|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 9, 2018 12:49:27 GMT
I cannot wait to hear the full debate between Russell Brand and Professor Brian Cox on God/Atheism. I know the minds of these two men will come up with very interesting points (from both sides...!) Here's a few minutes clip of the debate - the full show is online on Sat 13th Jan Clip of Brian Cox with Russell Brand
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,423
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 9, 2018 13:12:55 GMT
I would imagine they're both atheists no?
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 9, 2018 13:30:41 GMT
I would imagine they're both atheists no? No, quite the opposite. Russell nowadays says he believes in God and that he prays daily.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jan 9, 2018 13:33:30 GMT
Sounds interesting. Will definitely check this out.
I would imagine God is working overtime on forgiving Russell's sins. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 9, 2018 14:01:48 GMT
II prefer to put it this way - science by definition can not disprove the non existence of God or a creator. However, there is ZERO evidence that supports the existence of a God or creator.
‘We don’t know, therefore God,’ is God of the Gaps nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jan 9, 2018 14:08:15 GMT
II prefer to put it this way - science by definition can not disprove the non existence of God or a creator. However, there is ZERO evidence that supports the existence of a God or creator. ‘We don’t know, therefore God,’ is God of the Gaps nonsense. That argument can be used both ways though. There is zero evidence to support the existence of a God, but also zero evidence to the claim that one doesn't exist. I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 14:26:28 GMT
II prefer to put it this way - science by definition can not disprove the non existence of God or a creator. However, there is ZERO evidence that supports the existence of a God or creator. ‘We don’t know, therefore God,’ is God of the Gaps nonsense. That argument can be used both ways though. There is zero evidence to support the existence of a God, but also zero evidence to the claim that one doesn't exist. I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator *When someone sums up your life philosophy in one beautifully stated sentence!*
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 9, 2018 14:28:57 GMT
II prefer to put it this way - science by definition can not disprove the non existence of God or a creator. However, there is ZERO evidence that supports the existence of a God or creator. ‘We don’t know, therefore God,’ is God of the Gaps nonsense. That argument can be used both ways though. There is zero evidence to support the existence of a God, but also zero evidence to the claim that one doesn't exist. I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator That's not how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. You can't prove a negative.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 9, 2018 14:29:56 GMT
I think if even someone as scientifically intelligent as Brian Cox (and a person of no faith, as he describes himself) - can at least be open enough to say science cannot necessarily deny a creator, then I think it takes someone to be very closed minded to think they have all the answers and can look down on believers. That kinda closed mindedness is a faith of its own kind, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 14:31:13 GMT
That argument can be used both ways though. There is zero evidence to support the existence of a God, but also zero evidence to the claim that one doesn't exist. I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator That's not how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. You can't prove a negative. I'm not sure there is a burden of proof. It's called faith for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jan 9, 2018 14:32:32 GMT
The proof is that there IS life/our world at all, in the first place. If something, like a large blue ball appeared in your bedroom one night and just floated there and grew and adapted, you would ask "Who put that there and where did it come from?" The fact that you think it's silly to ask the same of something as complex as this world and the many forms of life, is quite staggering to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 9, 2018 14:35:12 GMT
That argument can be used both ways though. There is zero evidence to support the existence of a God, but also zero evidence to the claim that one doesn't exist. I personally see the perfect complexity of life itself as proof of some kind of intelligent design, ergo, proof of a creator *When someone sums up your life philosophy in one beautifully stated sentence!* But Matt is still using a logical fallacy. One cannot prove absolute non-existence.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 9, 2018 15:00:28 GMT
*When someone sums up your life philosophy in one beautifully stated sentence!* But Matt is still using a logical fallacy. One cannot prove absolute non-existence. I'm not entirely sure it is a fallacy. None of us knows one way or the other, but outright rejection of all possibilities is short sighted in my own opinion. Why dismiss something that science can't explain or we cannot comprehend? Anyways I'll park it there as I don't have much interest in the never-ending conversation of faith vs science.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,423
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 9, 2018 15:42:01 GMT
That's not how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. You can't prove a negative. I'm not sure there is a burden of proof. It's called faith for a reason. Liberian Girl wrote a very similar think a few weeks ago & it totally changed my outlook.
Even though I'm an athiest (and Jewish! You can be both!!), this was beautifully put. It's faith therefore you don't need to prove it!
Anyway, whether you believe in a higher power or not, whether you're black/white/male/female/gay/bi/straight/vegetarian/carnivore...none of it matters* as long as we accept each other & make an effort to get along.
* unless you prefer the Invincible album over Bad, in which case you're a fucking loop.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 9, 2018 16:28:09 GMT
The proof is that there IS life/our world at all, in the first place. If something, like a large blue ball appeared in your bedroom one night and just floated there and grew and adapted, you would ask "Who put that there and where did it come from?" The fact that you think it's silly to ask the same of something as complex as this world and the many forms of life, is quite staggering to be honest. The existence of our world/life is not a proof for God. That's a major quantum leap to a conclusion. But we already have gone through the same discussion in the atheist thread. And Snow White is right. The burden of proof is on those who say there is a God. There is no burden of proof on atheists to prove someone doesn't exist whose existence has never been proven in the first place. By that standard you could say "it is never been proven (and never can be) that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create this world therefore it is equally valid to believe he did than to not believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ". No, it is not two equally valid positions. That's not understanding how burden of proof works. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive claim - ie. that a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or replace that with "God") created the world. (This is also the reason why in any fair justice system the burden is on the accuser to prove an allegation and it is not on the accused to prove that he is innocent. That is because there are many kind of charges and cases where it is simply impossible to prove someone is innocent - as it is impossible to prove a negative. Ie. in MJ's case. You can prove that the accusers are all amoral bastards and all lying through their teeth, but those who want to believe (emphasis inteded) that MJ is guilty, can believe that nevertheless and typically they will say things like "even if the accusers are amoral liars that doesn't prove MJ didn't do it". What haters are doing there is exactly reversing the burden of proof and putting it on the accused to prove with 100% certaintiy that he is innocent or else he is considered guilty. Thankfully that's not how the justice system works or a lot more innocent people would be put to jail or death. Because there are many cases (if not most) where it is impossible to prove innocence - as that's a burden to prove a negative, ie. that something did NOT happen with absolute, 100% certainty. So the burden of proof is on an accuser to prove that something did happen - which is a lot more fair requirement. For the same reason as in science.) And that's alright but then don't conflate it with science and don't say things like that the existence of our world/life is a proof for God. It is not. It's just what you believe about the world/life's origins. And when you talk about "proof" then you have ventured in the area of science and you are making a claim that is just not true (ie. that the world/life's existence proves God). Based on faith. That's where the problems start.
|
|