what proof is there that god exists? (1 Viewer)

[BradCube]

I'm quite curious, as the most intelligent Christian on the forum, do you still admit the need for "faith"?

That is, how do you reach the conclusion that the christian god exists, beyond any rational conclusions (though challengable) you may have reached in relation to the need for a "first cause designer"? Simply the Bible?

-

Wow, great question.

As a Christian, I think an accurate reading of the bible implies that faith is a necessary and essential component of christian belief - so yes, I think there is still a need for faith. However let me qualify this in answering the second half of your question.

Essentially you seem to be asking why someone would believe in the truth of Christianity when all their current arguments only lead them to the conclusion that a monotheistic God exists. From the perspective of natural theology the obvious answer will be to examine the arguments surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. If the statement "Jesus was resurrected" is the most plausible explanation of the data, then it serves as self authentication for the claims that Jesus made - namely that he was God. From there one can affirm the truth of Christianity as the more rational world view.

This is not the whole story however. Alvin Plantinga's work in what he calls "Reformed Epistemology" offers an argument for the rationality of Christian theism wholly apart from argument and evidence. Essentially Plantinga submits that belief in God can be properly basic in the same way as other unquestionable or foundational beliefs (ie that logic is logical). When addressing the truth of christian belief specifically Plantinga then turns to the role and witness of the Holy Spirit (in addition to this properly basic belief). Put simply, he maintains that the Holy Spirit can act as a legitimate belief forming mechanism that provides the believer with the warrant necessary for accepting the claims of Christianity and the gospels specifically. In this way, the christian believer knows the truth of the Christianity via the properly basic beliefs brought about through the Holy Spirit.

So taking a step back, yes, faith is an integral part of christian belief, but when qualified it is warranted and rational through the witness of the Holy Spirit. Also note that faith is not limited to the belief in Gods existence. For the Christian, faith encompasses a multitude of areas (ie, trusting that God is good in the midst of a crisis or disaster).

My summary of reformed epistemology is not be taken so much as a defense of christian belief but rather as an overview of how warranted belief can be integrated with aspects of faith. If you are super keen, have a read through Plantinga's work on this topic.

Warrant: The Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function and Warranted Christian Belief.

I only have a copy of Warranted Christian Belief - it's still unread as of yet but if it's anything like others of Plantinga's work you can be sure that it will be a good read (make sure you have your thinking cap on though!)

 

[ad infinitum]

Wow, great question.

As a Christian, I think an accurate reading of the bible implies that faith is a necessary and essential component of christian belief - so yes, I think there is still a need for faith. However let me qualify this in answering the second half of your question.

Essentially you seem to be asking why someone would believe in the truth of Christianity when all their current arguments only lead them to the conclusion that a monotheistic God exists. From the perspective of natural theology the obvious answer will be to examine the arguments surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. If the statement "Jesus was resurrected" is the most plausible explanation of the data, then it serves as self authentication for the claims that Jesus made - namely that he was God. From there one can affirm the truth of Christianity as the more rational world view.

This is not the whole story however. Alvin Plantinga's work in what he calls "Reformed Epistemology" offers an argument for the rationality of Christian theism wholly apart from argument and evidence. Essentially Plantinga submits that belief in God can be properly basic in the same way as other unquestionable or foundational beliefs (ie that logic is logical). When addressing the truth of christian belief specifically Plantinga then turns to the role and witness of the Holy Spirit (in addition to this properly basic belief). Put simply, he maintains that the Holy Spirit can act as a legitimate belief forming mechanism that provides the believer with the warrant necessary for accepting the claims of Christianity and the gospels specifically. In this way, the christian believer knows the truth of the Christianity via the properly basic beliefs brought about through the Holy Spirit.

So taking a step back, yes, faith is an integral part of christian belief, but when qualified it is warranted and rational through the witness of the Holy Spirit. Also note that faith is not limited to the belief in Gods existence. For the Christian, faith encompasses a multitude of areas (ie, trusting that God is good in the midst of a crisis or disaster).

My summary of reformed epistemology is not be taken so much as a defense of christian belief but rather as an overview of how warranted belief can be integrated with aspects of faith. If you are super keen, have a read through Plantinga's work on this topic.

Warrant: The Current Debate, Warrant and Proper Function and Warranted Christian Belief.

I only have a copy of Warranted Christian Belief - it's still unread as of yet but if it's anything like others of Plantinga's work you can be sure that it will be a good read (make sure you have your thinking cap on though!)

Mmm this is circular logic. Nothing new. Nothing worth reading about. Nothing worth criticizing. Rather sad really.

 

[BradCube]

Mmm this is circular logic. Nothing new. Nothing worth reading about. Nothing worth criticizing. Rather sad really.

Care to elaborate?

 

[BradCube]

I dispute the aligning of logic with the Holy Spirit belief mechanism. Logic is completely different - it is universal, can be right or wrong, and can be observed to be right or wrong.

You may have misunderstood what I said.

I was looking at the view that the Holy Spirit can give us authentication of biblical truths. My example with logic was not to say that christian beliefs are as uncontroversial as logic. Rather what I was expressing was that in the same way someone knows logic to be logical, a christian believer can know the truth of Christianity. That is to say, just as logic is a properly basic belief, so can be the truth of Christianity (and the mechanism that provides this equal level of warrant is the Holy Spirit)

 

[BradCube]

Yes, the same can be said for santa claus or the tooth fairy.

As I've looked at this a few times in the Does God Exist thread, I've attached an answer that was from the Q&A section from reasonablefaith.org. It looks at when absence of evidence should be counted as evidence of absence (which is what is essentially at the root of your objection).

you mean reincarnated.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I did mean resurrected and not reincarnated. Possibly you are saying that Christianity has no greater validity than other religions? Perhaps you are saying it is just as likely to believe that Jesus was re-incarnated as he was resurrected? Honestly I don't know, so I'll let you explain.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

As I've looked at this a few times in the Does God Exist thread, I've attached an answer that was from the Q&A section from reasonablefaith.org. It looks at when absence of evidence should be counted as evidence of absence (which is what is essentially at the root of your objection).

It uses some pretty weak examples. For instance:

We're standing atop the Grand Canyon and someone asks, "Is there a
fly way down there?" After a quick glance I say, "No, I see none. There is no
fly down there."
As in the last example we move from "I see none" to "There is none" but
unlike the last example the conclusion is unjustied. Agnosticism regarding
the fly is the appropriate response here.

This is not analogous to the god problem.

There is in fact evidence that there may be flies in the grand canyon even if we can't see them.

The evidence being that we can observe flies in diverse locations all over the earth, so there is a good chance there are some flies buzzing around the grand canyon.

There is no evidence that god exists in any shape or form whatsoever. So it is more like asking, are their fairies in the Grand Canyon?

We can not be sure that there are no fairies without checking the entire canyon, but we have absolutely no reason to believe that there are fairies, so the most sensible way to behave is to proceed as though there are no fairies.

I basically agree with the following part, but it only weakens the case for god:

Evidence Expectation Criterion. If an object O existed, then
we would expect there to be evidence for it.

Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of
object O, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.

In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of some-
thing O only if we should expect to possess evidence sucient to know that
O exists but in fact lack it.

If god wants us to obey certain rules or live a certain way, surely he would provide us with evidence of his existence so we would know to follow his rules. Therefore, we would expect to find evidence of such a god.

If there is a god, but he is not interested in laying down rules of guidelines as to how to live, then we may indeed expect to find no evidence of such a god, but since this god has left us entirely to our own devices it is as if he does not exist while we are alive anyway, so there is little point worrying about whether such a god exists or not. Hence we're back to agnosticism or effectively atheism depending how you define it.

Every religion in existence has the hallmarks of being created by humans. They all profess that god wants us to believe certain things, but conveniently will provide no tangible evidence of his existence, and justify this lack of evidence with the idea that he is testing our faith or some such nonsense which is totally incompatible with an infinitely compassionate, loving god.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I was looking at the view that the Holy Spirit can give us authentication of biblical truths. My example with logic was not to say that christian beliefs are as uncontroversial as logic. Rather what I was expressing was that in the same way someone knows logic to be logical, a christian believer can know the truth of Christianity. That is to say, just as logic is a properly basic belief, so can be the truth of Christianity (and the mechanism that provides this equal level of warrant is the Holy Spirit)

Logic is useful. We can use it to make trucks, and hats and spoons. It's effectiveness is confirmed by empirical observations, which can be repeatedly tested and confirmed.

Christianity serves no such purpose.

This is just a dressed up circular argument; the bible is confirmed by the holy spirit, the holy spirit is confirmed by the bible. Neither are confirmed by observable evidence.

Granted it is a basic belief or foundation point like logic, but why should we give it anymore weight than any other beliefs that could be formulated in such a way.

eg. the good old flying spaghetti monster. Our belief in the FSM confirms that pirateology is true.

One can make infinite claims of this nature, and the multitude of religions which you yourself are atheistic in regard to is testament to this.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

The ultimate futility in these threads impresses me.

Circular reasoning can never be stopped, and factual evidence supports science (with many, many grey areas). The bible proves god's existence, but should not be trusted unconditionally as it was written by man and many other religious "facts" have no basis.

This argument will run forever until we either witness the second coming, the apocalypse, we evolve to the next level of existence, or a scientific breakthrough is reached.

I do acknowledge that most people who post in here are either a troll, egotistical, ignorant, arrogant or simply wanting debate practice, but please people... CHOOSE ANOTHER TOPIC!!!

 

[Cyrus the Great]

 

[doggieslover]

this post has little to add to the discussion yet:
I wonder if any of you have ever been fully satisfied with the results of your reasoning? I ask this to myself because in my case, I was just led further and further into frustration (not by this thread but by reasoning). Nothing made sense, for a long time, the existence of God or His non-existence. Very soon everything became meaningless

Then I realised I had begun reasoning all wrong, I had begun from Dante, who led me all astray. Ignore Dante, you might find yourselves enlightened

 

[BradCube]

there's the problem - I want to move away from this notion, as you're relying on an element of faith. I'm looking for proof.

This wasn't the original question Cookie182 posed to me though. He was asking whether faith is still necessary for a christian believer that feels warranted in his beliefs based on natural theology (that is, naturalistic proofs of Gods existence).

 

[BradCube]

It uses some pretty weak examples. For instance:

We're standing atop the Grand Canyon and someone asks, "Is there a
fly way down there?" After a quick glance I say, "No, I see none. There is no
fly down there."
As in the last example we move from "I see none" to "There is none" but
unlike the last example the conclusion is unjustied. Agnosticism regarding
the fly is the appropriate response here.

This is not analogous to the god problem.

There is in fact evidence that there may be flies in the grand canyon even if we can't see them.

The evidence being that we can observe flies in diverse locations all over the earth, so there is a good chance there are some flies buzzing around the grand canyon.

The issue is not whether there "may" be flies but whether there is. The whole point of the example is to show a case where we are not in an epistemic position from which we can positively affirm the non-existence of an object or entity.

You say that there is a "good chance there are some flies buzzing around the grand canyon" but this misses the point because you're now positively affirming the existence of an entity and not dis-affirming as atheism does. Aside from this, I think your extending the analogy a bit too far. Feel free to replace fly with any object really (ie a golf ball, goat's horn). The point of the example is simply to show that there are cases where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because we are not in a epistemically viable position to know or assert this.

There is no evidence that god exists in any shape or form whatsoever. So it is more like asking, are their fairies in the Grand Canyon?

We can not be sure that there are no fairies without checking the entire canyon, but we have absolutely no reason to believe that there are fairies, so the most sensible way to behave is to proceed as though there are no fairies.

This position is debatable within itself. There are a variety of arguments (and various versions of these arguments) within natural theology. Lets suppose you are right and all arguments from natural theology provide no inclination whatsoever to lean on the side of theism. Unless you are in an epistemically viable position to asses God's existence, then I still don't think you you can move beyond agnosticism - you would have no warrant for the claim you are making.

This does vary from fairies though since we are in a position to asses their existence. Now let me qualify this - you say, "we cannot be sure that there are no fairies without checking the whole canyon" - this implies that in other previous situations we are able check whether they exist and have found that they don't. This fact will count toward a positive dis-affirmation of their existence in the canyon unless we have some counter reason to think that fairies are more likely to exist in the grand canyon (which we don't).

However, this is different in the case of God where you are not proposing any positive reasons for dis-affirming Gods existence - you're simply claiming a lack of positive evidence for God's existence.

I basically agree with the following part, but it only weakens the case for god:

Evidence Expectation Criterion. If an object O existed, then
we would expect there to be evidence for it.

Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of
object O, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.

In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of some-
thing O only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that
O exists but in fact lack it.

If god wants us to obey certain rules or live a certain way, surely he would provide us with evidence of his existence so we would know to follow his rules. Therefore, we would expect to find evidence of such a god.

If there is a god, but he is not interested in laying down rules of guidelines as to how to live, then we may indeed expect to find no evidence of such a god, but since this god has left us entirely to our own devices it is as if he does not exist while we are alive anyway, so there is little point worrying about whether such a god exists or not. Hence we're back to agnosticism or effectively atheism depending how you define it.

At maximum we are back at agnostism - which means you agree that you cannot positively affirm the non-existence of God.

Also consider the sentiment in your top statement. This is also debatable - for example, I maintain that there is sufficient evidence to come to a belief in Gods existence. Also consider the view that God may be more interested in forming a genuine relationship with a person than simply convincing them of His existence. This could explain some of the hiddenness of God in that he may prefer to create a world in which he draws people to himself and they genuinely seek after him.

Every religion in existence has the hallmarks of being created by humans. They all profess that god wants us to believe certain things, but conveniently will provide no tangible evidence of his existence, and justify this lack of evidence with the idea that he is testing our faith or some such nonsense which is totally incompatible with an infinitely compassionate, loving god.

You haven't shown any logical contradiction between a God testing ones faith and being compassionate and loving. If it's totally incompatible, give us some reasons why. Nevertheless, I'm confused as to what sort of evidence you are expecting to find from what is proposed to be an immaterial entity/mind.

 

[GodLovesIsrael]

The modern Barbarian

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

The issue is not whether there "may" be flies but whether there is. The whole point of the example is to show a case where we are not in an epistemic position from which we can positively affirm the non-existence of an object or entity.

I am fully aware of this. The counterpoint I was making which you have missed is that often we make decisions based on imperfect information.

We can not be certain if many things are true or not. But we can make a reasonable estimate based on available information.

So in the case of the flies, we can say there is a good chance there are flies, based on previous experience with similar areas where flies have been observed.

But with pixies, or other things we have never observed like god, there is no reason to think they exist. We can aknowledge the possibility that they might exist, but we have no good reason for behaving as though they do.

At maximum we are back at agnostism - which means you agree that you cannot positively affirm the non-existence of God.

Ok sure. Call it agnosticism. I use (along with many people) use athiesm to mean the lack of any serious consideration that there may be a god, as opposed to being certain that there is no god.

The point is not that we can't disprove god. Of course we can't because it is set up in such a way that it is not falsifiable.

So it is no stronger than a belief in pixies or Santa Clause or the flying spaghetti monster. Therefore, we have no good reason to actively believe in any of these things, even though it is sensible to acknowledge the possibility that they might exist. You ignored this part of the post.

Also consider the sentiment in your top statement. This is also debatable - for example, I maintain that there is sufficient evidence to come to a belief in Gods existence.

Such as? What evidence is there for a god that is stronger than the evidence for pixies? More importantly, what evidence is their for any particular god like the Christian god?

Also consider the view that God may be more interested in forming a genuine relationship with a person than simply convincing them of His existence. This could explain some of the hiddenness of God in that he may prefer to create a world in which he draws people to himself and they genuinely seek after him.

You haven't shown any logical contradiction between a God testing ones faith and being compassionate and loving. If it's totally incompatible, give us some reasons why. Nevertheless, I'm confused as to what sort of evidence you are expecting to find from what is proposed to be an immaterial entity/mind.

The contradiction is that if god is infinately compassionate, he would not allow people to suffer immense pain from something as simple as a lack of basic information.

Without even interfering with free will he could simply give us a sign or send us a profit that does miracles (as he supposedly did in the bible) to tell us to stop murdering each other, and allowing thousands of children to die in agony each day from starvation and preventable illnesses.

 

[BradCube]

Logic is useful. We can use it to make trucks, and hats and spoons. It's effectiveness is confirmed by empirical observations, which can be repeatedly tested and confirmed.

Christianity serves no such purpose.

Empirical usefulness has nothing to do with how we know logic to be logical. In fact, even making a connection between somethings truth value and it's usefulness requires some sort of deductive logic. I'm lost as to how usefulness relates to warrant for knowledge.

This is just a dressed up circular argument; the bible is confirmed by the holy spirit, the holy spirit is confirmed by the bible. Neither are confirmed by observable evidence.

The argument doesn't rely on the bible as proof of the Holy Spirit though. It's stating that the Holy Spirit provides self-authentication.

Granted it is a basic belief or foundation point like logic, but why should we give it anymore weight than any other beliefs that could be formulated in such a way.

eg. the good old flying spaghetti monster. Our belief in the FSM confirms that pirateology is true.

The original question I was examining with Cookie182 was the interaction of faith for the already christian believer. Keeping that in mind, it means that we are not trying to argue that such a system is true, but that if true, it provides warrant for the Christian in believing in Gods existence. The Christian of course does believe that it is true, but it's hardly demonstrative or testable to a non-believer.

Your objection is essentially known as the "Great Pumpkin Objection". There is a brief summary of Plantiga's response on Wikipedia:

Another common objection, is known as the "Great Pumpkin Objection". Plantinga (1983) states the objection as follows:

It is tempting to raise the following sort of question. If belief in God can be properly basic, why cannot just any belief be properly basic? Could we not say the same for any bizarre aberration we can think of? What about voodoo or astrology? What about the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween? Could I properly take that as basic? Suppose I believe that if I flap my arms with sufficient vigor, I can take off and fly about the room; could I defend myself against the charge of irrationality by claiming this belief is basic? If we say that belief in God is properly basic, will we not be committed to holding that just anything, or nearly anything, can properly be taken as basic, thus throwing wide the gates to irrationalism and superstition? (p. 74)

In short, the Great Pumpkin Objection states that Reformed epistemology is so liberal that it allows belief in any sort of far-fetched entity to be justified as simply foundational or basic. Someone might, for example, take as basic the belief that the Great Pumpkin is all-powerful, just as the Reformed epistemologist takes a similar belief in God as basic. Perhaps the belief is grounded in an experiential belief, such as Plantinga (1993b) describes. Thus, the objection intends to show that there must be something wrong with Reformed epistemology if it allows belief in the Great Pumpkin to be warranted as basic.

Plantinga's answer to this is that the objection simply assumes that the criteria for "proper basicality" propounded by Classical Foundationalism (self-evidence, incorrigibility, and sense-perception) are the only possible criteria for properly basic beliefs. It is as if the Great Pumpkin objector feels that if properly basic beliefs not be arrived at by way of one of these criteria, then it follows that just 'any' belief could then be properly basic, precisely because there are no other criteria. But, Plantinga says it simply doesn't follow from the rejection of Classical Foundationalist criteria, that all possibility for criteria has been exhausted, and this is exactly what the Great Pumpkin objection assumes.

Plantinga takes his counter-argument further, asking how the GP objector "knows" that such criteria are the only criteria. The objector certainly seems to hold it as 'basic' that the Classical Foundationalist criteria are all that is available. Yet, such a claim is neither self-evident, incorrigible, nor evident to the senses. This rebuts the Great Pumpkin objection by demonstrating the Classical Foundationalist position to be internally incoherent, propounding an epistemic position which it itself does not follow.

In all honesty if your wanting to go into this topic deeper, you're going to have to read the material available. I've only just started looking into this and am not looking to provide a defense of it (as I noted to Cookie in my original post). I simply haven't done enough reading to provide you with cogent answers.

One can make infinite claims of this nature, and the multitude of religions which you yourself are atheistic in regard to is testament to this.

This sort of statement I have never really understood - that is calling theists atheists because they disagree with certain conceptions of God. Who started this trend? Hitchens?

 

[BradCube]

I am fully aware of this. The counterpoint I was making which you have missed is that often we make decisions based on imperfect information.

We can not be certain if many things are true or not. But we can make a reasonable estimate based on available information.

The whole purpose of the example though is that we shouldn't always make decisions or assert beliefs when we are not in a viable epistemic position to do so - we should be free to confess "I don't know". Part of the problem is that you've taken the example further than it was meant to be taken so lets use another from the essay.

The zookeeper might have asked you on your zoo trip, "Do you think an elephant is in the cage in the next room?" to which your reply might be agnosticism: "I have no idea. Maybe."

In the case above it is a little more clear that we don't have any information to go on (as we may have had with the fly one previously). Naturally our response should be "I don't know" since we are not in the epistemic position necessary to make such a reasoned belief.

But with pixies, or other things we have never observed like god, there is no reason to think they exist. We can aknowledge the possibility that they might exist, but we have no good reason for behaving as though they do.

Again, I think we do have reasons for proposing Gods existence, but putting this aside for the moment, the reason we positively dis-affirm the existence of pixie's (+ santa clause and the like) is because we do know what evidence we should expect to see, but do not find any. ie we would expect to observe pixie dust, small footprints in the dirt etc.

Ok sure. Call it agnosticism. I use (along with many people) use athiesm to mean the lack of any serious consideration that there may be a god, as opposed to being certain that there is no god.

I would call your use of the term "atheism" agnosticism in disguise. I honestly don't understand why you guys want to muddy the waters by calling yourselves atheist's when your beliefs go no further than agnosticism.

The point is not that we can't disprove god. Of course we can't because it is set up in such a way that it is not falsifiable.

You could show that various conceptions of God are false if you were able to point out contradictions within various doctrines or any incoherency regarding the actual character of that God. People try to do this all the time (ie, an argument from suffering).

So it is no stronger than a belief in pixies or Santa Clause or the flying spaghetti monster. Therefore, we have no good reason to actively believe in any of these things, even though it is sensible to acknowledge the possibility that they might exist. You ignored this part of the post.

As I have maintained, we have good reasons to actively disbelieve in things such as fairies, Santa clause etc (ie the lack of a present building factory at the north pole, the lack of reindeer that fly, sleighs etc), whereas we have no such reasons to dis-affirm God's existence (none that you have provided anyway). Not only that but I think there are arguments which give us good reason to think that God probably does exist.

Such as? What evidence is there for a god that is stronger than the evidence for pixies? More importantly, what evidence is their for any particular god like the Christian god?

There are plenty of arguments from natural theology, ie:

Cosmological Arguments
Teleological Arguments
Moral Arguments
Arguments from Consciousness
Arguments from Reason
Arguments from Evil
Arguments from Religious Experience (ie Reformed Epistemology)
Ontological Arguments
Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

Of course, I am not familiar with all of these (it would be a lifetimes work) but I am familar with the intricacies of a few. Nevertheless, arguments are out there if you're keen enough to work through them.

The contradiction is that if god is infinitely compassionate, he would not allow people to suffer immense pain from something as simple as a lack of basic information.

Why not? Again, you haven't shown any explicit contradiction here, so there must be something implicit. Would you be able to put your reasoning into logical form so we can address the premises more readily? At the moment it pretty much says:

1. If god is infinitely compassionate, he would not allow people to suffer immense pain from a lack of basic information
2. People suffer immense pain from a lack of basic information
3. Therefore, God is not infinitely compassionate.

(1) is so ambiguous at the moment that you should flesh it out into why god would not allow immense pain if he is infinitely compassionate. At the moment I could simply say that greater compassion is shown through allowing people to form a genuine relationship through the "seeking process".

Without even interfering with free will he could simply give us a sign or send us a profit that does miracles (as he supposedly did in the bible) to tell us to stop murdering each other, and allowing thousands of children to die in agony each day from starvation and preventable illnesses.

Under Christian doctrine, God's primary purpose is not to get us to believe in His existence, but for us to have a personal relationship with him. It could be that miraculous signs etc will not result in a greater amount of people saved. Added to this God may also prioritize creating a world in which there is moral responsibility - and so the fire that warms you is the fire that burns you - preventable illness goes unchecked because people choose to not prevent it etc.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Again, I think we do have reasons for proposing Gods existence, but putting this aside for the moment, the reason we positively dis-affirm the existence of pixie's (+ santa clause and the like) is because we do know what evidence we should expect to see, but do not find any. ie we would expect to observe pixie dust, small footprints in the dirt etc.

incorret, the reason we 'dis-affirm' claims about the existence of fairys, 'god', etc is because they are unfalsifiable, there is no piece of evidence I could present to you that would result in you rejecting your 'faith' (A definition very similar to self-indoctrination). Much of the confusion about the existence of God boils down to the fact it is a 'nothing' statment, 'God' can mean anything, whereas 'santa claus' has a fairly concrete definiton.
What do you mean by 'God' Bradcube? Does it listen to your prayers? occasionaly suspend the laws of natures? i.e; is it a thiestic God...now if it is, your wrong in asserting we have reason to believe in 'it', but if your notion of God is some vaporish 'force for love' or someshit, then of course you can claim you have some 'reason' to beleive in it..

I would call your use of the term "atheism" agnosticism in disguise. I honestly don't understand why you guys want to muddy the waters by calling yourselves atheist's when your beliefs go no further than agnosticism.

Athiest just means you are not a theist. done.

You could show that various conceptions of God are false if you were able to point out contradictions within various doctrines or any incoherency regarding the actual character of that God. People try to do this all the time (ie, an argument from suffering).

Hahahah..i really pity your mind if you havent realised that the argument for God derives its entire strengh on the fact it can never be falsified, or contradicted, or whatever.
Why? because, again, no variation of God is a clearly defined entity.
And what would be the point of trying to pick out say passages of the bible that contradict, the cult members will just say thats because it is just an 'interpretation' or something..and God 'moves in mysterious ways'...

As I have maintained, we have good reasons to actively disbelieve in things such as fairies, Santa clause etc (ie the lack of a present building factory at the north pole, the lack of reindeer that fly, sleighs etc), whereas we have no such reasons to dis-affirm God's existence (none that you have provided anyway). Not only that but I think there are arguments which give us good reason to think that God probably does exist.

WOW UR LOGIC IS SHIT, FUCK YOUR AN IDIOT

There are plenty of arguments from natural theology, ie:

Cosmological Arguments
Teleological Arguments
Moral Arguments
Arguments from Consciousness
Arguments from Reason
Arguments from Evil
Arguments from Religious Experience (ie Reformed Epistemology)
Ontological Arguments
Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

Of course, I am not familiar with all of these (it would be a lifetimes work) but I am familar with the intricacies of a few. Nevertheless, arguments are out there if you're keen enough to work through them.

okay and their are plenty of arguments from natural fairyology, ie:

Magical Wand Arguments
Pixie dust Arguments
Arguments from Invisibility
Arguments from Reason
Arguments from Seedy Men In Cars With Lollies (Ontological Arguments)
Arguments from Consitpated Men on the Toliet (ie Reformed Epistemology)
Arguments for the Resurrection of Peter Pan

Of course, I am not familiar with all of these (it would be a lifetimes work) but I am familar with the intricacies of a few (especially the second last). Nevertheless, arguments are out there if you're keen enough to work through them.

Under Christian doctrine, God's primary purpose is not to get us to believe in His existence, but for us to have a personal relationship with him. It could be that miraculous signs etc will not result in a greater amount of people saved. Added to this God may also prioritize creating a world in which there is moral responsibility - and so the fire that warms you is the fire that burns you - preventable illness goes unchecked because people choose to not prevent it etc.

Gods primary purpose is for us to have a relationship with him?
what utterly bizarre downright non-sense.
You think Gods PRIMARY purpose is to have a relatioship with YOU, that it cares about YOU
Have your seriously not taken a step back and thought about the logical consequencess of such a statement, I mean, why did not God just zap everyone into a nice room to begin with? he can have a great relationship with them? why put all those animals throught millenium of poverty and violence? what kind of sick fantasy is this?
It's so hilariously obvious that you are engaged in WISHTHINKING, thats right, your pathetic little mind has latched itself onto some shitty little logical fallacy in some weird attempt to give your life 'meaning'.
what an utter fail.

 

[SylviaB]

ffs you guys



agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism

 

[CecilyMare]

I don't know if this has been covered before (and most likely not because I'm so original ) but who cares whether God exists or not? You might as well be more specific and ask what proof is there that God is such an attention-seeker, a control freak, or what proof there is that there's a heaven and hell and whatnot. But you didn't ask that. For all we know, he might even be dead.

And for those atheists bashing Christians, not everything is a science experiment that requires scientific evidence. It's called faith, although I do think it's quite ridiculous from the perspective of an agnostic. But then again, I think it's ridiculous that people have the need to bash others for the mere sake of being hopeful that there is a utopian afterlife after having led such a shitty life on Earth.

I think that people believe that there is a God because it's quite obvious there is something metaphysical out there, and in us. Think about how unlikely it would be for us to turn out like this, if not for a particular design by a particular someone, and just by pure random evolutionary chance.

 

[KFunk]

Why is there no discovery of such things?

Again - parables?