I Believe That There Is No God

[cybercoma]

Since Zammit's Challenge is an imitation of the James Randi Educational Foundation Challenge, I decided to go to Randi's website and see if he has had any commentary on this subject. Here is what he had to say when Zammit's challenge was brought to Randi's attention:

Several readers have asked me about a very strange chap in Australia who has been frothing and carrying on about a "counter-challenge" to the JREF million-dollar prize. He features, on his web page (www.victorzammit.com) this odd announcement:

A reward of one million U.S. dollars is offered to any sceptic anywhere in the world who can rebut and refute beyond absolute [sic] all the evidence for the existence of the afterlife.

So who would make such an illogical — but hardly risky, as I'll discuss up ahead — offer? Let's see. He states his qualifications:

Victor Zammit, B.A.(Psych), Grad. Dip. Ed.(UTS), M.A.(Legal Hist.), LL.B(UNSW), Ph.D, lawyer, Euro-Australian, a retired Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the New South Wales and the High Court of Australia.

Okay. So he has laurels.

Reader David Highfield, among others, wrote me asking about Zammit's counter-challenge. I answered him:

We are not in the business of proving a negative. Tell Zammit to prove the existence of life after death. We don't claim there is none; if he claims there is, let him prove it.

Highfield responded:

Thanks for replying. I already tried that approach. It gave me more of an appreciation for your work. Of course his claim was that proving the negative, was hogwash (in not so nice terms). When I tried to explain the concept, he replied:

"Look idiot — you have no idea what you are talking about! YOU have no idea what technical evidence is. YOU have no idea what scientific method is about — you don't have any idea what an independent variable is in experimentation. Just join other uninformed skeptics' idiocy."

Of course I tried again. The above claim is not true, by the way — I have a Ph.D. in Biopsychology and know pretty well by now what independent and dependent variables are — not that it takes a Ph.D. I hope that the undergraduates to whom I taught experimental psychology know it by now as well. Anyway, the bottom line, as my wife was quick to point out, is that if I continue to argue with an idiot, it blurs the line as to who the idiot actually is.

David, you cannot know how many times that very thought has passed through my fevered mind! It took a long time for me to decide to forswear further discussions with those who show no signs of being able to support an argument on logical, rational, grounds. Now, I simply tell them that I've no time to spend feeding their egos in fruitless back-and-forth exchanges. I've refused further correspondence with them. As I've said, Zammit's offer is perfectly safe, for him. He lists a huge amount of anecdotal evidence, quotes long-dead scientists such as Crookes and Lodge — who as soon as they left their field of expertise, also left behind their ability to reason dispassionately — and he demands that we impugn and refute all such material as if it were real evidence.

Now, lawyers are accustomed to be allowed to drag in all sorts of "evidence" to support an argument. Often it's the quantity of material, rather than the quality, that they depend upon. Also, lawyers are name-droppers by nature; a title or a position, fame or fortune, can color the validity of their "experts." Juries are frequently awed by such material. That's one reason lawyers prefer that scientists — and magicians, I can testify! — are excluded from their juries. I trust that my readers are, from a lawyer's viewpoint, unwelcome jurors.

Mr. Highfield continued:

I admire your ability to deal with this garbage day in and day out . I have on occasion, while reading your posts of arguments with people like Zammit thought that you were quick to get a little testy and that sometimes a little more patience on your part may have served you better. I no longer believe that. In one interaction I quickly found out what you must deal with every day. Please keep up the good work.

I have found one difficult factor in presenting an argument. A good skeptic should be careful of the facts and be concerned about overstating any real data. They should also acknowledge good points in an argument. The truth, or facts, do not seem to hamper people like Zammit. It makes it easier for them to argue their point if they are not weighed down by those annoying facts.

I think that Zammit's hysterical reaction is evidence of his frenzy, of his desperate need for evidence he seeks but does not find. Imagine being faced with an opponent who claims, "I'm 200 years old, and I perform chants every day that perfectly effect a system whereby my aging process is negated. Prove that my claim is false." No amount of reasoning, of producing records, of testing, of introducing experts, will prove his claim to be false. Exactly the same circumstance applies to Zammit.

Challenged to produce evidence that his claim is true, Zammit tries to reverse the responsibility in the argument. It's his only recourse. And, if I won't fall for that ploy (remember, he claims to be a lawyer!) he persists in blustering and obfuscating. But I urge you to go to Zammit's web page — listed above — to see the full extent of his incredible philosophy and attachment to the ridiculous. For one example, he uses numerology to establish what he believes to be a plausible connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein! Just read this single statement, which begins his numerology essay, and you'll have an excellent insight into his logic:

The critical number appears to be 11 in the New York terrorist attacks. Most people will find it reasonable and highly credible to accept 11 as a visual representation of the twin towers — the Word [sic] Trade Centres.

More blather appears on his web page about the "Akashic Records," the "Seven Laws of Psychic Energy," and an hilarious piece about Nostradamus in which he locates New York City "between forty and forty-five degrees." Pray tell, East, West, North, or South? And for his information, the heart of NYC is at 73 57' West, 40 45' North.

Then Zammit asks, in an essay, "Who are Silver Birch and White Eagle?" and answers us:

Silver Birch and White Eagle are very highly spiritually evolved "intelligences" from the afterlife. They are eye-witnesses to what is happening in the afterlife dimension that we all are destined to go [sic]. Their teachings are impeccable, highly inspirational, critically and immediately relevant to every man, woman child on this planet earth [sic]. . . . Although there are great spiritual works transmitted from the aftelife [sic] dimension, I regard the works of these two great afterlife intelligences as the greatest spiritual works of all time in the history of psychic and spiritual phenomena.

So, if you still have any doubt about Zammit's naivety, please refer on his web page to what these two Indian "guides" have to tell us. I think we can conclude that the man is a total mystic, unrealistic, and uninformed. And he's a practicing lawyer....?

http://www.randi.org/jr/112301.html

[jazzer]

Randi is bogus and a total fraud. He has no credentials and is just a major blowhard for the atheists. At least Zammit has taken the time to collect pertinent documentation to back up his claim. And he challenges everyone not to take anything he provides as direct evidence. He provides the info for one's own personal research. And for that he has my respect.

[cybercoma]

Randi is a total fraud? For what? He's not the one making the wild, unproven claim. All that was asked was that Zammit prove the existence of something he says exists.

You cannot prove with absolute certainty that something does not exist. You can claim that is highly improbable for something to exist. That's why Zammit's bet is safe. The burden of proof lies with Zammit. He claims there is an afterlife, so he is the one that needs to provide credible evidence (anecdotal evidence is not credible) of it. If he doesn't do that, then there is no reason to believe in its existence; however, it is impossible to say with certainty that it absolutely does not exist.

[jazzer]

Randi is a total fraud? For what? He's not the one making the wild, unproven claim. All that was asked was that Zammit prove the existence of something he says exists.

You cannot prove with absolute certainty that something does not exist. You can claim that is highly improbable for something to exist. That's why Zammit's bet is safe. The burden of proof lies with Zammit. He claims there is an afterlife, so he is the one that needs to provide credible evidence (anecdotal evidence is not credible) of it. If he doesn't do that, then there is no reason to believe in its existence; however, it is impossible to say with certainty that it absolutely does not exist.

Randi is a known cheat. For example, he has been captured on tape bending a spoon prior to his attempt to bend it using psychic powers. He has reneged on his million dollar challenge, and has stated that he will make sure no one can win it. He is nothing but a con artist and a bad magician. Zammit, on the other hand, has provided the evidence to back up his claim. His challenge is for people to refute the evidence. He is working on making public what goes on in the seance room, thru video etc. But I have a feeling that even if Zammit succeeded, close minded skeptics wouldn't believe it anyway. Some people would rather die than change their minds.

[jazzer]

deleted

[betsy]

Cybercoma, this is just an observation and in no way meant to be an insult. And this is not to stop you from posting.

You have posted numerous topics that clearly explains how you feel about religion and God. You have joined numerous debates and had clearly and repeatedly explained how you feel about religion and God.

In practically all these debates and discussions you've cited numerous sources too.

And now, another topic, titled: I Believe That There Is No God.

Cybercoma, you've somehow presented another angle. And you may not even be aware of it. But unconsciously....

Are you trying to convince yourself?

[cybercoma]

I never said Penn's beliefs are my own. I just post things in this forum that I find interesting to discuss and relevant to "Moral & Religious Issues".

[Mad_Michael]

Wanna make a million bucks? This guy will pay you if you can refute his claim for an afterlife. So far no one has taken him up on his offer.

That's because it is categorically impossible to prove a negative.

Aah, but it's not a negative. He has made a claim with his evidence. The challenge is to refute his claim. It should be extremely easy for all those atheists out there to collect.

You apparently don't get it.

He makes a claim - that is a 'positive' assertion. To "refute" that claim, one has to 'prove' the negative case.

That is categorically impossible according to rules of logic. That is why the fellow is so confident with his boast/challenge. It is a very clever claim that easily fools the uneducated.

[margrace]

What is this God that we either are supposed to believe in or not. Is he that fellow up there in the white nightgown or is he everything you see or cannot see. Is it the Universe? Where does the good and caring come from that we see in some people? What or who are the evil ones? Can anyone explain this?

So such easy questions. Sigh! I guess this "God" is either the notion there is something intelligent behind all that we try to comprehend but can't.

Humans by nature look into their reality and they tend to do 2 things; i-believe that there is something beyond it all that does make sense but we just can't understand and need to have faith that it will show itself to us and explain when we are ready for it-OR, ii-they take in all the f..ck ups of life, all the war, injsutice and savagery and say well if a God existed its his fault for allowing this or God can't possibly exist because a God would not allow such shit to happen.

Here is the way I see it and it is only my opinion. I can understand why humans react both ways. With those who believe there is no God, I would hope they are humanists and believe in the absence of a God, humans must act in a civil way as we are creating all the mess and so we must clean it up. I hope that, because I believe SOME who feel there is no God, basically use it to say, since there is no God they can just do whatever the f..ck they want and not worry about it. Most atheists or agnositics I know are humanists and believe humans must act civilized. I have though met some very twisted psychotics who believe there is no God and no consequence to what they do.

Now me, I think there is a God, only I don't like using that word. I prefer to see it as an abstract concept that simply means there is something beyond or behind what we think we see. I personally see it as an abstract notion beyond any thing our human brains conceive.

I think many people don't see it as existing because they feel when humans f..ck up this God allows it.

What if this "God" created free will? What if the reason wwe f..ck up is precisely because we have free will and God can not interfere because to do so would "kill" us? Could it be our free will means we are responsible for our own actions and when we do something evil, we pay the consequence eventually as a way to teach us?

I believe we lose faith in the sight of the ugliness and depth of how savage humans can be but it may be what we can't see because we are not ready to see is how if we do such evil, we will experience the same evil we do to others and in this way we will learn.

I personally think we all chose to come into existence to learn and we were expelled or expunged or spit out or vomited out, or sent out from this abstract notion of God, in a free-fall or free will precisely to experience through these things. While we came forth from this thing God, and are seperated from it one level, and allowed to f..ck up so we can learn...I believe we also still remain part of it and it suffers through us and experiences all the pain we do as much as it does the joy.

I think its hard to explain to people that to learn there must be contrast. One could not understand love without also understanding hatred. To appreciate and cherish peace, unfortunately some must first go through war and terror.

It seems like a ridiculous way for an intelligent omnipotent entity to have decided to run things but did it?

Could this God have sneezed and expelled quadra zillions of us souls to experience because it created a system that when all is said and done is about sharing its perfection?

I think so. I think what we can not see is that suffering and all the shit humans cause may not seem like it, but is part of an experience that leads to understanding what love is.

O.k. so I have no proof. None. It is an opinion. I guess for me it is no more non-sensical then it is to believe that one when looks around and sees so many intricate layers of connection and interaction, one could believe it's all an accident.

Do I project intelligent design on chaos as does a religious fanatic who sees the face of Mary in a stain on a sheet? Maybe. Lol.

Good one Rue and these are my thoughts as well. People, as demonstrated in the rest of this thread, are terribly afraid to look at it in this way. It makes them too responsible for their own actions.

[ScottSA]

I'm not a pysicist, but I don't recall ever having seen a claim that matter can originate from nothing.

In that case, here's a few articles for you:

Link 1

Link 2

You can do a search on google for more information, but that should get you started.

Nor do I recall a claim that time has no beginning or space no limit.

I said the Universe does have a limit. You can check out This article to find out why.

I also said time does have a beginning.

Yet you accept all of these paradoxs without blinking, while claiming that another paradox proves that God doesn't exist.

I've told you several times now that I never claimed to prove God doesn't exist. The first couple of times you tried to bring this up, I thought it was an innocent mistake on your part...but now I KNOW you are just trolling.

The argument that it's more likely that an infinitely complex universe, governed by laws, can pop into existence out of nothing simply because it's less complex than God, is stretching your argument to the breaking point, wouldn't you say?

It's exactly the same argument that theists make to argue that humans can not have popped into existence (through evolution) because they are too complex. This is what I have been saying all along. It seems you now agree with me.

The articles you pointed me to say nothing about matter originating from nothing. Again, I'm not a physicist and so am on uncertain ground here, but those articles do not show what you claim they show.

You claim not to be trying to prove God doesn't exist when you say this: "The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created)." ; and then continuing to argue that neither is possible, so if you're not arguing against the existence of God, I have no idea what it is you are arguing about. If I were a cynic, I'd suspect that you're floundering.

In any event, you appear to have dropped your original argument completely and are now claiming victory by virtue of my argument. Kudos.

[gc1765]

The articles you pointed me to say nothing about matter originating from nothing. Again, I'm not a physicist and so am on uncertain ground here, but those articles do not show what you claim they show.

From my links:

"Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle"

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles"

"Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure."

Again, my links were only intended to be an introduction to the topic. I suggest reading further on the subject if you want to learn more. I'm sure there are plenty of books out there which are much more in depth, and much better than the articles I posted.

As for the rest of your post, you are clearly trolling, and I try to avoid feeding trolls as much as possible. Otherwise, they keep coming back for more.

[ScottSA]

The articles you pointed me to say nothing about matter originating from nothing. Again, I'm not a physicist and so am on uncertain ground here, but those articles do not show what you claim they show.

From my links:

"Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle"

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles"

"Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure."

Again, my links were only intended to be an introduction to the topic. I suggest reading further on the subject if you want to learn more. I'm sure there are plenty of books out there which are much more in depth, and much better than the articles I posted.

As for the rest of your post, you are clearly trolling, and I try to avoid feeding trolls as much as possible. Otherwise, they keep coming back for more.

This doesn't appear to refer to matter. It seems to be talking about a precursor to matter, but in any event, claiming that the other side is "trolling" is not much of a defense...just so you know. If you want to cringe away from the argument, at least have the integrity to admit it.

[jazzer]

You apparently don't get it.

He makes a claim - that is a 'positive' assertion. To "refute" that claim, one has to 'prove' the negative case.

That is categorically impossible according to rules of logic. That is why the fellow is so confident with his boast/challenge. It is a very clever claim that easily fools the uneducated.

I don't think you have to resort to insults. I see Zammit's claim totally different from you. I see him bringing forth a potpourri of evidence from many different sources. Some of these mini-claims have been authenticated and duplicated under scientific scrutiny. But because they are from the realm of paranormal, many in the scientific field feel it is not worthy of further study. Anyway, all an atheist has to do is take apart the argument in each individual case. For example, find fraud and discredit the examiner or expose fraud of known seances. That shouldn't be hard to do. So it's that type of examination that I'm referring to when I say "refute."

[gc1765]

This doesn't appear to refer to matter.

I realize you're not a physicist...but "particles" = "matter"

[margrace]

Not all of us understand the Scientific jingo but one thing I do know is that whatever God is he is. He is not in the Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Bible. These stories were taken directly from the old fables of the past. He is not in David Icke's stories of extra terrestrials from outer space, these too are taken from the same sources as the Bible.

He is not in the Mormon Bible found in a field and the various other religions with their fables from the past. He just is.

The God these stories create is too small, too contained and it is not a type of man. There are good and moralistic themes in a lot of these fables but thats all they are.

We only need to read the stuff argued on this forum to realize how selfcentred our beliefs are. The need to protect ones interests, the need to be seen as better than someone else and the need to blame other people for their misfortunes is so evident.

I have read that man only uses 10% of his brain, isn't it time we woke up and took a good look at what we need in this world. Good companionship, food, a dry place to sleep. thats all we really need.

[ScottSA]

Not all of us understand the Scientific jingo but one thing I do know is that whatever God is he is. He is not in the Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Bible. These stories were taken directly from the old fables of the past. He is not in David Icke's stories of extra terrestrials from outer space, these too are taken from the same sources as the Bible.

He is not in the Mormon Bible found in a field and the various other religions with their fables from the past. He just is.

The God these stories create is too small, too contained and it is not a type of man. There are good and moralistic themes in a lot of these fables but thats all they are.

We only need to read the stuff argued on this forum to realize how selfcentred our beliefs are. The need to protect ones interests, the need to be seen as better than someone else and the need to blame other people for their misfortunes is so evident.

I have read that man only uses 10% of his brain, isn't it time we woke up and took a good look at what we need in this world. Good companionship, food, a dry place to sleep. thats all we really need.

Well, you just run along and find a nice dry rock with lots of grubs to eat and commune with, while the rest of us move along trying to build a better world.

[Posit]

A world where a rock is your home and there are always plenty of grub IS the better world. All needs fulfilled....

Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. I would also suggest that only the west is so obsessed with the economic world. To many finding a place rich in grubs is heaven.

The proof of God isn't in the thought or the belief, but in the experience. There are many who believe in many things but have never experienced them. People hold a firm belief in death but can't say they have fully experienced death. Although there are some who have had near-death experiences and many will tell you that they experienced God......

For anyone who has experienced an aspirating forest, a warm sun on a cold morning, or the smell of grass after a spring rain there must be a higher power. In all the things we have made as human beings there is no experience that can ever come close to such awe.

[margrace]

[.

Well, you just run along and find a nice dry rock with lots of grubs to eat and commune with, while the rest of us move along trying to build a better world.

Well it appears your better world is one where I would have to face a leukemia transplant at $250,000 a shot. Where I have to pay more taxes to set up a 3 million dollar dump to handle your high teck garbage. It may even include a world where on the Ist of July we had a killing frost. Where I have to have a car because there is little or no public transport where we live. You get the picture, I doubt it.

[ScottSA]

For anyone who has experienced an aspirating forest, a warm sun on a cold morning, or the smell of grass after a spring rain there must be a higher power. In all the things we have made as human beings there is no experience that can ever come close to such awe.

Well put.

[cybercoma]

For anyone who has experienced an aspirating forest, a warm sun on a cold morning, or the smell of grass after a spring rain there must be a higher power. In all the things we have made as human beings there is no experience that can ever come close to such awe.

Those very real things have real scientific explanations. It's too bad you're so busy attributing all of this to God that you can't appreciate these things for what they really are.

[jazzer]

Not all of us understand the Scientific jingo but one thing I do know is that whatever God is he is. He is not in the Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Bible. These stories were taken directly from the old fables of the past. He is not in David Icke's stories of extra terrestrials from outer space, these too are taken from the same sources as the Bible.

He is not in the Mormon Bible found in a field and the various other religions with their fables from the past. He just is.

The God these stories create is too small, too contained and it is not a type of man. There are good and moralistic themes in a lot of these fables but thats all they are.

We only need to read the stuff argued on this forum to realize how selfcentred our beliefs are. The need to protect ones interests, the need to be seen as better than someone else and the need to blame other people for their misfortunes is so evident.

I have read that man only uses 10% of his brain, isn't it time we woke up and took a good look at what we need in this world. Good companionship, food, a dry place to sleep. thats all we really need.

Well stated.

[Posit]

While the forest, the sun and the rain all have scientific explanations, the experience of them do not.

You missed the point entirely.

[margrace]

For anyone who has experienced an aspirating forest, a warm sun on a cold morning, or the smell of grass after a spring rain there must be a higher power. In all the things we have made as human beings there is no experience that can ever come close to such awe.

Those very real things have real scientific explanations. It's too bad you're so busy attributing all of this to God that you can't appreciate these things for what they really are.

Of course they have scientific explantions, if that is all you see. But don't you see God is science, God is everything.

[cybercoma]

Amen for the experiences of death, suffering and torture people all over this planet face everyday.

God is everything, after all.

[gc1765]

While the forest, the sun and the rain all have scientific explanations, the experience of them do not.

You missed the point entirely.

Have you ever wondered why these things give us such experiences? Could it be that we evolved to appreciate these things?