Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[KFunk]

This notion of pixies seems to be an argument that comes up frequently. It is fallacious though. The link between pixies and god is constructed on the basis that we do not have proof that either exists. People feel comfortable making this comparison because the claim is that both have powers beyond those of humans. To base one's disbelief on something as shaky as that is questionable.

There are a few directions you can take the pixie comparison, but I feel it is best used to show who should carry burden of proof in this debate. 'Pixies' can be replaced by any hypothetical entity whose existence (/non-existence) is unverifiable (you could say that cupid causes love, for example). If we admit a rule which says that burden of proof lies on those who want to show that the entity/being/thing does not exist, then we are forced into a corner in which we have to accept the existence of all such entities (for absence of proof!). My personal feeling is that reason compels us to shift burden of proof onto those who wish to show existence, thus preventing the acceptance of an infinite array of hypothetical entities. I do not, however, strictly think that we should then believe that such things do not exist [see (1) below] even though we might do so in a practical setting.

1. But from a rational perspective this means that although we do not perceive god it does not mean god does not exist. Now you may very well say I do not believe or agree with scepticism. But this does not mean you have given grounds against god. Rather you have disagreed with a possible line of reasoning for god's existence. The pixie issue is definitely a challengable issue and that is why I said before, axiom or not, I think it is a weak basis to place one's belief or disbelif in god on.

2. I would also like to note that if you wish to go by axioms as a framework for existence you are identifying a singular system and foundation of rationality and existence that OTHERS may reject. I do not wish to debate humanity's current perception of reality and existence..I am not an existential revolutionary, but do keep that in mind.

(1) A brief point that I think is worth bringing up in light of you comment "I think it is a weak basis to place one's belief or disbelief in god on" --> It's worth bearing in mind that you needn't believe either way. If you accept some form of objective reality then certainly, either G (god exists) or not-G. Once you enter the realm of belief, however, it need not be the case that you accept one of G or not-G.

(2) I like your point about our conceptual frameworks and fundamental views about the world. Given the forseeable difficulty that we may never be able to vindicate our particular framework what should we do? E.g. should we tack a mental note of human fallibility onto each judgement we make? or should we give up claim to authority all together, take a hyper-skeptical position, and simply talk of how the world 'appears' to us?

Once again you are correct... under your assumed basis of reason. Some may reject those axioms on the basis that axioms are relative for those who hold them valid and those who don't i.e. one may hold to a principal but the same principal may be perceived differently by someone else even though the different perceptions, even in contrast, can lead to a 'smoothly running' existence for both. But I think that I agree with you about these 'things' that people need to agree on. I would just like to also draw to your attention that in some cultures and contexts now and in centuries past, belief in god was one of those things. So maybe gods existence is a product of context. Maybe it just depends on to what extent society as a whole is willing to believe...

Something worth thinking about if you want to consider playing some kind of relativism card. Suppose that we accept the idea that truth is relative in some sense, relative to one's culture say, and lacks any objective definition. What does the question 'Does God Exist?' mean in this situation?? Certainly, the answer might take on a degree of personal/cultural significance, but it would say nothing about the nature of reality, or what actually exists (for we would have rejected such notions: i.e. of Truth with a capital T, and capital B Being). Does the debate matter as much if we take it in this direction? What would an affirmative/negative answer tell us in this new setting?

 

[nathan71088]

There are a few directions you can take the pixie comparison, but I feel it is best used to show who should carry burden of proof in this debate. 'Pixies' can be replaced by any hypothetical entity whose existence (/non-existence) is unverifiable (you could say that cupid causes love, for example). If we admit a rule which says that burden of proof lies on those who want to show that the entity/being/thing does not exist, then we are forced into a corner in which we have to accept the existence of all such entities (for absence of proof!). My personal feeling is that reason compels us to shift burden of proof onto those who wish to show existence, thus preventing the acceptance of an infinite array of hypothetical entities. I do not, however, strictly think that we should then believe that such things do not exist [see (1) below] even though we might do so in a practical setting.



(1) A brief point that I think is worth bringing up in light of you comment "I think it is a weak basis to place one's belief or disbelief in god on" --> It's worth bearing in mind that you needn't believe either way. If you accept some form of objective reality then certainly, either G (god exists) or not-G. Once you enter the realm of belief, however, it need not be the case that you accept one of G or not-G.

(2) I like your point about our conceptual frameworks and fundamental views about the world. Given the forseeable difficulty that we may never be able to vindicate our particular framework what should we do? E.g. should we tack a mental note of human fallibility onto each judgement we make? or should we give up claim to authority all together, take a hyper-skeptical position, and simply talk of how the world 'appears' to us?



Something worth thinking about if you want to consider playing some kind of relativism card. Suppose that we accept the idea that truth is relative in some sense, relative to one's culture say, and lacks any objective definition. What does the question 'Does God Exist?' mean in this situation?? Certainly, the answer might take on a degree of personal/cultural significance, but it would say nothing about the nature of reality, or what actually exists (for we would have rejected such notions: i.e. of Truth with a capital T, and capital B Being). Does the debate matter as much if we take it in this direction? What would an affirmative/negative answer tell us in this new setting?

I will try to respond as conciscely as possible in three aprts to your three part response.

1) Burden of proof- I have seen much talk on this issue and I haven't really thought much on it. I know by Board of Studies definition "Discuss" means to bring points for and/or against. So I think it is best that the burden be held by both for this notion: if the burden is on one side then, as you said, then we are forced into a corner in which we have to accept the existence of all such entities, and if burden is on the other side, those who believe god exists must prove gods existence, then by virtue of the former logic, admission is that god does not exist. So with , I think, an admitted bias, I will try and take the, if not neutral but less bias view, that proof should be on both parties. If not for a good, logical reason then for the fact that one would never get to discuss the issue at hand as they would end up debating a peripheral and equally tough issue - burden of proof.

Numbered points - (1) Although this could be construed as fence sitting and slightly different to what I put forward at times, I completely agree on this point. The montagues and Capulets could not remember the source of their feud. Much sadness could have been avoided if they would have just 'become friends' as playground-esque as it seems. (2) Thank you

Relativism - Yes the relativism card is a 'different' (for want of a better word) card to play. On the issue of relativism (boring and interesting types) I still believe relativism is a developping idea as the very notion of relativism is relative...as relativists do concede. I haven't really said much constructive here because I don't really know that much about relativism so I have taken your point to mind. I do agree with your point on the nature of the question.

 

[KFunk]

I will try to respond as conciscely as possible in three aprts to your three part response.

(1) Burden of proof- I have seen much talk on this issue and I haven't really thought much on it. I know by Board of Studies definition "Discuss" means to bring points for and/or against. So I think it is best that the burden be held by both for this notion: if the burden is on one side then, as you said, then we are forced into a corner in which we have to accept the existence of all such entities, and if burden is on the other side, those who believe god exists must prove gods existence, then by virtue of the former logic, admission is that god does not exist. So with , I think, an admitted bias, I will try and take the, if not neutral but less bias view, that proof should be on both parties. If not for a good, logical reason then for the fact that one would never get to discuss the issue at hand as they would end up debating a peripheral and equally tough issue - burden of proof.

(2) Although this could be construed as fence sitting and slightly different to what I put forward at times, I completely agree on this point. The montagues and Capulets could not remember the source of their feud. Much sadness could have been avoided if they would have just 'become friends' as playground-esque as it seems.

Taking liberty to renumber a couple parts of your post:

(1) Personally I don't think it is too bad an idea to reject the notion of burden of proof all together in this debate. However, if people do feel that we need to assume some kind of answer (to 'does god exist?') then I think we should assume the negative, on the above stated grounds of avoiding the infinite proliferation of hypothetical entities in our ontology (to use a technical, but well suited, term). The main purpose of the above argument is to stave off claims which take the form "I believe god exists, and it is reasonable for me to do so. It should be up to those who believe that god does not exist to prove as much." If there is to be any burden of proof, then I feel it should be upon those wishing to show existence - however, I would more than happily advocate a position of withholding belief (that either G or not-G) in the absence of evidence. This last point probably captures my position best, though I do still think the pixie argument is useful against those who make claims like the one in italics above.

(2) Perhaps abstaining from belief (in either direction) is the most rational thing to do in this debate? Things change, of course, once evidence is produced for either side. In the case where there is an absence of evidence either way, or where the evidence is inadequate, or where the provision of evidence is impossible, I would tend towards sitting in the middle (though there may be good/practical/personal reasons for believing in god, which hold independent of whether or not god actually exists). We should take special care, mind you, to keep seperate the questions of whether god exists and of whether one should believe in god (in order to best meet some kind of moral/practical end).

 

[mr EaZy]

. Islam tends to spread via conquest, see north Africa and East Asia, and Jews generally don't encourage conversion.

Er, I don't remember where I was going with this, but the bottom line is that Christianity especially lends itself to destroying the local faith. As well as this, it also lends itself well to adapting to the pressure of science and rationality. I think it's also a very tempting religion to follow.

Islam didnt spread via conquest all the time

in terms of n.africa, they did conquer those countries, but in areas like Syria and africa, many people remained believing in what they were believing before islam came to them, and that remained such. in egypt, i think that the fall of the system of government there gave people hope of a "just government" and accepted islam, the coptics remained christian

the idea of warfare was to spread the empire/protect it but the act of converting people was done at a personal level, its illegal under islamic law for an army to go about converting people by the sword


with regards to Asia, no islamic army entered china, but there's 3 X as many muslims there than saudi arabia, the earliest muslim there was a companion of the prophet Muhammad.

likewise no islamic army went into indonesia or SE ASIA or Australia (pre-euros)

if u were referring to the invasion of india by the mughals, then yes, an islamic army did go there, and i think military power was used to prop up islam there, indicating that what i said above was not always true- it depends on how the politics played out- the rulers wanted their rule secured.

so when analysing history you need to look at what is islam and what is politics

now, wheres my last post!!!

 

[mr EaZy]

If you're making an argument where your points don't logically follow to reach your conclusion then I'll point it out. The fact that I 'use' it a lot (if I really do) just shows that a lot of people probably start off with a conclusion that they like then create a story in the hope of reaching that conclusion, not the other way around.

when did u change ur nick? and is this NTB??? thought u were a guy the whole time sorry
anyways, i think that you dont consider the arguments raised and just use these terms like they do in court.

The answer "God is just complex" is about as good as me saying "life is just complex".

i never said that, i defined God according to some principles. now that you know a bit about what im referring to when talking about God, then you wont ask the question who created God because God is not created.

What are you saying... Start with the premise that God exists and then see if life being created logically follows? huh? What are these games you're trying to run me through?

lol, no games, try it, i dunno mate, im no philosopher,
i love my faith and the experiences i derive from it.

i also believe that islam has many good traits that even athiests will try to incorporate in their lives despite not believing in it at all. wouldnt you agree? but then you'll argue that with this enlightened society, we would have came up to these same traits anyways

like the fact that islam is colourblind, you'll say that its good but in a modern soc, we'd reach that state anyway. right? this is irrelevant, just wanted ur thoughts on this

I don't want to bother striking off religions one by one because what is 'the religion' is so incredibly broad scoped I'll never accomplish anything (If the koran said grass is blue and I showed grass is green someone would show that it didn't really say grass is blue).

IMHO I can strike out the notion of God as something as fanciful as magical love pixies and that's good enough for me to not believe.

well if the argument is that stupid "grass being blue" then it'll be obvious, but then again, i suppose i should really ask someone who is an expert in their fields to critique the parts of the Quran that purports to be the absolute truth on a matter of say, science or linguistics,

"humble opinions".... are rarely humble.
but if thats what you believe and no one forced you to believe what you believe then thats fine by me. just as i have my beliefs too and no one forced me to believe in what i believe.

 

[katie_tully]

thought u were a guy the whole time sorry

Hahaha.

 

[Iron]

It can never be proven that god does or does not exist, but it can be proven that no current organised religion is correct.

There are many religions in the world. Each have their own way of explaining how the world came about, and within such religions there are denominations, such as in christianity there are mormons, jehovas' witnesses, Baptists etc. (so there isn't even consensus within entire religions about "how things happened").

What makes one religion the right one and all the other religions the wrong ones? What makes one particular denomination the right one, and all the others, the wrong ones?

There is no answer, because what it comes down to, is all religion is crap - it's all socially constructed jiberish.
[/i]"

The argument that God cant be proven is based on the limits of reason and the scientific process' ability to explain questions of ultimate purpose.
Within that grey area is a scope allowing you to interpret the creator in ways consistent with your cultural history and personal experiences. There's no right or wrong answer here.
But this should never be made an excuse to shirk the rigorous pursuit of truth through logic.

 

[chicky_pie]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Atheist


:rofl:

 

[notoneto]

Personally, I'm a man of science so i don't belive in god but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I just don't belive in it

 

[notoneto]

Someone with a brain. FINALLY.

Thanks :wave:

 

[KFunk]

Hey guys, I have been reading a great book by Daniel Dennett called Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the meanings of life add I came came across a passage which I thought would add a little fuel to the fire of this debate. What follows is entirely from this book (penguin paperback, p153-4):



"One reader of an early draft of this chapter complained at this point, saying that by treating the hypothesis of God as just one more scientific hypothesis, to be evaluated by the standards of science in particular and rational thought in general, Dawkins and I are ignoring the very widespread claim by believers in God that their faith is quite beyond reason, not a matter to which such mundane methods of testing applies. It is not just unsympathetic, he claimed, but strictly unwarranted for me simply to assume that the scientific method continues to apply with full force in this domain of faith.

Very well, let's consider the objection. I doubt that the defender of religion will find it attractive, once we explore it carefully. The philosopher Ronald de Sousa once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to. It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil. That's not much of a God to worship!" If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "Oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves? Either the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down."

Now if you want to reason about faith, and offer a reasoned (and reason-responsive) defense of faith as an extra category of belief worthy of special consideration, I'm eager to play. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of getting to the truth, and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously)...

... [W]ould you be willing to be operated on by a surgeon who tells you that whenever a little voice in him tells him to disregard his medical training, he listens to the little voice? I know it passes in polite company to let people have it both ways, and in most circumstances I wholeheartedly cooperate with this benign arrangment. But we're seriously trying to get at the truth here, and if you think that this common but unspoken understanding about faith is anything better than socially useful obfuscation to avoid mutual embarrassment and loss of face, you have either seen much more deeply into this issue that any philosopher ever has (for none has ever come up with a good defense of this) or you are kidding yourself. (The ball is now in your court)."

 

[Iron]

What makes one religion the correct version, and all others wrong?

Relentless and vicious argument

 

[Iron]

On another note.
Been browsing a few of Pope Benedict XVI's speeches, and have to say that he makes a good deal of sense. Try reading the last half of this and see what you make of it.
It's quite a convincing argument about the necessary links between reason and faith, and how the denial of this link has been a disaster for humanity.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...vi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

 

[Schmeag]

Hmm... my eyes seem to be popping out of my head at the moment (thanks to the fact that it's midnight), but what I read into it is summarised by this:

On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty.

Therefore, he is saying that human reason itself is flawed and methods of rationalism and empiricism mutually exclude any argument for the existence of God. I completely agree. However, I'm unsure whether he attempted to prove anything relating to faith or whether he was just deconstructing the atheistic point of view. Ultimately, what he seemed to be say was: "The atheistic viewpoint is fundamentally flawed because our modernistic reasoning presupposes some things; as for proving our faith, we're still working on it." If I missed anything, then my sincere apologies go to the member who corrects me.

Anyway, whilst I agree with him on this count, it doesn't really lead us anywhere. Deconstructionism doesn't really do much to help the situation; it only destroys arguments. Ideally, there needs to be an implied domain that everyone can agree on, because if we can't even agree on the method of reasoning, then relatively, everyone will be right. But we can't agree on the basis of arguing, hence there's little point in having an argument. And it is here that he goes on to quote Socrates:

It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".

Of course, the Pope has already presupposed that these "false notions" are indeed false. He assumes that his own argument is not inhibited by any preconceived notions. He may or may not be encumbered by human reasoning, but the point here is that it's up to the reader to decide because we can agree to a set method of reasoning. Furthermore, he argues that if we have an argument, we may eventually discover this truth of existence. But again, I say that if there is no fundamental basis that we can agree on, this truth will be multi-faceted. Of course, this is all theoretical. I don't sit at a desk and wonder all day whether it's ethical to do my homework. Practically, I adhere to what seems to work for me: science, generally speaking.

Hence I just try to get on in life and let people believe what they want to believe. I may burn in hell for being an agnostic existentialist, but I guess I'll take it as it comes.

EDIT: In this way, I guess I'm agreeing with Dennett (in the extract posted by KFunk) that when the debate about theology arises, the net is indeed lowered. However, I would argue that, in the case of the meaning of life--an entirely theoretical debate--lowering the net is all we can do, because presuppositions (and it's nice that Dennett acknowledges that he makes presuppositions) can easily be brought down.

But this should never be made an excuse to shirk the rigorous pursuit of truth through logic.

Ah, but unless a method of argument can be unanimously agreed upon, it will then be an excuse to argue for the sake of arguing. What will debating the 'meaning of life' achieve but serve to give rise to more disagreement?

 

[Iron]

From my reading, I recollect him claiming reason as the domain of religion, especially Christianity. The perfection of truth, through maths for example, is really a theological search for meaning. But the modern school stops short of seeking ultimate meaning - dismissing it as irrelevant for their narrow purposes.
He laments the fact that universities no longer take the whole view of knowledge, as all pursuits must logically lead to a tortured and prolongued question of existence. Rather, by being encouraged to view such questions as pointless, reason is devalued. We're dehumanized in a way.
The alternative state of affairs is, ultimately, to view ourselves as gods.

 

[Schmeag]

Interesting. So in other words, the separation of reason and faith have caused us to be dehumanised? How is it that he can tell that we are dehumanised? What methods of comparison does he use in order to display this "sunder[ing of] this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit"?

He laments the fact that universities no longer take the whole view of knowledge

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century.

Here, he argues against Liberal Theology and why religion should not be justified by science. But isn't science required in order to obtain knowledge (depending, of course, on your definition of knowledge)?

In the end, the Pope is still telling us what we're doing wrong; but in the end, in a world where everyone tells each other that they're wrong, we need someone to tell us something that will be conclusively right.

 

[Iron]

Interesting. So in other words, the separation of reason and faith have caused us to be dehumanised? How is it that he can tell that we are dehumanised? What methods of comparison does he use in order to display this "sunder[ing of] this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit"?

Here, he argues against Liberal Theology and why religion should not be justified by science. But isn't science required in order to obtain knowledge (depending, of course, on your definition of knowledge)?

In the end, the Pope is still telling us what we're doing wrong; but in the end, in a world where everyone tells each other that they're wrong, we need someone to tell us something that will be conclusively right.

The point is, without resolving the question of where we came from, as a community, then nothing is right. There can be no truth. Without God, there is no ultimate reason .
For the purposes of this discussion at least, I take it that he's merely encouraging an exploration of faith, starting by refuting the powerful notion that it is incompatible with science. Pursuing this question has been a part of human identity forever. If we ignore it, or justify it for spurious reasons, then we're appreciating life in a lowered form.

 

[Stevo.]

One can be spiritual without being religious, without believing in false deities, illusions and fairytales.

 

[Enteebee]

Therefore, he is saying that human reason itself is flawed

I think he's saying forms of human reasoning which aren't "spiritual" (i.e. are basically antecedent to his desired conclusion) are flawed.

The point is, without resolving the question of where we came from, as a community, then nothing is right. There can be no truth. Without God, there is no ultimate reason .

I might agree... but it's a pointless conjection unless you can resolve the question.

 

[Iron]

I might agree... but it's a pointless conjection unless you can resolve the question.

Obviously this cannot be proved within the modern scope of reason. Of course there may not be any point, and an individualistic philosophy of dog-eat-dog personal prosperity may be a valid approach to life. But coming to any conclusion is a very long journey, which goes beyong personal experience and into a community of knowledge developed over thousands of years of still relevant theological debate.