks like to spin a good yarn.

[Anonymous]

And yet, we know that there is some objective phenomenon out there that maps to "blue". That's because, notwithstanding a small percentage of humans with a physical condition, people largely agree about the color "blue". This is actually pretty obvious. If you and I are looking at something blue, and a third guy comes along and we ask what color it is, without a hint, he'll say blue. So it's nowhere near as ambiguous as you make it seem.

Anyway, this whole "you can't put a microscope on 'love'" is a bit of a distraction. You can't put a microscope on fun, disappointment, or ennui, either. Do they exist? They're not evidence of the ineffable mysteries of the cosmos. Again, they're poetic license applied to emotional states. Hooray for those states! Still not evidence god exists, though.

No, but it is examples of little things in every day life that most humans accept on faith. Because that is really what it is - you accept on faith that love exists, that others experience it. That blue is blue to others. It really isn't a stretch to apply that to God. God is as real to some people as love is to you. THAT is the point. You don't need evidence love exists to believe in it. And others don't need evidence God exists to know he exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Okay, let's play "Why haven't we seen unicorns on earth?" It's because we're looking in the wrong place: they've got gills, and they live in the deep oceans. Either that or there are only a very few left, and they're tended (and kept hidden) by a secretive sect of religious fanatics in a remote area of Turkey. Heck, I could go on all day.

Now you're just being silly. If your first hypo were true, we'd be talking about something other than unicorns (narwhals come to mind, though they don't have gills). As for your second hypo, you can't just make stuff up. The reason has to be something that's part of the ordinary understanding of the thing. God's general lack of physical manefestation is part of the story. Turkish unicorn herders is not. Now we might have a closer case with sea monsters, which are pretty regularly sighted, and which are reputed to live deep in various inland seas and to go long periods without any sightings at all. I think sea monsters are more likely than God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

This could be the oldest dodge in the book, and practically stinks of desperation. If you take issue with any of the points I quoted, you're free to make them. I'm guessing you're the one who was claiming that Occam's Razor can't possibly be used to question the god hypothesis because, gasp, William of Occam believed in God.

Your argumentation relies heavily on the use of straw men.

Ah, sorry. You concluded in your paragraph re: Occam and the inaptness of applying this in the case of the god hypothesis "The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God." You'll have to forgive me for reading your words, taking their plain meaning, and assuming you were arguing in good faith.

I did not say Occam's razor "could not possibly be used to question" God's existence. I did say Occam's razor does not serve as definitive proof God does not exist, as many nonbelievers have stated. First, OR is a theory, a hypothesis. Second, it is often misunderstood and misapplied. Third, it is more a way to guess plausibility, rather than make an objective choice. And fourth, the author of the theory did not himself utilize it to disbelieve in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been many cases of documented out of body experiences that can not be explaned through normal scientific means. If a body and a person's mind can exist in two different physical places, that means they must be connected through a "supernatural" means, ie a soul.

We can induce out of body experiences in a lab. First done in 2007. Not so mysterious anymore.

Really? How? And a link please?

I'm not the PP, but here's a link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6960612.stm

NDE can be recreated, too. They've been reported by those who experienced blackouts when under extreme G forces. I don't think it happened to every subject, but enough for me to consider it as recreated in a lab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occam's razor has been brought up by several nonbelievers as if it is definitive proof that God does not exist. As Inigo Montoya says in The Princess Bride, "You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

This could be the oldest dodge in the book, and practically stinks of desperation. If you take issue with any of the points I quoted, you're free to make them. I'm guessing you're the one who was claiming that Occam's Razor can't possibly be used to question the god hypothesis because, gasp, William of Occam believed in God.

Your argumentation relies heavily on the use of straw men.

Ah, sorry. You concluded in your paragraph re: Occam and the inaptness of applying this in the case of the god hypothesis "The author of this hypothesis was a Catholic priest and logician who believed in God." You'll have to forgive me for reading your words, taking their plain meaning, and assuming you were arguing in good faith.

I did not say Occam's razor "could not possibly be used to question" God's existence. I did say Occam's razor does not serve as definitive proof God does not exist, as many nonbelievers have stated. First, OR is a theory, a hypothesis. Second, it is often misunderstood and misapplied. Third, it is more a way to guess plausibility, rather than make an objective choice. And fourth, the author of the theory did not himself utilize it to disbelieve in God.

Of course, you'll want to point to at least one PP who claimed OR was "definitive proof God does not exist" Anyway, Occam made a special pleading argument to exempt God specifically from the ramifications of his theory. Kind of like Gore vs Bush in 2000.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so let's see if we can get God out of the box we've put him in. So far, the theists have managed to get him so far that he's the equivalent of the moment the universe was formed. Anything else he does, or do we all agree that "God" means "The Big Bang"?

I've heard he answers prayers and heals disease? Or was that just a rumor?