Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

[Tab]

Originally posted by: mc00

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: wetech
My math professor at college told us a story about a mathematician who was asked to prove the existance of God (I forgot the name of the guy). His reply was e^(-pi*i) = 0. And his reason was that the 5 most important number in math balance perfectly in 1 equation.

This is a good anectdote that reminds us: there is not one piece of objective evidence that supports a claim or assertion of a creative being (God).

Not one bit. That is an unchalleged, uncontrverted fact.

This is all Dawkins really had to say to make his thesis.

Any claim asserting the existence of (a) God, is made without the benefit of objective evidence.

The point is quite obvious, but it is seldom made in polite company.

I remember a long time ago, I was watching 20/20 about a mathematician who was working on some equation that would prove the exsistance of God. This was about ten years ago, but does anyone know what became of the man?

yeah I seen the one(looking for his name too).. I'm still waiting for the answer, even better I'm still waiting for god judgment day religion people claiming.

I am pretty skeptical about him coming up with the an equation for God. It'd cool at least look at his math, I think.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I've read a bit of Dawkins and seen some of his interviews and I think I know where he's coming from.

I'll try and explain my views. I'll do this not to attack people with religious believes, or change your views; it?s just so you know where some of us Atheists are coming from.

For me to accept the existence of your God I would also have to accept the possibility of all other gods and religions.

If I accept the possibility of all gods and religions, and that the universe contains the supernatural, I would then have to accept the possibility of all myths legends and superstitions to be true.

I am not willing to accept that I live in a universe where this is the case therefore I have to reject all religions and superstitions.

I think this closely matches my feelings as well.

Males and females have the same number of ribs, since that part of the Old Testament can't be interpreted literally, then everything else must also be viewed with skepticism. Almost every story about Jesus is an allegory meant to teach a lesson of some kind, not much different from what the Greeks wrote about; Aesop's Fables for instance. Do I believe Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think he was the son of God, no. Was there a virgin birth? No.

Why haven't any angels from on high appeared to any shepherds in Asia? If the Christian God were universal I would think his messengers would be appearing to tribesmen in Africa or any number of other peoples around the world.

I know what it's like to believe without questioning, I was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic school for 10 years. Went to church 3 days a week during that time. These are hard questions that noone could provide answers for. Once I discovered science, I could no longer reconcile the two. Some would argue that they are wholly separate, well to me they weren't.

If all religion were to be erased from peoples hearts and minds tomorrow, would the world be plunged into chaos? No, I don't think so. For humans to survive there are basic tenants that are instinctual to us, don't kill others for instance. Most other mammals hold the very same instincts(most of the time), this the result of evolution, not from some God. There will always be a small part of the population who commit murder, who steal. We deal with them in the very same fashion that our ancestors did, they are cast out from the larger society, banished if you will.

There are differences between humans and all other forms of life on this planet. But I think that our similarities do make some religious people uneasy, and to some diminishes our greatness, and that is why Evolution is rejected.

your example about the ribs of a man and the rubs of a woman really do show that you do not have a clue.

let me educate you a little if I may--

Web www.dmt123.com

how many limbs does a woman have in her body? how many does a male have? why the difference?

Question: what is your take on the meaning of the difference and number?

Answers:
Several Anatomy and Physiology textbooks. All agree that, based on medical research (somebody actually dissected cadavers and counted ribs, somebody actually looked at x-rays and counted ribs), men and women have the same number of ribs as each other. For example, one book says:

Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth.

So from where did the ?urban legend? that women have more ribs come? I don?t know for sure, but here is my guess. As I mentioned on my History of Science Web page, back in the Middle Ages, people came up with all sorts of ideas that were commonly thought to be true and were even put into print, but were never tested, never verified. For example, someone decided that that since giraffes had spots, they must result from a cross-breeding between a leopard and a camel, but no one ever actually did anything to check and see if this was really true or possible! I recall reading that a heavily-debated topic back then was the number of teeth that horses have. Numerous people vehemently insisted on a variety of numbers, and no one would or could agree with each other, yet no one ever actually opened a horse?s mouth and counted its teeth! The notion that women have more ribs than men sounds suspiciously like an idea that could have arisen back then.
So, why would anyone think that? The notion that women have an extra set of ribs is probably based on a misinterpretation of some Bible verses in Genesis. The actual quote is:

But for Adam, no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man?s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man.

Notice what this doesn?t say. It doesn?t say anything about how many ribs Adam had before or after this ?surgery,? and especially it says nothing, whatsoever, about how many ribs Eve had! Nowhere does it say that Eve had more ribs than Adam. Who made that assumption without checking? Wouldn't it be just as logical to guess (also without checking) that if she was created ?second? that God might have made her with the same number of ribs as the new, reduced number that Adam now had? Wouldn?t it really be more logical to guess that God might have created her with the same number of ribs as Adam just to avoid confusion? Genesis doesn't say one way or the other, so the only way to know is to cut open cadavers and start counting. Who has done that ? the theologians or the biologists? My guess is that, once again, if human misinterpretations are set aside and if it is remembered that theology looks at ?why? while science looks at ?how,? there is no ?conflict? between what the Bible, itself, is saying and what biologists know to be true about our bodies.A reader of this Web page sent me an e-mail message with another point worth remembering. If, for example, a person would accidentally lose a finger or would have a body part surgically removed, then subsequently that person would create a baby, that baby would still be born with all his or her body parts. Similarly, if Adam had a rib removed, that does not mean that we, his children, would have missing ribs.


have fun!!

Yeah ok, great. There are a lot of things that don't make sense in the Bible, it's not a fully fleshed out story that makes sense, that dictates the little details. Which is why it's a fable, a lot of which is derived from other ancient belief systems. This stuff isn't new.

As a child this is what I was taught, that men had one less rib then women because we were Adams descendants and were created in his image. Same with the Adam's apple, it's a piece of the forbidden fruit that was lodged in Adam's throat.

Not every sect of Christianity holds these same beliefs perhaps, I can only go on what I was taught as a Catholic, and my skepticism is the direct result of these inconsistencies.

There are numerous other examples that are just impossible to recognize as fact, first off, how is the genetic diversity explained when everyone on earth descended from two people? Evolution? Other factors? Incest also comes into a play in a major way and science has shown that there are serious problems that result from it.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Let's say gun laws for example. Compare a state with very strict gun laws like California and New York to a state with very lax gun laws like Texas. Is there more violence in Texas because of these laws? Maybe, it's not gun laws at all and something else that's completely different.

This is just an example of something that we can gather data from, we can test and we can find results. As far as I know, gun laws aren't a very effective means of reducing gun crimes.

What I don't like and don't want to see is politicians claiming things like "The second an egg and sperm join a soul is formed, therefore abortion is murder." This isn't something that you can prove, at least scientifically speaking.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

Definitely have to agree with you on the Gun control thing, as well as the abortion. Although I don't completely support abortion (I kind of the like the previous "under certain circumstances" version, though that's just me), I agree that you can't say the minute they join they are a soul. You're right. How do you prove that?

But I just wonder if that's a realistic expectation for all laws. Do you think we can actually expect to do that for all laws we create? Just wondering.

I would sure as hell hope so, at least in this era.

I just think it would be difficult to say with any huge amount of certainity that, given say the gun control issue, that it is the guns and not something else that is contributing the most to violence. Plus, would the results there be valid in all other states? Can we then make a law that is valid everywhere even given all the of different variables that are concerned? It just seems very difficult to devise a "universal" answer. I just wonder if the test and evidence wouldn't be better to help us learn how to enforce and maintain the laws, rather than actually create them.

I could be way off my rocker here, as I'm on a lot of pain killers from surgery yesterday, but these are my thoughts.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Read a little about the Adam's apple and tell me if your logic applies, this was the explanation as to why men have them, all of Adams descendents carry this very trait, so this would apply to the ribs also.

Same to you Jedi, reconcile the two.

Again you can't pick and choose where your logic applies; defending those which support your thesis.

The reconciliation comes in the fact that they are both nothing more than old wives tales. Adam was obviously created with the same number of ribs we are. Just because he lost one, how does that affect anything? There is not evidence of such a thing, nor is there anything biblical to support such a claim. It's nothing more than a myth.

As for the myth that the apple stuck in Adam's throat, again, there is no evidence for this, biblical or otherwise, and is nothing more than an old wives tale. How does any of this have any impact on religion or its validity?

Does the fact that someone once said people believed the world to be flat based upon scientific evidence have any bearing on the validity of science? It's nothing more than a story, an old wives tale, created by Washington Irving.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Have you ever tried to engage a religious person in conversation? If it isn't in the bible they don't want to hear it or it must not be true. If I drop a brick on your foot it's going to hurt right? But that isn't in the bible so it must not be true. Blind loyalty, something every cult or extremist group depends on. In my humble opinion christians are some the most extreme people you'll ever meet and certainly some of the laziest ones.

First, you realize shouldn't over-generalize. Doing so is a form of bigotry, and you are obviously bigoted. Christianity is not one cult or one group, but thousands and thousands of diverse groups with different beliefs and systems. And while some insist on the strictest literal interpretation of the bible, others take it very loosely, and even a few others have their own bibles. The largest Christian group, Catholics, believe in evolution and the big bang.

Second, what they have is group loyalty. In reality, that's what organized religions are all about. They're social groups. Places where people go where people think and act just like they do. That's a comfort to most people. I guarantee that if you look around, you'll find yourself doing the same thing. You didn't reinvent the wheel. A great deal of what you think you know in this world are things you've been told but never actually seen, and you almost certainly choose to associate with people who think and act like you do.

I have engaged many religious people in conversation (in fact, I enjoy doing so), and the biggest frustration I have with them is not their adherence to the bible, but to their group mentality. When they're not saying, "Well, the bible says... " then they're saying, "Well, we believe that... " I tried getting them to admit what they -- individually -- believed, but then I realized that that defeated the point.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Read a little about the Adam's apple and tell me if your logic applies, this was the explanation as to why men have them, all of Adams descendents carry this very trait, so this would apply to the ribs also.

Same to you Jedi, reconcile the two.

Again you can't pick and choose where your logic applies; defending those which support your thesis.

I never said anything that would suggest this argument. In fact, I specifically stated that this is simply a story in the Bible.

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah ok, great. There are a lot of things that don't make sense in the Bible, it's not a fully fleshed out story that makes sense, that dictates the little details. Which is why it's a fable, a lot of which is derived from other ancient belief systems. This stuff isn't new.

As a child this is what I was taught, that men had one less rib then women because we were Adams descendants and were created in his image. Same with the Adam's apple, it's a piece of the forbidden fruit that was lodged in Adam's throat.

Not every sect of Christianity holds these same beliefs perhaps, I can only go on what I was taught as a Catholic, and my skepticism is the direct result of these inconsistencies.

There are numerous other examples that are just impossible to recognize as fact, first off, how is the genetic diversity explained when everyone on earth descended from two people? Evolution? Other factors? Incest also comes into a play in a major way and science has shown that there are serious problems that result from it.

That's funny... I was also raised Catholic but was never told those things. In fact, I'd wager you're making them up to support your ridiculous suppositions about religious people. Either that, or your parents were secretly dropping you off at protestant Sunday school where they told you that, even though the Jews don't interpret their own books (i.e. the old testament) literally, Christians should. The Jews and Catholics don't interpret them literally because we have studied their origins and we know that they are simply an attempt by the Jews around the time of David to explain the origins of things. In fact, if you read Genesis 1 and 2, they tell two completely different creation stories, often described as the Eloist and Yawist traditions, respectively. The former portrays God as an omnipotent, isolated God while the latter portrays God as a fumbling watchmaker who is struggling to figure out what to do with his new toys. Given two different stories, which would you interpret literally? The obvious conclusion is neither, unless you're a protestant.

 

[Moonbeam]

God is what man can become. One can doubt in God but to do so closes the door to ones vision of responsibility to what one can become. To believe in God is to believe in what one can become without becoming it. God is what man can become and God is known, only known, is real, to those who have become what they can become.

As long as man has not become what man can become God will call to man. He will not be heard by the deaf or understood by those who can hear.

The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me. Meister Eckhart.