If you had to disprove God/'Intelligent Design"...

[SallyMutant]

Would this be a good place to object to the meaty bits of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Love the Anti "intellegent Design" concept, but the meatballs  are, well, very meaty.
As a vegetarian I must say "Hail Seitan." And not in a Rosemary's Baby way.

[SallyMutant]

WTF ! there's scientology banner on my last post. NO.

[Hitsumei]

ID as it is constructed by the discovery institute, and Michael Behe, is not difficult to show the flaws with. In an attempt to construct a hypothesis that allowed them to make some sort of prediction they could verify, they have claimed that there is a certain level of complexity that could not have come about naturally. That it is not possible for it to have evolved. It seems to me that even Richard Dawkins, or any of the other atheist hardliners would never assert that it was impossible that a god had a hand in evolution, despite how furiously they may believe that one did not. Because the assertion would be completely unsupportable, and the assertion of a charlatan. It seems that ID proponents do not mind making the opposite assertion, and with no better support.

In order to call something "irreducibly complex", and to mean by this something that cannot have come about by a successive, natural process is claiming to know precisely what can, and cannot happen by natural means. When one makes such an assertion, they are saying that they have a complete knowledge of nature. For this reason, ID -- as it is formulated by said individuals -- is nothing more than a charlatan assertion. It is based on a claim to knowledge that they cannot possess.

As for "god", that depends on the definition, and any good theologian can formulate a definition that isn't disprovable.

[Twiddler]

ID as it is constructed by the discovery institute, and Michael Behe, is not difficult to show the flaws with. In an attempt to construct a hypothesis that allowed them to make some sort of prediction they could verify, they have claimed that there is a certain level of complexity that could not have come about naturally. That it is not possible for it to have evolved. It seems to me that even Richard Dawkins, or any of the other atheist hardliners would never assert that it was impossible that a god had a hand in evolution, despite how furiously they may believe that one did not. Because the assertion would be completely unsupportable, and the assertion of a charlatan. It seems that ID proponents do not mind making the opposite assertion, and with no better support.

In order to call something "irreducibly complex", and to mean by this something that cannot have come about by a successive, natural process is claiming to know precisely what can, and cannot happen by natural means. When one makes such an assertion, they are saying that they have a complete knowledge of nature. For this reason, ID -- as it is formulated by said individuals -- is nothing more than a charlatan assertion. It is based on a claim to knowledge that they cannot possess.

As for "god", that depends on the definition, and any good theologian can formulate a definition that isn't disprovable.

Its great to see a "sort of Christian" (not sure what that means exactly, but oh well...) take the ID topic on with logic.

[Nulono]

Magic is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. It's like the invisible dragon in my garage.

[Cemetery]

if god existed then he would be logical. having millions of babies die stillborn or children die of disease or starvation doesn`t sound logical to me. if he wanted to have people prove themselves worthy of entering heaven then why kill them off young?. ergo not logical, ergo no god.

I once asked a religious nut in high school why bad things happened if God supposedly was a good being.  Here's his response: "Sometimes, the Devil 'sneaks up' on God & does bad things."  

Yes, seriously, the devil sneaks up on God & fools him every time.  Kind of blows the whole theory of God being omnipresent & omnipotent out of the water, doesn't it??  

~C

[Godschild]

Kevin,I really like this question no I really do not I think it is a waste of time for both sides. This question can neither be proven nor disproven because there would have to be someone that knows all things and no human has ever lived nor will he/she. We all should move on to topics that are better to discuss. I do want to say that I believe in the God of creation and Jesus Christ the saviour of all mankind for those who are willing to accept Him as saviour. I also know God will not force anyone to believe in Him because God want us to love Him freely.I say forced love is no love at all. Now I would like to make some comments about the answers others have given and I hope I do'nt offend anyone and if I do let me know so we can come to an understanding. I'm not here to make enemies, I want to be a friend!
     SSY: says that God tried to disguise His work. God never denied He created but quite the opposite He claims He created the entire universe.
     Kylyssa: says that some blankity blank came up with a very stupid idea, since Kylyssa believes in evolution that argument falls back on evolution,sorry evolution must be the blankity blank.
    Wraitchel: say you agree with Kylyssa,that evolution is not cutting the mustard.
    thirteen31: says I like the way Kylyssa thinks, Kylyssa said evolution messed up the poor four legged creatures.
    spartacus: please read the Bible no one can earn their way into heaven,salvation comes from the grace of God when we believe in His Son.
    Moigle: the truth is God's omniscient,omnipotent and omnipresent I'm not sure where you got omnibenevolent. He does know there is evil,He can stop evil and because He is omnipresent He knows when it is the right time to competely stop it and He will.
    Will: shame,shame evolutionist have faked evidence to misled people for a long time so isn't whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Of coarse not that's not a christians world view and I hope it's not an agnostics or atheist world view. Personally I do'nt believe that ID has anything to do with God.Your compairing intellegence to omniscient power and by definition enough said.
    verybigv: I like fairytales as much as the next person but "spaghetti monsters" everyone knows meatballs can't fly there to heavy. Ha Ha I liked that one.
    Ryytikki: Terry Pratchet is right no one likes a smart aleck.Read the Bible God reveals the truth to us we do not find it, therefore our omniscient God.
    Sally Mutant: Sally,Sally you are a great reason for ID people and I personally do not like ID because it infers that intelligence is the same as creation and that is as far away as evolution and creation. Sally the old iron butterfly (pepper moth) of evolution is long dead,even in most of Texas. Kettelwell only damaged the evolutionist point of view and so ID damages creation.Please do'nt do anything to encourage the people who support ID. See Will,what happens when people play the game of see what I've done"Kettlewell" just to prove a point. Only truth will stand in the end!
    Twiddler: you say that the ID proponents(and I agree) can not know everything that is possible in nature. Since you believe this is true then why do you refer to yourself as an atheist, you would have to know all things to dismiss God.
    Nulono: Be careful when you are working in the garage he might breath fire. Magic: poof the dragon is gone.
    Cemetery: Give him a break he was just a highschool boy who did not have the answer to the hardest question to answer. He should have said he did not know, but he did not, he felt pressure and did not want to look dumb,but in the end he did. The devil,evilone,satan,lucifer or what ever you might call him is the father of evil and preys on the weak minded and those who have a weakness he can take advantage of and those who have a weak moment like your highschool friend. He has never snuck up on God or tricked Him in any way. Read the Bible the answers to your questions are there. God does allow evil to happen and it is for a reason however the small mind of man can not conceive the reason, man would it be great if we could understand these things but not being omnipresent like God we can not see the whole picture.


             Thanks for listening, love in Christ Jesus!!!

[templeboy]

Woa, wall of text!

Kevin,I really like this question no I really do not I think it is a waste of time for both sides. This question can neither be proven nor disproven because there would have to be someone that knows all things and no human has ever lived nor will he/she. We all should move on to topics that are better to discuss. I do want to say that I believe in the God of creation and Jesus Christ the saviour of all mankind for those who are willing to accept Him as saviour. I also know God will not force anyone to believe in Him because God want us to love Him freely.I say forced love is no love at all. Now I would like to make some comments about the answers others have given and I hope I do'nt offend anyone and if I do let me know so we can come to an understanding. I'm not here to make enemies, I want to be a friend!

I'm currently inclined to think that specific gods, probably including the biblical god, can infact be more or less disproved due to some form of reducio ad absurdum - basically disproved through contradiction. It is only the most vague and and metaphorical interpretations of the bible that this could not be applied to. I would be particually interested to see what the other atheists (and also agnostic nonatheists (what a mouthful)such as Joeactor (wow what a bracket jungle this has become)) think of this. Can anyone come up with such a logical disproof of the biblical (or any other) god?

[Hitsumei]

Wall of text crits for 9999!

[PipeBox]

Uhh, I can't really distinguish the arguments in the wall, and I don't think any are addressed to me anyway.  I definitely can't be arsed to figure out which particular statement from each person Godschild is responding to, so instead...

Can anyone come up with such a logical disproof of the biblical (or any other) god?

Sure,
[li]God should have no emotion, as this is a reaction to new information.  
[li]God should never be surprised if he is all-knowing.  
[li]If God is all powerful and willing, then he should be able to pair up with some dude and take down some iron chariots (and the Bible assures us he was willing).
[li]If God is all-knowing then he cannot be free willed, since he cannot make a choice other than what he already knows he will make, therefore he is not all-powerful.
[li]God cannot have created everything as he would have to create his initiative as well.  Without his initiative, he would not have bothered to create his initiative, ergo, there is at least one state of affairs in all the universe for which God cannot be responsible (IE, he may have been able, through will, to make himself all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent, but without the will, he could not have done any of it, including making himself willful).
[li]If God can circumvent logic, then he may be so bad he is good and so much Satan that he is not Satan, and vice versa, but if God is bound by logic and reason so as not to contradict, then he has no power over it.  While not a contradiction, this would more suggest that logic is greater than God, ie, more worthy of admiration and homage, and God, if reasonable, could hardly begrudge us its use.
[li]God needed to create us for some reason, if only to satisfy his need to create with what power he has (why does an artist paint?).  If he has needs, he is imperfect, for he would be left wanting without it.

*waits for Hitsumei to demolish most of these contradictions (I'm sure I'm missing a reason why I can't make these arguments   ) or Godschild to say they don't matter*

Oh, yeah, and evolution is an observed fact, Godschild.  If ya like, we can discuss why.  We can also discuss how creationism is wholly invalid as a scientific theory and why it's good for nothing but endorsing the rest of the Bible.

[joeactor]

I'm currently inclined to think that specific gods, probably including the biblical god, can infact be more or less disproved due to some form of reducio ad absurdum - basically disproved through contradiction. It is only the most vague and and metaphorical interpretations of the bible that this could not be applied to. I would be particually interested to see what the other atheists (and also agnostic nonatheists (what a mouthful)such as Joeactor (wow what a bracket jungle this has become)) think of this. Can anyone come up with such a logical disproof of the biblical (or any other) god?

Yes, I'd agree.  As soon as you start defining your specific god, you place physical and logical constraints on them.  These can be proven or disproven.

For example let's take Zeus.  He lives on Mt. Olympus.  A search of Mt. Olympus turns up no evidence.  No Zeus, no dwelling, no artifacts.  Now, mind you, a beliver would say that we can't see Zeus, or he doesn't want us to find him, or he is beyond our senses.  Ok.  So why claim to know where he lives?  Why not just say he "is" and leave it at that?

That's why I'm agnostic.  I believe, but I don't know.  And I don't try to prove it...
JoeActor

[dr.zalost]

JoeActor

That's why I'm agnostic. I believe, but I don't know. And I don't try to prove it...

Hmmm.

May I ask your definition of belief JoeActor?

[joeactor]

May I ask your definition of belief JoeActor?

Sure.

Belief and/or Faith have many definitions.  There's quite a lot of ambiguity about the two words.

I often use Belief as a contrast to Knowledge.
Belief requires no proof.  If proof were provided for a given belief, it becomes Knowledge instead.

Hence, the Gnostic/Agnostic (with/without knowledge), and Theist/Atheist (with/without god)... this gives you 4 permutations.  I am an Agnostic Theist, which means I believe there is a god, but do not claim to know it for certain.  I also do not define god (or for that matter even think god is definable).

[Recusant]

...the old iron butterfly (pepper moth) of evolution is long dead,even in most of Texas. Kettelwell (sic) only damaged the evolutionist point of view...

This is not correct.  You're using a fallacious argument based on allegations which have since been proven false.  Creationists, and others who would like to deny the reality of evolution often trot out this specious criticism, but in fact there is nothing at all wrong with Kettlewell's science.  Please give sources for your statement.

 

The journalist Judith Hooper suggested in her book Of Moths and Men (2002) that Kettlewell committed scientific fraud. Careful studies of Kettlewell's surviving papers by Rudge (2005) and Young (2004) have revealed that Hooper's allegation of fraud is unjustified, and "that Hooper does not provide one shred of evidence to support this serious allegation”.

Young:  http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm
Rudge, D.W. (2005). "Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-examining the Evidence.", Public Understanding of Science 14

(quoted from this Wikipedia article.)

EDIT:  You can read a good review of the Hooper book by a respected researcher in this field (Bruce S. Grant Ph.D.) here.

2)  Sorry for jumping in and answering something addressed to you, SallyMutant, but this particular point is one I find hard to resist, and it's quite common for Creationists to impugn Kettlewell unjustly.

[Hitsumei]

I also do not define god (or for that matter even think god is definable).

Then what do you mean by "I believe there is a god"? You must have some vague idea of what you mean by "god" or else it would be meaningless to say that you think that it exists.