Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[melanieeeee.]

Lmao.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE421.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE425.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE441.html

..etc ad nauseum.

i was mainly talking about the creation of the universe.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html

i dont see how god can be ruled out. you admited that you cannot explain parts of how the universe began.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Oh and, re: Biblical accuracy,

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

we (i) acknowledge that some parts of the bible may have been written inaccurately because of human error but that review said nothing about jesus - the main icon of the christian faith.

 

[melanieeeee.]

okay a few questions for athiests. i like to think of myself as open minded (that is why i believe in god). i like to accept things within reason.
1. why should i be an athiest. what makes an athiest anymore right than a christian.
2. what are the agruments against the existance of god.
3. what proof is there that god doesnt exist.
serious answers only please.

 

[KFunk]

okay a few questions for athiests. i like to think of myself as open minded (that is why i believe in god). i like to accept things within reason.

It's a lot easier to demonstrate why you should be an agnostic. None of the arguments you posted on the previous page stand up to criticism:

(1) Fine tuning of the universe: David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion identified that if the basic substrate of the universe (particles, energy manifolds, whatever) existed perpetually and could cycle through every permutation/arrangement then you would eventually expect our universe to emerge. I disagree that the god hypothesis is simpler. The entity 'god' is extremely complex - a sentient, morally driven being with unlimited power and knowledge. This is a much more significant theoretical assumption than the existence of fluctuating energy/particle structures. To add insult to injury many theists remove god from the realm of scientific inquiry, claiming that they are beyond our comprehension/reach and must simply be 'accepted'. This is a bogus scientific hypothesis (I realise that there are other approaches and that this is a straw man only applying to certain theists).

(2) Historicity of the bible: events of the bible can be true entirely independent of the existence of god. Similarly, partial historicity of the Iliad does not provide evidence of the Greek Pantheon, nor does the accuracy of accounts of Siddhārtha (Buddha/founder) make true the metaphysical tenets of Buddhism. Humans have always fleshed out real events with, dare I say, metaphysical rubbish. Take Richard Rorty's example of 'demon discourse' in which demons and spirits are used to explain illness and disease - a very common trend across cultures. Also, beware the risk of begging the question, since many dubious biblical claims are justified by saying "but it is the word of god..." etc.

(3) Prayer and its rewards:

- On the first two studies, note that the significant differences largely disappeared at larger sample sizes (the first study is fairly small). The second study would almost seem to establish that prayer has fairly negligible effects - demonstrating no significant effect across a wide range of cardiac health indicators in a large group of patients. The third study gives food for thought but again, there was no significant difference in mortality, and the second study provides a fairly strong argument against the effects of prayer.

- On individual and group prayer/faith: simply look to the field of psychoneuroimmunology. These results are not faith specific. You can find better health outcomes in individuals displaying laughter/humour, reduced anxiety, optimism etc. There are direct relationships between emotional states and healing / immune function through the modulation of hormones and pro-inflammatory cytokines (amongst other things). The benefits of faith do not require the existence of an intervening god in order to be explained - medical science does a fine job on its own.

 

[melanieeeee.]

It's a lot easier to demonstrate why you should be an agnostic.

errrrr. i dont know why you quoted that because what you have written didnt really answer my questions. although i do see myself as open minded i refuse to be an agnostic because i believe that god(s) can either exist or not exist and that there is no in between. so imo its either one or the other. im currently christian because of the agruments presented that god exists (as opposed to the agruments that god doesnt exist) but there is nothing stoping me from being an athiest if there is sufficent proof that god does not exist.

 

[Graustein]

errrrr. i dont know why you quoted that because what you have written didnt really answer my questions. although i do see myself as open minded i refuse to be an agnostic because i believe that god(s) can either exist or not exist and that there is no in between. so imo its either one or the other. im currently christian but there is nothing stoping me from being an athiest if there is sufficent proof that god does not exist.

Of course there's no in between.
Agnosticism is "God either exists or God doesn't exist, we don't know for sure"

Your actual opinion on whether or not God DOES exist or not is not related to whether or not you're agnostic.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Of course there's no in between.
Agnosticism is "God either exists or God doesn't exist, we don't know for sure"

Your actual opinion on whether or not God DOES exist or not is not related to whether or not you're agnostic.

well if there is no in between why should i be agnostic when i can support the idea of gods existance (religion) or gods non existance (athiest) and it stands for a belief (cause its either one way or the other, right?) rather than just saying we dont know.

 

[Graustein]

well if there is no in between why should i be agnostic when i can support the idea of gods existance (religion) or gods non existance (athiest) and it stands for a believe rather than just saying we dont know.

You can be agnostic and still support either idea. Most agnostics do.

Believing in one thing or the other isn't really a conscious choice, you can't look in the face of the evidence and not believe it. You can interpret the evidence in a way that suits you, but that's only where the evidence is up to interpretation. What I'm saying here is that your question of "why should I be agnostic" is pointless. Plus, you're making the false assumption that agnosticism and atheism/theism are mutually exclusive; they're not. Agnosticism isn't saying "we don't know, so there's no point trying to find out" (although there are agnostics who hold that stance); agnosticism is "we don't know, so we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that we're wrong" (Sorry, I should have made that clearer earlier). You can believe whatever you want, but as long as you don't dismiss the possibility, however slight, that you're wrong, that's agnosticism.

 

[melanieeeee.]

You can be agnostic and still support either idea. Most agnostics do.

but why would i want to if it has to either be one way or another.

Believing in one thing or the other isn't really a conscious choice, you can't look in the face of the evidence and not believe it. You can interpret the evidence in a way that suits you, but that's only where the evidence is up to interpretation. What I'm saying here is that your question of "why should I be agnostic" is pointless. Plus, you're making the false assumption that agnosticism and atheism/theism are mutually exclusive; they're not. Agnosticism isn't saying "we don't know, so there's no point trying to find out" (although there are agnostics who hold that stance); agnosticism is "we don't know, so we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that we're wrong" (Sorry, I should have made that clearer earlier). You can believe whatever you want, but as long as you don't dismiss the possibility, however slight, that you're wrong, that's agnosticism.

i see how agnostics and atheists can work okay together. but i am leaning towards christianity atm (due to the reason i have provided previously). in order for me to be more christian like, i would have to have faith. this is why i believe theism and agnostics are mutually exclusive assuming that the christian wants to be more christ like.

 

[Graustein]

but why would i want to if it has to either be one way or another.

Since when did people believe things because they "wanted" to, rather than because it just makes perfect sense to them? I don't think you can "choose" whether or not to believe anything, because surely that defeats the purpose of belief. You can allow yourself to be persuaded, but I don't think you can make the conscious decision to believe in something else without some external influence.

i see how agnostics and atheists can work okay together. but i am leaning towards christianity atm (due to the reason i have provided previously). in order for me to be more christian like, i would have to have faith.

Agnosticism is "God may or may not exist". If you accept that there's even the remotest possibility that God doesn't exist, then you're agnostic. Simple as that. You've freely admitted earlier that given sufficient evidence you'll freely not believe in God. That acknowledges that there's the possibility that such evidence exists. This is agnosticism.

this is why i believe theism and agnostics are mutually exclusive

ABSOLUTE theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, to the same extent that ABSOLUTE atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. I believe however that most theists aren't absolute theists, that there is some measure of doubt, however small. I believe the same of atheists; the majority are agnostic.

assuming that the christian wants to be more christ like.

Don't make the mistake of equating theism with Christianity. Christianity is theism, theism is not Christianity. Squares are rectangles, rectangles are not squares. Not exactly relevant to the discussion, just one of my pet peeves

 

[melanieeeee.]

Since when did people believe things because they "wanted" to, rather than because it just makes perfect sense to them?

if ride a bike outside i want/choose to ride a bike. if post on bos its because i want/choose to post on bos. if i am a christian, its because i want/choose to be a christian.

Agnosticism is "God may or may not exist". If you accept that there's even the remotest possibility that God doesn't exist, then you're agnostic. Simple as that. You've freely admitted earlier that given sufficient evidence you'll freely not believe in God. That acknowledges that there's the possibility that such evidence exists. This is agnosticism.

ABSOLUTE theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, to the same extent that ABSOLUTE atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. I believe however that most theists aren't absolute theists, that there is some measure of doubt, however small. I believe the same of atheists; the majority are agnostic.

for me (and other thiest) this is gap is filled with faith. i dont doubt because i have faith. the only time this faith will be removed is that if there is suffiecent evidence that god doesnt exist.

Don't make the mistake of equating theism with Christianity. Christianity is theism, theism is not Christianity. Squares are rectangles, rectangles are not squares. Not exactly relevant to the discussion, just one of my pet peeves

okay i wont.

 

[Graustein]

if ride a bike outside i want/choose to ride a bike. if post on bos its because i want/choose to post on bos. if i am a christian, its because i want/choose to be a christian.

If that's the way you feel about it. I don't consider belief something you have a conscious decision in.

for me (and other thiest) this is gap is filled with faith. i dont doubt because i have faith. the only time this faith will be removed is that if there is suffiecent evidence that god doesnt exist.

Good for you. For me, it's the opposite. I'll never accept the Bible (various reasons, but they all come back to its supposed infallibility), but I'm more than willing to accept the possibility of a greater being if it makes enough sense to me. Personally, I find the Norse gods every bit as believable (and far more interesting) as any other god

 

[Empyrean444]

It is likely that God does not exist because there is no definitive or substantial proof for it. All the existence of a Christian God (ie omnipotent, omniscient, triadic) has to back it is the Bible. I'm sorry, but this is not accurate or reliable proof. I could write a fictional book and, using the same logic as Christians, claim it to be proof of my beliefs. But i would be seen as a falsifier. We have no proof that the Bible is the "word of God" other than the fact that this is said in the text itself. The Bible seems like a load of crap - God, therefore, has no proof backing his existence that can be seen as relaible or true. Hence, it is likelier that there is no God than that there is.

 

[melanieeeee.]

It is likely that God does not exist because there is no definitive or substantial proof for it. All the existence of a Christian God (ie omnipotent, omniscient, triadic) has to back it is the Bible. I'm sorry, but this is not accurate or reliable proof. I could write a fictional book and, using the same logic as Christians, claim it to be proof of my beliefs. But i would be seen as a falsifier. We have no proof that the Bible is the "word of God" other than the fact that this is said in the text itself. The Bible seems like a load of crap - God, therefore, has no proof backing his existence that can be seen as relaible or true. Hence, it is likelier that there is no God than that there is.

sorry but that isnt sufficent proof that god doesnt exist. that is just a counter agrument imo.

 

[xONBROKENWINGSx]

ITT: atheist trolls

 

[KFunk]

errrrr. i dont know why you quoted that because what you have written didnt really answer my questions. although i do see myself as open minded i refuse to be an agnostic because i believe that god(s) can either exist or not exist and that there is no in between. so imo its either one or the other. im currently christian because of the agruments presented that god exists (as opposed to the agruments that god doesnt exist) but there is nothing stoping me from being an athiest if there is sufficent proof that god does not exist.

Note the part in bold which reads "I'm currently christian because of the arguments presented that god exists".

In my post above I was demonstrating that these arguments are poor ones and should be discounted - in other words I was showing that you do not have a reason to believe in the existence of god. In this case it shouldn't really matter whether you are presented with any strong arguments against the existence of god - Ockham's razor will carry you the rest of the way from agnosticism to atheism (it is better intellectual practice to assume the non-existence, versus existence, of god given our present state of knowledge).

Also, you demand too much in requiring proof that god does not exist. God can be defined in a (perhaps infinite) multitude of ways. Note that many of these definitions are constructed so as to make the god in question immune to disproof e.g. by making god invisible to the senses, or mysterious or inconceivable with respect to minds as limited as ours. As NTB would typically ask, why don't you believe in any of these definable gods whose existence cannot be disproven? If you maintain an intellectual position which rejects agnosticism as untenable and requires theism whenever there is no evidence for non-existence then you are forced to accept all of these candidate gods.

I trust you will be able to see the absurd consequences of the position you are trying to maintain (N.B. at least one of these candidate gods is a rainbow dragon fluent in Afrikaans).

 

[melanieeeee.]

Note the part in bold which reads "I'm currently christian because of the arguments presented that god exists".

In my post above I was demonstrating that these arguments are poor ones and should be discounted - in other words I was showing that you do not have a reason to believe in the existence of god.

Fine tuning of the universe: David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion identified that if the basic substrate of the universe (particles, energy manifolds, whatever) existed perpetually and could cycle through every permutation/arrangement then you would eventually expect our universe to emerge. I disagree that the god hypothesis is simpler. The entity 'god' is extremely complex - a sentient, morally driven being with unlimited power and knowledge. This is a much more significant theoretical assumption than the existence of fluctuating energy/particle structures. To add insult to injury many theists remove god from the realm of scientific inquiry, claiming that they are beyond our comprehension/reach and must simply be 'accepted'. This is a bogus scientific hypothesis (I realise that there are other approaches and that this is a straw man only applying to certain theists).

why cant i make the assumption that god is almighty. well (if god does exist) god cant be any other way otherwise he would be 'god'.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

Historicity of the bible: events of the bible can be true entirely independent of the existence of god. Similarly, partial historicity of the Iliad does not provide evidence of the Greek Pantheon, nor does the accuracy of accounts of Siddhārtha (Buddha/founder) make true the metaphysical tenets of Buddhism. Humans have always fleshed out real events with, dare I say, metaphysical rubbish. Take Richard Rorty's example of 'demon discourse' in which demons and spirits are used to explain illness and disease - a very common trend across cultures. Also, beware the risk of begging the question, since many dubious biblical claims are justified by saying "but it is the word of god..." etc.

if there is evidence that jesus existed and that he did rise from the dead, doesnt that say something. errrr. also i dont think i said you should believe the bible cause its the word of god, i said you should believe the bible because there is historical evidence.

(3) Prayer and its rewards:

- On the first two studies, note that the significant differences largely disappeared at larger sample sizes (the first study is fairly small). The second study would almost seem to establish that prayer has fairly negligible effects - demonstrating no significant effect across a wide range of cardiac health indicators in a large group of patients. The third study gives food for thought but again, there was no significant difference in mortality, and the second study provides a fairly strong argument against the effects of prayer.

- On individual and group prayer/faith: simply look to the field of psychoneuroimmunology. These results are not faith specific. You can find better health outcomes in individuals displaying laughter/humour, reduced anxiety, optimism etc. There are direct relationships between emotional states and healing / immune function through the modulation of hormones and pro-inflammatory cytokines (amongst other things). The benefits of faith do not require the existence of an intervening god in order to be explained - medical science does a fine job on its own.

touche.

anyway a bit off topic, if faith does help (even though it is psychological) why would i want to be an athiest.

In this case it shouldn't really matter whether you are presented with any strong arguments against the existence of god - Ockham's razor will carry you the rest of the way from agnosticism to atheism (it is better intellectual practice to assume the non-existence, versus existence, of god given our present state of knowledge).

because his theory is more simplier? simplier doesnt necessarily mean that it is true.

Also, you demand too much in requiring proof that god does not exist. God can be defined in a (perhaps infinite) multitude of ways. Note that many of these definitions are constructed so as to make the god in question immune to disproof e.g. by making god invisible to the senses, or mysterious or inconceivable with respect to minds as limited as ours. As NTB would typically ask, why don't you believe in any of these definable gods whose existence cannot be disproven? If you maintain an intellectual position which rejects agnosticism as untenable and requires theism whenever there is no evidence for non-existence then you are forced to accept all of these candidate gods.
I trust you will be able to see the absurd consequences of the position you are trying to maintain (N.B. at least one of these candidate gods is a rainbow dragon fluent in Afrikaans)

exactly god cannot be proven or disproven. i think its a matter of seeing whether the glass is half full or half empty. i find that a lot of unanswered questions can be answered from the bible not saying that this proves that god exists but im saying that it provides me with an explaination. imo its better than having no explaination. also i do not close my mind fully like i said i will allow sufficent evidence to the non existance of god. but as for counter agruments they dont really convince me anyway because there is no proof suggesting otherwise.

 

[KFunk]

Some replies (I've tried to use numbers/headings to make it less dense. Forum reading can be a nightmare!):


(1) Almighty god: You can assume that god is almighty, but you must realise that the entity you then propose exists on a scale of complexity far greater than that of simple theoretical constructs like energy/space/particles. I don't think you can defend rational belief such a divine being in the absence of positive evidence (see below on simplicity).

(2) Fallacies and historicity: I am aware that you did not commit the 'god --> bible --> god' fallacy. I was simply making sure that the discussion would not end up there. And true, if you could find strong evidence for supernatural events in the bible (e.g. resurrection) then this would be potential evidence in favour of god (though note that other explanatory options are still available), but, and correct me if I'm wrong, you did not present such evidence.

(3) Simplicity and razors: Of course simplicity is not synonymous with truth. However, it is important to understand that Ockham's razor does not claim that the most simple theory is the true one. Rather, it claims that the minimal, necessary theory, relative to current knowledge, is the one which it is most reasonable to endorse at this point in time. The problem which arises if you discard this principle is that you have an infinite array of complex theories to choose from, including the many different types of god (as discussed in my previous post) and perhaps also a number of 'god machines' - non-sentient, amoral entities which nonetheless tend to create universes such as ours.

(4) The benefits of faith: You indicate that you are willing to believe in god for the health benefits of faith and because it gives you a psychologically satisfying explanation. I think that's fine if you want to give a pragmatic justification for your belief (in that it is useful for you to believe in god). My arguments, however, are with respect to the intellectual warrants of belief in god, not their practical utility. It may well be useful to believe that one is well liked and respected by some choir of angels (as it may instill happiness, confidence and wellbeing), but it need not, for that very reason, also be true.

There is actually some interesting literature on how positive delusions contribute to our happiness. For example, depressed and 'normal' individuals were asked to play a video game during which they had variable degrees of control (sometimes the computer was actually in control). When asked to rate their degree of control 'normal' subjects overestimated their control of the situation while 'depressed' individuals were very accurate. Similar findings in the literature support the claim that a false sense of control over the world contributes to well-being.

Is it worthwhile to overestimate one's influence on the world? Sure, if you want to be happier. Is this belief therefore true? No.

 

[melanieeeee.]

Some replies (I've tried to use numbers/headings to make it less dense. Forum reading can be a nightmare!):


(1) Almighty god: You can assume that god is almighty, but you must realise that the entity you then propose exists on a scale of complexity far greater than that of simple theoretical constructs like energy/space/particles. I don't think you can defend rational belief such a divine being in the absence of positive evidence (see below on simplicity).

(3) Simplicity and razors: Of course simplicity is not synonymous with truth. However, it is important to understand that Ockham's razor does not claim that the most simple theory is the true one. Rather, it claims that the minimal, necessary theory, relative to current knowledge, is the one which it is most reasonable to endorse at this point in time. The problem which arises if you discard this principle is that you have an infinite array of complex theories to choose from, including the many different types of god (as discussed in my previous post) and perhaps also a number of 'god machines' - non-sentient, amoral entities which nonetheless tend to create universes such as ours.

imo that is a weak argument against the existance of god. most reasonable doesnt necessarily equal truth as well. also its pretty lame to say that god doesnt exist because there are too many religions and a lot of division.

(2) Fallacies and historicity: I am aware that you did not commit the 'god --> bible --> god' fallacy. I was simply making sure that the discussion would not end up there. And true, if you could find strong evidence for supernatural events in the bible (e.g. resurrection) then this would be potential evidence in favour of god (though note that other explanatory options are still available), but, and correct me if I'm wrong, you did not present such evidence.

hahaha okay i see. ill go do my research now. but until then: we can say that the bible is a historical text right? if so, the burdon of proof actually rests on your side.

 

[KFunk]

hahaha okay i see. ill go do my research now. but until then: we can say that the bible is a historical text right? if so, the burdon of proof actually rests on your side.

No, not with respect to the supernatural claims of the bible. You can't simply assume them to be true in the absence of evidence. What if I were to propose that we accept the supernatural claims of Homer's Iliad and that burden of proof was on you to disprove this. Such a method is too arbitrary - it allows us to accept the claims of any purportedly 'historical' text on mere impulse. How, then, are we to adjudicate between competing historical claims? Simple: evidence.

imo that is a weak argument against the existance of god. most reasonable doesnt necessarily equal truth as well. also its pretty lame to say that god doesnt exist because there are too many religions and a lot of division.

You are still missing the point. The argument does not show that god does not exist. Instead, it shows that it is intellectually irresponsible to believe that god does exist. The difference is subtle but precise. Your above criticisms only apply if you overestimate the claims made by, and thus make a strawman of, the argument. (Again,it is primarily an argument for agnosticism, not for the atheistic 'god does not exist' conclusion)