Do you believe in God?

[Kristus]

Would be a good idea to specify which god is in question here. Because there's lots of them.

 

[zzz_pt]

Except I've already shown you an example of animals (rats) doing just that.




In an experiment in which rats could have gained additional food (and these were untrained rats), they chose to free a captive rat instead. Clearly showing 'care' for another at the expense of their own immediate benefit.

Exept laboratorial experiences don't acctualy represent the nature behavior itself. And one experience is not suffiecient to prove anything. I'll give some credit to that behaviour when I see that happening in nature itself and by a larger "sample".

@TheCracker But I didn't say tey do it consciously.

@Kristus I guess not any speciefic god. At least the thread title dosen't say so.

 

[Scaff]

Exept laboratorial experiences don't acctualy represent the nature behavior itself. And one experience is not suffiecient to prove nothing. I'll give some credit to that behaviour when I see that happening in nature itself and by a larger "sample".

Given your reply you quite clearly have not actually taken the time to go and read the paper (or the additional ones cited with it as additional sources - I've added another link to remove any excuse).

This is not something that can be dismissed as easily as you would like, as its clearly illustrated and documented in both experimental form and nature.

I would also add that your total evidential rebuttal to this is exactly zero, that I think says a great deal about your willingness to even start to understand something that undermines your theological standpoint.

Animals from a wide variety of species show empathy and understanding of others, more that enough evidence of thsi exists (and you have clearly now ignored), that you dislike this does nothing at all to change this situation.

 

[niky]

how hard is it to program a robot

Ever see a self-reproducing robot? No? There's your answer.

The programming itself, however, is only part of the problem. We can't even begin to design a mechanical system with the self-repairing and self-sustaining abilities of even the simplest of organisms

And they don't contain nerves and blood

The question is not whether robots have blood vessels or nerves, but what their analogues of said features look like. Humans have nerves and blood vessels that take intricate, irregular, inefficient and sometimes dangerous paths through the body simply because those systems evolved that way. A robot is designed with the most direct "neural" pathways possible, and with electrical cables routed through the shortest paths possible.

Because they are designed... not evolved.

This crosses over into the Creation versus Evolution argument, but bear with me... if robots, however crude they may be compared to organisms, are designed to be as efficient as possible, how come humans are not, given the putative "creator" would have to be incredibly smart compared to current roboticists in order to design even the simplest organic systems

a larger "sample".

You've never actually owned an intelligent pet or interacted with a higher mammal species for more than thirty seconds... have you?

Animals show quite pronounced aesthetic preferences, altruism for owners, packmates and other recognized sentients* (evidence of dolphins rescuing and aiding distressed swimmers is overwhelming), can learn for the joy of learning and not as a behavioral operant behaviour and clearly show signs of emotional distress when a close companion is in pain or dies.

Animals have emotions and have thoughts. Granted, most animals are no smarter than a three year old, and the smartest ones are at the level of a six year old, but they can think and can feel.

*A famous test of self-awareness, the mirror test, is easily passed by many higher mammals.

 

[zzz_pt]

How do we know what is good or bad. What is moral right or wrong? Is chance the answer? Or evolution? Who said what is morally right or morally wrong for we to belive in or for we to accept it? If is something that came from us alone, how is that even possible?

That paper tries to give to animals a moral behaviour. My question is what is moral right or wrong? Where does morality came from?

While we all recognize rules of right and wrong behavior in our own human societies, we’re not accustomed to looking for them among animals. But they’re there, as are the “good” prosocial behaviors and emotions that underlie and help maintain those rules. Such behaviors include fairness, empathy, forgiveness, trust, altruism, social tolerance, integrity, and reciprocity; these are not merely byproducts of conflict but extremely important in their own right.

Why do we think or recognize this things as being "good" and not "bad" morally speaking?

I didn't say (again) that animals don't show empathy between them. They're used to live together for a long time.

It's hard to keep up with all your replies (I'm sorry @Scaff for not having time to read all your links. You're not the one trying to reply to 6/7 different persons. )

@niky I'll try to reply later as I have to go for now.

 

[Duke]

well, I don't believe that creatures as complex and advanced like Humans and other animals don't have a creator, or creators.

look at how humans created robots, through thousands of years of learning process, processing raw materials until humans can create metals, then electricity, then computers, then finally we are able to create (lame) robots. robots do not exists just like BAM! it's there ********. and so does every living creatures in this planet, it has its own creator and designers.

You ARE aware, of course, that life did not "exist just like BAM! it's there". Life evolved over billions of years, except instead of being driven by purposeful application of technology (such as how robots were developed), it was refined by natural selection.

 

[Scaff]

That paper tries to give to animals a moral behaviour. My question is what is moral right or wrong? Where does morality came from?

No, that peer reviewed paper clearly shows that species other than humans develop and abide by a moral code, with rules surrounding it.

What is morally right is a totally different question (one that humans themselves can't agree to).

As for the origin of morality, its been clearly shown that it can and does develop naturally within a very wide range of species.

Why do we think or recognize this things as being "good" and not "bad" morally speaking?

Not because of gods that's for sure.

I didn't say (again) that animals don't show empathy between them. They're used to live together for a long time.

Yes you did, repeatedly. You stated that animals (other than humans - we are animals after all) do not think or feel, if that were the case then they would not be able to act emphatically.

 

[huskeR32]

I believe in God, using logic and science, not using mythical stories or anything.

OK, I'll bite... What logical thought and/or scientific observation led you to the conclusion that god exists?

It's impossible to argue in this thread. I've tried a few months ago and I had 20 people to reply to. Did you even tried to think about what I wrote?

You're at least the third person in the last month or so to make this complaint. When numerous people immediately rebut your claims with sound, rational thinking, maybe that's a sign that you're the one who needs to take a moment and think about what's being said to you.

Taking the stance that everyone is a bully isn't going to get you anywhere, it just looks like you're throwing a fit because you can't accept that what you believe has a lot of question marks.

 

[GTracer98]

I believe in God, simply because there's no logic in thinking that the universe got created like it is simply by accident, it's too damn complex! No, God is not an old man flying in the sky, it's like a special energy that has some kind of intelligence...

 

[Exorcet]

I believe in God, simply because there's no logic in thinking that the universe got created like it is simply by accident, it's too damn complex! No, God is not an old man flying in the sky, it's like a special energy that has some kind of intelligence...

There is no logic in supposing an explanation of any kind without evidence.

There are more options than God and accident. Why couldn't the universe have just formed naturally with no intelligent cause at all?

 

[GTracer98]

There is no logic in supposing an explanation of any kind without evidence.

There are more options than God and accident. Why couldn't the universe have just formed naturally with no intelligent cause at all?

It just seems unlikely to me, I mean, the universe isn't exactly that random, is it? It seems like something more than just basic natural principles have worked on it. But then again, as you said, there's is no evidence to prove it, that shall be kept in mind. And I doubt we will find it anytime soon.

 

[Scaff]

It just seems unlikely to me, I mean, the universe isn't exactly that random, is it? It seems like something more than just basic natural principles have worked on it. But then again, as you said, there's is no evidence to prove it, that shall be kept in mind. And I doubt we will find it anytime soon.

Simply because patterns exist in the universe doesn't then mean that the blanks can filled in with 'god(s) did it.

This may help explain:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/RandomUniverse.htm

 

[GTracer98]

Thanks for that link, certainly interesting to read.

But I still think there is some kind of God. No scientific evidence for it, yes, just like there's no evidence of no God. So what do we do? We have no evidence of any of those two possibilities, maybe there's a third possibility but I'm not sure.

 

[zzz_pt]

I guees my problem here is my english rather than my ideas. I'll make an english course to be able to write since it's clear that you don't get what I was trying to say.

And I didn't say animals don't feel. Are you trying to make me feel stupid? lol

@huskeR32 Opinions are opinions. There are no wrong opinions. If you think my opinion is wrong and you are right, then prove me God doesn't exist or tell me how the universe appear from nothing (since it's proved that universe has a finite past) or from where does objective moral values came. Until then, you're not more right than I am.

As I said earlier, faith appears where reason and science fail to give an answer. I'm not defending any god or religion in particular.

We all "belive" in dark matter and we don't know if it's there. But science came up with that idea because otherwise what we know and see wouldn't make sense by the laws of physics. Why would I belive in dark matter and not belive in god?It's a leap of faith this 2 cases.

 

[Scaff]

Thanks for that link, certainly interesting to read.

But I still think there is some kind of God. No scientific evidence for it, yes, just like there's no evidence of no God. So what do we do? We have no evidence of any of those two possibilities, maybe there's a third possibility but I'm not sure.

You can't provide evidence for a negative, as such the burden of proof rests with a claim that god or gods exist, to date not a single piece of acceptable evidence has been provided to back up that claim.

As such its a reasonable and logical position (until the evidence changes) to place gods with Unicorns, Santa, the Tooth Fairy and other myths.

Again these may help explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

I guees my problem here is my english rather than my ideas. I'll make an english course to be able to write since it's clear that you don't get what I was trying to say.

And I didn't say animals don't feel. Are you trying to make me feel stupid? lol

A second language doesn't help and you have my sympathy in that regard, however that doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly stated (in a range of terms) that animals lack the capability to think, yet a very large body of evidence shows that they do.

As such this is not an exclusive trait for humanity at all, I know this may be a hard concept (particularly for theists who have been told that humans are 'special'), but humans are just another animal. Our evolutionary path (through sheer blind luck) has lead us to have a higher intelligence that other animals on the planet, but that doesn't make us separate from them at all.

 

[zzz_pt]

Think

I think animals do not think. Because I assume this definition of thinking. Abstract thinking, reflextion, opinion, etc. In that sense, I don't think animals think. Maybe they do...who knows.

 

[Scaff]

Think

I think animals do not think. Because I assume this definition of thinking. Abstract thinking, reflextion, opinion, etc. In that sense, I don't think animals think. Maybe they do...who knows.

The second one of those clearly covers problem solving (let me think that through) and I have already shown you quite conclusively that animals are more than capable of that. A wide variety of species demonstrate the ability to solve puzzles (often quite complex ones), something that requires abstract thinking (from the perspective of a rat working out how to open a locked door that has been specifically designed to be difficult for it to open more than covers that.

Its also not a case of "Maybe they do...who knows." either, as I've provided you with a number of peer reviewed sources that quite clearly show that yes we do know.

 

[GTracer98]

Ok, yes, but you can't be so sure about no God at all, I mean, how will you prove that? Because of science? No, because we don't even know all of physics, biology, chemistry and so forth. It's maybe too early too tell, in future we may or may not have the means necessary to prove this absolute statement about the Universe.

 

[Mark T]

Where does morality came from?

It certainly doesn't come from religious scripture or God because there is plenty of evidence that God is immoral and so is his scripture.

I expect groups of humans working together have a higher chance of survival than those who wander alone. Those humans that killed and harmed each other and their young didn't survive. What we call "morality" or "caring" favoured certain groups of humans and they came to dominate.

Humans have the ability to over ride their morality especially when they believe it's going to favour them in some other way (financial gain, chance of sex, entrance to heaven etc). They can also over ride their morality when they feel threatened. For example I have no interest in killing anyone but should I find someone wandering around my house without consent I expect I would cause injury to that person which could be life threatening.

 

[Scaff]

Ok, yes, but you can't be so sure about no God at all, I mean, how will you prove that? Because of science? No, because we don't even know all of physics, biology, chemistry and so forth. It's maybe too early too tell, in future we may or may not have the means necessary to prove this absolute statement about the Universe.

Did you miss the part based on the burden of proof?

You are the one making the claim for a 'god' as such the burden of proof rests with that claim, I have already said that if you are able to provide me with evidence I am quite happy to re-assess my position.

I have stated that given the lack of evidence at present (i.e. absolutely none at all) I currently class all gods in the same way as I do unicorns and Santa.

 

[Famine]

Ok, yes, but you can't be so sure about no God at all, I mean, how will you prove that?

Read again:

You can't provide evidence for a negative, as such the burden of proof rests with a claim that god or gods exist, to date not a single piece of acceptable evidence has been provided to back up that claim.

It is fundamentally impossible to prove the nonexistence of "x" - where "x" is a god, unicorns, clairvoyants, homeopathy, crabpeople, giant ants or laser underpants. Proving nonexistence cannot be done.

The burden of proof is on those claiming these things do exist.

 

[GTracer98]

Ok, ok, so you believe there's no God simply because there's no proof of it's existance and it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist? That's one of the approaches of humans: one does not have the proof of something so he believes it doesn't exist. The other is to believe that it exists even without proof. I'd say both are reasonable enough, it's your choice really, I'm not doing a crusade.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ok, yes, but you can't be so sure about no God at all, I mean, how will you prove that? Because of science? No, because we don't even know all of physics, biology, chemistry and so forth. It's maybe too early too tell, in future we may or may not have the means necessary to prove this absolute statement about the Universe.

This is the great appeal of atheism for me - it's not about being 'sure there is no God'. Atheists remain open to the possibility that there may be a God, but require some form of objective evidence that supports the claim that God or Gods exist before accepting it (or stating it) as the truth. Indeed, this is the same standard that ought to be (and very often is) applied in everyday life situations by atheists and theists alike e.g. claims require evidence, and an absence of evidence casts doubt upon that claim. It always strikes me as odd that, when it comes to a question of such apparent significance/personal importance as the existence of God, suddenly the requirement for evidence is dropped. If anything it ought to be the other way around - if the question is so important, the requirement for convincing evidence should be of paramount importance.

 

[BobK]

God gave the Arabs wealth and land, they share the same blood of Abraham that the Jews share, but that does not mean they get to enter heaven.

What the Jews and Arabs fail to understand is that they are technically brother/sister, and as myself being a Christian with no Jewish or Arab Blood, it saddens me that they fight.

I don't suppose you have any evidence whatsoever other than Biblical sources that God gave any land to anybody at all, do you?

Oh, and as long as we're speaking of evidence, are you ever going to provide some real evidence for a million or so Jewish people who were also slaves in ancient Egypt? Because the evidence you have provided so far is not evidence of it. If you're not going to produce evidence to back up your claim, how about withdrawing the claim?

 

[Famine]

Ok, ok, so you believe there's no God

No. That's a nontheist approach.

I don't believe there are any deities. This is quite different from believing there are no deities...

simply because there's no proof of it's existance and it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist?

That's not particularly simple - though it is a fundamental concept.

That's one of the approaches of humans: one does not have the proof of something so he believes it doesn't exist. The other is to believe that it exists even without proof. I'd say both are reasonable enough, it's your choice really, I'm not doing a crusade.

Believing something doesn't exist and believing something does exist are indeed as reasonable as one another - and neither can be proven, because you cannot prove nonexistence.

Not believing something exists is, of course, the most reasonable path of all when its existence cannot be proven.

 

[Scaff]

Ok, ok, so you believe there's no God simply because there's no proof of it's existance and it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist? That's one of the approaches of humans: one does not have the proof of something so he believes it doesn't exist. The other is to believe that it exists even without proof. I'd say both are reasonable enough, it's your choice really, I'm not doing a crusade.

If we had followed that logic we would not have made a great deal of scientific discoveries at all.

I also take it that you therefore accept the existence of every god ever, the tooth fairy, unicorns, Santa, elves, trolls, goblins, etc.

Take a read of the link I provided about the scientific burden of proof to fully understand why simply accepting anything as if it were true is is both unneeded and to also better understand about how we can gain knowledge.

 

[GTracer98]

So atheists are kind of neutral, that's something new. 👍 Because I thought an atheist was strictly against God's existance.

 

[Scaff]

So atheists are kind of neutral, that's something new. 👍 Because I thought an atheist was strictly against God's existance.

Nope that's a non-theist.

 

[Famine]

So atheists are kind of neutral, that's something new. 👍 Because I thought an atheist was strictly against God's existance.

Indeed, the word is commonly used that way - but it's more accurate to say that:

Theist = someone who believes that a deity exists
Atheist = someone who doesn't believe that a deity exists
Nontheist = someone who believes that a deity doesn't exist

There are, of course, folk who call themselves atheists and rabidly believe in the non-existence of deities (commonly the big ones) and I can't speak for how they define themselves - but the word means "without belief in a deity".

And you'll note that a Christian Theist (someone who believes in God) can be an Islamic Nontheist (someone who believes Allah doesn't exist). Atheists are just more consistent

 

[GTracer98]

So let me sum up:
I believe there's an energy which we call God that has shaped the Universe. There may be many, there may be none, but I believe in one.