The arguments that theists use as "proofs of God" are founded upon faulty and circular reasoning, false science, leaps of faith, and massive misinterpretation of facts. For the most part- they point to something that they decided had to have been "designed" and therefore conclude that there is an invisible man living in the sky who made everything.
I think is buckshot.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
IF there was any proof of the existence of gods or a god, there would be no dispute. Everyone would know those gods exist, and would choose to obey and honor the gods or not. Hell, theists cannot even provide good evidence, much less proof that gods exist.
I agree, GarfieldRepublican. The proofs that more educated christians offer today seem to center around existence and the something-from-nothing apparent paradox of the Big Bang, the presence of morality, the mystery of consciousness, and the sheer volume and history of faith by billions. None of these are good reasons (proofs), but they are reasons none the less. I think the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is the most potent in the arsenal of apologetics.
In my personal effort to confront theist reasoning, the "proofs" are my main targets. Sadly it doesn't seem to be effective with most theists. The proofs are buttressed by elements that have little to do with "proof". Fear of death and non-existence, fear of a life without meaning and a future devoid of eternal hope, fear of the dissolution of one's entire worldview and reason for being, loss of community, and irreversable damage to lifelong relationships are among the hidden underpinnings of the adherants' faith. These don't lend themselves to factual dispute, so my argument style suffers.
I think, however, that a death by a thousand cuts can result from disputing the theist's proofs because it shines an ever more revealing light on the baselessness of what is believed. That seems to set the stage for the theist to emerge from their cocoon of doubting faith when unpredictable life events present an opening for lucidity and clarity of thought. So I think it is valuable to identify and refute the theists' proofs, and hope for the weathering effects of incident and chance to create the opportunity for our deluded friends and neighbors to wake to the beauty of reality. It is important because we live in a techologically advanced world where humanity possesses the tools of its own destruction. Humanity's chances are far better with an enlightened global population, and threatened by delusion. For this reason I think that your attention to proofs is important.
There isn't even a paradox with the something from nothing universe. Our universe has a flat field of energy, and we know this because dark matter doesn't twist celestial bodies into curves. A flat field of energy means that light and matter assemble in discreet forms, and naturally attempt to occupy as little space as possible. Also, a flat field of energy means that the net energy of the universe is zero. This means that mass can simply come into existence at the quantum level, as no energy equals no mass, and quanta are massless. Antimatter allowed for the creation of quanta, and from that also came matter, and massive amounts of energy, which condensed into the observable universe in the big bang. That's the current theory, at least.
I agree with you completely, Jared. Something from nothing is not a paradox. When I mentioned paradox above it was to describe a particular proof about something from nothing. I used the words "apparent paradox" to indicate that it is only apparently a paradox, not a paradox itself. My sentence construction was off; it shouldn't have lended itself to unintended interpretation. I've long been persuaded that "something-from-nothing" is reasonable due to Larence Krauss' book of the same name.
I can think of nothing less industrious than debating fact over faith. Square peg versus round hole, indivisible, oil versus water, black versus white, up/down, hot/cold, diametrically opposed and a whole host of other similarly polar opposites, engaging has no rules to engage by and no faith needs fact to champion its cause.
Self flogging, anyone?
You can dress it up but can't take it out.
You can build it up and it will only let you down.
You can respect it and never understand why it hurt you.
You can teach it and yet there's nothing to learn.
You can seek its grace only to lose a son in some far flung war.
You can pray to it only to find it deaf.
You can believe in it yet remain a stranger within it.
All you can give it will not return like charity.
_______________________________
People exemplify all of the above.
Moral of the story: None
Return on Investment: None
Summary: Apologists are the only handicapped people I consider morally fun to be entertained by.
Agreed- a good friend once told me "criticising religion us like beating a dead horse, except the horse still thinks it's alive."
@ GarfieldRepublican
I thought you had proof of a god. What a let down.
OK, even if there is a God creature the universe is damn big by our standards so why would that God creature be the one that the various cults claim? Maybe his favorite creatures are giant butterfly-winged dinosaurs on the ice planet Fluy in the galaxy DS1786PH a trillion light years from here.
One thing is for certain and that is there is no celestial deity of any kind in this solar system.