Seiki_sands' forum posts

#1 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands:

I don't think it is logical to conclude that something does not exist merely because evidence has not been presented. Indeed, the search for discovery of any kind would be made meaningless if all undiscovered things were unlikely to exist.

I agree that the workings of the natural world can be explained without God. Just as I agree a knowledge of the origin and inventor of the bicycle is completely unnecessary to understanding its operation. That said, such knowledge may be illuminating and engaging, may lead to further discovery, may allow one to appreciate the essence of discoveries related to the bicycle's operation in a new way. I do not agree that the assumption of God complicates the natural world, if only because we have no conception of how God exists or how God works. It only becomes more complex when humans attempt to assume how God may have worked, or what his properties are using their own currently understood conceptions of matter and energy. How can someone say something is complex what they don't know what it is? Some pantheistic conceptions of God by definition can't be anymore or less complex than nature themselves because God is synonymous with nature in those conceptions. I make few assumptions about the nature God, much less than many of my coreligionists. I'm uncomfortable even speaking in terms of God the "creator", because the nature of creation and existence is contentious and ill-defined. I don't know if creation means "emanates from, invented by, or necessary to" or any other concept we can come up with.

Inserting an unknown into a theory does complicate it, and makes the theory incorrect.

The natural world is not a theory. There are theories about the operations of the natural world. If God acted upon the universe in a physical way than in one sense he can be said to have complicated those theories, although it would not make them incorrect, merely inadequate. Much in the same way that new observable data did not make Newtonian physics "incorrect," merely inadequate. Further, whether it "complicated" the theory depends on the meaning of "complicated." If it means simply having more elements, yes it is more complicated. However, if those elements can be said to be more harmonious, then it can be said that the system is more elegant and therefore involves fewer complications, and thus is less complicated.

That said, I again object to the entire premise of wanting to bring God around to a physical understanding when I am not claiming such an understanding. I am not inserting God into the operations of the natural world, that implies an assumption about the nature of God.

#2 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands said:

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands said:

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands said:

@thehig1 said:

There's no evidence to believe so I don't, its that simple.

I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe, I read many reasons people post but still can't understand why one would believe.

Guess I never will.

I have never seen a logical argument demonstrate there is no God that wasn't flawed.

Every attempt I have seen demands that God has this property or that and because that property can be denied, whatever it is, then so can God. However, the assumptions are universally weak and pointless.

Why someone would comment on what they admit is empirically unknowable is beyond me? I accept there is no physical evidence of god and that no logical or ontological proofs are remotely sure enough to be beyond reproach.

If you believe there is no evidence for God then how can one demonstrate he exists or does not exist. If there is no evidence there is no comment to be made and the only sensible conclusion is skeptical agnosticism, not athiesm, which demands a surety of evidence to the contrary.

There has not been a logical argument to demonstrate there is a God either, burden of proof is on those make extraordinary claims, they will need to produce extraordinary evidence.

Also I said there is no evidence for God, not I believe there is no evidence for God, is there was evidence for him then believing in God wouldn't require faith.

Atheism simply means lack of belief, which is my view.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"

Atheism is a sensible conclusion to come to.

As you say, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

You made the claim "I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe," with which I took issue because no satisfactory logical argument exists that disproves God.

Thus, the burden of proof is on you to back your specific claim to prove logically God does not exist. I made no competing claim to you, I made no claim whatsoever on that score.

That said, I also reject that the burden of proof must in all cases fall on the religious to prove God, as opposed to the irreligious disproving him. Given that to the religious mind the state of God's existence is a more elegant and simpler solution to metaphysical questions, deviation to a more complex solution of metaphysical questions suggests the burden is on those disrupting order. Not to mention I'd guess the religious would largely find the conception of a lack of God to likewise be an extraordinary claim, and given that the nearly entire bent of human intellectual history makes use of religion, I'd say they would have a point.

Yeah, I concede to your point about the term atheists, given the large category of people who identify that way. I would still say that explicit rejection of God is uncalled for on the grounds of science or reason; and that only that final broad definition is without contradiction or hypocrisy for those that use appeals to science or reason as the basis of their atheism.

That wasn't a claim, I do find it hard to understand why people believe, when what we know about the world does strongly suggest its unlikely there is a God.

To Believe in God you have to ignore or change facts we already know about the world.

It was a claim. Specifically you claimed that people ignored logic in order to believe in God, implying that God does not logically exist.

Now you have made a second unsubstantiated claim, which I would likewise say is false. I see no facts that need to be changed in order believe in God. I accept all proven facts about the world and yet I believe in God. God can be otherworldly, indeed God is kind of the reason that words like otherworldly exist.

Fair enough, It is logical to conclude God doesn't exist, like anything that has no evidence its logical to conclude its very unlikely it exists.

theories that explain how the universe works do not need God, in fact inserting the assumption of God (a creator) will just further complicate the theory or just make the theory be incorrect and not accepted,

I don't think it is logical to conclude that something does not exist merely because evidence has not been presented. Indeed, the search for discovery of any kind would be made meaningless if all undiscovered things were unlikely to exist.

I agree that the workings of the natural world can be explained without God. Just as I agree a knowledge of the origin and inventor of the bicycle is completely unnecessary to understanding its operation. That said, such knowledge may be illuminating and engaging, may lead to further discovery, may allow one to appreciate the essence of discoveries related to the bicycle's operation in a new way. I do not agree that the assumption of God complicates the natural world, if only because we have no conception of how God exists or how God works. It only becomes more complex when humans attempt to assume how God may have worked, or what his properties are using their own currently understood conceptions of matter and energy. How can someone say something is complex what they don't know what it is? Some pantheistic conceptions of God by definition can't be anymore or less complex than nature themselves because God is synonymous with nature in those conceptions. I make few assumptions about the nature God, much less than many of my coreligionists. I'm uncomfortable even speaking in terms of God the "creator", because the nature of creation and existence is contentious and ill-defined. I don't know if creation means "emanates from, invented by, or necessary to" or any other concept we can come up with.

#3 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands said:

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands said:

@thehig1 said:

There's no evidence to believe so I don't, its that simple.

I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe, I read many reasons people post but still can't understand why one would believe.

Guess I never will.

I have never seen a logical argument demonstrate there is no God that wasn't flawed.

Every attempt I have seen demands that God has this property or that and because that property can be denied, whatever it is, then so can God. However, the assumptions are universally weak and pointless.

Why someone would comment on what they admit is empirically unknowable is beyond me? I accept there is no physical evidence of god and that no logical or ontological proofs are remotely sure enough to be beyond reproach.

If you believe there is no evidence for God then how can one demonstrate he exists or does not exist. If there is no evidence there is no comment to be made and the only sensible conclusion is skeptical agnosticism, not athiesm, which demands a surety of evidence to the contrary.

There has not been a logical argument to demonstrate there is a God either, burden of proof is on those make extraordinary claims, they will need to produce extraordinary evidence.

Also I said there is no evidence for God, not I believe there is no evidence for God, is there was evidence for him then believing in God wouldn't require faith.

Atheism simply means lack of belief, which is my view.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"

Atheism is a sensible conclusion to come to.

As you say, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

You made the claim "I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe," with which I took issue because no satisfactory logical argument exists that disproves God.

Thus, the burden of proof is on you to back your specific claim to prove logically God does not exist. I made no competing claim to you, I made no claim whatsoever on that score.

That said, I also reject that the burden of proof must in all cases fall on the religious to prove God, as opposed to the irreligious disproving him. Given that to the religious mind the state of God's existence is a more elegant and simpler solution to metaphysical questions, deviation to a more complex solution of metaphysical questions suggests the burden is on those disrupting order. Not to mention I'd guess the religious would largely find the conception of a lack of God to likewise be an extraordinary claim, and given that the nearly entire bent of human intellectual history makes use of religion, I'd say they would have a point.

Yeah, I concede to your point about the term atheists, given the large category of people who identify that way. I would still say that explicit rejection of God is uncalled for on the grounds of science or reason; and that only that final broad definition is without contradiction or hypocrisy for those that use appeals to science or reason as the basis of their atheism.

That wasn't a claim, I do find it hard to understand why people believe, when what we know about the world does strongly suggest its unlikely there is a God.

To Believe in God you have to ignore or change facts we already know about the world.

It was a claim. Specifically you claimed that people ignored logic in order to believe in God, implying that God does not logically exist.

Now you have made a second unsubstantiated claim, which I would likewise say is false. I see no facts that need to be changed in order believe in God. I accept all proven facts about the world and yet I believe in God. God can be otherworldly, indeed God is kind of the reason that words like otherworldly exist.

#4 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@Seiki_sands said:

@thehig1 said:

There's no evidence to believe so I don't, its that simple.

I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe, I read many reasons people post but still can't understand why one would believe.

Guess I never will.

I have never seen a logical argument demonstrate there is no God that wasn't flawed.

Every attempt I have seen demands that God has this property or that and because that property can be denied, whatever it is, then so can God. However, the assumptions are universally weak and pointless.

Why someone would comment on what they admit is empirically unknowable is beyond me? I accept there is no physical evidence of god and that no logical or ontological proofs are remotely sure enough to be beyond reproach.

If you believe there is no evidence for God then how can one demonstrate he exists or does not exist. If there is no evidence there is no comment to be made and the only sensible conclusion is skeptical agnosticism, not athiesm, which demands a surety of evidence to the contrary.

There has not been a logical argument to demonstrate there is a God either, burden of proof is on those make extraordinary claims, they will need to produce extraordinary evidence.

Also I said there is no evidence for God, not I believe there is no evidence for God, is there was evidence for him then believing in God wouldn't require faith.

Atheism simply means lack of belief, which is my view.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist"

Atheism is a sensible conclusion to come to.

As you say, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

You made the claim "I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe," with which I took issue because no satisfactory logical argument exists that disproves God.

Thus, the burden of proof is on you to back your specific claim to prove logically God does not exist. I made no competing claim to you, I made no claim whatsoever on that score.

That said, I also reject that the burden of proof must in all cases fall on the religious to prove God, as opposed to the irreligious disproving him. Given that to the religious mind the state of God's existence is a more elegant and simpler solution to metaphysical questions, deviation to a more complex solution of metaphysical questions suggests the burden is on those disrupting order. Not to mention I'd guess the religious would largely find the conception of a lack of God to likewise be an extraordinary claim, and given that the nearly entire bent of human intellectual history makes use of religion, I'd say they would have a point.

Yeah, I concede to your point about the term atheists, given the large category of people who identify that way. I would still say that explicit rejection of God is uncalled for on the grounds of science or reason; and that only that final broad definition is without contradiction or hypocrisy for those that use appeals to science or reason as the basis of their atheism.

#5 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

My first thoughts upon seeing the proposed route over the Ogallala aquifer, were the same as my continuing thoughts upon seeing the revised route that still went over parts of the aquifer, which were and are something to the effect of "you greedy bastards." And if this pipeline is such a job creator than why not create some more jobs by detouring around irreplaceable resources. There are two clear probabilities about a completed pipeline, the first is that it will leak and leak repeatedly; secondly, that it will return its investment many times over. So why can't we pressure TransCanada to stop being so stingy and build it in a way that won't guarantee they're a pariah.

#6 Posted by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@Seiki_sands said:

I did not hide God. His nature is unrevealed, save by what can be understood of his message. If your at a point in life where the absence of physical evidence means you cannot believe, then that is where you are.

I would only ask that you stop trying to "prove" his lack of existence while at the same time stating that there is no evidence, if only because it is contrary to science to make an attempt without evidence. Since most of your thinking seems wrapped in the cloak of science I would ask you try to stay true to science and stop the hypocrisy of making up evidence about the physical nature of God to suit your position that he cannot exist.

I would again state I can understand an agnostic scientist that believes evidence does not exist. An athiest scientist has made a "leap of faith" to assume evidence cannot exist.

Of course that's what you're going to say, as the only way to support faith with no evidence is to claim that no evidence can be presented.

The burden of proof is upon the one claiming the existence of something. Therefore, if you're going to tell a big lie, you know like "God revealed himself to me up there on that mountain", you've got to cover your bases so people can't disprove you. Again, "Oh...God isn't talking to you, just to me. Just believe."

I think the fact that most religions follow the same course (God was revealed in the distant past, is hidden now, can't be tested, can't be confirmed) is evidence to the constructed nature of the whole thing.

I don't claim that evidence can't be presented. I merely acknowledge that it hasn't been presented.

I agree the burden of proof is on the religions, and for billions of the world's people sufficient internal proofs have been found to justify their beliefs to themselves. Judge them as you see fit.

The distant past wasn't the distant past at the time of their forging. If you don't believe Christ taught what he taught or did what he did as reported by the generations immediately following his life, or that Muslims witnessed the miracles they say they witnessed during the first Hijra that is your prerogative. Likewise it is your prerogative to ignore what millions believe are the miracles they continue witness in their own lives that they attribute to God. However, I personally see no grand conspiracy of most of the world's inhabitants to dupe you.

#8 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@Seiki_sands said:

Your apple depends on God's properties violating the properties of quantum superposition, which only apply to a quantum system, which you have zero evidence for being applicable to God as he need not have a quantum of anything as we understand it. God need not be made of any type of matter or energy even on the sub-atomic scale, he need not glow if hot, he need not do work, he need not flow from anything you understand to be the truths of the natural world, discovered or yet to be discovered. Nor need he have the properties you granted him of being all-knowing and all-powerful in our sense of those terms. Power and its meaning have been debated since man has developed speech and still we have only our own favorite parochial definitions of what it means to exercise will and authority.

All I hear is "we've hidden God behind a curtain that you can't possibly move aside".

If I wanted to create a mythos, I'd do the same thing. Because the moment you give someone something testable, they're going to prove you a liar. So yeah, "let's make God and oh yeah...he doesn't have to follow any of the usual rules because God. So there."

And superposition doesn't just apply to the micro:

__________________________________________________________________________________

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object

Physicists in California have observed true quantum behaviour in a macroscopic object big enough to be seen with the naked eye. This is the first time this feat has been achieved and it could shed light on the mysterious boundaries between the classical and quantum worlds.

__________________________________________________________________________________

I did not hide God. His nature is unrevealed, save by what can be understood of his message. If your at a point in life where the absence of physical evidence means you cannot believe, then that is where you are.

I would only ask that you stop trying to "prove" his lack of existence while at the same time stating that there is no evidence, if only because it is contrary to science to make an attempt without evidence. Since most of your thinking seems wrapped in the cloak of science I would ask you try to stay true to science and stop the hypocrisy of making up evidence about the physical nature of God to suit your position that he cannot exist.

I would again state I can understand an agnostic scientist that believes evidence does not exist. An atheist scientist has made a "leap of faith" to assume evidence cannot exist. It doesn't bother me that said person is an atheist, but it does bother me when they use science as a validation for their faith because atheism, unlike agnosticism, is an unscientific faith.

#9 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:

@alim298 said:

@br0kenrabbit said:

Yeah of course someone who claims to talk to God is going to have an excuse as to why God isn't talking to everyone else. Why would you expect otherwise?

Well you missed the point entirely. Those who believe in God don't believe in him because they see him. They believe in him because they feel him.

@br0kenrabbit said:

And your other statement is just nonsense. Numbers may be artificial constructs but they represent real values. You can't have two apples if you have just one, no matter how you work the math.

It has nothing to do with numbers being artificial and whatnot. Again you missed the point. What I'm saying is that theoretically speaking I can have two apples if I have just one. The statement "You can't have two apples if you have just one" is only an axiom. So far no contradiction with this law has been found and so we take it as a fact. WHAT IF IT'S NOT A FACT????

'They feel him'. What of those people who feel Buddha? Or Vishnu? Or aliens? Are you going to grant them the same mole of truth as someone feeling your God?

And I don't think you understand what 'theoretically speaking' means, because no, you cannot have two apples if you have just one. Speaking theoretically does not mean ignoring factual matters to make a point.

Theoretically speaking you could travel at the speed of light if you could warp space around you so that locally you aren't going faster than C even though the bubble of space you're traveling in is. See, that's a proper theoretical statement: I'm using fact to make a logical assumption even if we cannot currently achieve such...the math still works.

One apple is always one apple.

Your apple depends on God's properties violating the properties of quantum superposition, which only apply to a quantum system, which you have zero evidence for being applicable to God as he need not have a quantum of anything as we understand it. God need not be made of any type of matter or energy even on the sub-atomic scale, he need not glow if hot, he need not do work, he need not flow from anything you understand to be the truths of the natural world, discovered or yet to be discovered. Nor need he have the properties you granted him of being all-knowing and all-powerful in our sense of those terms. Power and its meaning have been debated since man has developed speech and still we have only our own favorite parochial definitions of what it means to exercise will and authority.

And frankly, the idea that someone that does not believe in God is stating what he is and must be made of and how he must operate if he exists is odd, a bit silly and wholly unconvincing.

#10 Edited by Seiki_sands (1720 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

There's no evidence to believe so I don't, its that simple.

I still find it hard to understand why do many people ignore logic to believe, I read many reasons people post but still can't understand why one would believe.

Guess I never will.

I have never seen a logical argument demonstrate there is no God that wasn't flawed.

Every attempt I have seen demands that God has this property or that and because that property can be denied, whatever it is, then so can God. However, the assumptions are universally weak and pointless.

Why someone would comment on what they admit is empirically unknowable is beyond me? I accept there is no physical evidence of god and that no logical or ontological proofs are remotely sure enough to be beyond reproach.

If you believe there is no evidence for God then how can one demonstrate he exists or does not exist. If there is no evidence there is no comment to be made and the only sensible conclusion is skeptical agnosticism, not athiesm, which demands a surety of evidence to the contrary.