Good evidence for Atheism and Theism.

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Now you should be able to give a similar deduction as to why God is not probable.

Again, it goes back to your definition of god. If you mean a guy who flew around in a "pillar of fire" empowering the Israeites to destroy their neighbors, stone their sassy teenagers, then no, physics doesn't confirm your god.

If you're talking about a god that incarnated into a virgin, walked on water and turned water to wine, then had himself murdered in a secret pact with himself, to do this to save us from his own wrath and judgement, then no, physics doesn't bear that out either.

edit on 12-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

The first 17 verses of the New Testament contain the genealogy of the Christ. It consists of two main parts: Verses 1-11 cover the period from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to the Captivity, when they ceased as an independent people. Verses 12-17 cover the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer, the Christ. Let us examine the first part of this genealogy. Its vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7. This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2), and the sum of its factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3). Of these 49 words 28, or 4 sevens, begin with a vowel; and 21, or 3 sevens, begin with a consonant (Feature 4). Again: these 49 words of the vocabulary have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number is itself 38 sevens (Feature 5), and the sum of its factors is 28, or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7). Of these 266 letters, moreover, 140, or 20 sevens, are vowels, and 126, or 18 sevens, are consonants (Feature 8). That is to say: Just as the number of words in the vocabulary is a multiple of seven, so is the number of its letters a multiple of seven; just as the sum of the factors of the number of the words is a multiple of seven, so is the sum of the factors of the number of their letters a multiple of seven. And just as the number of words is divided between vowel words and consonant words by sevens, so is their number of letters divided between vowels and consonants by sevens. Again: Of these 49 words 35, or 5 sevens, occur more than once in the passage; and 14, or 2 sevens, occur but once (Feature 9); seven occur in more than one form, and 42, or 6 sevens, occur in only one form (Feature 10). And among the parts of speech the 49 words are thus divided: 42, or 6 sevens, are nouns, seven are not nouns (Feature 12). Of the nouns 35 or 5 sevens, are Proper names, seven are common nouns (Feature 12). Of the Proper names 28 are male ancestors of the Christ, and seven are not (Feature 13). Moreover, these 49 words are distributed alphabetically thus: Words under A-E are 21 in number, or 3 sevens; Z-K 14, or 2 sevens; M-X also 14. No other groups of sevens stopping at the end of a letter are made by these 49 words, the groups of sevens stop with these letters and no others. But the letters A, E, Z, K, M, X, are letters 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 22, of the Greek alphabet, and the sum of these numbers (called their Place Values) is 56, or 8 sevens (Feature 14). This enumeration of the numeric phenomena of these 11 verses does not begin to be exhaustive, but enough has been shown to make it clear that this part of the genealogy is constructed on an elaborate design of sevens. Let us not turn to the genealogy as a whole. I will not weary your readers with recounting all the numeric phenomena thereof: pages alone would exhaust them. I will point out only one feature: The New Testament is written in Greek. The Greeks had no separate symbols for expressing numbers, corresponding to our Arabic figures, but used instead the letters of their alphabet: just as the Hebrews, in whose language the Old Testament is written, made use for the same purpose of theirs. Accordingly, the 24 Greek letters stand for the following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800. Every Greek word is thus a sum in arithmetic obtained by adding the numbers for which its letters stand, or their numeric values. Now the vocabulary to the entire genealogy has 72 words. If we write its numeric value over each of these 72 words, and add them, we get for their sum 42,364, or 6,052 sevens, distributed into the following alphabetical groups only: A-B, have 9.821, or 1,403 sevens: G-D, 1904, or 272 sevens; 3,703, or 529 sevens; TH-R, 19,264, or 2,752 sevens; A-X 7,672, or 1,096 sevens. But the numeric value of the 10 letters used for making these groups is 931, or 7 x 7 x 19, a multiple not only of seven but of seven sevens. Let Mr. W.R.L. try to write some 300 words intelligently like this genealogy, and reproduce some numeric phenomena of like designs. If he does it in 6 months, he will indeed do a wonder. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this feat in one month.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Now Here is evidence it is the Christian God. This pattern appears in numerous books in the Bible. Everytime it appears it implies that it was written last for everyone, but how can every book be written last? The most probable cause would be the cause the writers claimed, that the words were God breathed.

I gave you my definition of God. Once again no one has yet to present an argument against the existence of God other than the problem of Evil, which does nothing but strengthen the argument of the Christian Doctrine.

Cuervo

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I am not asking for proof, but rather just something we see in the natural world that implies there is no design, and that it is improbable that a God exist.

Cancer. Please show me where God is in that. Or child molestation. Or a shootout at the local school. Or a shootout at the movie theater. Or a bombing at a marathon. Or planes crashing into towers full of innocent people. Or an aerial strike slaughtering thousands of men and women at harbor. Rape. Murder. Disease. Abuse. Starvation. Negligence. Should I go on? There's about 500,000 years worth of stupid, violent, unnecessary and very damaging stuff that's happened without any discernible cause or justification. Stuff that, should a god exist, would force any reasonable thinking individual to call into question that entity's regard for our well-being.

edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

But that doesn't call into question the actual existence (or lack thereof); just their motives.

I hear people use that as an argument for atheism but proving that a particular deity is a prick doesn't mean that deity doesn't exist. If that logic worked, then a Christian could provide examples of all the good things in life as a valid argument for the "god exists" side.

It doesn't really work for either side.

But calling into question their motives calls into question their existence. If two variables are cast in a similarly definitive light, then casting doubt on one also casts doubt on the other. I shouldn't have to explain this.

"If that logic worked, then a Christian could provide examples of all the good things in life as a valid argument for the "god exists" side. "

...You do realize they've tried that, right?

ServantOfTheLamb

Sremmos80
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Why would an agnostic want to play the "prove there is no god" game...?

Why would any one want to play that game? No one ever wins

Why didn't anyone pay attention to me when I stated in the OP that I am not asking for proof. Just evidence. For example, If Santa Clause was real we would see Him at the North Pole. Santa is not there. Nothing at the North Pole implies Santa is there. Therefore it is not probable(not impossible) that a Fat Man in a Red Suit with magical elves and reindeer doesn't live at the north pole. Also since I moved out of my parents house he quit visiting.

Now you should be able to give a similar deduction as to why God is not probable.

edit on 12-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

Huh well I guess you know to word it differently if everyone is having the same problem

I guess I see what you are are attempting to do with your santa description, as stated before I don't want a horse in this race so I won't take the bait.
Good luck trying to get some others to play this massively flawed game


Oh as for Santa, he stopped visiting cause you stopped believing... He also works in mysterious ways

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.

windword



Again, it goes back to your definition of god. If you mean a guy who flew around in a "pillar of fire" empowering the Israeites to destroy their neighbors, stone their sassy teenagers, then no, physics doesn't confirm your god.

Well, lets not extrapolate too much.

Physics, would seem to directly contradict a very narrow straw man argument against a deity when you narrow it down in such a manner.

The very first step, would not be Disproving the christian deity, it would be disproving the possibility of a deity in the first place, not just a christian one.

Which, than requires a strict materialist world view, and negates areas of Physics that possibly still allow for a Deity type entity.

Simulated Universe Theory, Holographic, String Theory,

Could allow for the existence of outside causes.

Hell, the original push back for the big bang when it WASNT accepted by Science, was that the implication led to an outside cause.

Theist, and Atheist that try to argue physics, should stick to philosophy first and foremost as even trained scientist hesitate to rule out outside causes.

ServantOfTheLamb
Now you should be able to give a similar deduction as to why God is not probable.

edit on 12-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

Well, ultimately, from what we see through scientific inquiry, a deity creator is not necessary.
The list of questions are becoming less and less.

Long ago, there must be gods, because what could cause such storms. it surely must be Thor striking the anvil and casting his bolts
Then we learned about weather
There must be Gods because why else would they be riding golden chariots of fire across our sky and giving us light for the day
Then we learned about astronomy
etc.

We stuff "god" into everything we have yet to understand...and then we understand them and realize no deities required..natural process.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

I gave you my definition of God. Once again no one has yet to present an argument against the existence of God other than the problem of Evil, which does nothing but strengthen the argument of the Christian Doctrine.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

SaturnFX

The list of questions are becoming less and less.

Hubris,

what we know, compared to what we don't know, is a grain of sand on a beach of knowledge.

We have good IDEAS, and thats the start of knowledge.

Yet science has yet to determine if this is all just smoke and mirrors, a hologram at the edge of a supper massive black hole, OR even a simulation running on some advance hardware.

WE are close to reconciling quantum and traditional physics, and things like the Higgs, and Gravity wave detection are all good starts.

But its is still silly to start ruling out things when we are not even sure where consciousness comes from, let alone a unified theory,

Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.

He's not here with the intention of changing his mind or adjusting his views. He's here to "run the gauntlet", or stress-test his views as a demonstration of his faith. This is a waste of time for everyone.

Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.

And I have provided some already. However what you are telling me is I must back up my world view that is an absolute, but you can pass that judgement upon your own world view.

My premise is not flawed. No one has an argument that is why. My parents have also admitted to delivering those Gifts therefore it is still improbable that Santa is real.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Even IF all those claims were true, it doesn't provide evidence that the giver of this information is THE creative force behind the creation of the universe. I think it's ludicrous to think of a creative force that made the universe that also writes books.

This information, if valid, could have been provided by a previous advanced civilization, or visitors of an advanced civilization.

This isn't any proof of the god that you're describing. Just that someone was trying to convey something encoded.

ServantOfTheLamb

Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.

And I have provided some already. However what you are telling me is I must back up my world view that is an absolute, but you can pass that judgement upon your own world view.

My premise is not flawed. No one has an argument that is why. My parents have also admitted to delivering those Gifts therefore it is still improbable that Santa is real.

Then here is my question to you: what would prove to you, or demonstrate it as likely, that your god does not exist? If given the choice, what evidence would you request?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I gave you my definition of God. Once again no one has yet to present an argument against the existence of God other than the problem of Evil, which does nothing but strengthen the argument of the Christian Doctrine.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

If you don't know Biblical Theology well enough to dispute this on your own you have never studied the Bible.

AfterInfinity

Cuervo

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I am not asking for proof, but rather just something we see in the natural world that implies there is no design, and that it is improbable that a God exist.

Cancer. Please show me where God is in that. Or child molestation. Or a shootout at the local school. Or a shootout at the movie theater. Or a bombing at a marathon. Or planes crashing into towers full of innocent people. Or an aerial strike slaughtering thousands of men and women at harbor. Rape. Murder. Disease. Abuse. Starvation. Negligence. Should I go on? There's about 500,000 years worth of stupid, violent, unnecessary and very damaging stuff that's happened without any discernible cause or justification. Stuff that, should a god exist, would force any reasonable thinking individual to call into question that entity's regard for our well-being.

edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

But that doesn't call into question the actual existence (or lack thereof); just their motives.

I hear people use that as an argument for atheism but proving that a particular deity is a prick doesn't mean that deity doesn't exist. If that logic worked, then a Christian could provide examples of all the good things in life as a valid argument for the "god exists" side.

It doesn't really work for either side.

But calling into question their motives calls into question their existence. If two variables are cast in a similarly definitive light, then casting doubt on one also casts doubt on the other. I shouldn't have to explain this.

"If that logic worked, then a Christian could provide examples of all the good things in life as a valid argument for the "god exists" side. "

...You do realize they've tried that, right?

I know they try that and we agree it's silly. That's my point. It's the same argument.

Many deities are rather hands-off and there are many who aren't exactly very paternal towards us nearly all the rest are dynamic, with flaws and human-like characteristics. The Christian pantheon is one of the very few that features a "wholly good" god that wouldn't be compatible with the daily suffering and evil on our planet.

While saying "Look at cancer, what's up with that?" might cast doubt on some deities (*cough-YahwehJesusguy-cough*), it actually supports the mythology of most others.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

The genetic code of life itself carries semiotic dimension within it. That means it carries meaning. Particular codons code for particular proteins when placed in specific patterns. Sometimes multiple codons can code for the same protein. This is a semiotic dimension. How? Lets say I am talking to a person who has mastered 20 languages. I write the directions "Drive 5 miles north," in all 20 languages. Now this sheet of paper would have many varying "codes" all that portray the same meaning(its semiotic dimension) to move your location 5 miles north. Similarly, the pairing of different nucleotide bases to form a codon that carries the abstract data on how to build a specific protein. This is a semiotic dimension within the code and as far as we know semiotics can only be accounted for with the input of intelligence.

Heard of evolution? Natural and artificial selection?

And semiotics ...

Full Definition of SEMIOTICS

: a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics

www.merriam-webster.com...
You are using a term to describe language to give evidence of an intelligent creator -- that proteins, amino acids, nucleotides, etc use language?

Not basic chemistry (bonding, etc) and natural laws?

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Even IF all those claims were true, it doesn't provide evidence that the giver of this information is THE creative force behind the creation of the universe. I think it's ludicrous to think of a creative force that made the universe that also writes books.

This information, if valid, could have been provided by a previous advanced civilization, or visitors of an advanced civilization.

This isn't any proof of the god that you're describing. Just that someone was trying to convey something encoded.

Once again how can all of the patterns imply that their code came last, when they were obviously written at different times most of which if not all, we know were written before 70 AD.

reply to post by benrl

Theist, and Atheist that try to argue physics, should stick to philosophy first and foremost as even trained scientist hesitate to rule out outside causes.

Neither should Christians, then. I'm not the one who brought the "dual particle/wave...observer" question in the first place, the OP did. But, I still think my question is valid.

If the OP, or anyone else, thinks that the observer effect proves the existence of god, and we are all observers, does that make us all gods?

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

I gave you my definition of God. Once again no one has yet to present an argument against the existence of God other than the problem of Evil, which does nothing but strengthen the argument of the Christian Doctrine.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

If you don't know Biblical Theology well enough to dispute this on your own you have never studied the Bible.

I don't study BS. Similarly, if a math book I stumbled upon consistently stated that 2+2=5 or 3x7=45, I would swiftly disregard that book as well. Not to mention that I don't see how that code is at all relevant to this discussion. You asked for our proof, then coughed up some obscure code buried in a wall of text which barely makes any sense at all. I'm utterly confused at this point, but it's the religion forum, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

If you actually wish to delve into this, why not try the hundreds of other threads on ATS that are nearly the same??

Chamberf=6
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

The genetic code of life itself carries semiotic dimension within it. That means it carries meaning. Particular codons code for particular proteins when placed in specific patterns. Sometimes multiple codons can code for the same protein. This is a semiotic dimension. How? Lets say I am talking to a person who has mastered 20 languages. I write the directions "Drive 5 miles north," in all 20 languages. Now this sheet of paper would have many varying "codes" all that portray the same meaning(its semiotic dimension) to move your location 5 miles north. Similarly, the pairing of different nucleotide bases to form a codon that carries the abstract data on how to build a specific protein. This is a semiotic dimension within the code and as far as we know semiotics can only be accounted for with the input of intelligence.

Heard of evolution? Natural and artificial selection?

And semiotics ...

Full Definition of SEMIOTICS

: a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics

www.merriam-webster.com...
You are using a term to describe language to give evidence of an intelligent creator -- that proteins, amino acids, nucleotides, etc use language?

Not basic chemistry (bonding, etc) and natural laws?

Natural and artificial selection account for none of what I described. You just showed exactly why it is evidence of a mind. It is a fact that the genetic code holds a semiotic dimension within. Regardless of the physical and chemical processes involved information with meaning is still conveyed between a signifier and an interpreter.