Wait wait wait... are you telling me that all those people who see UFOs, Bigfoots, Loch Ness Monsters, Jesus in a cheeto could be WRONG?!?!#?$

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish, loch ness monster' to 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish, loch ness monster, sealicant' - edited by RhesusMonk

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish' to 'sea serpent, nature, oar fish, loch ness monster' - edited by doogle

>> ^Trancecoach:
Give that woman $1.50


Ok, but I still aint giving that Loch Ness Monster no tree fiddy.

This is a pretty big answer, so I've split it in chunks with their own headline.

We may have some common ground, but it is smaller than you've indicated. I said I was inclined to think that the universe always existed somehow, but this does not spread to other ideas - I don't think that we existed always or that something other than the universe existed always. My assumption here is actually not reasonable, but I make it because it has no descernable effect on my daily life.

Re: Believers are just as logical as non-believers
For purely principle reasons it is obvious that the scientific method cannot directly prove nor disprove God, but there is a difference in the two. We can gather evidence that indicate, if not directly proves/disproves something. Take the Loch Ness Monster. While we cannot directly disprove it unless we do an exhaustive search of the lake, we can take the many observations and searches as "evidence" or at least conjecture that the monster probably does not exist. If someone thinks that the monster does exist for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to prove that it does, not everyone else's to prove that it does not. So, while there may not be directly contradicting evidence to God's existence there is plenty of evidence that makes more sense if he does not, in addition the religion around this God has plenty of "plot holes" about God, which also leads us to think that it does not make sense. For instance, if God is the God of Young Earth Creationists, then there absolutely IS evidence that he does not exists. You'll agree to this, right? Whenever Science gets closer, it seems that God conveniently retreats into the unknown areas, which again is the God in the Gaps. I think that people who believe in God ARE less logical or reasonable than those who do not.

Which is the reasonable assumption to make, when there is absolutely no evidence for or against something?

I have not seen any evidence that contradicts the existence of fairies, but I have neither seen evidence that support it; which should I assume? There are three possible assumptions:

1) I'm fairy-agnostic - they may or may not exist, but I make no assumptions one way or the other.
2) Fairies probably do not exist, because if they did, evidence that supported their existence would have come about, and as such I can assume that they do not exist.
3) Fairies probably exist, because there has been found no evidence against them.

I would in general choose the second option, because if things exist they tend to show themselves - somehow. I think that people who take the third option of believing that fairies exists are making an unreasonable assumption, because there is neither evidence that supports it, nor traces of evidence such as fairy-droppings, fairy houses or something similar. Do you follow my logic that people who believe in this way are less reasonable/logical?

Your definition of your God and my arguments against him
* God is perfect (a perfect being).
* God is not bound by time and space in the same way we are.
* God does not break "natural laws".
* God has always existed, in one form or another.
* God created all created things, but not all things.

This is the definition you provided, and I will base my arguments on that.

There are some words that need further specification.

"Perfect" is a very big, vague and subjective word. Do you mean that God is infallible or all knowing? It must include that he cannot be perfected in any way: become any better.

"Natural laws" is also a bit vague. Your example, the principle that nothing comes from nothing, is a logical argument, but natural laws are something else. Newtons law, Einsteins theory of relativety, how temperature spreads, gravity: those are natural laws, but if God is not bound by time/space then he obviously is not bound by gravity. I think the point here is that you mean God does not engage in logical paradoxes: "Can God make a toast so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" But if he is perfect, then he must and by being perfect he proves that he cannot exist.

God created all created things? Well, that can be true, but if nothing is created that is explained away. I doubt you'll be satisfied by that answer though, so I'll argue that this again breaks your definitions. What did he create all created things from? Nothing? Was God created? You'll obviously argue no, because then he needs a creator of his own and we'll have en infinite regress. But if God was not created, did he come from nothing?

"God has always existed in one form or another, as have we. We were "something" before we were "created.""
The first part can only be answered, perhaps, if he exists. Concerning humans, you are of course technically correct, but not in the way that you think. "We" are who we are, I am me and you are you. "We" have never existed in any other form in any reality. Our bodies, however, is merely a collection of atoms, which of course always were something before they were coagulated and rearranged into the meta-structure that is our bodies. it is this way with all things, the atoms and molecules have always existed somehow, but have been shaped into the arrangments they have now by our environement.

I was obviously not created by God, I naturally grew in my mother womb as a direct result of massive cell-generation which started with the combination of sperm and egg. This was a rearrangement of atoms from food and energy into matter, namely my body ("me"). Nothing created me, I naturally grew.

Curveballs and God-theory
By curveballs I just meant that it was tough questions.

The two first explanations are exactly more logical than the God-theory because the God-theory falls back on either 1 or 2 at some point. The God-theory is a non-explanation for the existance of the universe, because it just moves the question one step - instead of asking "how did the universe come into existence", it is "how did God come into existence, so he could created the universe". And if we use the same explanation for god, that he was created by a super-god, then it becomes "How did super-god come into existence, so that he could create God who could create the universe" this is an infinite regress and is a non-explanation for anything. It must be grounded somehow, which both the other explanations do.

I submit again that the three explanations may not be exhaustive, because the Universe is far more mysterious than we can scientifically explain at this point, so there may be some fourth explanation that covers it. In any case, the God-theory does not explain it.

Faith and logic
There are parts of the bible which are directly opposed to one another? How do you interpret your way out of those? Genesis directly contradicts reality, how do you interpret your way out of that?
In my mind interpreting an answer from the Bible is just picking and choosing which parts fit your point of view and ignoring the parts that don't fit. This is a Bad Thing.

"You said that the fact that we have never had empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God "does seem to show a tendency.""
That's not true. I said that the distinct lack of evidence for the existence of God show a tendency. As I explained above, if the evidence for and against something both is zero, then the reasonable assumption is that it does not exist.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

^ Can you really call someone a "pussy" when they don't believe something so stupid?

He also doesn't talk about bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Live and let live, people. Sheesh.

But that's the problem: the religious (who vastly outnumber us) are not willing to live and let live. They want to tell us who we can and can't marry depending on our gender. They want our kids to believe that evolution is "just a theory" by trying to force their religious beliefs to be taught in public education. They want to stifle medical and scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives. They want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
I don't think these guys are "pushing values" on this show. They're giving religious folk an opportunity to state their side of the case--something pretty much every caller has failed to do convincingly or even coherently (Loch Ness Monster, wtf?).


All true. And, at the same time, I can't help but feeling like two wrongs don't make a right. Being preachy is being preachy, and these guys have a particularly smug nature that just rubs me the wrong way.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Live and let live, people. Sheesh.


But that's the problem: the religious (who vastly outnumber us) are not willing to live and let live. They want to tell us who we can and can't marry depending on our gender. They want our kids to believe that evolution is "just a theory" by trying to force their religious beliefs to be taught in public education. They want to stifle medical and scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives. They want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I don't think these guys are "pushing values" on this show. They're giving religious folk an opportunity to state their side of the case--something pretty much every caller has failed to do convincingly or even coherently (Loch Ness Monster, wtf?).

OMG I FISHED UP THE LOCH NESS MONSTER! What to do now? Oh I know, I'll just keep it for myself a week or two and take thumbnail sized photos of it in a dark room! Those pesky scientists would kill the magic.

Ever got the feeling that news people cooperate with people who have incredible stories that are incredibly stupid but can't be proved wrong by the TV stare-er. "But he says he has the evidence! How could he lie about that? This is SO exciting!!!"

I wonder how much money has been wasted looking for the loch ness monster. I suppose its good for area tourism, or something like that.

No joke, technically (if I'm remember correctly) The water horse is the Loch ness monster...

Still though, that is crazy to have a hologram like that, next thing you know, we are going to have a 200 (or 400) ft hologram of Godzilla...

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Humans believe a lot of crazy sh*t. (Alien abductions, ghosts, the yeti, the Loch-Ness Monster, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, The Secret, Amway, and countless absurd 911 conspiracies to name a few.) I don't think that a natural desire to believe in any of these things provides any evidence that these things exist. (IMO) The same goes for God.
not everyone has a natural desire to believe in the Easter Bunny. God is different. Universal. Across cultures, even if they never met.
You're just poking fun at genuine religious belief and feeling, by using a ridiculous comparison that doesn't actually compare.


Why do humans want to believe in the supernatural? Because the supernatural is exiting, mysterious, different and most of all AWESOME, but that doesn't make it real. We are imaginative creatures.

and also we FEEL the supernatural.. but some people aren't listening and don't count it as evidence.

Why do people NOT want to believe the supernatural? Because they were taught in school in a certain restrictive way that cut off their imagination. Then they get all excited about being superior to the "stupid" religious people.
They turn their back on god and then say "i can't see god! so he doesn't exist!"


I think your animosity towards science in misguided. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, if religion is to be believe, they are one in the same.

what animosity? I just don't think science will ever "prove" atheism, that's studpid, and i don't think the scientific method is compatible with investigation of the spirit, i think science will progress until it discovers God.
then maybe there will be a big shiny display of wonder, nintendo style and then everything explodes and we start again hahaha.


If religion is to be believed, then science would be the best way to understand how God put this universe together. Rather than judge science by intangible assumptions about God, perhaps it would be better to use science as a way to better understand God.

yes. that is what i do. but there are limits. there is no "happiness meter" just theories about endorphins. science has to get a lot more advanced before we understand these things. In the meantime, why not refer to religion and art, which describes the human condition much better than science does.

and you call it "intangible assumptions" whereas i call it "things i feel in my heart and in my gut, which is generally much more reliable than my head or wikipedia"


I like and agree with your 'fuck it' definition of faith, but most people who share that definition don't bother to argue about science, because it is irrelevant to their world view. You, on the other hand, seem to be genuinely bothered by the fact that science contradicts some of your personal beliefs. I think you have an internal conflict to work out here. (IMO) This inner conflict means you are a thoughtful person.

no. you just hear "anti science" in my writing somehow, you are pushing the polarisation on me, not me on you.

science does NOT contradict any of my beliefs, in fact i would say in the last century science started to prove my beliefs... think fractals, quantum mechanics, string theory, that kind of thing. Science isn't currently capable of contradicting my beliefs, and i believe it never will be.


Minor distinction. You see God as time/space/etc.; I see God as a euphemism for time/space/etc..

euphemism scheuphemism. makes very little difference to me. you just use the word euphemism in an attempt to degrade the idea. God is Love. God is a euphemism for Love. What's the difference? It's all abstract.


FWIW, I was baptized Catholic and believed in God until I was 12 or 13 years old.

Ahh the catholic church.
FWIW i quit going to (anglican) church when i was about 8, because church is a waste of time. I remember we had to draw round our hands and write "Thankyou God for giving me hands". I thought this was absurd, because that implies that god is some kind of asshole who denies some people hands for no reason and i am supposed to be grateful he didn't deny me MY hands? Horrible.

I studied physics and maths till i was 18. Then i realised that was probably a waste of time as well

In summary, i think you are allergic to the concept of god, because you have been exposed to so much god related bullshit. But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science and God together in your brain (and heart) helps you understand the world a lot better than science alone. Maybe science will catch up, but if science can explain love, then you will say it "disproved" god and i will say it "discovered" god.

hope that makes some kind of sense.

Humans believe a lot of crazy sh*t. (Alien abductions, ghosts, the yeti, the Loch-Ness Monster, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, The Secret, Amway, and countless absurd 911 conspiracies to name a few.) I don't think that a natural desire to believe in any of these things provides any evidence that these things exist. (IMO) The same goes for God.


Why do humans want to believe in the supernatural? Because the supernatural is exiting, mysterious, different and most of all AWESOME, but that doesn't make it real. We are imaginative creatures.

I think your animosity towards science in misguided. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, if religion is to be believe, they are one in the same.

If religion is to be believed, then science would be the best way to understand how God put this universe together. Rather than judge science by intangible assumptions about God, perhaps it would be better to use science as a way to better understand God.

I like and agree with your 'fuck it' definition of faith, but most people who share that definition don't bother to argue about science, because it is irrelevant to their world view. You, on the other hand, seem to be genuinely bothered by the fact that science contradicts some of your personal beliefs. I think you have an internal conflict to work out here. (IMO) This inner conflict means you are a thoughtful person.

Minor distinction. You see God as time/space/etc.; I see God as a euphemism for time/space/etc..

FWIW, I was baptized Catholic and believed in God until I was 12 or 13 years old.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
i just wonder why we naturally want to assume there is a reason for everything. why would that basic urge be so deep in us? why would it emerge in the first place? I don't think that "survival instinct" line explains eveything, we do plenty of stuff that's not for survival, we even die for that stuff. I don't think a concept called the "selfish gene" can be the answer. I just don't think like that.

so in a way, the instinct to think about God is my proof of God (in a wordy twisted logic way, not a lab experiment).

I think, therefore He is, I might say.

but that doesn't impress people in an age of lab experiments and petri dishes and electron microscopes. i guess you want to detect the God particle before you'll believe.

Fine. As long as you are looking for it (because as any scientist can tell you, observation affects things), not just waiting for it to hit you in the face without asking.

And, fine, as long as you understand that my "faith" is kinda like "fuck it, i'm pretty damn sure this feeling comes from God, I don't need to wait for someone to find the God particle, I'm already convinced, and I don't care if that isn't scientific by todays standards, it's cool."

And fine, if you don't call me stupid for going on this hunch.

Thanks for forcing me to think about that.

btw god IS infinity, time, space, death etc. we totally agree. but maybe you're more optimistic about todays understanding of the scientific method being the ideal way to find the answers. and i am pretty sure the answer we find will look pretty much like God. some kind of beautifully simple mathematical formula that can unfold into an entire universe. Then, accept that the formula wanted to become a universe so that's God.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(I believe) Religion is a all-purpose placeholder for things that are beyond our comprehension (infinity, time, space, death, existence, etc.....) As humans we want to believe there is some grand overarching reason for our existence, but my gut tells me that the only meaning in our lives is the meaning we create for ourselves, which is pretty fucking cool, actually.

If God wants to prove me wrong, I'm open to that.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
following is for sheep. but jesus wasn't far wrong. i just know that there's a reason. I don't know how i know, but i don't try to ignore the gut feeling just because it isn't verifiable in a laboratory (yet).

you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Fair enough. If not the big C, then what faith do you follow?

I came to the conclusion long ago that religion was just an emotional crutch used by people too afraid of uncertainty. They don't really want to know the answer to what happens when you die, if there is a special purpose to life, where the world came from, etc., because they are afraid of what the answer might be. Instead, they make up a group of stories to comfort themselves and come together in groups because they think if other people share their beliefs that makes them more true.

The truth is, there is ZERO proof of anything supernatural out there. Not one bit, none. It's no coincidence that none of the religions, the boogey monster, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, gremlins, nor anything else supernatural have ever been proven to exist in the entire course or human history. That's because *they're made up*.

As to why atheists are so negative in their opinions of religious people, think of it this way: what if there was a group in your town that honestly believed in Odin and Thor. Would you think their judgement might be a little suspect? Why is your god exempt from that?