The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

>> >I can know that the same way I can know a pot of rice has been cooked by

>> >examining just one grain.

>>

>> With this logic I can also know all theists by examining just one of

>>them.

>> I did, and he couldn't prove God. Therefore no theist can prove God.

>> Therefore atheism is the most rational position.

 

>There is absolutely no basis to this assertion. Even if no theist can prove

>God, doesn't make atheism a rational position.

 

I never said that! I'm just making a parody on your way of arguing. You said

that you can know all atheists by examining one of them, so I'm saying that

I can know all theists by examining one of them. Is that good reasoning?

 

> Atheism is fundamentally

>irrational because it is based on an assumption that can never be proven.

 

No it's not! Atheism is simply the lack of belief on God. It doesn't rest on

any assumptions.

 

>At least theism has a theoretically chance of being proven... by God. I

>may >not be able to prove God to you, but I can prove Him to myself. In

>fact, >God has proven Himself to me, so I know beyond doubt that Krishna is

>God.

 

Atheism is not something that needs to be proven, because it doesn't assert

anything. It's just the lack of belief in God/Gods.

 

Actually you're also an atheist - because you believe in Krishna, and not in

so many other Gods. So when it comes to them, then you are also an atheist.

The difference between you and me is only that I believe in one God less

than you.

 

Furthermore, how can you know that you're God is actually God, even if He

tells you? He is much more powerfull than and therefore He could be cheating

you. Maybe He's a big demons who makes you believe he's God. How can you

know?

 

>> >Very good. So you admit that to receive knowledge is largely a matter of

>> >accepting authority.

>>

>> Well, I hear what they say, and then I see if it's logical and based on

>> empirical observations. I it is then I have good reasons to believe it.

>>As

>> I said I never saw any good reasons to be a theist.

 

>Well, I never saw any good reason for being an atheist.

 

Since the existence of God has never been proven, then there's a good reason

not to believe in God.

 

>> >> Of course there something wrong with sticking to ones subjective

>> >> meaning about others.

>>

>> >What's wrong with that? Atheists do it all the time.

>

>> I don't think all atheists do that. I don't.

 

>Can you prove that? Otherwise I don't believe you.

 

So I'm guilty until proven unguilty. Is that the way your lwas work in the

Hare Krishna Movement?

 

>> >> Like I told you I'm not prejudiced towards any notion of

>> >> God.

>

>> >I don't believe that. Can you prove it?

 

Well, I don't believe you are intelligent enough to prove God. Can you prove

you are? Otherwise I don't believe you.

 

>> The burden of proof must be on you, since you are the one putting forward

>> the alligation. I'm innocent until proven guilty.

 

>The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. You claim that you

>are not prejudiced against any notion of God. Can you prove that?

 

But you made your claim first, so you should support that claim.

 

>I have already proven that you are prejudiced, because if you weren't you

>would know that God exists. I know that God exists, so if you don't know

>it, it must mean you are prejudiced against notions of God.

 

This is bad reasoning, because you first have to prove God, before you can

prove, that I'm prejudiced if I don't believe in God. And I'm still waiting

for that proof.

 

>> >I have lots of proof, but I have to know what you will accept as proof

>> >otherwise you could just be wasting my time. What if I present some

>> >proof, and you are not qualified to evaluate it, or even willing to

>> >evaluate it? So before we get into the whole area of evidence you have

>>>to

>> >let me know what you will accept as evidence.

>>>

>>> I already told you!

 

>>No, you haven't told me. You have only said some kind of empirical proof

>>that you can observe with your senses. So give an example so I know you

>>are

>>not just wasting my time.

 

But if I knew I would already believe in God. I just know that proof

normally come in the form of something percievable by our senses and/or

something that's logical.

 

If God came before me, if you can point me towards something which could

only exist if God existed, then I would be convinced. Ot if you somehow

could show me some logical argument which forces us to conclude, or at least

makes it reasonable that God exists, then I also would accept that. And, as

I said, if you have some other method then I'm open to that also, provided

you give good reasons to trying it out.

 

>> >The existence of irreducible complex systems like a cell, suggests

>>>design

>> >of a higher intelligence, but atheists don't accept that, so I am not

>>> >sure it will be productive to cite scientific proof. That's why I need

>>>>to

>>> >know what you will accept as evidence of God. An irreducible complex

>>> >system like a cell suggests ID, but you reject that, on the basis of

>>>>your

>>> >imagination that it was produced by natural selection. Then what will

>>>>you

>>> >accept?

>

>> Just because something is very complex doesn't mean that God did it.>

 

>I said, an irreducible complexity. It's like a car engine. A car engine

>only

>works as a unit. Do you think that a Mercedes came about by itself without

>any intelligent design.

 

We have seen cars produced by intelligent agents before. But we have never

seen an intelligent agent produce a cell - or something like that.

 

>>This

>> is typically theistic argumentation. That whenever we counter something

>>we

>> can'y explain then God dod it. "God in the gaps." I think such arguments

>> are way to vague to prove anything. They can't make me religious. Is that

>> all you got?

 

>This is typical atheistic lack of argumentation. When you present them with

>a logical argument, the reject it with, it doesn't have to be that way.

>That

>means you are arguing from your imagination. Obviously an irreducible

>complex unit like a cell suggests an intelligent designer, but you will

>rather believe that it came about without any intelligent design. That

>means

>you are irrational.

 

If you want to convince me you have to come up with something more. We have

seen many times that things we couldn't explain by natural laws are now

explainable by these. Also there's a very long way from an intelligent

designer to a trancendental deity. The intelligent designer could be a

spaceman that was produced by natural selection and mutations somewhere else

in the universe.

 

>> >We also accept that the universe as an energy is eternal. But obviously

>> >it is not being run blindly without intelligent direction. Please tell

>me

>>> >what observation of the universe suggests that eg. awareness was

>>produced

>> >by matter.

 

>> Well, we can manipulate conciousness by subjecting it to chemicals. We

>>can

>> even make it have "religious experiences." So as far as I can see all

>> these religious expriences are better explained by psychology than by the

>> existence of something trancendental. We should stick to the most simple

>> explanation (Ockham's Razor) instead of invoking some unnecessary being.

 

>I agree we should stick to Ockams razor. The most simple explanation when

>you see some kind of orderly design, is that there is a designer.

 

But if you explain things by referring to God then the theory becomes

unlimitedly complex because God is unlimitedly complex. We can never

understand an infinite being that con do things incomprehensable to our

intelligence. Therefore such a God-theory is the most complex we can

imagine. All other explanations are more simple.

 

>>But you

>>will rather imagine so many things like big bang, abiogenesis, etc. That

>>means you unnecessarily complicate matters. I am following Ockham's razor,

>>you are not. For instance, when you observe that the I-feeling remains

>>constant even though you alter the mind with drugs, the most simple

>>explanation is that the the I-feeling is constant. It is the same 'I' that

>>observes all the changes and different feelings in the mind, but you will

>>rather imagine something else than the most simple explanation. That means

>>you are not following Ockham.

 

But you are complicating matters by introducing something we don't need -

something anti-material. A material theory is much more simple because it

deals with something we can observe and test - physical matter.

 

>> >To say that consciousness (which directly can be observed to be

>>constant)

>>>

>>> This is circular reasoning: In order to state that we can observe

>>> consciousness to be constant you have to accept consciousness to be

>>> constant.

 

>It is not circular reasoning. It is directly observable by the

>consciousness

>or the I-feeling, that it is constant. You can observe that the body, mind

>and intelligence change from boyhood, to youth to old age, but the

>I-feeling

>remains the same. If you won't accept that, it proves my idea that atheists

>are opposed to logic and reason.

 

No, you don't know if it's constant since you can remember everything that

has happened in your past. If the "I" is constant, then it's eternal, and

then you should be able to tell me EVERYTHING that you experienced. I know

of no person who can remember all his past lives. So that means we can't

establish the "I" to be constant.

 

>>Otherwise how can you observe it to be constant. Also: You don't

>> observe it to be constant.

 

>You can directly observe that the I-feeling is constant. The body, mind and

>intelligence changes, but the it is the same observer that observes these

>changes.

 

>>Were where your consiousness 500 years ago? I

>> can't remember? Well, probably because your experience of it is not

>> constant.

 

>Maybe, probably - that means you don't know. The most logical explanation

>is

>what we find in the Bhagavad Gita where Lord Krishna says that the body

>changes, but the observer stays the same. If the observer stays the same

>during the bodily and mental changes from boyhood to youth to old age, why

>should you assume that it changes at death? Again it is clear that Lord

>Krishna offers the most simple and logical explanation but atheists reject

>that, because they are prejudiced.

 

This is just inductive reasoning based on a very limited range of

experience. It's not enough to convince me of anything.

 

When a person lives we observe the "I" in that person. When he dies we

"don't." Therefore, why should we believe it's still there?

 

>> >That is a baseless assumption. Can you give any evidence at all that

>> >suggests consciousness is material? If you can give me the chemical

>> >formula of consciousness I will accept that and give up my religion. Of

>> >course, you can't do that, but I will accept even a logical argument.

>>>Do

>> >you have any?

>

>> I gave a reason above. Since we can manipulate consciousness by using

>> chemicals it suggests it's material. If it were trancendental how could

>>it

>> be affected?

 

>The consciousness, ie. the observer is not affected, it is only the mind,

>the feelings, the intelligence etc. that are affected by chemicals. You

>observe the change in the mind by taking drugs, that means you are not the

>mind. The observe is always distinct from that which is observed. Since you

>can observe your mind being affected by drugs that means you are not the

>mind. What you are saying is the same as saying that if I smash my TV then

>I affect the program in the studio where it is being produced. You can

>alter the mind, but you cannot alter the observer. You can even smash your

>brain, but that just means you have removed the media through which you

>observe the material world. You can alter your sight by putting on a pair

>of sunglasses, but the eyes are still the same. In the same way you can

>alter your vision or your mind by drugs, but the observer remains the same.

>comprende? It is very logical.

 

That's a hypothesis, but if you can't prove it then what's the use. Show me

a piece of spirit, then I will believe you. You claim something non-material

exist, but you can aonly show me some argument about an observer that

doesn't change.

 

I would say that such an observer is the only thing that could possible have

a change of being non-material, but since everything else we know is

material, and since the most simple explanation is that everything is

material, then I think that's the best explanation until I see some more

convincing proofs.

 

>> Also, everything within our experience is materiel. Why should we then

>> think consciousness is not?

 

>Everything within our experience is not material. What reason do you have

>to

>believe that? What reason do you have to believe that awareness is

>material?

 

See above!

 

>> We require some very good reasons, not just

>> some speculations. You say consciousness is spiritual, that means the

>> burden og proof is on you. If you can't prove it, then we have to stick

>>to

>> the most simple explanation - that it's non-spiritual.

 

>Actually the burden of proof is on you. If you say that consciousness is

>material you have to prove it. But you have no proof. So you are just

>believing in it blindly. I have given the logical argument that Krishna

>gives in the Bhagavad Gita, and it makes so much more sense, than what you

>are saying.

 

And I'm saying that way to speculative for me. Is not in any way the last

word in such an investigation. Just because some hindu god say it's

non-material doesn't at all mean it's true.

 

>> >I don't find it reasonable at all. In fact, if you were to make a survey

>> >of all the people on the planet, you would find that the majority would

>> >appeal to a higher intelligence in the universe. So your claim that it

>>>is

>> >the most reasonable answer is false.

>

>> This is an appeal to the masses - a logical fallacy. Just because most

>> people on the Earth think there's a higher intelligence behind the

>> universe doesn't make it the most reasonable explanation.

 

>It also doesn't mean it is not. Clearly it is more rational to believe in a

>higher intelligence than to believe that everything happened by itself

>without any intelligent direction.

 

Well, I don't think so!

 

>> Most of the

>> Earth's population are uneducated.

 

>You are also uneducated. You are uneducated in the spiritual science of

>bhakti yoga.

 

And if you don't give me any good reasons to not being educated in

bhakti-yoga, then I'm happy to remain uneducated.

 

>>If you make such a survey among the

>> educated people then the result is very different. For example, among the

>> scientists from USA 90% are atheists.

 

>So you are appealing to the masses of atheists, which is a logical fallacy.

 

At least I'm appealing to the most intelligent, whereas you are appealing to

the general mass.

 

>>I would rather listen to educated,

>> informed people than to uneducated people.

 

>The most intelligent, educated scientists and philosophers down through the

>ages have always been theists. People like Socrates, Schopenhauer,

>Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fromm, Jung, Thoreau, Emerson were all some type of

>theists. I would rather listen to them than to you.

 

But none of them were able to prove God. And there's a lot of very educated

atheists also.

 

http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=Category:Atheist

 

>> >What's wrong in claiming to have perfect knowledge, when you have it?

>>

>> If you can prove it then there's nothing wrong.

 

>But I can. Krishna has proven Himself to me. How can I convince you of

>that?

 

So you admit that you can't prove it?

 

>What will you accept as proof?

 

I already told you very clearly!

 

>> We prefer to correct our understading when new evidence somes.

 

>That means you didn't know to begin with. Any idiot can form an opinion

>based on available information. But it takes intelligence to discern the

>truth.

 

So why don't you discern it for us then?

 

>> > but to make the claim on the basis of the Vedas is only

>> >intelligent. Of course if you don't know anything about the Vedas you

>> >can't understand that.

>

>> I know that a lot in the Vedas contradicts modern, scientific

>> observations.

 

>You don't know that. You just repeat what you have heard. Can you give any

>examples so I may know what you are talking about?

 

Like that there's life on the sun, that all the stars are not suns, the

distance to the moon is different, there's is also all kind of supernatural

things in the Vedas, like a body that's seven miles long, atomic explosions,

people who can transform themselves into animals. It's just like reading a

fairy tale.

 

>>So to me the Vedas are better explanied as mythology.

 

>That's because you are uninformed about the knowledge of the Vedas, That

>also proves you are prejudiced.

 

Well, I just see that as the best explanation. If you think otherwise please

prove to me and everyone else that you are correct.

 

>> >You are speaking from a platform of ignorance. In my religion there is

>>>no

>> >rule against accepting hardcore scientific facts.

>

>> SO many scientific theories disprove the Vedas - the Vedic cosmology, and

>> the many fairy tales in the Vedic scriptures. But still you don't change

>> your dogmas. How is that welcoming scientific evidence?

 

>You just revealed your own blind belief. You said that so many scientific

>theories disprove the Vedas. A theory is an unproven assumption. How can an

>unproven assumption prove anything?

 

At least it shows that the theory is a more realistic and better explanation

than the literal reading of the Vedas.

 

>> Atheism means "lack og belief in God/Gods." The burden og proof is on the

>> theists, and before they have provided such proof then we have to be

>> atheists.

 

>What will you accept as proof? I know that God exists but how can I

>convince you?

 

I already explained that!

 

>> We don't need any proof. We just need the absence of proofs for

>> God. To invoke God is unnecessary. The world is better explained without

>> God. At least until you show me otherwise.

 

>Of course if you are content with being a blind believer, what can I do?

>You

>reject logic and you reject direct observation, so what is left?

 

I accept logic and direct observation, but none of these points towards a

supreme trancendental entity.

 

>> >Why is it not convincing to you? Do you have any argument to back up

>>your

>> >conviction? Otherwise you are just arguing from your own incredulity.

>>>

>>> It seems far out to make analogies between things humans have invented

>>>and

>>> things from nature. These areas are too different to compare like that.

 

>Why? To say that it seems to far out means you are arguing from your own

>incredulity.

 

Why should I think we can make an analogy?

 

>> >> ANYTHING I can sense with my five senses and which proofs God!

>> >Like what? Give me an example, or admit that God cannot be proven on the

>> >basis of your senses alone.

 

I never said that God could! I just say that this is a normal way of proven

things that I would accept.

 

>>> Well, one thing is that He could make Himself visible to me, He could

>>give

>>> me a revelation, He could make a wonder.

 

>He has revealed Himself to so many people. As an atheist you signal to God

>that you don't want to know Him. If He would reveal Himself to you, He

>would interfere with your desire to not know Him.

 

I'm just an atheist because I don't see any other choice. I would like to

know God if He exist, so why doesn't He show Himself to me?

 

>If you really wanted to >know God you would follow the process that

Krishna> Himself describes in the >Bhagavad Gita. There He says He can only

>be known by devotion. If you have >no devotion how can you then know Him?

 

So I have to love God before I can see Him? But how can I love Him, if I

don't know if He exist? That's not a scientific approach. I have accept God

before I can get a proof for Him.

 

>>But I have answered your

>> question: If you can bring something which I can sense with my senses

>>then

>> that would be one kind of evidence.

 

>Like what? Give me an example.

 

God Himself, or something that couldn't exist if God didn't also exist. If

you can't provide such things then I can't believe in God.

 

You claim you know God exists, and you claim to have the proof. Then just

give it to us, so we can see it.

 

>>I already said I didn't know exactly

>> what it is. You are the one who's supposed to tell me ehat it is. I'm

>>just

>> telling what I see as evidence.

 

>How can I tell you? God has proven Himself to me, but it wasn't through

>material things, it was through revelation in the heart. How can you prove

>a revelation in the heart to someone else. It is just like you cannot prove

>to me what you think. You cannot even prove to me that you exist. I only

>have your word for it, but what if I don't believe it? Then you can't prove

>it. If you can't even prove to me what you think, then how do you suggest I

>prove God to you?

 

So now you're saying that the proof is your own subjective experience that

you can't share with anyone. Then how is it a proof? We all have so many

subjective imaginations in our mind. In theory I could come before your

eyes, why doesn't God come before my eyes? So many people claimed to have

revelations, but they almost always contradict each other, and some of these

people were actually insane. How can you prove you're not?

 

>> >But you have shown again and again that you are opposed to logic and

>>good

>> >reason. I have given you logic and reason, like the watch maker analogy

>> >and the existence of irreducible complex systems like a single cell, but

>> >you reject these by saying that you can imagine so many other solutions.

>

>> What you see as logic and reason I see as unsufficient proof. Therefore I

>> think I'm the one who's being reasonable here. You haven't given me any

>> reasons to believe in your arguments.

 

>And you haven't given me any reason to think that you accept logic and

>reason.

 

I could say the same about you!

 

>> Like I said: As long as there's no reason to be a theist, then there's

>> good reasons to stick to the atheistic position. I mean the same with

>> logic and reason as what you are tought about it in the universities.

>>What

>> do you mean?

 

>I mean that you are opposed to logic and reason, since you reject

>reasonable arguments for God's existence.

 

Reasonable arguments???

 

>> > because obviously we don't have the same

>> >understanding of logic and reason. If you don't accept logic and reason

>> >as it is commonly understood then what is the use of demanding proof

>> >based on logic and reason?

 

> Well, can you prove that your idea of logic and reason is correct?

 

>I can prove it, but maybe not to you. What will you accept as proof?

 

So now you're just making logic and reason into something relative. We might

disagree, but you're the one failing because you never gave us the proof for

God, which you said you had.

 

>> Why not just try and give me one of your reasons? I might accept it.

>>Right

>> now your just wasting our time with a lot of debate. If you just give me

>> your proof, then we can discuss later if we disagree. Don't your religion

>> tell you that yoy should help people to understand God? Then why are you

>> not willing to just give me the proof. If I accept it then it's good, if

>>I

>> don't then we can discuss why.

 

>I have given you so many reasons in the course of this discussion, but you

>reject reasonable arguments. Besides proof is subjective. You can't even

>prove to me that you exist, so how do you suggest I prove God to you?

 

So then nothing can be proved, because proofs are subjective. Then science

and logic becomes useless. I think I'll just stick to modern science and

logic, because your process is not very promising.

 

 

>> >You didn't define what you mean by logic and reason, you only made a

>> >claim that you accept logic and reason.

>>

>> If you take a course about logic in the university then you will learn

>> what I mean.

 

>I did take a course, and from what I learned i can see that you are against

>logic, because you have rejected every logical argument against God.

 

I think you misunderstood the course.

 

>> >But when you are faced with logic and

>> >reason, like the existence of irreducible complex systems like single

>> >cells,

>> >you reject it. Therefore your claim of logic and reason is empty. Can

>>>you

>> >prove to me that you accept logic and reason?

 

>> Can you prove to me that you accept it? If you accept these arguments

>>then

>> I don't think you accept reason and logic.

 

>Can you prove to me that you exist?

 

What would you accept as proof?

 

Best wishes,

The Devils Advocate