God and Certainty

[rayback]

God is a major problem for many people.

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.

[Trinoc]

The whole concept of a deity has evolved* to be unverifiable. Therefore, people who think there should be evidence for something before believing in it generally don't believe in deities, whereas people who think it's OK to believe in something unless there is evidence against it generally do.

[* I nearly wrote "was designed" :smiley:]

[polomint38]

God is a major problem for many people.

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.

People can believe they are sure god exists, although there is no evidence in that direction.

I personally am sure that I am excessively attractive and all women want to sleep with me (and probably most men as well). Although most people who know me, insist that the evidence seems to go in the other direction. ::)

I seem to have been Will Robinsoned by Trinoc


The whole concept of a deity has evolved*

Evolved through natural selection? >:D

[Trinoc]

Evolved through natural selection? >:D
Of course! All deities that could be proved not to exist went extinct. If anyone had found a deity that could be proved to exist then that would have won hands down*, but for some reason that hasn't happened. That leaves only the deities that can neither be proved not disproved.

[* Except of course for the Babel Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_t he_Galaxy#Babel_fish) paradox ...]

[Pebble]

God is a major problem for many people.

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.

Evidence is largely irrelevant when it comes to belief. Evidence either supports your belief, is currently lacking or shall never be available as man is not meant to understand.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

God is a major problem for many people.

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.


Welcome, rayback.

Can you clarify the question? You seem to be drawing a contrast between having evidence for the existence of a god and having certainty. Are you asking whether there are apriori arguments for the existence of a god? If you are, my answer is that there are such arguments, and they are all bad arguments.

[Croydon Bob]

(and probably most men as well).

Ah, your post on another thread speculating about my size makes sense now.

[rayback]

Can you clarify the question?
You seem to be drawing a contrast between having evidence for the existence of a god and having certainty.
Are you asking whether there are apriori arguments for the existence of a god? If you are, my answer is that there are such arguments, and they are all bad arguments.

I am simply asking if a real God does exist, then whether
it is ever possible to be sure of his existence with complete certainly.

[chaggle]

I am simply asking if a real God does exist, then whether
it is ever possible to be sure of his existence with complete certainly.

Hi rayback. Are you sure you are at the right place? This is the UK Skeptics Forum.

[Matt]

yes, if Thor existed he could knock on my door, say hello, have a cup of tea and then demonstrate that he had absolute control of thunder and I'd be convinced he existed.

So under a wide definition for what a "God" is the question is a no brainer.

The same can be said of the God of the Bible. Little known non-fact, the band "Genesis" was so named because like God their early work was so much more impressive.

6,000 years ago as far as Adam and Eve were concerned God walked around in the cool of the evening, was an approachable physical being. No need for a crisis of faith for them:

"Hey Eve do you believe in God?"

"You what? He's just over there dude. See for yourself"

This was a God who proved his abilities He asks - "Hey Adam I just want you to name all the animals in the world" and then summons one of everything in the world" I mean how many epic levels do you need for that?

He casts the same spell for Noah so he can put them all on his big boat and when he casts create water it floods the entire sodding planet. I mean create water is only an Orison but it produces 2 gallons of water per level. A world wide flood is literally billions of billions of cubic metres by my calculation that puts him at level 10 million billion. Truly Awesome. Or Alternatively he could have been casting it once per round for 40 days but that still gives him around 14 and a half thousand spell slots and nigh on 18 billion caster levels. That's just massive.

It puts his amusing prank at Babel and his shock and awe at Sodom and Gomorah to real shame.

Only the creation of the entire bleeding universe trumps it, but as he hadn't created any humans up until that point we have to take his word on that one.

But it's at this point that Gabriel left if you know what I mean.

Burning bush (Try Canestan?) not very impressive.

Rain of Frogs isn't bad and slaughtering the firsborn of Egypt flashy but not really up to his previous standards especially as it felt so contrived what with hardening Pharaoh’s heart to stop him caving to the earlier plagues.

Exodus must go down as the difficult second album but where is the triumphant return to form in the long awaited third. Leviticus - Oh my goodness. What a chore. What miracles does he manage there, none that's what. I mean some may say he punished Nadab and Abihu burning them alive but remind us what they were punished for. That's right playing with strange fire. If that's a miracle then bow down and worship before "Charlie Says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HB0HcINjWs)"

Numbers: barely any better, a few more burnings then playing with Aarons Rod, speaking out of his Ass and other double entendres just make it seem like a self parody.

It really is downhill from there on.

These days we're told that he answers prayers but if you actually look at what happens to people who pray vs people who don't there's no significant difference.

So if your definition of God is someone who offers words of comfort that sound reassuringly like what you want to hear but no one else can hear and if he takes any part in the universe whatsoever restricts his omnipotence to that which can be achieved though undetectable nudges then sure there's just no way to prove of disprove such a being, but that's not the old God of the Bible. That's God after a few thousand years of divine power decay. Sure he could still exist in some impotent form but he might as well be dead.

If I'm ever reduced to such a fraction of my former glory shoot me. Right between the eyes.

[Croydon Bob]

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?


Like Matt, I could be sure that a god exists.

Evidence could exist such as if, for instance, the followers of one particular god had their prayers answered. Imagine if it could be shown that Christians were 60% more likely to survive cancer if prayed for, over atheists and other religionists, even if prayed for. That would suggest that something was going on that could be intervention by a deity.

Combine that with some miracles, such as burning bushes, voice of God, etc, no earthquakes in Christian countries, blah and suchlike.

I'd soon be on my knees praying to this God if such evidence were available. I could be sure that a god exists.

However, in our reality, no such evidence is forthcoming. We live in a universe where there is no evidence that a god or gods exist. So even if such a being did exist, there is no point in worrying about it or worshipping it.

[Matt]

"It was all very well going on about pure logic and how the universe was ruled by logic and the harmony of numbers, but the plain fact of the matter was that the Disc was manifestly traversing space on the back of a giant turtle and the gods had a habit of going round to atheists' houses and smashing their windows."
— Terry Pratchett


For most reasonable definitions of God, it's a peice of piss to decide whether they exist or not. It's simple, years when we throw virgins into the volcano we get a good harvest, years when we don't the crops fail. Proof positive QED.

Trouble is when the crops fail after the virgins are undeniably sacrificed and when the next island gets a bumper crop despite their wildy differing religious practices. Then it's not so simple.

Either God doesn't exist or "it's a little bit more complicated than that"

At this stage it's a lot more complicated than that and it looks like the only sort of God that could possibly exist is that rare breed of being which is immune to all testing, probing or analysis. Then you get the question of whether something that has no effect on the universe can be said to exist.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I am simply asking if a real God does exist, then whether
it is ever possible to be sure of his existence with complete certainly.

Right, I think I understand your question.

The answer, I fear, is that there will always be doubters. Astonishingly, there are those who remain unconvinced of the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

[rayback]

Hi rayback. Are you sure you are at the right place? This is the UK Skeptics Forum.

I dont know. You tell me.

Am I missing something here?

Do you guys have an innate hatred for things you cannot see, or, you guys are simply more critical on certain days of the week?

Please do tell.





there will always be doubters.

That does not address my question.

That is an answer to the question:

Is it possible for everyone on earth to be sure with full certainly that there is a God?

I know that the inmates of the looney asylum will never be convinced.

[Croydon Bob]

Am I missing something here?

Do you guys have an innate hatred for things you cannot see, or, you guys are simply more critical on certain days of the week?

Please do tell.


I'll go for option C. I don't hate things I cannot see (but I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence). I'm not more critical on certain days, I'm critical every day.

You will find that, broadly and with obvious exceptions, posters on a skeptics forum will be interested in, but not believers in, the paranormal (ghosts, aliens, gods, etc).

Show me the evidence for ghosts and I'll believe in them, my current lack of belief stems not from 'hate' but absence of evidence. Similarly with gods.

[rayback]

I don't hate things I cannot see (but I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence).

Show me the evidence for ghosts and I'll believe in them.


What evidence would be good enough to convince you?

A picture of a ghost having a shower with her clothes on or off?

The later might scare you.

[Croydon Bob]

What evidence would be good enough to convince you?

It would have to be a combination of evidence, one photo of a foxy nekkid ghost chick in the shower would be a welcome contribution, and one photo of a rotting skeletal ghost corpse in the shower would be an unwelcome contribution. But one photo has never proved or disproved anything.

My understanding that we (and other animals) evolved, rather than were created in 6 days, is based on a workable theory that makes sense, supported by fossil evidence, DNA evidence, etc. One photo of a 'missing link' wouldn't have been enough for me. Nor would one book by some bloke called Darwin if there was no fossil evidence and if the discovery of DNA had contradicted the theory.

[Matt]

Is it possible for everyone on earth to be sure with full certainly that there is a God?

I know that the inmates of the looney asylum will never be convinced.

Well if God exists, is omnipotent and wants everyone on earth to belive in him then he can make it so. So the question is why don't we?

[ZERO]

Is it possible for everyone on earth to be sure with full certainly that there is a God?


I think not.
We are finding that there are better explanations for the world around us than god.

Perhaps the question is better turned around?
Is it possible for everyone on earth to not believe in a god?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

That does not address my question.

That is an answer to the question:

Is it possible for everyone on earth to be sure with full certainly that there is a God?

I know that the inmates of the looney asylum will never be convinced.

I suspect what the IPU-doubters in the loony-bin are getting at is that the IPU fancy can be sure until they are blue in the face. But being sure doesn't amount to certainty: certainty needs something like a clinching argument.

Bearing that point in mind, let's look at your question:

I am simply asking if a real God does exist, then whether
it is ever possible to be sure of his existence with complete certainly.

Let's say there could be a god for whose existence there is no clinching argument.
Obviously, unbelievers needn't lose any sleep over this alternative.

Or, let's say that there could not be a god for whose existence there is no clinching argument.
If anyone is due to lose any sleep over this alternative, it is the believer rather than the unbeliever.

[Nukapai]

The answer to your question is: no.

On a personal level, say you choose to believe in a God/deity for which there is no evidence, just in case. Might as well, right?

You'll be busy. There are lots of 'em. And I have a funny feeling that some of the various rituals and laws would end up contradicting one another. Heck, they even do so within one belief system.

The God of Christianity, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Thetans from Scientology (oh wait, that was made up by a sci-fi author. But hey, just in case, right?). And these guys:

Shangdi 上帝 (Hanyu Pinyin: shàng dì) (literally King Above) was a supreme deity worshipped in ancient China. It is also used to refer to the Christian god in the Standard Mandarin Union Version of the Bible. Likewise, Korean Christians and Vietnamese Christians also use cognates of this name, to refer to the Biblical god.

Shen 神 (lit. God, spirit, or deity) is commonly used to refer to various spirits, including gods, and was adopted by Protestant missionaries in China to refer to the Christian god. In this context it is usually rendered with a space, " 神", to demonstrate reverence. (An alternate explanation for adding a space is that doing so simplified typesetting with two versions carrying 神 or 上帝 made parallelly.)

Zhu, Tian Zhu 主,天主 (lit. Lord or Lord in Heaven) is translated from the English word, "Lord", which is a formal title of the Christian god in Mainland China's Christian churches.

Tian 天 (lit. sky or heaven) is used to refer to the sky, but is not a personification of the sky. Whether it possesses sentience in the embodiment of an omnipotent, omniscient being is a difficult question for linguists and philosophers.

Tengri, also used to refer to the sky, is the one God of many ethnic groups in China, Mongolia, and the Near East, a practice now called Tengriism.

Waheguru, meaning Wonderful Teacher bringing light to remove darkness, this name is considered the greatest among Sikhs, and it is known as 'Gurmantar', the Guru's Word.

Ek Onkar, ek meaning "one", emphasizes the singularity of God. It is the beginning of the Sikh Mool Mantra.

Satnam meaning True Name, some are of the opinion that this is a name for God in itself, others believe that this is an adjective used to describe the 'Gurmantar

Nirankar, meaning formless One

Aten, the earliest name of a supreme being associated with monotheistic thought, being the solar divinity which Akhenaten had declared the only god of the state cult, as part of his wholesale absolutist reforms, thereby threatening the position of the various temple priesthoods, which had the old polytheism restored immediately after his death.

Mithras, the name of this Persian god of light, one of the earliest Indic words we possess, being found in clay tablets from Anatolia dating to about 1500 B.C, reported in English only since 1551, is from Latin, derived from the Greek Mithras. This was in turn derived from Avestan Mithra-, possibly from an Indo-Iranian root mitram "contract," whence mitras "contractual partner, friend," conceptualized as a god, or, according to Kent, first the epithet of a divinity and eventually his name; from proto-Indo-European root base mei- "to bind"; related to Sanskrit Mitra, a Vedic deity associated with Varuna.

Tenri-Ō-no-Mikoto is the principal name of God in Tenrikyo. Tenri-Ō-no-Mikoto is also called Tsukihi, Oyagami, and Kami.

Tenchi-Kane-no-Kami is the name of God in Konkokyo.

Mioya-Ookami is the name of God in the PL Kyodan.

... and the goddesses and demi-gods and Mother Earth and New Age Gaia and mythological beings and fictional deities (but are they really fictional? Maybe they're real? Better worship them too, just in case!).

Although obviously tongue-in-cheek, my reply to you contains a serious point: if one really internalises the concept that it's better to follow a belief system "just in case", without the need for any proof of God's existence, then how would you know which God or deity it is safe to ignore? And how would you know which belief system and moral code to follow (because it would clearly be impossible to follow them all)?

[skbuncks]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

[Trinoc]

But being sure doesn't amount to certainty
I thought they were synonyms. I think what you should say is that certainty doesn't amount to being right.

[Trinoc]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Klaatu Borada Nikto?

[Croydon Bob]

Klaatu Borada Nikto?

For someone who took his username from an obscure SF race, you don't display an impressive knowledge of SF/Fantasy trivia.

If I remember my fetid ancient tongues correctly it translates as roughly:

'In his house at R'Lyeh [bottom of Pacific] dead Cthulhu [Eldar God] waits dreaming.'

[rayback]

What if God decided to prove himself?

Dont you think that would definately convince everyone outside the mental institute.

Why God is not wishing to show such a proof is his own business. But he could if he wanted to.

Surely the Almighty has the ability to provide the ultimate proof for his own existence.

[Matt]

What if God decided to prove himself?

Dont you think that would definately convince everyone outside the mental institute.

Why God is not wishing to show such a proof is his own business. But he could if he wanted to.

Surely the Almighty has the ability to provide the ultimate proof for his own existence.

If she's an omnipotent god then of course she can. However if he's ineffectua the seven headed monkey god of failure then he's unlikely to succeed.

If the flying spaghetti monster touches you with his noodly appendage then you'll know you're touched.

[Croydon Bob]

What if God decided to prove himself?

Dont you think that would definately convince everyone outside the mental institute.

Why God is not wishing to show such a proof is his own business. But he could if he wanted to.

Surely the Almighty has the ability to provide the ultimate proof for his own existence.

I find the way you phrase things rather odd.

Which 'God' are you talking about? The Christian one? I'm not a Christian and I wasn't raised Christian. So for me, your questions start with massive assumptions that don't fit easily into my brain.

An 'Almighty' would be able to prove its own existence. It hasn't. Therefore it either doesn't exist (most likely) or doesn't want us to know that it exists (little value in speculating further).

I'm not going to waste my time worshipping Cthulhu just in case the end times are coming and the Eldar Gods are going to eat us all. I've more important things to do.

Well, I'll just do a little to cover myself: La! Shub Niggurath! La! La! Eat me First!

[Trinoc]

For someone who took his username from an obscure SF race, you don't display an impressive knowledge of SF/Fantasy trivia.

If I remember my fetid ancient tongues correctly it translates as roughly:

'In his house at R'Lyeh [bottom of Pacific] dead Cthulhu [Eldar God] waits dreaming.'
I wish scifi and fantasy were not lumped together the way they are. Larry Niven is "hard science" fiction; H P Lovecraft is demons and goblins fantasy. The only thing they have in common is that they are not the sort of sloppy romantic or warlike aggressive stuff that ordinary people seem to like in their fiction.

[Croydon Bob]

H P Lovecraft is demons and goblins fantasy.

He really isn't. His 'Eldar Gods' are clearly identified as aliens. Stories like 'The Colour out of Space' and 'Herbert West - Reanimator' fall somewhere between horror and SF but there's no 'pixies with swords - fantasy' in them.

There's not a true demon or goblin in any of his stories that I can remember. A more typical plotline would involve the locals having interbred with an alien race and only being half-human. The 'twist' ending will be that the narrator discovers that his grandfather was one of them and he is now degenerating into something less than a wholesome Anglo-saxon.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I thought they were synonyms. I think what you should say is that certainty doesn't amount to being right.

Well, there are contexts in which they are used indifferently, and there are some where they are not. For example, if I say it's raining outside, you may accept that I'm sure if I say I am sure ( and perhaps offer to bet on it). But you are quite entitled to dispute whether I am certain if you know that I haven't looked out of the window recently or taken any other trouble to check what I say.

Being certain, in the sense I have in mind, implies some sort of warrant.

However, I see that rayback has been back to clarify his views, so this may now be off the point.

[Tony Williams]

I wish scifi and fantasy were not lumped together the way they are. Larry Niven is "hard science" fiction; H P Lovecraft is demons and goblins fantasy.

Some SF people (those supporting "mundane SF") would regard Larry Niven as fantasy because his stories contain many elements - faster-than-light travel, teleportation discs, and perhaps most of all a belief in "luck" as a predictable force - which are impossible as far as we know.

The fact is that SF and fantasy are part of a spectrum of story-telling which has no clear dividing lines, although the basic principle agreed by most is that SF authors try to convince readers that what is happening might just be possible (even if contrary to known science) while fantasy authors don't bother.

[Croydon Bob]

The fact is that SF and fantasy are part of a spectrum of story-telling which has no clear dividing lines,

I agree with you but this is by no means a 'fact'.

Many SF fans believe you can draw a line around hard SF, everything inside is SF and is good to read; everything outside is fantasy, horror, slipstream, etc, and is an abomination. I've spent hours in the pub throwing out book titles and letting the hardliners decide whether it is or isn't real SF.

I think that 2001 is a classic example of a hard SF novel with a small fantasy element, a small shift along the spectrum which proves your statement correct. Peter Weston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Weston) considers such talk a heresy spread by the enemies of SF fandom.

[Trinoc]

Some SF people (those supporting "mundane SF") would regard Larry Niven as fantasy because his stories contain many elements - faster-than-light travel, teleportation discs, and perhaps most of all a belief in "luck" as a predictable force - which are impossible as far as we know.
Agreed about "luck" ... that was a bad lapse. Likewise the inclusion of telepathy in stories like Babylon 5 or "The Force" in Star Wars. I can't agree though about FTL travel, teleportation, etc. ... you have to allow some speculation otherwise it would not be scifi at all. The important thing is that the speculation much be presented up front - not introduced as a deus ex machina half way through when the plot gets bogged down or hits a dead end - and once presented it must be followed through in a plausible, scientific manner ... "OK, we have FTL travel, which may be impossible, but if it were possible, what would be the logical consequences?" ... different authors succeed in this to different extents.

The difference in what I would call fantasy is that impossible ideas are introduced willy-nilly whenever required, and if they are logically implausible even within the bounds of their own assumptions, this is simply dismissed as not applicable because the rules of logic are different here.

[Trinoc]

Many SF fans believe you can draw a line around hard SF, everything inside is SF and is good to read; everything outside is fantasy, horror, slipstream, etc, and is an abomination. I've spent hours in the pub throwing out book titles and letting the hardliners decide whether it is or isn't real SF.
I am not saying "SF good, fantasy bad", though I admit I enjoy SF a lot more because I can normally follow some sort of rational sequence of events without expecting some paranormal concept to be introduced to throw the plot onto a different track. I would just prefer to know in advance which genre I am about to read. Having Arthur C Clarke on the same shelves as Harry Potter in the bookshop is no help at all. They might as well say that crime novels ahould be mixed up with Mills & Boon, since a lot of romantic novels include crime and a lot of crime novels include romance.

[Tony Williams]

Speaking as an SF and fantasy (but mostly SF) fan of half-a-century's standing, plus an SFF blogger (http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/) and occasional author, I quite often get involved in debates over how to categorise works - but I've come to the conclusion that it's rather pointless.

The SFF field covers a huge range of possibilities in terms of content and treatment, and does not lend itself to being neatly divided into two groups. For instance, my first novel (The Foresight War) (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/TFWreviews.htm) imagines what might happen if present-day British and German historians woke up in 1934. The premise is pure fantasy, no attempt is made to provide any explanation - but what follows is as realistic (in technical military terms) as one heck of a lot of research could make it. How do you categorise that? My second work, Scales (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Scales%20Book.htm), might be classified as a present-day SF thriller, but it includes various impossible things such as psi powers and transfers between parallel worlds. Again, some would call it SF, some fantasy; I just call it a story!

The most recent "movement" in SF is "mundane SF", whose proponents argue that SF should be restricted only to known science. So that means no travel beyond the solar system, no aliens, no psi powers, no technology which is not feasible (if not yet achievable) today. Quite a lot of SF does happen to fall into this category (e.g. Arthur C Clarke's 'The Hammer of God', exploring the possibility of a major asteroid strike on Earth), but a lot more doesn't. Personally speaking, it's the "sense of wonder" which mainly drew me to SF, so I prefer tales like Clarke's 'Rendezvous with Rama' or Niven's 'Ringworld'. My favourite SF novel of all time is Bester's 'The Stars My Destination', which is hard SF by most people's reckoning except for one major plot element - teleportation.

Having said that, there are even arguments about what is meant by "hard SF"...

But perhaps this merits a separate thread?

[lost thought]

I was introduced to SF through Doc Smith the Lens men series up till then I read very little after my discovery of SF I read anything I could get my hands on and filled my head with wonders to behold. ;D

[Croydon Bob]

But perhaps this merits a separate thread?

Nah... we've improved this one.

[farmersboy]

I see it as a natural progression from the opening thread - we've gone from believing in a god to fantasy and sci-fi.

One and the same thing I thought.


ps - Lovecraft is horror with occasional sci-fi overtones, and is some of the best horror ever written, IMHO, only outdone by Clive Barker.

[Trinoc]

I see it as a natural progression from the opening thread - we've gone from believing in a god to fantasy and sci-fi.

One and the same thing I thought.
Except that fantasy and scifi have a stronger grounding in reality ...

[Croydon Bob]

I see it as a natural progression from the opening thread - we've gone from believing in a god to fantasy and sci-fi.

One and the same thing I thought.

ps - Lovecraft is horror with occasional sci-fi overtones, and is some of the best horror ever written,

A cheap attempt at linking the different strands together; God, Certainty and Cthulhu in the style of Jack Chick:

http://rubbersuitstudios.com/ptcct.htm

[Tony Williams]

Ips - Lovecraft is horror with occasional sci-fi overtones, and is some of the best horror ever written, IMHO, only outdone by Clive Barker.
I'm not really a horror fan, but I've enjoyed some of Clive Barker's work and I'm currently reading through Lovecraft's 'Necronomicon', the new book featuring his best work.

[Dr B]

God is a major problem for many people.
Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.
But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?
Please discuss.


The question is loaded and flawed and only has the capacity to support a false view.

I take it by 'sure' and 'certainty' you mean via evidence-based reasoning and scientific knowledge. Well, it's news flash time and today's headline is...the same as yesterday's and all the other days back to ancient Greek philosophy. Science is probabilistic and not deterministic. Everything has a probability of being so, and as such, a probability of not being so.

So, it is logically impossible to be 'sure' (i.e., 100%) of anything, including theories for gravity, light, evolution, etc. Everything is probabilistic. However, the theories we do have and endorse have a much higher probability of being correct relative to other ideas.

Therefore, it is not logically possible to answer a deterministic question of science, when all scientific knowledge is ultimately probabilistic

[Dr B]

I am simply asking if a real God does exist, then whether it is ever possible to be sure of his existence with complete certainly.

Please see the above post for your answer to this question.

why not ask "how could a god exist"? this would seem a more interesting question for you.

[rayback]

why not ask "how could a god exist"? this would seem a more interesting question for you.

I'm sure some of you guys wanted to hear an easy question such as that one.

My question is about our interest in a potentially invaluable treasure that might possiblity exist.
We can't logically rule it out.

It would surely be an ultimate find.

[Pebble]

I

My question is about our interest in a potentially invaluable
treasure that might possiblity exist. We can't logically rule it out.





Why not? Seems entirely reasonable to me to rule out the existence of god as envisaged by the Abrahamic sects. As to any creator, Occam's razor puts paid to that. So what kind of god are we to begin imagining and why?

[rayback]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.

Of cource, I'm not saying I'm as clever as him, but one can never be
sure about what is, and is not, out there.

You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things.

[Croydon Bob]

So what kind of god are we to begin imagining and why?

Exactly. How can we discuss the possible existence of a god when rayback won't explain which god he is talking about?

Does God exist?

a) Sure, I have been touched by his noodly appendage.
b) Yes, Allah akbar!
c) Indeed, I had a chat with Quetzecotl just last week.
d) The Sun God exists, I can see it out of my window right now.
e) None of the above.

What god? Which god?

[DrS]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being. ... You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things. There is a difference between accepting a theoretical chance so small as to be effectively non-existent (which is how I understand Dawkins' stance) and actively keeping an open mind to a real possibility.

[Croydon Bob]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.

You are broadly correct that he has said that, but you might want to quote the full context for clarity. Obviously a 'supreme being' might exist, but there's no evidence or reason to worry about it is there?

[do'h beaten by DrS]

[Mulder]

My theory is that the 'bigger' the idea, the lower the level of evidence people will accept for it. This is why lots of people are religious, many believe in UFOs and ghosts and few care about the Tooth Fairy.

[CriticalSock]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.

Of cource, I'm not saying I'm as clever as him, but one can never be
sure about what is, and is not, out there.

You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things.

Russells teapot.

(Could someone post the link to the wiki on Russell's teapot for me? I'm lacking in power!)

Would you base your life on the teapot?

[Croydon Bob]

(Could someone post the link to the wiki on Russell's teapot for me? I'm lacking in power!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Antipositor]

God is a major problem for many people.

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

But a more important question to consider is:

Can anyone ever be sure that God exists?

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.
Wagers are based on uncertainties; and Pascal's Wager implies that there is no way to be completely certain of God's existence/nonexistence, therefore it's best to hedge your bets. I believe the critical difference between an atheist and an agnostic is often defined as that the atheist is certain there is no God, but the agnostic is uncertain either way.

Some debate within skeptical circles has been over whether skepticism itself should follow an "atheistic" or an "agnostic" approach to unanswered questions. My own view is that solving for the X factor by declaring it a zero is a fallacy, therefore uncertainty (agnostic) better defines skepticism than denial (atheistic).

[Antipositor]

My theory is that the 'bigger' the idea, the lower the level of evidence people will accept for it. This is why lots of people are religious, many believe in UFOs and ghosts and few care about the Tooth Fairy.
Yes indeed a truism, I agree; and,


The bigger the amount of unclaimed riches in Nigeria, the more times caution is thrown to the wind and the more life savings are sent.

The more gratifying lies a political candidate can tell, the more votes they receive (works for husbands as well).

The more serious the crime, the more likely whomever is accused will be convicted.

The greater the perceived rewards in the afterlife, the more bizarre the religious beliefs, rituals and actions.

[Antipositor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

You did a fine job of linking it yourself :-)

Russell's teapot does not disprove a fallacy in my opinion, so much as it describes a flawed approach to basing one's beliefs on levels of certainty/uncertainty. Basing a certain belief on such miniscule odds is not false, but it does incur a high probability of error.

A "teapot orbiting the sun" is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, and quite correctly, most reasonable people will conclude it doesn't exist. This is not exactly the same as it having a zero probability. A human being can choose to be 100% certain, but the actual probability of some things can never truly be zero.

The flawed approach I believe, for choosing such a belief based on "cain't prove diff'rnt" -type logic that is based on failing to attribute reasonable weight to a belief, based on evidence and logic (science and testing). The reasons for this are likely to be motivated by the allure of a "big payoff" of some sort, or perhaps even the misguided post-modernist tenet that all beliefs should be given equal weight. Perhaps this is a corruption of the ideal that all opinions should have equal opportunity to be heard.

[Pebble]

Some debate within skeptical circles has been over whether skepticism itself should follow an "atheistic" or an "agnostic" approach to unanswered questions. My own view is that solving for the X factor by declaring it a zero is a fallacy, therefore uncertainty (agnostic) better defines skepticism than denial (atheistic).

Your high degree of certainty in uncertainty creates some logical problems. Where something is known to be so, then one can be certain that the opposite is not the case. So for example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun, it is clear that there is zero uncertainty about a statement that the earth does not orbit the sun (assuming we are discussing the same sun).

Thus when it comes to gods, there are logically impossible gods such as the abrahamic god, there are logically implausible gods (creators), so while agnosticism is technically correct, it makes no more sense to not believe in faries or goblins than in god(s). On this basis atheism is a more coherent position, when there is some evidence worth considering I am happy to re-evaluate.

[Antipositor]

Your high degree of certainty in uncertainty creates some logical problems. Where something is known to be so, then one can be certain that the opposite is not the case. So for example we are certain that the earth orbits the sun, it is clear that there is zero uncertainty about a statement that the earth does not orbit the sun (assuming we are discussing the same sun).

Thus when it comes to gods, there are logically impossible gods such as the abrahamic god, there are logically implausible gods (creators), so while agnosticism is technically correct, it makes no more sense to not believe in faries or goblins than in god(s). On this basis atheism is a more coherent position, when there is some evidence worth considering I am happy to re-evaluate.
Of course, some things are so far from probability that they constitute a virtual improbability; to the point where any consideration seems like a waste of time. Where this question becomes more important is when the individual errs by forming a certitude about a belief that is actually not so certain to be absolute as they perceive.

While I agree there's not much chance of a God showing himself to prove an atheist wrong, it's purely a matter of intellectual honesty to refrain from declaring absolute certainties about subjects where the evidence is insufficient to do so.

[Pebble]

Of course, some things are so far from probability that they constitute a virtual improbability; to the point where any consideration seems like a waste of time. Where this question becomes more important is when the individual errs by forming a certitude about a belief that is actually not so certain to be absolute as they perceive.

While I agree there's not much chance of a God showing himself to prove an atheist wrong, it's purely a matter of intellectual honesty to refrain from declaring absolute certainties about subjects where the evidence is insufficient to do so.

There is no evidence for the existence of any particular god, there is no evidence for flying pigs, there is no evidence for perpetual motion machines etc. Are you seriously suggesting that to be credited with intellectual honesty one has to accept the possible existence of every weird notion the human imagination is capable of?

[Tony Williams]

The debate over atheism vs agnoticism is why I no longer use either term - I just say that I have no religious beliefs, and leave it at that.

I tried to tackle the question of the relative weighting of different beliefs here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Scales.htm

[SorryImPsychic]

Either there is evidence for God, or there is not.

Is it logically possible to attain this certainty?

Please discuss.

Logic cannot help us here. Logic depends on knowing the truth values of the propositions we make.

Logically the proposition that "God Exists" must follow the construction True or False, but not both True and False.

A = God exists
-A = God does not exist (negation)

The question is:
A or -A

But we are stuck here because without proof/evidence who can attribute a truth value to the statement?

"A = God Exists"

Who can show:

(A) is True and therefore (- A) is False

or

(A) is False and therefore (-A) is True

Both Atheist and Theist are arguing about an a "truth" value that has proven to be indeterminate at this point of time.

[Antipositor]

There is no evidence for the existence of any particular god, there is no evidence for flying pigs, there is no evidence for perpetual motion machines etc. Are you seriously suggesting that to be credited with intellectual honesty one has to accept the possible existence of every weird notion the human imagination is capable of?
Why not? What's difference between having a particle of doubt for all things, and having no doubt whatsoever? Not much strain on the mental budget I dare to say.

Where it counts is where you imagine there to be no chance at all of something happening, yet it might. A young man I once knew had a bad habit of crossing train tracks with his car without looking. For him there was no evidence of a train on hundreds of occasions, therefore to him, the chance of colliding with a train didn't exist. His certitude was disproved one day when he was run over by a train.

[Pebble]

Why not? What's difference between having a particle of doubt for all things, and having no doubt whatsoever? Not much strain on the mental budget I dare to say.

Where it counts is where you imagine there to be no chance at all of something happening, yet it might. A young man I once knew had a bad habit of crossing train tracks with his car without looking. For him there was no evidence of a train on hundreds of occasions, therefore to him, the chance of colliding with a train didn't exist. His certitude was disproved one day when he was run over by a train.


As a rather more decisive type, I am happy to say that there is no evidence for god(s) after thousands of years of searching and no logical reason for the kinds of gods proposed, to exist therefore I am an atheist. Being a skeptic, I am happy to look at new evidence on the subject. Having common sense, I will not give more than cursory attention to claims that are not rapidly followed by robust information.

[SorryImPsychic]

Where it counts is where you imagine there to be no chance at all of something happening, yet it might

Exactly! The notion that because it has always happened just so - it will continue to happen just so. Our day to day existence is based on assumptions not certainties. Reality often proves otherwise.

We have to always bear in mind the real and everpresent "potentiality" for other possibilities.

[SorryImPsychic]

Surely the Almighty has the ability to provide the ultimate proof for his own existence.

God, as presented in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, puts forward his own concise, emphatic, unfalsifiable statement about his existence.

I AM
.
Now we attempt to disprove this....but we can't.

[Antipositor]

There is no evidence for the existence of any particular god, there is no evidence for flying pigs, there is no evidence for perpetual motion machines etc. Are you seriously suggesting that to be credited with intellectual honesty one has to accept the possible existence of every weird notion the human imagination is capable of?
Fine, I agree there is no evidence for such things, but it's not scientific to say it proves they don't exist. Neither is it to say they do exist. It's very simple when you know that science isn't like a court of law where some sort of answer is required.

[Pebble]

Fine, I agree there is no evidence for such things, but it's not scientific to say it proves they don't exist. Neither is it to say they do exist. It's very simple when you know that science isn't like a court of law where some sort of answer is required.


We have been around this one several times now, but little progress! If you read what I have written, I absolutely agree that one cannot disprove the existence of pretty well anything. The point I am making is that this is no bar to being both an atheist and a skeptic. An atheist does not state that the existence of god(s) has(have) been disproven, it is a statement that one sees no adequate reason for 'belief' in them. The primary difference with an agnostic position, is that the atheist further conlcudes that logic tends to support a view that god(s) as envisaged will never be shown to exist - that is all. Call that 'closed minded' if you will, but that is not correct.

A similar example is homeopathy, there is no quality supporting evidence for homeopathy, there is no logical basis - you on the basis of your previously stated position would be a homeopathic agnostic (it has not been proven not to work) I would be an atheist (it will never be shown to work). The difference here is that we can test the hypothesis out, and can come to a positive conlcusion if it were ever shown to work. I frequently analyse the data produced, it remains as I had predicted - neutral on balance (some positive, some negative as is the nature of purely statistical enquiry). Thus evaluation of the evidence can be done objectively even if one 'believes' that the underlying concept is flawed.

[Antipositor]

As a rather more decisive type, I am happy to say that there is no evidence for god(s) after thousands of years of searching and no logical reason for the kinds of gods proposed, to exist therefore I am an atheist. Being a skeptic, I am happy to look at new evidence on the subject. Having common sense, I will not give more than cursory attention to claims that are not rapidly followed by robust information.
Decisiveness is a great virtue... when it's needed.

What's the need to declare a certitude where no need exists, and evidence is scant? Much comedy is based on charactars who form needless certitudes and consequently pay for their errors.

[Croydon Bob]

What's the need to declare a certitude where no need exists, and evidence is scant?

Who said that there was a need? Nobody.

Your only argument is straw man, over and over again. You have an irational belief that people here think in a certain way and won't accept that you are (largely) wrong.

[Pebble]

Decisiveness is a great virtue... when it's needed.

What's the need to declare a certitude where no need exists, and evidence is scant? Much comedy is based on charactars who form needless certitudes and consequently pay for their errors.


Harking back to a previous post to produce a superficial side step?

Why not engage the issue head on - you raised it?

If you wish to continue playing, provide evidence to support your contention that those who have decided that on current evidence 'x' is more probable are incapable of objective evaluation of new evidence, and I shall counter.

As I see your posts - you deride atheists on the basis that according to your definition of sketpicism/scientific rational they are 'closed minded' quasi religious individuals. Unable to handle the rational of a purely logical approach, you hope that ad hominem approaches will allow a graceful exit from the debate.

[Nukapai]

The debate over atheism vs agnoticism is why I no longer use either term - I just say that I have no religious beliefs, and leave it at that.

I tried to tackle the question of the relative weighting of different beliefs here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Scales.htm

I've gone from saying that to declaring myself Pastafarian (depends who is asking and whether they might have a sense of humour about these topics).

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Wagers are based on uncertainties; and Pascal's Wager implies that there is no way to be completely certain of God's existence/nonexistence, therefore it's best to hedge your bets. I believe the critical difference between an atheist and an agnostic is often defined as that the atheist is certain there is no God, but the agnostic is uncertain either way.

Some debate within skeptical circles has been over whether skepticism itself should follow an "atheistic" or an "agnostic" approach to unanswered questions. My own view is that solving for the X factor by declaring it a zero is a fallacy, therefore uncertainty (agnostic) better defines skepticism than denial (atheistic).

The trouble with Pascal's Wager is that he tries to make the rationality of the wager turn on the size of the stakes without reference to evidence. Trivially, Pascal's argument "proves" far too much: it "proves", for example, that you'd be wise to worship Satan and despise God if it is asserted that Satan is in fact in charge of your future and everlasting career.

As for unanswered questions, much depends on which candidate answers we are looking at. Exotic entities have to earn their keep by accounting for evidence that cannot be accounted for by their humdrum siblings. Psychic cutlery-bending powers, for example, would come into their own if someone would just bend cutlery when he was being watched so closely that he couldn't do it surreptitiously by humdrum means.

Your X-factor doesn't get us any forrader. It simply muddles the situation where the evidence we have is inconclusive with the situation where evidence is needed but absent.

[Antipositor]

A similar example is homeopathy, there is no quality supporting evidence for homeopathy, there is no logical basis - you on the basis of your previously stated position would be a homeopathic agnostic (it has not been proven not to work) I would be an atheist (it will never be shown to work).
The important distinction with regard to homeopathy is whether there is no supporting evidence or no supporting evidence you recognize. You are tailoring your own criteria to suit your conclusions.

[ZERO]

There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural gods.

There is an infinite amount of things, limited only by imagination, for which there is no evidence. Do we rule none out? Do we really entertain the possible reality of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Of course not.
What makes god any different?

Until some real evidence for a god is demonstrated it is entirely reasonable to have the opinion that there are no gods.

[Pebble]

The important distinction with regard to homeopathy is whether there is no supporting evidence or no supporting evidence you recognize. You are tailoring your own criteria to suit your conclusions.


The distinction that is important is that with homeopathy it is possible to amass evidence. With gods there are no trials that can be designed to test the current hypotheses.

Then you charge that I do not analyse evidence objectively (no evidence provided by you!). Take a look at: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2706&page=3

post 32 on is the most relevant to your allegation. Tell me where my analysis lacks objectivity, since this is your clear position.

[skbuncks]

There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural gods.

There is an infinite amount of things, limited only by imagination, for which there is no evidence. Do we rule none out? Do we really entertain the possible reality of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Of course not.
What makes god any different?

Until some real evidence for a god is demonstrated it is entirely reasonable to have the opinion that there are no gods.

Heathen,

Kazoo 6:73


For her Pinkness is such that it transcends pinkness. Yea, it is beyond the ken of man or mind to comprehend, but we shant question it for it is the doubter than shall be skewered upon Her Sacred Horn, like unto a shish kebob.

skb

[Antipositor]

The trouble with Pascal's Wager is that he tries to make the rationality of the wager turn on the size of the stakes without reference to evidence. Trivially, Pascal's argument "proves" far too much: it "proves", for example, that you'd be wise to worship Satan and despise God if it is asserted that Satan is in fact in charge of your future and everlasting career.

As for unanswered questions, much depends on which candidate answers we are looking at. Exotic entities have to earn their keep by accounting for evidence that cannot be accounted for by their humdrum siblings. Psychic cutlery-bending powers, for example, would come into their own if someone would just bend cutlery when he was being watched so closely that he couldn't do it surreptitiously by humdrum means.

Your X-factor doesn't get us any forrader. It simply muddles the situation where the evidence we have is inconclusive with the situation where evidence is needed but absent.
My X-factor has no value, except that no one can reduce it to zero. It remains an unknown with a degree of uncertainty attached. People can be certain; form certitudes, stamp their feet, pound the table, pray religiously to it, bet the farm or jump off a cliff, but in the end, it cares not how certain we want to be. It will still be an uncertainty, whatever it is, regardless of what we think or feel about it.

In my humble opinion, the "agnostic" skeptic is in a higher state of wisdom than an "atheistic" skeptic, because it's the more intellectually honest option.

[SorryImPsychic]

There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural gods.

Until some real evidence for a god is demonstrated it is entirely reasonable to have the opinion that there are no gods.

Many ancient cultures report visitations from "supernatural gods" in flying machines and even have images depicting these gods and their flying machines.

Such cultures also attribute their attainment of advanced knowledge from these gods.

There is evidence that there have been ET gods.

[SorryImPsychic]

In my humble opinion, the "agnostic" skeptic is in a higher state of wisdom than an "atheistic" skeptic, because it's the more intellectually honest option.

Yes the importance of intellectual honesty! The "Open Mindedness" video on other thread makes the following points:


Open Mindedness = Willing to consider new ideas

Science promotes and thrives on open mindedness
because the advancement of our understanding
of the reality in which we exist
depends upon our willingness to consider new ideas.



Scientific discovery often requires
new ways of thinking


Intellectual honesty, the agnostic stance, is exactly what is required to realize this ideal of open minded Scientific thinking.

[ZERO]

Many ancient cultures report visitations from "supernatural gods" in flying machines and even have images depicting these gods and their flying machines.

Such cultures also attribute their attainment of advanced knowledge from these gods.

There is evidence that there have been ET gods.
Myths and stories are not evidence for ET visitation any more than they are for a global flood or Rainbow Serpent.

[SorryImPsychic]

Myths and stories are not evidence for ET visitation any more than they are for a global flood or Rainbow Serpent.

What arrogance to call the documentation of their experienced history myth.

As for the Rainbow Serpent

"The researchers matched features of likely animals that may have served as models for the images, and found that the ribboned pipefish matched most closely, over and above those of crocodiles, snakes and kangaroos and other creatures." (see image of a related pipefish, the Ghost Pipefish)

http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/culture/cimages/pipefish.jpg.

A global flood is recorded by most ancient civilizations because there actually was a global flood....this is not a fictional story.

http://www.articlearchives.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology-environmental/982832-1.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1123442/How-flooding-earthquakes-brought-Americas-earliest-civilisation-knees.html

and the current investigation underway regarding signs of catostrophic upheval (300BC) where New York stands today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8028949.stm

It seems that evidence of global catastrophes occur on average every 3,500 years because next block of flood/catastrophic events around 7000yrs ago.

[SorryImPsychic]

Myths and stories are not evidence for ET visitation any more than they are for a global flood or Rainbow Serpent.

Some evidence of Ancient Electricity and Electromagnetism for you to consider while you right-off ancient cultures as ignorant myth-makers.

http://einhornpress.com/ancienttechnology.aspx

[Pebble]

In my humble opinion, the "agnostic" skeptic is in a higher state of wisdom than an "atheistic" skeptic, because it's the more intellectually honest option.


So given that all science is probabalistic, nothing can be known - the pure state is that of permanent fence sitting on all matters! Have a lovely time in that ivory tower.

[chaggle]

Myths and stories are not evidence for ET visitation any more than they are for a global flood or Rainbow Serpent.


What arrogance to call the documentation of their experienced history myth.

As for the Rainbow Serpent

"The researchers matched features of likely animals that may have served as models for the images, and found that the ribboned pipefish matched most closely, over and above those of crocodiles, snakes and kangaroos and other creatures." (see image of a related pipefish, the Ghost Pipefish)

http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/culture/cimages/pipefish.jpg.



http://www.didjshop.com/stories/rainbow.html



Far off in Dreamtime, there were only people, no animals or birds, no trees or bushes, no hills or mountains.
The country was flat. Goorialla, the great Rainbow Serpent, stirred and set off to look for his own tribe. He travelled across Australia from South to North. He reached Cape York where he stopped and made a big red mountain called Naralullgan. He listened to the wind and heard only voices speaking strange languages. .......


Are you suggesting that the above is "Experienced History", that a pipefish made a big red mountain called Naralullgan?:cheesy:

[SorryImPsychic]

http://www.didjshop.com/stories/rainbow.html


Are you suggesting that the above is "Experienced History", that a pipefish made a big red mountain called Naralullgan?

The researchers hypothesized that the pipefish inspired the images used to depict the Rainbow Serpent.

Dreamtime is not a record of "experienced history". Dreamtime stories are time non-specific from what is called the Dreamtime...like experiencing a hyper reality dimension in modern terms. Western culture really has no equivalent thinking - creation myth does not capture the essence of Dreamtime at all.

[Croydon Bob]

A global flood is recorded by most ancient civilizations because there actually was a global flood....this is not a fictional story.

http://www.articlearchives.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology-environmental/982832-1.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1123442/How-flooding-earthquakes-brought-Americas-earliest-civilisation-knees.html



And YET AGAIN you have linked to articles that don't back up your incorrect statement.

Global flood= fiction. Local floods at various times in some parts of the world = fact.

There is no flood myth from any of the northern European cultures because they never had serious floods. Iraq kicked off many of the modern flood myths (including the Christian version), because in Iraq the Tigris and Euphrates can (and often did) flood the land from horizon to horizon thus 'the whole world'.

;D Please try and up your game. This is too easy.

[Croydon Bob]

There is evidence that there have been ET gods.

Von Daniken rubbish now! As Cuddles already asked you, is there any nonsense that you DON'T believe?

Your repeated posting of mad ideas with links that don't back up your argument are starting to look a lot like a deliberate joke rather than you just being a rather sad and confused individual.

Care to confess that you've just been winding us up? It was a good joke and had me going.

[DrS]

In my humble opinion, the agnostic skeptic is in a higher state of wisdom than an atheistic skeptic, because it's the more intellectually honest option.And who exactly has disagreed with this here? Where people differ is in evaluating the relative doubt. Where people say they are atheists it is because the level of doubt is so high as to be an effective certainty.
A global flood is recorded by most ancient civilizations because there actually was a global flood.No there was not. There is sufficient archaeological evidence to demonstrate that the main known flood, the Biblical Noah one, reflected a local though very severe flooding of the main rivers of the area which comprised the known world to those involved.
Some evidence of Ancient Electricity and Electromagnetism for you to consider while you right-off ancient cultures as ignorant myth-makers.Who said myth-makers were ignorant? They were highly imaginative and creative ... but they were not researching or reporting fact. (It's write-off ....)
Global flood= fiction. Local floods at various times in some parts of the world = fact. There is no flood myth from any of the northern European cultures because they never had serious floods. Iraq kicked off many of the modern flood myths (including the Christian version), because in Iraq the Tigris and Euphrates can (and often did) flood the land from horizon to horizon thus 'the whole world'. Precisely.

[Tony Williams]

There is sufficient archaeological evidence to demonstrate that the main known flood, the Biblical Noah one, reflected a local though very severe flooding of the main rivers of the area which comprised the known world to those involved.
There is an alternative theory - that what was passed down into folklore in the Middle East (and was described in at least one other text which predates the Bible) was a memory of the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea coast when the Mediterranean (which was much higher) broke through the Bosphorus. Remains of human activities have been found in deep water offshore. This is also, of course, closer to Mt Ararat (not that the water ever came anywhere near flooding that!).

[DrS]

Yes, that was quite recently, wasn't it ... weren't the theorists geologists or similar? I assume you mean the Gilgamesh Epic, though that for me would tend to confirm the Biblical flood as a Mesopotamian rather than Black Sea phenomenon. We can never know for certain, of course!

[Croydon Bob]

There is an alternative theory

They could, of course, both be origins of flood myths.

Anecdotally: two colleagues of mine worked in Iraq, one was very keen on the Iraq flood myth explanation; describing how the desert really was completely flat in every direction with the river zigzagging slowly through it, sometimes changing direction, thus sometimes clogging up and flooding the surrounding land. My other colleague was a creationist (seventh day adventist) and would get really angry at such talk, insisting that such events were irelevent to the biblical account of a global flood.

[ZERO]

What arrogance to call the documentation of their experienced history myth.
I didn't say anything about their experienced history. Myths and legends are not experienced history.


As for the Rainbow Serpent

"The researchers matched features of likely animals that may have served as models for the images, and found that the ribboned pipefish matched most closely, over and above those of crocodiles, snakes and kangaroos and other creatures." (see image of a related pipefish, the Ghost Pipefish)

http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/culture/cimages/pipefish.jpg.So what? It did not create the rivers and mountains.


A global flood is recorded by most ancient civilizations because there actually was a global flood....this is not a fictional story.

http://www.articlearchives.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology-environmental/982832-1.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1123442/How-flooding-earthquakes-brought-Americas-earliest-civilisation-knees.html

and the current investigation underway regarding signs of catostrophic upheval (300BC) where New York stands today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8028949.stm

It seems that evidence of global catastrophes occur on average every 3,500 years because next block of flood/catastrophic events around 7000yrs ago.Ha ha ha ;D!!
You don't know what you are talking about. Again.
There is no evidence to support a global flood.

Some evidence of Ancient Electricity and Electromagnetism for you to consider while you right-off ancient cultures as ignorant myth-makers.

http://einhornpress.com/ancienttechnology.aspx

I did not write off any culture, but I do separate history from myth.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

My X-factor has no value, except that no one can reduce it to zero. It remains an unknown with a degree of uncertainty attached. People can be certain; form certitudes, stamp their feet, pound the table, pray religiously to it, bet the farm or jump off a cliff, but in the end, it cares not how certain we want to be. It will still be an uncertainty, whatever it is, regardless of what we think or feel about it.

Would you say that your X-factor " has no value" because we don't know enough to assign a value? Or because, however much we may know, there is no method of assigning a value?

If you mean the latter, then I suggest that a far clearer way of putting it is: We can't know today what new evidence tomorrow may bring, but if new evidence shows up we shall consider it.

You may have a third possibility in mind. That is for you to say.

[Dr B]

I'm sure some of you guys wanted to hear an easy question such as that one.

My question is about our interest in a potentially invaluable treasure that might possiblity exist.
We can't logically rule it out.

It would surely be an ultimate find.

The original question is loaded and flawed as it was posed - so try again.

[Dr B]

Even a world famous hard core atheist scientist like Professor Richard Dawkins
has not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being.


You have not read or understood my two posts on the other page - otherwise you would see why this comment is redundant.



Of cource, I'm not saying I'm as clever as him, but one can never be
sure about what is, and is not, out there.


this does not make nonsense correct however....you need to study logic.




You have to keep your mind open about uncertain things.

Oh dear....surely a probablisitic science based on provisional truth is the most open minded system one can have. This is the system of science. Religion tells you what to believe on no premise whatsoever.

[rayback]

Religion tells you what to believe on no premise whatsoever.


Thats not true.

Just because you do not recognise those premises, or accept them as valid, in no way means that religion does not offer some backing for its assertions.

Believers of God believe because of some sort of evidence.

That evidence might not be good enough for your prejudiced mind.

I can undertand that.

[DrS]

Thats not true.
Yes it is. They believe because of faith. That is why faith is such a central plank of religion, and why it is the principal area of struggle reported by religionists.

[Tony Williams]

Believers of God believe because of some sort of evidence.
There are various levels of evidence. Science works on objective, testable evidence. Religion depends on the subjective, anecdotal type - either written down in holy books or in personal revelations.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there's a heck of a lot of it around, covering everything under the sun. Not only are there lots of different religions and sects, each with their own firm believers (even though, very obviously, almost all of them have got to be wrong) but there's also such evidence for alien abductions, reincarnation and the whole spectrum of woo.

How do you decide which of them to believe and which not to? How do you defend Christian beliefs in the face of Muslim ones? What evidence do you have that the Bible is right and the Koran is wrong? After all, there is a much more direct link between Mohammed and the Koran than there is between Christ and the Bible.

[skbuncks]

Thats not true.

Just because you do not recognise those premises, or accept them as valid, in no way means that religion does not offer some backing for its assertions.

Believers of God believe because of some sort of evidence.

That evidence might not be good enough for your prejudiced mind.

I can undertand that.

...and this evidence is?

Come on, dont keep us in the dark. Present me with the evidence so that I too can believe and save my non-existant soul

skb

[Dr B]

Thats not true.

Yes it is - I note you did not counter my point with any actual evidence. I notice things like that.



Just because you do not recognise those premises, or accept them as valid, in no way means that religion does not offer some backing for its assertions.

Wrong again. If we apply the rules of evidence-based reasoning which include checking the validity and soundness of premises (and the connections between them) as well as exploring explanatory power, necessary and sufficient conditions etc, we can see that religion is not supported by objective evidence. It is a pure faith based system and as such should remain constained by faith based claims.

As Dawkins puts it, we need to look at the scope and nature of the explanation divided by that which it must assume in order for the explanation to be true.



Believers of God believe because of some sort of evidence.


Not true - a faith does not require any evidence at all - anecdotal or otherwise.



That evidence might not be good enough for your prejudiced mind.
I can undertand that.

Oh dear - so basically anyone who disagrees with you is prejudiced....and you are supposed to be open-minded are you? ;D Can you not see how loaded that line of thought is?

All you need is evidence. I would take a well reasoned argument of theoretical concepts (i.e., based in informal logic) as a form of evidence even if you have no hard empirical evidence.

So, why does the existence of a universe necessitate a creator? Or what is the evidence for a soul? Dualism....anything you want really...

[rayback]

You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you.

Somebody in this forum advised me that I was in the wrong place.

I bet you guys even suspect your own birth certificates.

Having said that, I do admire you all.

I think you are sharper than Atheists.

Most Atheists are no better than fanatical religious nutters.

Both are brainwashed and braindead.

But you guys seems to have a bit of rationality in you.

You think for yourself on EVERYTHING.

This shows intellect.

[Admin]

You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you.

You really should look into what skepticism is before coming out with nonsense like that.

[rayback]

My replies in bold:




There are various levels of evidence.

Thats true.

Science works on objective, testable evidence.

No. It works of theories that are yet to be proven.

Some scientific "truths" get overturned by new discoveries, and these too get get overturned by even newer ones.

Religion depends on the subjective, anecdotal type - either written down in holy books or in personal revelations.

Thats your assumption dressed as fact.

Religion is also a science.

Scientists have their books. Why cant religion?

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there's a heck of a lot of it around, covering everything under the sun.

Exactly.

Even scientists have competing theories and each tried to present their own evidences.

Not only are there lots of different religions and sects, each with their own firm believers (even though, very obviously, almost all of them have got to be wrong) but there's also such evidence for alien abductions, reincarnation and the whole spectrum of woo.

As I said above, even scientists are divided into different camps.

How do you decide which of them to believe and which not to?

Same way as you would decide anything.

How do you defend Christian beliefs in the face of Muslim ones?

I dont.

Christians can defend their own views.

I defend Ala and His Rules.

What evidence do you have that the Bible is right and the Koran is wrong?

I have studied both.

The Koran makes more sense.

Bible is not logical. It has been corrupted by men, and it contains contradictory material.

After all, there is a much more direct link between Mohammed and the Koran than there is between Christ and the Bible.

I love Ala. Jesus was one of many envoys sent by Ala.

Christians have turned Jesus into a God.

I dont accept that.

The True God is not flesh and blood.

The Supreme Being is beyond matter.

That is what He told us in His own Book, the Koran.

[Croydon Bob]

My replies in bold:

Your understanding of science is weak.

Do you think that the science that puts an aeroplane in the sky is unproven? Just a theory?

Is there no proof that your computer works?

There are lots of scientific truths. Facts. Every day you use them.

There are no religious truths. Only opinions and beliefs.

[Dr B]

You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you.

But you have not produced any evidence at all as far as I can see???

[Pebble]

My replies in bold:


Contradictions are not limited to the bible! This may be a christian inspired site, but the contradictions idenitified should stand up to scrutiny.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

[ajrmoore]

I've gone from saying that to declaring myself Pastafarian (depends who is asking and whether they might have a sense of humour about these topics).


You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you.

Somebody in this forum advised me that I was in the wrong place.

I bet you guys even suspect your own birth certificates.

Having said that, I do admire you all.

I think you are sharper than Atheists.

Most Atheists are no better than fanatical religious nutters.

Both are brainwashed and braindead.

But you guys seems to have a bit of rationality in you.

You think for yourself on EVERYTHING.

This shows intellect.

I'm unsure whether this is a genuine attempt at empathising with a skeptical point of view or a poor effort in sarcasm, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There seems to be a rabid tint to the general responses aimed at you Rayback. It's important for you to understand that the underlying frustration that some of the UK Skeptic's have towards you is a direct result of some poor reasoning on your part. Bear with me, this isn't an insult, merely an attempt at imparting some advice about how to approach this forum (and dicussions in general) correctly.

As has been explained, being skeptical doesn't involve disregarding new ideas offhand, nor does it involve diregarding evidence that "doesn't suit us". By and large skeptics try and maintain a balanced and objective point of view. In our day to day lives this mentality prompts us to ask for ideas and opinions to be validated by reliable sources and evidence.

Here are some handy guidelines, and I suggest you take them to heart:

Originally Posted by rayback
You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you

When you make a statement like this remember that it's hard for us to respond when we don't know what evidence you're referring to. By itself this is a horribly general comment. Bear in mind that we will happily and objectively consider any evidence you provide.

Next, skepticism, but more specifically science, operates according to a very specific model. Confusion arises when people attacked science without really understanding what relevant scientific terms mean and what relevance they have in arguments and discussions.

Originally Posted by rayback
Science works on objective, testable evidence.

No. It works of theories that are yet to be proven.

Some scientific "truths" get overturned by new discoveries, and these too get get overturned by even newer ones.

Funnily enough, you are right, but only in the sense that you prove the original comment correct. Science does work to formulate theories about how things work, react, exist, etc. Science then forms methodologies and methods to test these theories. They do this by using the objective, testable evidence mentioned. If the results are good this means there exists a good probability that the theory is correct. Please note however! This doesn't mean that the theory is immune to criticism. In fact it means that the theory, experiment and evidence will be subjected to much critical scrutiny. This scrutiny comes directly from the scientific community. And if they experiement or study fails to comply with the rigorous standards of the scientific community the evidence might be overturned or subjected to further study.

I mention all this because it is important that you realise that it is often skeptics, scientists and researchers that are their own harshest critics. Remember this when you post comments and statements and try to use it as a guideline for yourself. Ask yourself "Have I properly investigated the terms and definitions of what I'm discussing?" "Have I considered whether my statement is anecdotal or evidence based?" (There is a distinct difference) "Am I thinking about this all objectively?"

I'll stop there since I've already deviated horrible from the original topic. This is sincere advice, and I hope you might make use of it in future.

[rayback]

I'm unsure whether this is a genuine attempt at empathising with a skeptical point of view or a poor effort in sarcasm, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There seems to be a rabid tint to the general responses aimed at you Rayback. It's important for you to understand that the underlying frustration that some of the UK Skeptic's have towards you is a direct result of some poor reasoning on your part. Bear with me, this isn't an insult, merely an attempt at imparting some advice about how to approach this forum (and dicussions in general) correctly.

As has been explained, being skeptical doesn't involve disregarding new ideas offhand, nor does it involve diregarding evidence that "doesn't suit us". By and large skeptics try and maintain a balanced and objective point of view. In our day to day lives this mentality prompts us to ask for ideas and opinions to be validated by reliable sources and evidence.

Here are some handy guidelines, and I suggest you take them to heart:

Originally Posted by rayback
You guys are always skeptics no matter what.

Therefore, no evidence would be valid for you

When you make a statement like this remember that it's hard for us to respond when we don't know what evidence you're referring to. By itself this is a horribly general comment. Bear in mind that we will happily and objectively consider any evidence you provide.

Next, skepticism, but more specifically science, operates according to a very specific model. Confusion arises when people attacked science without really understanding what relevant scientific terms mean and what relevance they have in arguments and discussions.

Originally Posted by rayback

"Science works on objective, testable evidence".

No. It works of theories that are yet to be proven.

Some scientific "truths" get overturned by new discoveries, and these too get get overturned by even newer ones.

Funnily enough, you are right, but only in the sense that you prove the original comment correct. Science does work to formulate theories about how things work, react, exist, etc. Science then forms methodologies and methods to test these theories. They do this by using the objective, testable evidence mentioned. If the results are good this means there exists a good probability that the theory is correct. Please note however! This doesn't mean that the theory is immune to criticism. In fact it means that the theory, experiment and evidence will be subjected to much critical scrutiny. This scrutiny comes directly from the scientific community. And if they experiement or study fails to comply with the rigorous standards of the scientific community the evidence might be overturned or subjected to further study.

I mention all this because it is important that you realise that it is often skeptics, scientists and researchers that are their own harshest critics. Remember this when you post comments and statements and try to use it as a guideline for yourself. Ask yourself "Have I properly investigated the terms and definitions of what I'm discussing?" "Have I considered whether my statement is anecdotal or evidence based?" (There is a distinct difference) "Am I thinking about this all objectively?"

I'll stop there since I've already deviated horrible from the original topic. This is sincere advice, and I hope you might make use of it in future.

Wow.

I love you ajrmoore.

Oh boy !! You have a good head screwed so correctly on your shoulders.

You are one of the reasons why I admire skeptics.

I think you should be crowned King of the Skeptics.

I am not trying to be funny here. I am serious.

You have impressed me.