Evidence for the existence of God (Part 3)

First topic message reminder :

The problem with discussions between theists and atheists is that eventually it comes down to the argument of not being able to prove a negative false. As a statistician, in my working life, I have often come across this as a problem. It really ends up as a lack of understanding of the concept of an hypothesis and the nature of the contrary position, the null hypothesis.
 
Consider the following example
 
Hypothesis 1 - There are fairies at the bottom of my garden. (My hypothesis or H1 for short)
 
In stating this I automatically generate a contrary (null) hypothesis which would be
 
Hypothesis 0 - There are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. (The null hypothesis or H0 for short)
 
The null hypothesis is entirely a consequence of stating the first hypothesis. If H1 is not true then we would automatically assume that H0 was true.
 
At this point (courtesy of the Cottingley Fairies and Arthur Conan Doyle) I produce a set of photographs. On scientific scrutiny these are held to be jolly fine photographs and completely fake. At this point I retreat into my bedroom to sulk and it is held that H1 fails on the basis of no evidence and therefore we accept the null hypothesis viz. there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Postulating that at some time in the future someone may come up with evidence that confirms H1 in no way changes the argument. We are dealing with NOW and as of NOW there is no evidence and the hypothesis fails. We accept H0. Wish fulfillment does not give you a reason to accept H1 in spite of the lack of evidence.
 
So now lets look at the existence of God argument.
 
H1 - God exists (the theist position)
which then automatically generates a contrary position
H0 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
 
In passing it is worth noting that the atheist position is a default one. It does NOT require belief. It is simply what is left when the H1 proposition fails, however this is for another time.
 
Now atheists would claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and therefore H1 fails. (In passing one might wonder why, if there is evidence for god, that the religion that has that evidence has not therefore swallowed up all the others who clearly would be lacking in this respect. Is simply a multiplicity of religions an argument for the non-existence of God I wonder?)
 
At this point many theists go for the 'You cannot prove god does not exist' argument. This is the hypotheses above the other way around.
 
H1 - God does not exist (the atheist position)
and
H0 - God exists (the theist position)
 
The atheists just shrug and the theists jump up and down with glee saying the null hypothesis has it, God exists. The problem is that when you consider what the null hypothesis is, you have to ask one crucial question. Is the null hypothesis compatible with a stated position of no evidence.
 
Consider
H1 - Unicorns exist
and hence
H0 - Unicorn do not exist
 
Is a non-existent unicorn compatible with no evidence for the existence of unicorns? Yes it is. Now ask yourself the question if the hypotheses are reversed. Is an existing unicorn compatible with no evidence? No it isn't. Where are the hoof prints and the unicorn poop!!
 
So here we reach the crux. Is a null hypothesis of H0 - God exists compatible with no evidence for God existing. Clearly, as with the unicorn, the answer is no.
 
Atheists do not have to prove God does not exist. It is a meaningless quest because, without evidence, there is no reason or logic in believing that god does exist.

Hi Trev.
I have actually opened a new thread, comes under other matters at the top of the page.
called "bored, fed up, let's get smiling.
I'm trying to break the apathy on this forum, Ivan has posted with some great jokes for starters, just want others to join in and discuss anything.
IE, what is happening in Britain or the world and it does not have to be religious and even tell a joke or two to get the forum smiling.

Why bother with another thread when you supply ample material on this one for a good laugh.

As for the universe.

Everything has always existed in one form or another.

If you accept the Big Bang theory, then what went Bang and where did it come from.

If dark matter played a part, then where did dark matter come from?.

It is beyond our understanding to attempt an answer.

What we can do is consider that which we do know.

Animal and vegitable life must have been created, there is no other sensible explanation.

Take this into consideration and you must accept that there are beings far superior to humans.

As I've said b4 PG get a life and start smiling and laughing,    

polyglide wrote:Why bother with another thread when you supply ample material on this one for a good laugh.

As for the universe.

Everything has always existed in one form or another.

If you accept the Big Bang theory, then what went Bang and where did it come from.

If dark matter played a part, then where did dark matter come from?.

It is beyond our understanding to attempt an answer.

What we can do is consider that which we do know.

Animal and vegitable life must have been created, there is no other sensible explanation.

Take this into consideration and you must accept that there are beings far superior to humans.

You should look at other threads to find things like, "It is indicative of a unsound mind to ridicule that which one does not understand."

It is relevant.

I understand what an unsound mind is, you are typical by your inability to comprehend the obvious.

I am aware of the idiots who think you can get something from nothing, however, none makes any more sense than those who thought the world was flat.

PG, I often get something for nothing, I'm quite good at that and I do not steal it either. you just have to be good at your bartering.

polyglide wrote:I am aware of the idiots who think you can get something from nothing, however, none makes any more sense than those who thought the world was flat.

Of course you'll claim that God had no beginning - so that you may invent an excuse why your God is immune to your own argument and rationalizing it away with the 'special pleading' fallacy.

Thus what do the judges say about your mental gymnastics?

United States: 9.9
Britain: 8.0
Australia: 8.5
China: 9.0
Japan: 9.5
East Germany: 4.9

Eh, what can you do ... those East German judges hate athletes from NATO countries. Your dismount was a bit hard - you stumbled a bit - but otherwise, a superb feat of athletic prowess to be sure.

Shirina.
You seem to have bought the debate to a halt.
Probably because like myself, I do not fully understand your last post, could you put it in a clearer form for me please.
Many thanks.

stuart torr wrote:Shirina.
You seem to have bought the debate to a halt.
Probably because like myself, I do not fully understand your last post, could you put it in a clearer form for me please.
Many thanks.

I suspect Shirina was just being sarcastic. Like myself she finds most of what Polyglide posts as leaps of the imagination on Polyglides part.
In fact some of the Bible needs the same if we take it literally. The marks were simply, I assume, by the way. However I am surprised that Shirina suggested 9.9 marks for the US. I would have thought that the Gospel belt of the Southern States would have backed Polyglide and lowered the judges marks.

Using the gymnastics theme

Your dismount was a bit hard - you stumbled a bit - but otherwise, a superb feat of athletic prowess to be sure.

Polyglide has a very good imagination, though Pg stumbled a bit in his presentation, and landed badly in the end.

If I'm wrong Shirina, kick my .... er A...  .... shins.

trevorw2539 wrote:If I'm wrong Shirina, kick my ....   er A...    .... shins.

Heh, no, you've pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

Many atheists call the way in which believers rationalize their faith "mental gymnastics" because of all the leaping, jumping, contorting, and swinging they have to do in order for it to make sense (loosely).

So I was putting it into a gymnastics competition format with judges scoring polyglide's argument. I just know people used to joke about East German judges back in the day because they always gave Western nations undeserved bad scores while giving Warsaw Pact nations really good scores.

polyglide wrote:I understand what an unsound mind is, you are typical by your inability to comprehend the obvious.

I am aware of the idiots who think you can get something from nothing, however, none makes any more sense than those who thought the world was flat.

Hey, guess what. 'Science' has proved, despite what the ancient 'idiots' thought, that our world is almost round.
Hey, guess what. Science may one day prove that, despite what todays 'idiots' think, you can get something from nothing. Our understanding of science, nature and the Universe is at its infant stage.

Guess what PG, Shirina and Trevor are right.
You know what we all know the Earth isn't flat wow.

Asking the question;"Was the universe born from intention?" This is still a valid question even from a scientific perspective.

There are many ideas on the big-bang, however this idea - we must remember - is still a theory.

Perhaps this 'nothing ' was really always 'something'. A something unseen by our eyes in what appears to be an empty void. Only until it shifts and abides by our own natural law it comes into existence.

The big bang becomes less of a theory, the longer time goes on.
IMO the universe was already in existence prior to the big bang.
After it and human life came into existence, and of course became as intelligent as we are now, and know how many galaxies we have ETC. Everything is different.

stuart torr wrote:The big bang becomes less of a theory, the longer time goes on.
IMO the universe was already in existence prior to the big bang.
After it and human life came into existence, and of course became as intelligent as we are now, and know how many galaxies we have ETC. Everything is different.

Hello stuart torr,

I would agree that as time goes along.The Big bang would be less of a theory, but also be quite possibly not be as valid an idea as first thought and be put aside to newer explanation alternatives.

Yes I think the same and say that it could be quite possible that there was always a universe. Only the physical matter came into existence at specific points in time. Perhaps this physical appearance aught to be the big bang (excluding universe )which is not in the way we currently know as the Big bang .

If we know;as you say human life came into existence (original state still unknown),are we to believe that we are the first intelligent life to come into being ? By example; man is getting to understand methods to creating life with specific elements in a lab. I would not at all be surprised, in the science community someone is thinking. " I wonder if someone made us too?" A valid question.

  

If we know;as you say human life came into existence (original state still unknown),are we to believe that we are the first intelligent life to come into being ? By example; man is getting to understand methods to creating life with specific elements in a lab. I would not at all be surprised, in the science community someone is thinking. " I wonder if someone made us too?" A valid question.

Does that make them a god? Then who made god? And who made the god that made the god that made man - ad infinitum.




Human life?

Ooops, sorry. Forgot to put quote round first parargraph

Hi trevor.
I have posted very similar posts to yours on the other forum, and no-one comes up with a clear answer.
As the atheists always say that life developed normally, with no god involved, and the theists always come up with the answer that it was god who created us.
So what is the atheist answer to that? yes you guessed it, who made god, ad infinitum.

All of these questions presupposes a "who" being involved in the formation of the universe or the start of life. There isn't really any evidence to believe an intelligence of any kind was behind our existence, and certainly not an omnipotent intelligence given the -many- flaws in the human body.

Except myself Shirina.
As an Atheist, I do not believe in any creator/God figure making human life, and all it's faults many of them as it happens.
I use to be a staff nurse Shirina, and I have seen those many faults at first hand, now if there were an omnipotent intelligence, why would we humans have so many faults?

It's all down to Adam and Eve. If Eve had only said to the serpent 'No thanks, I haven't had the meat course yet' everything would have been OK.   

So tell me trevor, Adam and Eve were technically brother and sister were they not? so god allowed them to break the law?
How many children did they have? was it two male sons?
How did life carry on from there?

Stuart. Sorry if you misunderstood. It was meant as a joke.

Adam and Eve is a story drawn from older Sumerian myths, and probably earlier. They never existed. All these legends are early mans way of trying to understand how creation happened. I think from the dawn of man becoming intelligent he has had the need to explain the then unexplainable. He probably started by worshipping things like nature, and over the millenia, with the increase of understanding has evolved 'religions'. That's putting it 'in a nutshell'.   

stuart wrote:
Does that make them a god? Then who made god? And who made the god that made the god that made man - ad infinitum.

Shirina wrote:There isn't really any evidence to believe an intelligence of any kind was behind our existence, and certainly not an omnipotent intelligence given the -many- flaws in the human body.

If at all and much like the biblical Gods by their very description. If we were created by other beings that came, long before us.Then to the group of non-the-wiser humans ;the simple sheep herder or woodsman, these beings would be Gods. But yes these Gods would not be omnipotent only just very clever I suppose.

Who made the first God/Living entities ? An ultimate creator or intelligent energy perhaps ? (I dare say )  I guess there need not be any other before.Perhaps we mistakenly always assume everything has to have a beginning and end which is of course in relation to matter.



Just 'Natural law' by itself is enough reason to think of the possibility that life is seemingly born from intent.

why would we humans have so many faults?

Indeed ,especially if we as individuals pray for guidance via the biblical practices or other magic citing incantations for protection.

What are our faults anyway? Pretty much sure we could correct a large part with correct balances and checks.

Flaws of the body? Well I was always taught (as we all have) that a great balance in our diets ,fresh air and sunlight not forgetting No stress! does wonders to our health and we tend to live longer.

Life in general is made to survive and will do by governing natural laws.Seems harsh and illogical but species come and go unless the gift of imagination gets that species a bit further.

or maybe not
  

Jsmythe wrote:

why would we humans have so many faults?

Indeed ,especially if we as individuals pray for guidance via the biblical practices or other magic citing incantations for protection.

What are our faults anyway? Pretty much sure we could correct a large part with correct balances and checks.

Flaws of the body? Well I was always taught (as we all have) that a great balance in our diets ,fresh air and sunlight not forgetting No stress! does wonders to our health and we tend to live longer.

Life in general is made to survive and will do by governing natural laws.Seems harsh and illogical but species come and go unless the gift of imagination gets that species a bit further.

or maybe not
  


 

I suspect Shirina was talking about 'bodily' faults, and not faults in our nature.

Children born with genetic diseases, cleft palates and lack of limbs. Lack of immunity to diseases which kill. A wise creator would surely have foreseen the suffering he was allowing by creating a faulty being.

Not just children trevor.
So you are saying a wise creator, would have foreseen the suffering that he was allowing, by creating a faulty being..
Obvious then is it not? humans were not created by this wise creator, or we would not have the faults that we do.

People made up 'gods' to explain magic hunting-dances they'd done when hunter-gathering after they became famers, and sensible people refined the concept to embody the best they knew. By the time of Jesus people were already getting a bit baffled by the notion, rightly. I put my trust in Comrade Jesus and whatever Comrade Buddha called himself before he moved on!

Penderyn.
As an Atheist you know that I will disagree with you, you will no doubt claim that jesus was the son of god also.
Then do you also believe in the bible? 
You cannot believe both I'm afraid Penderyn, if you believe in the bible then you will know that according to that man written work of fiction, that jesus is the son of Mary and the holy spirit.
I do believe that is the only spirit, to impregnate a female and leave her with child.  
I expect you will reply with some further implausible reply, and something as far fetched as a take away from china.

What.

Well P.G.?
Is that the only reply you can muster.  
Instead of a blubbering "What."   come up with a decent reply.

Where

Hi Shirina.
hope you are well, can you tell me please to whom your reply was aimed at.
many thanks.

stuart torr wrote:Penderyn.
As an Atheist you know that I will disagree with you, you will no doubt claim that jesus was the son of god also.
Then do you also believe in the bible? 
You cannot believe both I'm afraid Penderyn, if you believe in the bible then you will know that according to that man written work of fiction, that jesus is the son of Mary and the holy spirit.
I do believe that is the only spirit, to impregnate a female and leave her with child.  
I expect you will reply with some further implausible reply, and something as far fetched as a take away from china.

I think that people of that time believed in 'gods', just as the Senate worthily elected the mass murderer Julius Caesar to that political position when he'd died. Comrade Jesus was someone who thought that way, inevitably, but he and those around him were obviously moving towards the point where representative people - and better people than Roman politicians - were taking on the role previously abstracted into 'gods'. I believe that much of the New Testament is a genuine record of what comrade Jesus actually said, because people were trained to remember in those days. The magic elements in the New Testament were part of the notion that Jesus was the Messiah, so that anything said of the Messiah had to be true of Jesus. Don't you think, perhaps, that you are more interested in being right than in discussing this question? That notion tends to limit it to prepared positions. It reminds me of arguing with my RC friends back in the old days: Petrine text (pawn to K4) and so on. Open up, man!

k to Q3, Your so called messiah who is non existent and a bible that is man written and does not tell the truth.
Comrade jesus? never heard the non existent being called comrade before?
Even you know that the bible is awash with faults, so why still believe such rubbish?
C'MON Penderyn you are running out of excuses for your argument
and even refer to the magic elements in the N.T.

stuart torr wrote:k to Q3, Your so called messiah who is non existent  and a bible that is man written and does not tell the truth.
Comrade jesus? never heard the non existent being called comrade before?
Even you know that the bible is awash with faults, so why still believe such rubbish?
C'MON Penderyn you are running out of excuses for your argument
and even refer to the magic elements in the N.T.

Comrade Jesus, tho' confused by religious notions, knew the rich were a damned plague, and the early Church was, within the limits of the time, socialist. You choose to believe/reject archaic crap, stuck in a time-warp. Our job is to translate what's usable.

Penderyn wrote:

stuart torr wrote:k to Q3, Your so called messiah who is non existent  and a bible that is man written and does not tell the truth.
Comrade jesus? never heard the non existent being called comrade before?
Even you know that the bible is awash with faults, so why still believe such rubbish?
C'MON Penderyn you are running out of excuses for your argument
and even refer to the magic elements in the N.T.

Comrade Jesus, tho' confused by religious notions, knew the rich were a damned plague, and the early Church was, within the limits of the time, socialist.   You choose to believe/reject archaic crap, stuck in a time-warp.   Our job is to translate what's usable.

Isn't that rather subjective? What is your 'archaic crap'? What is your idea of what is 'usable'? If you believe what is written then 'comrade Jesus' wasn't confused by religious notions. In fact he was very clear about his religious beliefs.

trevorw2539 wrote:

Penderyn wrote:

stuart torr wrote:k to Q3, Your so called messiah who is non existent  and a bible that is man written and does not tell the truth.
Comrade jesus? never heard the non existent being called comrade before?
Even you know that the bible is awash with faults, so why still believe such rubbish?
C'MON Penderyn you are running out of excuses for your argument
and even refer to the magic elements in the N.T.

Comrade Jesus, tho' confused by religious notions, knew the rich were a damned plague, and the early Church was, within the limits of the time, socialist.   You choose to believe/reject archaic crap, stuck in a time-warp.   Our job is to translate what's usable.

Isn't that rather subjective? What is your 'archaic crap'? What is your idea of what is 'usable'? If you believe what is written then 'comrade Jesus' wasn't confused by religious notions. In fact he was very clear about his religious beliefs.

No. Gods. Socialism. Don't understand - obviously he was confused - everyone was back then.

Penderyn wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:

Penderyn wrote:

stuart torr wrote:k to Q3, Your so called messiah who is non existent  and a bible that is man written and does not tell the truth.
Comrade jesus? never heard the non existent being called comrade before?
Even you know that the bible is awash with faults, so why still believe such rubbish?
C'MON Penderyn you are running out of excuses for your argument
and even refer to the magic elements in the N.T.

Comrade Jesus, tho' confused by religious notions, knew the rich were a damned plague, and the early Church was, within the limits of the time, socialist.   You choose to believe/reject archaic crap, stuck in a time-warp.   Our job is to translate what's usable.

Isn't that rather subjective? What is your 'archaic crap'? What is your idea of what is 'usable'? If you believe what is written then 'comrade Jesus' wasn't confused by religious notions. In fact he was very clear about his religious beliefs.

No.   Gods.  Socialism.   Don't understand - obviously he was confused - everyone was back then.

The Jews were certainly not confused about their religion, and neither was Jesus, if you accept what is written about him.

trevorw2539 wrote:

Penderyn wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:

Penderyn wrote:

stuart torr wrote:k to Q3, Your so called messiah who is non existent  and a bible that is man written and does not tell the truth.
Comrade jesus? never heard the non existent being called comrade before?
Even you know that the bible is awash with faults, so why still believe such rubbish?
C'MON Penderyn you are running out of excuses for your argument
and even refer to the magic elements in the N.T.

Comrade Jesus, tho' confused by religious notions, knew the rich were a damned plague, and the early Church was, within the limits of the time, socialist.   You choose to believe/reject archaic crap, stuck in a time-warp.   Our job is to translate what's usable.

Isn't that rather subjective? What is your 'archaic crap'? What is your idea of what is 'usable'? If you believe what is written then 'comrade Jesus' wasn't confused by religious notions. In fact he was very clear about his religious beliefs.

No.   Gods.  Socialism.   Don't understand - obviously he was confused - everyone was back then.

The Jews were certainly not confused about their religion, and neither was Jesus, if you accept what is written about him.

You mean they believed bullshit? Yes - they believed bullshit. Your point? We have to 'translate' or just posture.

Getting nearer your belief Penderyn I think, was I confused by your wording? are you in fact an atheist?
As your last line of "you mean they believed bullshit?" must mean the bible, which is exactly what I think of it.