Why Don't You Believe In God [Archive]

voidx

6th August 2009, 09:47 PM

I think your question in general hits to the very root of the problem. The deep ingrained concept of God and Belief in God.

You define your atheism around that very question, meaning the thought process goes like this:
- I'm an Atheist
- That means I don't believe in God
- I don't believe in God because....

There's an assumption there that you must have a solid validation of why you DON'T believe in God in order to justify your atheism.

You give the conception of God more merit that it deserves. Almost as though it were the default position, or something you MUST address it successfully in order to be confident in your atheism. So far as I can see it, this is completely backwards.

Some call it semantics, but to me, I don't like being called an Atheist even. When someone brings up the topic of God, and my opinion on it, I usually reply that, "Well your a theist. I'm not. Explain to me why your a theist?" So far as I can see it, I've nothing to explain to anyone, because I'm not POSITING anything extra. I'm not inserting anything into the gaps of our existing knowledge.

The default position should always be humble ignorance. And we should then move to quantify our reality from that stand point. This means someone positing a God is adding an extra variable to that reality, and the onus is on them to justify doing so.

autumn1971

6th August 2009, 10:01 PM

I was raised as a Lutheran, Missouri Synod, and my confirmation process was the deciding factor in my questioning theism. I had to attend bi-weekly classes after school for two years to learn about the Lutheran (Missouri Synod) faith. This was in the seventh and eighth grades. Pastors in this denomination, as in most non-charismatic denominations, are required to actually be scholars. They have advanced degrees in theology, and know the ancient languages and modern Biblical criticism. My pastor happened to be a little bit too good a teacher to not mention things like the gospels being written so long after Jesus' supposed life, and Moses obviously not being the author of the pentad. When I listened to him preaching, however, I realized that he turned off his "teaching" mode, and turned on an implicit blind faith. Never did the congregation hear that "Matthew" wasn't the author of Matthew, indeed, he seemed to imply that the two were one. And here he was saying that "Moses tells us in Deuteronomy", when he knows that Moses was long dead (if he existed in the first place) and that Deuteronomy was a leader's attempt to give his own vanities the imprint of God's Will.
Since I was already very science-loving, I realized that the gaps which I was hiding God in were quickly squeezing shut, and I started to simply allow myself to ask the basic alternative: "what if god does not exist?"
It works better to explain more.

HansMustermann

7th August 2009, 12:48 AM

Or an omnipresent, powerful, indifferent God.

I can conceive of a god that's believable to me, but it often boils down to god = the universe, and the theists tell me that's not what they have in mind, and the atheists tell me that definition is "useless", so it's easier to just say I don't believe in God.

But it really depends on how you define it.

The problem is that that's not how the Abrahamic god is described. Both Spinoza's God (which really is a fancy way to say you're an atheist) and a deist god are easy to rationalize. But when a Christian tries to "save your soul", that's not the kind of god he preaches. That's a god that got involved up to his ears at times.

Most people don't believe in gods that don't care and don't do anything. People of all ages really needed at least that illusion that there's a big daddy or mommy in the skies that can override the laws of physics just because they asked very nicely. They wanted to believe that sacrificing to the great boar spirit will help them hunt boar, or that praying real hard to Osiris will actually affect the Nile, or that praying to Inanna will somehow guide their arrows and give them personal force-fields against the enemy's arrows.

The idea of a God Lite that just sits there and does nothing, and is fully indifferent to what happens in this world, is a very recent thing. And you'll find that its followers tend to be mostly among the philosophically inclined. Almost everyone else does need that big daddy they can pray for favours to.

7th August 2009, 12:58 AM

There is no evidence he does exist.
and many claims made by belivers turned out to be wrong and science is starting answering questions in a reasonable way supported by evidence and sane theorys etc. instead of repeating, God did it and God moves in mysterious ways.

i honestly belive, beliving in Unicorns is far more sane. They sound far more realistic than most peoples God.

Dr Adequate

7th August 2009, 02:51 AM

The problem of evil. Direct from Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If God is able to prevent evil, but is not willing, then he is malevolent.
If God is neither able nor willing, why call him God?
If God is both willing and able, whence comes evil? That is not exactly direct from Epicurus.

The version most often quoted is from David Hume's Dialogues (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm):

Epicurus's old questions are yet unanswered.

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

Nothing in Epicurus's surviving works contains the Riddle, though so much of his work has been lost that something like it might have occurred in his writings. The reasoning is attributed to Epicurus by the Christian writer Lactantius:

You see, then, that we need wisdom much more on account of evils. Unless these had been set before us, we would not be rational animals. And if this reasoning is true, then that argument of Epicurus is refuted. “God,” he says, “either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak – and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god’s nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?” I know that most of the philosophers who defend Providence are commonly shaken by this argument and against their wills are almost driven to admit that god does not care, which is exactly what Epicurus is looking for. --- Lactantius, On the Anger of God, 13.19

From this quotation, and from looking at Epicurus's own views, we can see that Epicurus himself was not arguing for atheism. Epicurus believed that there was a God, but that a perfect being would never be troubled by anything, and would therefore never wish to intervene.

chillzero

7th August 2009, 03:16 AM

I think everlasting life is a good reason to believe or, perhaps more accurately, to want God to exist.

Everlasting life is only a reason to believe, if there's evidence of such. Which there is not.
It may be a reason to want to believe, but that's really not the same thing at all.

For myself, I don't think I actually have reasons not to believe in god ... being a skeptic I have no evidential reasons to believe in one.

BobG

7th August 2009, 03:41 AM

The default position should always be humble ignorance. And we should then move to quantify our reality from that stand point. This means someone positing a God is adding an extra variable to that reality, and the onus is on them to justify doing so.

I agree with everything that you said. The only problem is that, although the concept of God is not my default position, it is the default position of society!

Also, when you put the onus on the theist to justify his position, he does so in a half baked and totally illogical method eventually resorting to "faith".

I suppose many would take the attitude "You shouldn't care. Let them think what they want in their own ignorance". This bothers me because we have an obligation to try to instill some intelligence in society so when we get these absurd responses, we need answers.

Bob

BobG

7th August 2009, 03:52 AM

The idea of a God Lite that just sits there and does nothing, and is fully indifferent to what happens in this world, is a very recent thing. And you'll find that its followers tend to be mostly among the philosophically inclined. Almost everyone else does need that big daddy they can pray for favours to.

Does God lite have a consciousness? Does he know that he exists? Or is this a copout such as "God equals the laws of Physics"?

I do believe that this is what many people think which is ok with me. However, as I stated in a previous post, these people are counted as believers in the Judao/Christian God in surveys taken on the belief in God.

This is very misleading and leads to a much higher percentage of people who believe in the Judao/Christian God.

Bob

BobG

7th August 2009, 03:59 AM

and many claims made by belivers turned out to be wrong and science is starting answering questions in a reasonable way supported by evidence and sane theorys etc. instead of repeating, God did it and God moves in mysterious ways.

First, let me compliment you on you avatar. But I think that Bush deserves much more credit for the crimes committed by his administration in the name of "peace".

If anybody comments on this I'm not going to respond. I'm having enough trouble keeping up with the main premise of this post!

That said, in my opinion, God is simply an explanation for what science does not know. As time progresses, science explains more and more as God explains less and less.

The problem here is that science will never explain everything. Therefore, for those that need everything explained, God will always be necessary.

I don't have a problem with what we do not know! Theists do!

Bob

7th August 2009, 04:14 AM

First, let me compliment you on you avatar. But I think that Bush deserves much more credit for the crimes committed by his administration in the name of "peace".

If anybody comments on this I'm not going to respond. I'm having enough trouble keeping up with the main premise of this post!

That said, in my opinion, God is simply an explanation for what science does not know. As time progresses, science explains more and more as God explains less and less.

The problem here is that science will never explain everything. Therefore, for those that need everything explained, God will always be necessary.

I don't have a problem with what we do not know! Theists do!

Bob

thats exactly what i think when im confroonted with belivers that come up with "God did it". it actually means, i dont know.

i also prefer an honest, i dont know. we cannot answer that one yet.

HansMustermann

7th August 2009, 04:30 AM

Does God lite have a consciousness? Does he know that he exists? Or is this a copout such as "God equals the laws of Physics"?

It depends on the exact brand of God Lite. "Spinoza's God" does equal the laws of physics, most deist gods do not.

I do believe that this is what many people think which is ok with me. However, as I stated in a previous post, these people are counted as believers in the Judao/Christian God in surveys taken on the belief in God.

This is very misleading and leads to a much higher percentage of people who believe in the Judao/Christian God.

Bob

My own impression is somewhat the opposite.

Yes, most people proclaiming themselves as catholics or protestants or whatnot, are not what they think. Most IMHO are really adepts of some earlier heresy, they just don't realize it. E.g., my subjective impression would put Arianism in top spot, followed closely by Pelagianism. Though a good case can be made for other heresies too. E.g., it's funny to see self-proclaimed Catholics espouse essentially Marcionism, without even realizing that they're really talking _against_ one of the fundamental Catholic doctrines.

But my impression is that nevertheless they do believe in a God that intervenes. I.e., if they declare themselves Christians in a poll, well, it's close enough. They're christian heretics, but nevertheless christians at heart.

As I was saying, deism and "Spinoza's god" seem to me more like the flavour among the philosophically-inclined elites. It doesn't even include most college graduates. The average Joe Sixpack doesn't explore that topic in enough depth to come up with Spinoza's God, that is, if he even explores it at all. He'll have a superficial and wrong enough idea about his own religion to qualify as a heresy, but he still believe in a God and a Jesus and that they interfere in the universe's workings all the time.

Fiona

7th August 2009, 04:51 AM

I agree with everything that you said. The only problem is that, although the concept of God is not my default position, it is the default position of society!

Not really. Perhaps that is the default position where you live, but it is not here.

And that is part of the problem, which you have already touched on. What does a person mean when they say they are a theist? It depends on context, to some extent. Christianity in the western world is a religious AND a political institution: and the balance is different at different times. One consequence of that is that it is in the interest of the church to maximise its claimed adherents, since that is the power base which legitimises its influence. Thus you cannot readily remove yourself from a count of catholics if you were baptised into that faith: you can reject all of the beliefs, but you still count as a catholic when the church claims to speak for X percent of the population. You are just cannon fodder in the battle for power, really

One instance I have mentioned before is the comparison of the census results for england and scotland since devolution. It happens that enquiry about religious affiliation is included in both: but there is a difference in the way the question is framed: in england only one question was asked: what is your religion. 77% said they had a religion of one sort or another.

In scotland two questions were asked: what is your current religion AND what was your religion of upbringing. 74% said they were brought up in a religion but only 67% said they had a current religion. There is no way of telling if there is a real difference between the two countries in terms of genuine belief: but it is very interesting to note the difference when that distinction is offered.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20757/53570

Another thing which is difficult to sort out is the impact of tribalism. In this country we have a historic problem of sectarianism similar to that which obtains in northern ireland (though arguably less severe) and for similar reasons. What that means is that cultural identity is tied to professed religion and for many that profession does not mean anything at all in terms of religious practice. Thus you get what I call "cradle catholics". They are neatly summed up in something one said to me: "if you are born a catholic you die a catholic: nothing you do makes any difference to that". For such people religion is something you ARE, not something you BELIEVE: it is a tribal marker mainly. Such a person will respond to a question about religion by saying they are catholic: in cultural terms they are entirely right. But they are not religious in any sense that you or I might understand it. If I meet such a person I can say with fair certainty what football team they support: but I cannot say at all whether they go to church. If I am introduced to someone I can say, with better than chance results, whether they are likely to be a cradle catholic, once I know their name: but I now nothing at all about whether they are actively religious. This phenomenon is not teased out in any of the census questions but it is a powerful thread in my country. It distorts the perception of what the incidence of religion actually is and for these reasons I do not accept that the default position is religious.

It might be that a better way to measure true religiosity in society is to look at church attendance:

http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php

Not so good really. 15% go to church at least once a month. Now you will see from that site that it is claimed that far more are religious but "de-churched" and that might be correct. My own impression (and I cannot evidence it) is that many will say they believe "in something": since that belief has no apparent implications for their behaviour I am quite simply inclined to the view that this is not true: I think it is just much easier to say that than to admit to complete indifference. I think people feel it makes them look rather shallow to say they don't care because there is quite a strong myth that these are the "big" questions and we should all take them seriously. I don't and to be honest I think that is true for many people.

Which brings me to another point. It is said that most people are religious in most places and at most times. I see no reason to believe that. It is certainly true that wars are fought over it and people are burned because of difference in religious opinion: so I do not mean to imply it has no significance. But if someone was to ask what do people really care about in the UK in 2009 I would have to say that judging from the media it seems that they are passionate about michael jackson. Is that really true? I don't think it is. How then are we to judge what people really cared about in times past? Religion is a power base and its importance is played up for those reasons: but ordinary people? Religious institutions was often the welfare state of its day and you had to say you believed to get any support: it was often the centre of community life and art and there was little else - in many villages for example the only public space was the church hall: the church provided what education was available. I could go on. My point is that there is no very strong reason to believe that most people were actively religious at all. They are not now and I cannot see why I should believe they used to be though I can see a lot of reasons why the story is told that way.

That is not to say that it is never a central feature: there are periods when most folk do seem to be devout. But it is very hard to be sure: war tends to be complicated and no single factor accounts for it: when a war is wanted difference between groups is promoted and religion is one such difference which can be used. The important fact is to define an "other" and "we want to grab the neighbours land" is not very respectable: where we can feel quite good about "doing god's will". Doesn't make it true, and reading soldiers' accounts of war tends to show that they seldom buy the big idea: that is more for domestic consumption." Dulce et Decorum Est" did not impress Wilfred Owen: I have no reason to suppose that "God on our side" did either.

Sorry for the long post but I think we should question whether the empty barrels who loudly proclaim the importance of religion are actually correct: perhaps they are but I am not convinced it is any more than unquestioned assumption

kedo1981

7th August 2009, 04:55 AM

The belief in things supernatural is a DELUSION

BobG

7th August 2009, 05:30 AM

One instance I have mentioned before is the comparison of the census results for england and scotland since devolution. It happens that enquiry about religious affiliation is included in both: but there is a difference in the way the question is framed: in england only one question was asked: what is your religion. 77% said they had a religion of one sort or another.

In scotland two questions were asked: what is your current religion AND what was your religion of upbringing. 74% said they were brought up in a religion but only 67% said they had a current religion. There is no way of telling if there is a real difference between the two countries in terms of genuine belief: but it is very interesting to note the difference when that distinction is offered.

Two countries?

I always though that you guys were from the country of Great Britain!

Bob

chillzero

7th August 2009, 06:10 AM

Two countries?

I always though that you guys were from the country of Great Britain!

Bob

There are 3 countries in Great Britain, and 4 in the United Kingdom.

Akhenaten

7th August 2009, 06:11 AM

Two countries?

I always though that you guys were from the country of Great Britain!

Bob

Wales is going to give you nightmares.

ETA: Beaten by a Gael?

drainbread

7th August 2009, 06:19 AM

A better question is "Why should I belive in god?".

I can never get a sufficient answer from religious folk and always ends in threats of hell.

Mashuna

7th August 2009, 06:21 AM

Wales is going to give you nightmares.

It's not that bad here. We've got mountains, and sheep, and Torchwood.

Marduk

7th August 2009, 06:24 AM

Just to play devil's advocate: That doesn't rule out an omnipresent, powerful, evil God.

cha ching, suddenly youre a pantheist ?
:D

Marduk

7th August 2009, 06:26 AM

It's not that bad here. We've got mountains, and sheep, and Torchwood.
Torchwood casting is horrific, it gives me nightmares
:D

porch

7th August 2009, 06:33 AM

Just to play devil's advocate: That doesn't rule out an omnipresent, powerful, evil God.

Excellent. And if we didn't know hope, we could never truly appreciate having our hopes crushed. If we never loved, we could never feel the loss, etc. And thus I refute the Problem of Good.

KingMerv00

7th August 2009, 06:19 PM

Excellent. And if we didn't know hope, we could never truly appreciate having our hopes crushed. If we never loved, we could never feel the loss, etc. And thus I refute the Problem of Good.

Heh.

Seriously though, I never bought that argument. One can have understand pleasure without pain. For example, eating a delicious meal is pleasurable. That doesn't mean not eating a delicious meal is painful.

supercorgi

7th August 2009, 06:33 PM

Safe-Keeper

7th August 2009, 07:05 PM

No evidence. In order to believe in something, I need to be told why. I'm not going to believe something exists if someone basically tells me there's no evidence to be had, but that the belief will make me feel better (which is basically what Christians mean when they talk about faith as if it was some grandiose virtue).

fishbob

7th August 2009, 07:34 PM

Why Don't You Believe In God

Got better things to do.

Thunder

7th August 2009, 07:40 PM

I do not doubt the possibility of an amazing yet to be discovered all-intelligent and all-powerful supernatural force that started the Universe and keeps things running.

But as to a father-figure God with a white beard that speaks Hebrew and makes everlasting Covenants to doll out parcels of land? Me no think so.

Thunder

7th August 2009, 07:41 PM

Got better things to do.

And that too.

Piercy

7th August 2009, 07:57 PM

I was always on the fence growing up, leaning towards not believing but telling myself I could never know for certain. In high school I had some important tests one day and seriously prayed as a last ditch effort and he didn't come through for me, he didn't even help a little bit.

Now in university being an open non believer, I have never been happier.

Piggy

7th August 2009, 08:07 PM

In a nutshell....

Either God interacts with this universe in some way, or it does not.

If it does not, then it is meaningless to claim that God "exists" or is "real".

If it does, then it either corresponds with what is known about our universe, or it does not.

If it does, then it is merely the same as the physical universe, in which case it is not God.

If it does not, then it is contrary to fact, which means claims of its existence are false.

Ergo, God does not exist.

Towlie

7th August 2009, 08:34 PM

In an even smaller nutshell, "The Universe could not possibly work like that."

From Life, the Universe, and Everything, by Douglas Adams

FramerDave

7th August 2009, 09:03 PM

Folks,

I don't believe in God and I'd like to know all the possible reasons supporting my position.

Let me begin by articulating my main reason for being an atheist.

The usual definition of God alleges that he is all powerful and simultaneously present everywhere in the universe. I have no problem with the "simultaneously present everywhere in the universe"; however, I have a major problem with the "all powerful".

If it is true that God is all powerful, then he has the ability to stop the pain and suffering that so many earthlings undergo on this earth. I am talking about the baby that has been horribly burned and is going through excruciating pain, and the soldier who is captured and tortured by ripping his flesh off one inch at a time. I could go on with a multitude of other stomach turning examples of what happens everyday on this good earth.

A being that has the power to stop suffering of this magnitude has to be horribly sadistic to let it continue. The thought of a sadist of this caliber having the power of life and death over me is more frightening than I can bear.

To be at peace with myself and the world, God must not exist.

Bob Guercio

Many reasons I suppose, and I could probably write pages. Since it's late I'll try to be brief for my own sake.

Like you, I have a very difficult time reconciling a god who is describes as all-loving and omnipotent who allows so much suffering in the world. And don't give me that BS about it building character, or being a part of "His plan" or it's just His will. I cannot possibly conceive of what sort of lesson is to be learned or what good can come of children starving, being raped or otherwise horribly abused. I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer from a believer.

No evidence. Faith is belief without evidence, but that's not good enough for me. The miracle of a baby? Atheists reproduce. Animals who have no conception of a deity reproduce. Slugs reproduce. Every advance and every bit of new knowledge about our world and the universe makes a creator less and less necessary.

The Bible, the unerring Word of God, is rife with errors and contradictions.

How many people have been killed in the name of God, Allah and other gods?

His followers are some of the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth. I have seen more hate spewed from the religious than from all atheists combined.

And so on...

Hokulele

7th August 2009, 09:06 PM

Why Don't You Believe in God

I have no need of one.

Jeff Corey

7th August 2009, 09:33 PM

And it's more trouble than it's worth.

Akhenaten

7th August 2009, 11:29 PM

Wales is going to give you nightmares.

It's not that bad here. We've got mountains, and sheep, and Torchwood.

Torchwood casting is horrific, it gives me nightmares
:D

The prosecution rests.

HghrSymmetry

8th August 2009, 12:31 AM

Complete definition failure.
No one seems able to describe what this entity is.

When you ask for a definition, usually people tell you what it does (ie: created the universe).

That however, isn't the question. In other words, when asking for a description of a car and you get "people mover"...well that isn't describing what the car is, it's describing its function. Then an escalator, airplane, avalanche, bicycle, train, legs, etc...would also be a "car."

A consistent, logical, non contradictory definition has never been produced.

Thus "god" is just a three letter vocalization without meaning.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in meaningless terms.

Mashuna

8th August 2009, 01:44 AM

peatar

8th August 2009, 03:33 AM

I generally go with citing lack of evidence.

But there always seems to be a wool-head just around the corner ready to jump out and proclaim that, really, it's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of faith!

To which I ask: And where's the evidence that faith is a "valid form of knowledge"?

I don't think I've ever seen even an attempt to honestly answer that question.

gumboot

8th August 2009, 04:04 AM

I believe in God. God is a mythological fictional entity usually characterised as immortal, with substantial or often unlimited power.

I also believe in dragons (mythological winged reptile) and Frodo Baggins (fictional protagonist of a popular 20th Century novel).

If you mean "Why do you believe in God's existence?"

The answer is simple:

"Because God doesn't exist."

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:17 AM

True but it certainly contradicts the concept that god is all loving which most modern religions profess.

I'm really not sure they do. Christianity does, but Christianity has always been about a merciful, loving God - or at least this was the message of Jesus of Nazareth. Eastern religions generally have a concept of God which is neither good nor bad and Islam and Judaism are both fear-based. Islam is about absolute submission to God and the Islamic system, Judaism is all "Repent!"

Why don't I believe in God? Well, I do believe in some sort of God, but there's hundreds of versions of the concept of God which do not correspond to anything I believe in. The reason is that those versions of God are either self-contradictory (e.g. the God who gave us free will but also knows exactly what we are going to do), or they directly contradict science (e.g. the God who literally made the world in seven days), or they suggest some sort of entity which Occam's razor should remove (e.g. the complex, intelligent designer God which is in need of an explanation of the origin of its own design.)

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:33 AM

The problem of evil. Direct from Epicurus:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If God is able to prevent evil, but is not willing, then he is malevolent.

There is a response to this. I am assuming "evil" refers to human-created evil and not natural disasters. The response is that maybe God is able to prevent such human-created evil but does not do so because to intervene in this way is to deny humans free will. The alternative to allowing the evil to take place is for God to run the whole of reality Itself, orchestrating all our actions in order to make everything run perfectly. If you think about this for a while, I think it is obvious that such a world would be much worse than this one. Sure, there'd be no human-created evil, but would you actually want to live in such a world? Given the choice, would you prefer to live in a Stepford-wives reality where nobody could do anything wrong or this flawed world where you have free choices but have to put up with the consequences of other people also having free choices?

So the answer is that a world where humans have free will is a better world than one where they don't, even though this means that humans can and will do evil things. It is not malevolent for God to allow this evil to exist, because the only logical alternative is even worse.

Having said all that, I'd still say that the problem of evil raises very serious questions which a lot of theists, especially Christians, have great difficulty in answering. Christianity has never been very good at making sure its concept of God is internally coherent.

BobG

8th August 2009, 04:37 AM

it's a matter of faith!

A ridiculous word invented to get around all sorts of absurdities in religion.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:43 AM

Secondly, it is politically incorrect to say that you don't believe in God. I've observed many times that upon the utterance of the words "I don't believe in God", people look at me like I have horns and a tail.

Thank God I don't live in Amerika. It's pretty much the other way around where I come from. Most Christians around here keep quiet about their religious beliefs, out of fear of being ridiculed. We do get mormons, 7th-day adventists and other weirdos knocking on our doors from time to time, but many of these are Americans. Maybe there's not enough atheists in the US, so they come here looking for fresh meat.

BobG

8th August 2009, 04:45 AM

The alternative to allowing the evil to take place is for God to run the whole of reality Itself, orchestrating all our actions in order to make everything run perfectly. If you think about this for a while, I think it is obvious that such a world would be much worse than this one.

This is predicated upon the present perspective of the human species or how the human brain and thinking system is presently designed.

God, being all powerful and perfect, could certainly have designed us so that we would truly love a perfect existence.

For anybody jumping into the middle of this thread, I don't believe in any of this ************. I'm just being philosophical!

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:47 AM

I agree with everything that you said. The only problem is that, although the concept of God is not my default position, it is the default position of society!

WHICH society? Not mine. In Europe, Christianity has been in decline for about the last 150 years. My city is full of churches which have been converted into flats and business centres. The default religious position of most of the population of north-west Europe isn't theism. It's apathy. Most people simply don't care.

BobG

8th August 2009, 04:50 AM

Maybe there's not enough atheists in the US, so they come here looking for fresh meat.

Which is another thing that bothers me about religion.

Trying to get others to convert to your religion implies that your religion is correct and superior to their's.

What arrogance!

However, this is not true of the Jews.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:53 AM

This is predicated upon the present perspective of the human species or how the human brain and thinking system is presently designed.

God, being all powerful and perfect, could certainly have designed us so that we would truly love a perfect existence.

But isn't this exactly like thinking it would be great to go to heaven? How could heaven be anything but the most boring place imaginable? As David Byrne once put it "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens." Nothing interesting, anyway.

I think it comes down to how sophisticated your concept of God/religion happens to be. I suspect most Christians don't sit down and think very hard about what it would be like to spend eternity in heaven, or what the world would be like if God was orchestrating everything to make sure nothing bad happened. I think that if they did, then even those Christians would have to admit that ceasing to exist is preferable to the interminable boredom of heaven and that living in a world where evil exists is preferable to living in a world where humans are physically incapable of doing anything wrong.

BobG

8th August 2009, 05:10 AM

WHICH society? Not mine. In Europe, Christianity has been in decline for about the last 150 years. My city is full of churches which have been converted into flats and business centres. The default religious position of most of the population of north-west Europe isn't theism. It's apathy. Most people simply don't care.

Let me be a little more precise about religious attitudes here in the colonies.

Except for the real whackos, for the most part people do not talk about religion. However, it is expected that everybody believes in God.
We could go years (sic) associating with the same people and the subject of religion may never come up. However, if it does come up and you need to declare your beliefs, it is polically correct to say that you believe in God. Otherwise, you are branded "evil and wicked".

Also, even though one's religion is not a common topic of conversation, their is a tremendous number fundies living among us.

Forty years ago there was a TV show called "The Invaders". The theme was that they came from a dying planet and were here to conquer the earth and use it for their own purposes.

You couldn't tell who the invaders were because they looked and acted just like everybody else.

This is sort of how I feel about the situation here. A person that you are working with could be a fundy and you may never know it.

By the way, the real whackos are the evangelical fundies who practice and preach their ************ 24/7.

BobG

8th August 2009, 05:14 AM

I think that if they did, then even those Christians would have to admit that ceasing to exist is preferable to the interminable boredom of heaven and that living in a world where evil exists is preferable to living in a world where humans are physically incapable of doing anything wrong.

But, if you believe any of this nonsense about heaven, couldn't you be designed by God to be permanently "high" without ever getting bored. Remember, God can do anything so he certainly can create beings that don't get bored!

Bob Guercio

John Jones

8th August 2009, 05:14 AM

Lack of decent evidence.

gumboot

8th August 2009, 05:25 AM

A ridiculous word invented to get around all sorts of absurdities in religion.

A worthy and useful word stolen and eternally tarnished by religion - like so many other things.

Paulhoff

8th August 2009, 06:22 AM

What is the need for a so-called god, not why I don’t believe in one.

What does a so-called god explain, well in the time before science it was the only way for many to explain how the world seemed to be and seemed to worked, it was used in a time when knowing anything about anything was so very limited, and many people seemed to have a need to have an answer, any answer, and we see this even today. It was something to use for an explanation when there seemed to be so many effects in the world without any cause or causes. People didn’t know about the weather so there was a so-called god for that and why the wind blew so there was a so-called god for that, or why the ground shook and again a so-called god, and how the hell the body worked and how it seemed to be so different from other things around you, so a so-called god for living things too. So people would use many different so-called gods for the unknowns of the world. Later some people made it just one so-called god to explain it all (which became three again). But does a so-called god explain anything, or does it only pushes the question off one more layer. Some people have learned more a about the world and universe by using the scientific method and see that there are answers to question, even if there are not known at the time. They know that there are answers and one doesn’t have to use a so-called god for a poor useless answer.

So why don’t I believe in a so-called god, because if anything it answers nothing. But if nothing else it has shown me how lots of people have a need for answers to questions, no matter how false and/or weak they are and how this leads to many falsehoods and prejudices.

Paul

:) :) :)

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 06:57 AM

But, if you believe any of this nonsense about heaven, couldn't you be designed by God to be permanently "high" without ever getting bored. Remember, God can do anything so he certainly can create beings that don't get bored!

Bob Guercio

IMO, this may well fall into the same category as square circles. In other words, I'm not sure it is even logically possible to create such an animal. Also, I think my previous comment still applies: a world where people don't have the capacity to do anything wrong is not actually a better world than the one we live in. Evil is bad, but not being free to do evil is even worse. To put it another way, life is more valuable if individuals have the capacity to better themselves rather than being born perfect. If everything was already perfect then everything would also be meaningless. Striving to overcome evil and to overcome the tendency to commit evil provides meaning to existence. It gives us something worthy to aim for.

ETA: I just wanted to add that I was a hard athiest for 30 years and the main reason for this was that I could not solve the problem of evil. My reasoning was that if there was an omnipotent God in charge of reality, then it must be the most heinous beast imaginable. Eventually I changed my mind on this issue, and the reason was that I think I had underestimated the value of free will.

slingblade

8th August 2009, 07:02 AM

For the same reasons I don't believe in magic.

Piggy

8th August 2009, 07:10 AM

For the same reasons I don't believe in magic.

Not even in a young girl's heart?

Cynic.

Lord Emsworth

8th August 2009, 07:23 AM

Also, I think my previous comment still applies: a world where people don't have the capacity to do anything wrong is not actually a better world than the one we live in. Evil is bad, but not being free to do evil is even worse. To put it another way, life is more valuable if individuals have the capacity to better themselves rather than being born perfect. If everything was already perfect then everything would also be meaningless. Striving to overcome evil and to overcome the tendency to commit evil provides meaning to existence. It gives us something worthy to aim for.

Reminds me of those donkeys with a carrot dangling in front of their noses.

Reaching is not the point - and is even counterproductive - to keep on going that is the point. But where?

BobG

8th August 2009, 07:23 AM

IMO, this may well fall into the same category as square circles. In other words, I'm not sure it is even logically possible to create such an animal.

Why? God can do anything!

Lord Emsworth

8th August 2009, 07:29 AM

ETA: I just wanted to add that I was a hard athiest for 30 years and the main reason for this was that I could not solve the problem of evil. My reasoning was that if there was an omnipotent God in charge of reality, then it must be the most heinous beast imaginable. Eventually I changed my mind on this issue, and the reason was that I think I had underestimated the value of free will.

Is God free to do evil?

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 07:36 AM

Reminds me of those donkeys with a carrot dangling in front of their noses.

Reaching is not the point - and is even counterproductive - to keep on going that is the point. But where?

If reaching is not the point, then it doesn't matter where...

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 07:41 AM

Why? God can do anything!

Saying that God can't do things which are logically impossible doesn't compromise God's omnipotence. This is the old chestnut about "Can God make a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" The answer is no, of course, but does this mean God isn't omnipotent? No. It just means that "omnipotent" means "capable of doing anything which is logically possible." Similarly, "omniscient" doesn't include "knows things which are unknowable." That's a possible reason why God can't prevent natural disasters. It may be that the precise timing of a massive earthquake is unknowable, even if you know everything about the current state of the system, because exactly when the system reaches breaking point is critically dependent on something which is random.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 07:43 AM

Is God free to do evil?

If God's role is to ensure that this is the best possible world, then God is not free to do evil. God must always act in the best interests of the whole system. The problem is deciding what actions are in the best interests of the whole system.

BobG

8th August 2009, 07:51 AM

Saying that God can't do things which are logically impossible doesn't compromise God's omnipotence.

But here is my original post:

But, if you believe any of this nonsense about heaven, couldn't you be designed by God to be permanently "high" without ever getting bored. Remember, God can do anything so he certainly can create beings that don't get bored!

Why is this logically impossible?

Sun Countess

8th August 2009, 07:58 AM

Undercover Elephant, do you consider illnesses such as childhood cancers and smallpox man-made evils or natural disasters? If they are natural, and under the discretion of god alone, why does he allow them to occur? Ditto with natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes which can destroy thousands of lives in one fell swoop. Why are so many dying under his watch? These things have nothing to do with "free will." If there is a god who is allowing these things to happen (and just waiting to see us try to outsmart him), then I have no choice but to think he's extremely evil.

Lord Emsworth

8th August 2009, 08:12 AM

If reaching is not the point, then it doesn't matter where...

Reaching is not the point, or is it? What again would we have if there was no (capacity for doing) evil?

Meaningful?

If God's role is to ensure that this is the best possible world, then God is not free to do evil.

Puts serious doubts on the contention that "Evil is bad, but not being free to do evil is even worse."

God must always act in the best interests of the whole system. The problem is deciding what actions are in the best interests of the whole system.

To keep it going somewhere, anywhere, lest it be meaningless. ;)

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 12:42 PM

But here is my original post:

But, if you believe any of this nonsense about heaven, couldn't you be designed by God to be permanently "high" without ever getting bored. Remember, God can do anything so he certainly can create beings that don't get bored!

Why is this logically impossible?

I said it might be. I don't know. I can't think of a way you could make beings which simultaneously aren't capable of boredom but are capable of all the creative acts which humans are capable of. It's easy to just say "God's omnipotent, therefore he can do anything." In reality, we can only detect logical incoherence in relatively simple systems. We know square circles are impossible. But what about a life-friendly world where there are no Earthquakes? At first glance, there's no reason to think such a thing is impossible. But look a bit harder and things become less clear:

Q) Why are Earthquakes inevitable on Earth?
A) Because the Earth needs to cool down and this is part of the mechanism.

Q) Why does the Earth need to cool down but, for example, Mars doesn't?
A) Because the Earth-moon system is the result of a collision between two planets and the Earth got all of the heavy material, which means we have a lot of radioactivity in the core.

The thing is - that unusually-heavy core isn't just responsible for driving the Earth's geological activity. It is also the reason why the Earth has such a powerful magnetic field, and this magnetic field is crucial for protecting life on Earth from solar radiation. So....it looks like there could well be a logical connection between the inevitability of Earthquakes and the need for a powerful magnetic field. In other words, you could argue that might turn out to be logically impossible for God to create a life-friendly world where there are no Earthquakes, although it would be very difficult to prove it. I think the same is true of the example we were discussing above. I think that evolution is probably the only way to create an ecosystem, even if God is capable of intelligent design. Even if this God had an extremely powerful brain or his very own supercomputer, it is likely that the only way to design an ecosystem is to "run" an evolutionary system and tinker around with it, because the alternative, which is to attempt to design every single component of the system, would require an infinite amount of calculations in order to make sure that the whole system functioned properly as a whole system. And if it is the case that the only way you can create humans is via an evolutionary process then there are also limitations as to how tinkering with the evolutionary process could result in certain features. To give an example, it would be very hard to create a creature which didn't like eating or having sex.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 12:51 PM

Undercover Elephant, do you consider illnesses such as childhood cancers and smallpox man-made evils or natural disasters?

They are in the same category as far as the problem of evil is concerned. That is, they are "natural evils" rather than anything which is the direct result of a free human action.

If they are natural, and under the discretion of god alone, why does he allow them to occur?

The only answer possible, I think, is that he can't do anything to prevent them.

Ditto with natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes which can destroy thousands of lives in one fell swoop. Why are so many dying under his watch?

See above post about Earthquakes.

Another possibility is that the future is not fixed i.e. even God can't know exactly what is going to happen in chaotic systems like the weather. One way or another, God can't do anything about these problems.

Death is an uneliminable part of any living system. If individuals don't die then there is no space for any new ones to be born. We'd need an infinitely large space to expand into if this problem is to be solved.

These things have nothing to do with "free will." If there is a god who is allowing these things to happen (and just waiting to see us try to outsmart him), then I have no choice but to think he's extremely evil.

Natural evils don't have anything to do with free will. There's two different strands to the debates about the argument from evil. You have to deal with natural evil and human-sourced evil in different ways. I personally reserve the word "evil" for human actions. Earthquakes are unfortunate, not evil. Pope Innocent III was evil.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 12:55 PM

Reaching is not the point, or is it? What again would we have if there was no (capacity for doing) evil?

Meaningful?

Don't understand what you are asking.

Puts serious doubts on the contention that "Evil is bad, but not being free to do evil is even worse."

I was talking about humans, not God. Humans are free to do evil, God isn't.

To keep it going somewhere, anywhere, lest it be meaningless. ;)

Yes. Ultimately the only justification for acting might be to keep the show on the road...

catbasket

8th August 2009, 01:05 PM

There might be a bit of luck in it for me, having non-religious parents, but considering the amount of woo I believed in as a teenager I would say by far the most important reason for me becoming an atheist was -

Llanelli Public Library (http://library.wales.org/your-library/south-west-wales/carmarthenshire/llanelli-library/)

BobG

8th August 2009, 01:11 PM

I don't know. I can't think of a way you could make beings which simultaneously aren't capable of boredom but are capable of all the creative acts which humans are capable of.

I'm having trouble with this!

God doesn't need to experiment and tinker to make things work. He is perfect and could create perfection instantly. Is there anybody who believes in a Judao/Christian God who would deny this? This is part of the definition of God. He has no limitations and the requirement to experiment and tinker is a limitation.

That said, all of us have experienced drugs in some manner, legal or illegal. I think of when I needed to take codeine and the happy and relaxed mood it put me in. I didn't care about creativity or sex. I was just perfectly content in that state and that is the kind of a state that I see God creating. I'm certainly not capable of very much in such a state but isn't this heavenly bliss. And when I say that I was perfectly content in that state, I mean it. There would be no such thing as boredom because the elimination of boredom would be one of the things God would ensure.

So why is that not possible. All it takes is everlasting life, an unlimited supply of codeine and slight modifications to the body such that the need for more and more codeine does not occur.

I mean, hey, this is God. Sh**, if he can't do this simple task, what the hell can he do!!

Perhaps the issue here is that I am talking about a Judea/Christian God and you have another type of God in mind.

Bob

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 01:18 PM

I'm having trouble with this!

God doesn't need to experiment and tinker to make things work. He is perfect and could create perfection instantly. Is there anybody who believes in a Judao/Christian God who would deny this?

Of course there are. Loads of them. Anyone who believes in an old Earth and that humans are the result of an evolutionary process would deny it, which is a majority of European Christians. They wouldn't deny that God is perfect, but they would argue that God created the Earth and humans over an extended period of time. The position of the Catholic church on evolution is that, yes, evolution happened, but at some point during the process God intervened to connect the soul to the flesh.

That said, all of us have experienced drugs in some manner, legal or illegal. I think of when I needed to take codeine and the happy and relaxed mood it put me in. I didn't care about creativity or sex. I was just perfectly content in that state and that is the kind of a state that I see God creating.

But then humans wouldn't be capable of creating such wonderful things and wouldn't bother to have sex!

I mean, hey, this is God. Sh**, if he can't do this simple task, what the hell can he do!!

Perhaps the issue here is that I am talking about a Judea/Christian God and you have another type of God in mind.

Bob

I'm talking about the Judeao-Christian God. I think you're talking about the God of fundamentalists and young earthers rather than the mainstream Judaeo-Christian God.

BobG

8th August 2009, 01:26 PM

I'm talking about the Judeao-Christian God. I think you're talking about the God of fundamentalists and young earthers rather than the mainstream Judaeo-Christian God.

No! I'm talking about a Judeo/Christian God.

He certainly could have created the earth in 7 days but obviously he didn't.

This is the first time I've ever heard of a Judeo/Christian God not being perfect and having limitations!

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 01:29 PM

Sun Countess

8th August 2009, 01:30 PM

They are in the same category as far as the problem of evil is concerned. That is, they are "natural evils" rather than anything which is the direct result of a free human action.

The only answer possible, I think, is that he can't do anything to prevent them. Can't do anything to prevent cancer? Can't do anything to prevent smallpox, or black plague, or malaria or H1N1? How are these single-celled organisms more powerful than an omnipotent god? Do you believe he made these organisms in the first place or did they just magically appear in his universe?

Another possibility is that the future is not fixed i.e. even God can't know exactly what is going to happen in chaotic systems like the weather. One way or another, God can't do anything about these problems.
If earthquakes and hurricanes are necessary to cleanse the earth in some way, then the earth wasn't designed very well by your god. Couldn't he come up with a system that didn't involve so much death and destruction?

Death is an uneliminable part of any living system. If individuals don't die then there is no space for any new ones to be born. We'd need an infinitely large space to expand into if this problem is to be solved.
I, a mere mortal being with many limitations, can figure out a few workarounds. Now, I don't mind death being a part of the life cycle, but surely I would find a way to accommodate the living that did not involve the daily deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children. And if god didn't want people to breed themselves into overpopulation, he could come up with a way to control our fertility, rather than sending a plague every century to knock out a good portion of the population. Right now, human women are only fertile for about 25-30 years, but that window could be shortened, or our cycles limited to fewer cycles per year.

Natural evils don't have anything to do with free will. There's two different strands to the debates about the argument from evil. You have to deal with natural evil and human-sourced evil in different ways. I personally reserve the word "evil" for human actions. Earthquakes are unfortunate, not evil. Pope Innocent III was evil.
I have no qualms with anybody's god beliefs allowing for the existence of human evil. I do have problems with somebody talking about a powerful and benevolent god who allows wholesale destruction of innocents in the names of "unfortunate" natural events.

bokonon

8th August 2009, 01:39 PM

living in a world where evil exists is preferable to living in a world where humans are physically incapable of doing anything wrong.
That's ridiculous, for any reasonable definition of "wrong".

bokonon

8th August 2009, 01:50 PM

"omniscient" doesn't include "knows things which are unknowable." That's a possible reason why God can't prevent natural disasters. It may be that the precise timing of a massive earthquake is unknowable, even if you know everything about the current state of the system, because exactly when the system reaches breaking point is critically dependent on something which is random.
But an omniscient god would know that creating a world in which tectonic plates milled around like drunks at a cocktail party would lead to earthquakes, and an omnipotent god could create a world without that design flaw. So belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god on a planet on which so much life is destroyed by natural disaster is not a logical belief.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:15 PM

No! I'm talking about a Judeo/Christian God.

He certainly could have created the earth in 7 days but obviously he didn't.

This is the first time I've ever heard of a Judeo/Christian God not being perfect and having limitations!

But I'm saying the limitations are imposed by logic i.e. they aren't real limitations. Is not being able to make a square circle really a limitation?

BobG

8th August 2009, 02:15 PM

I don't understand how this thread was not killed by Merv in post #2.

I echo his response. I do not believe in God(s), because there is not one shred of scientific evidence that would warrant or support such an existential claim.

I don't believe in God either but what does that have to do with this discussion.

And also, I don't think moderators should kill a discussion just because you get off topic. What's the big deal. If the topic strays, those who are no longer interested can leave!

If holy rollers start participating in this thread and the topic gets to a discussion of Adam's lack of a belly button, what is the difference!

I think there should be a revolution on the Internet against moderators who kill threads just because the topic changes.

Bob Guercio

BobG

8th August 2009, 02:27 PM

:rolleyes:But I'm saying the limitations are imposed by logic i.e. they aren't real limitations. Is not being able to make a square circle really a limitation?

But this is where faith comes in.:):)

Religion is not predicated upon logic so why look at it from a logical viewpoint?

Actually, you can't look at it from a logical viewpoint or else it falls apart.

By the way, in my opinion, holy rollers will tell you that God can make a square circle if he so desires. Is this any more absurd than the holy trinity?

We just don't understand his methods and reasons. After all, we are mere humans and cannot imagine the wisdom that God has.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bob

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:30 PM

Can't do anything to prevent cancer? Can't do anything to prevent smallpox, or black plague, or malaria or H1N1? How are these single-celled organisms more powerful than an omnipotent god? Do you believe he made these organisms in the first place or did they just magically appear in his universe?

I don't believe in an intelligent God at all. I'm just having a debate.

If earthquakes and hurricanes are necessary to cleanse the earth in some way, then the earth wasn't designed very well by your god.

I didn't say they were necessary to cleanse the Earth. I said they may be logically unavoidable for the Earth to be capable of supporting life..

Couldn't he come up with a system that didn't involve so much death and destruction?

Apparently not.

I, a mere mortal being with many limitations, can figure out a few workarounds. Now, I don't mind death being a part of the life cycle, but surely I would find a way to accommodate the living that did not involve the daily deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children.

How do you know? On what are you basing that opinion? How can you know whether the problems are logically solvable?

And if god didn't want people to breed themselves into overpopulation, he could come up with a way to control our fertility, rather than sending a plague every century to knock out a good portion of the population. Right now, human women are only fertile for about 25-30 years, but that window could be shortened, or our cycles limited to fewer cycles per year.

You mean, change our physiology NOW, only after we evolved? Again, there are good reasons for believing that this is impossible, even for an intelligent God.

I have no qualms with anybody's god beliefs allowing for the existence of human evil. I do have problems with somebody talking about a powerful and benevolent god who allows wholesale destruction of innocents in the names of "unfortunate" natural events.

"Allows" assumes it is logically possible to prevent it. It assumes it is either possible to create a system where it doesn't happen, or that it is possible to know exactly when these things are going to happen and to be able to intervene to stop them.

Monketey Ghost

8th August 2009, 02:31 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_296004a7dee9c96371.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17169)

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:31 PM

That's ridiculous, for any reasonable definition of "wrong".

Why? Please elaborate.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:33 PM

But an omniscient god would know that creating a world in which tectonic plates milled around like drunks at a cocktail party would lead to earthquakes, and an omnipotent god could create a world without that design flaw.

I already offered a possible explanation for this:

Q) Why are Earthquakes inevitable on Earth?
A) Because the Earth needs to cool down and this is part of the mechanism.

Q) Why does the Earth need to cool down but, for example, Mars doesn't?
A) Because the Earth-moon system is the result of a collision between two planets and the Earth got all of the heavy material, which means we have a lot of radioactivity in the core.

The thing is - that unusually-heavy core isn't just responsible for driving the Earth's geological activity. It is also the reason why the Earth has such a powerful magnetic field, and this magnetic field is crucial for protecting life on Earth from solar radiation. So....it looks like there could well be a logical connection between the inevitability of Earthquakes and the need for a powerful magnetic field. In other words, you could argue that might turn out to be logically impossible for God to create a life-friendly world where there are no Earthquakes, although it would be very difficult to prove it.

... So belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god on a planet on which so much life is destroyed by natural disaster is not a logical belief.

We don't have enough information to safely conclude that.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:35 PM

I don't believe in God either but what does that have to do with this discussion.

And also, I don't think moderators should kill a discussion just because you get off topic. What's the big deal. If the topic strays, those who are no longer interested can leave!

If holy rollers start participating in this thread and the topic gets to a discussion of Adam's lack of a belly button, what is the difference!

I think there should be a revolution on the Internet against moderators who kill threads just because the topic changes.

Bob Guercio

This is ON topic. The existence of evil, both human and natural, is probably the most convincing reason for not believing in God.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:38 PM

:rolleyes:

But this is where faith comes in.:):)

Religion is not predicated upon logic so why look at it from a logical viewpoint?

I'm a philosopher. Looking at things logically is what I'm trained to do...

Actually, you can't look at it from a logical viewpoint or else it falls apart.

By the way, in my opinion, holy rollers will tell you that God can make a square circle if he so desires. Is this any more absurd than the holy trinity?

Yes, IMO. The holy trinity can be unpacked into some sort of metaphorical meaning, square circles are just logically-incoherent entities.

We just don't understand his methods and reasons. After all, we are mere humans and cannot imagine the wisdom that God has.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

That may be the answer from some religious believers. IMO it is a cop-out. It's an excuse for not thinking hard.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:39 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_296004a7dee9c96371.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17169)

The perils of getting metaphorical and literal meaning mixed up. In this case, mixed up by a food blender.

Lord Emsworth

8th August 2009, 02:42 PM

Don't understand what you are asking.

The glorious punchline. The worthy thing to aim for.

The strive for no evil and betterment isn't. It is just the carrot dangling from a stick that makes the donkey move.

But where? Doesn't matter (see above somewhere).

And why? *shrug*

Meaningful? It is at best the illusion of meaningfulness.

I was talking about humans, not God. Humans are free to do evil, God isn't.

Humans need the capacity to do evil, God doesn't.

Yes. Ultimately the only justification for acting might be to keep the show on the road...

BobG

8th August 2009, 02:45 PM

I'm a philosopher. Looking at things logically is what I'm trained to do...

Ah! Now I see where you are coming from.

I am not a Philosopher but I am quite logical.

I was looking at from a religious point of view which, of course, I do not believe.

This thread has taken so many twists and turns that at this point I'm not sure why I was even debating this!

Bob

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 02:48 PM

The glorious punchline. The worthy thing to aim for.

Uh...The Will to Power!!!

It's a tough question. How to avoid nihilism? I don't know, but I know I'd rather live in a world where I have free will than one where I don't.

The strive for no evil and betterment isn't. It is just the carrot dangling from a stick that makes the donkey move.

But where? Doesn't matter (see above somewhere).

And why? *shrug*

Meaningful? It is at best the illusion of meaningfulness.

Maybe. Perhaps in this case an illusion of meaningfulness is better than no such illusion.

Humans need the capacity to do evil, God doesn't.

Sounds reasonable...

bokonon

8th August 2009, 02:58 PM

I already offered a possible explanation for this:

Q) Why are Earthquakes inevitable on Earth?
A) Because the Earth needs to cool down and this is part of the mechanism.

Q) Why does the Earth need to cool down but, for example, Mars doesn't?
A) Because the Earth-moon system is the result of a collision between two planets and the Earth got all of the heavy material, which means we have a lot of radioactivity in the core.

The thing is - that unusually-heavy core isn't just responsible for driving the Earth's geological activity. It is also the reason why the Earth has such a powerful magnetic field, and this magnetic field is crucial for protecting life on Earth from solar radiation. So....it looks like there could well be a logical connection between the inevitability of Earthquakes and the need for a powerful magnetic field. In other words, you could argue that might turn out to be logically impossible for God to create a life-friendly world where there are no Earthquakes, although it would be very difficult to prove it.
You aren't talking about an omnipotent god here. You're talking about a god which is constrained by the laws of physics, rather than a god which is able to specify the laws of physics.

A truly omnipotent god could create a magnetic field by some other means. Such a god could create a sun which radiated light and heat, but not dangerous radiation. Such a god could create tectonic plates which didn't collide or "stick," so that even a molten core would not lead to earthquakes.

There are dozens of ways to design a life-friendly world even if one is constrained by the laws of physics. Omnipotence of the sort claimed by believers in the Abrahamic god wouldn't even have that constraint.

I repeat, it is illogical to believe in a benevolent god which is also omniscient and omnipotent, given the condition of the world in which we find ourselves.

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 03:02 PM

I don't believe in God either but what does that have to do with this discussion.

Ummm... The discussion was called "Why don't you believe in god". I gave my reason, which was the same as another posters. My post was entirely relevant.

And also, I don't think moderators should kill a discussion just because you get off topic. What's the big deal. If the topic strays, those who are no longer interested can leave!

I meant "kill" as in the thread ends because there isn't much more to discuss.

If holy rollers start participating in this thread and the topic gets to a discussion of Adam's lack of a belly button, what is the difference!

It doesn't matter really, but it is secondary to the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that God(s) exist.

I think there should be a revolution on the Internet against moderators who kill threads just because the topic changes.

They usually just split them here, and again, I wasn't asking for the topic to be shut down.

BobG

8th August 2009, 03:06 PM

I meant "kill" as in the tread ends because there isn't much more to discuss.

I think that you mean to lock the thread so that we can no longer post to it.

Why do that when people are in the middle of a discussion, even if it is off topic.

Just go away and leave those still conversing alone.

Bob

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 03:09 PM

It doesn't matter really, but it is secondary to the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that God(s) exist.

There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that God(s) don't exist either. Or rather, there is on scientific evidence against the idea of certain specific concepts of God or rather certain brands of religion, i.e. the ones which involve claims which directly contradict science.

There's no scientific evidence to support the existence of all sorts of things, from consciousness to great works of art. It doesn't follow that nobody believes in consciousness or great works of art, we just believe in them for non-scientific reasons. Why can't the same apply to God?

The argument from evil is a more important reason for not believing in God because it is a positive reason. It seems to be something which actually compels us not to believe in God whereas lack of scientific evidence is just a lack of compulsion for believing in God.

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 03:11 PM

I think that you mean to lock the thread so that we can no longer post to it.

Why do that when people are in the middle of a discussion, even if it is off topic.

Just go away and leave those still conversing alone.

Bob

Dude, I didn't mean to lock the thread. Relax.

applecorped

8th August 2009, 03:12 PM

I believe in Rod.

Narrator (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001385/): In 1966 the Rutles faced the biggest threat to their careers. Nasty in a widely quoted interview had apparently claimed that the Rutles were bigger than God, and was reported to have gone on to say that God had never had a hit record. The story spread like wildfire in America. Many fans burnt their albums, many more burnt their fingers attempting to burn their albums. Album sales skyrocketed, People were buying them just to burn them. But in fact it was all a ghastly mistake. Nasty, talking to a slightly deaf journalist, had claimed only that the Rutles were bigger than Rod. Rod Stewart would not be big for another eight years, and certainly at this stage hadn't had a hit. At a press conference, Nasty apologised to God, Rod and the Press, and the tour went ahead as planned. It would be the Rutles' last.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077147/quotes

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 03:14 PM

You aren't talking about an omnipotent god here. You're talking about a god which is constrained by the laws of physics, rather than a god which is able to specify the laws of physics.

I am talking about a God which is constrained by LOGIC, not physics.

A truly omnipotent god could create a magnetic field by some other means.

I think you are confusing "omnipotent" with "capable of doing things which are impossible", a bit like a stage magician, except that he actually makes impossible things happen instead of just creating the illusion that an impossible thing has happened. For me, "omipotent" means "capable of doing anything which is logically possible" and "omniscient" means "knows everything which is known" (i.e. not even everything which is knowable.)

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 03:17 PM

There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that God(s) don't exist either.

I am rejecting the positive existential claim that God exists on the grounds that no scientific evidence has been provided. The burden of proof lies squarely on those making the claim "God exists" I bear absolutely no burden in my rejection. If you notice, I didn't make any such claim as "God doesn't exist". I just said that I won't believe the posit "God exists" without evidence.

BobG

8th August 2009, 03:17 PM

Dude, I didn't mean to lock the thread. Relax.

Sorry.

Please understand where I am coming from.

I recently got kicked out of a forum by some ass**** moderator so I guess I'm a bit sensitive.

Regards,

Bob

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 03:29 PM

The argument from evil is a more important reason for not believing in God because it is a positive reason. It seems to be something which actually compels us not to believe in God whereas lack of scientific evidence is just a lack of compulsion for believing in God.

I don't think so. The argument from evil is ridiculous to have out in any serious fashion, when the burden of proof for the underlying claim has not even been met with a single piece of evidence. It would be like arguing the intricacies of invisible pink unicorn's stealth mechanisms.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 03:30 PM

I am rejecting the positive existential claim that God exists on the grounds that no scientific evidence has been provided.

As already stated, no scientific evidence has been provided for all sorts of things it is perfectly reasonable to believe in. I see no reason why, if God exists, there should be scientific evidence to prove it. Therefore I don't see any reason why the abscence of that evidence should be a reason for not believing in God.

The burden of proof lies squarely on those making the claim "God exists" I bear absolutely no burden in my rejection.

But why do you think there is a burden of proof on anyone? I believe in God for my own reasons, you don't believe for yours. Why is there any burden on either of us to prove our belief is correct?

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 03:32 PM

I don't think so. The argument from evil is ridiculous to have out in any serious fashion...

I don't agree. I think it is one of the most important and complex parts of philosophy of religion.

, when the burden of proof for the underlying claim has not even been met with a single piece of evidence.

Who said anything about PROOF? The OP asks why you don't believe in God, not what you can or cannot PROVE.

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 03:40 PM

As already stated, no scientific evidence has been provided for all sorts of things it is perfectly reasonable to believe in. I see no reason why, if God exists, there should be scientific evidence to prove it. Therefore I don't see any reason why the abscence of that evidence should be a reason for not believing in God.

This is an argument I am not even going to bother addressing. If you think that there is no scientific basis or evidence for consciousness and works of art(as you said earlier), in the same way that there is no scientific evidence of God, well... :rolleyes:

But why do you think there is a burden of proof on anyone. I believe in God for my own reasons, you don't believe for yours. Why is there any burden on either of us to prove our belief is correct?

Many people do not understand the burden of proof with respect to existential claims. You can believe in God for whatever reasons you like, but the burden of proof lies with the claim "God exists", not the rejection of that claim. The very reason that I do not believe in God, is because this burden has not been met. This is a logical reason.

You seem to attempting to turn my rejection of the claim, into a claim itself. This semantic trickery is a very common tactic used by many apologists.

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 03:42 PM

I don't agree. I think it is one of the most important and complex parts of philosophy of religion.

It is fun to talk about.

Who said anything about PROOF? The OP asks why you don't believe in God, not what you can or cannot PROVE.

Well, my lack of belief in God is directly based upon a rejection of the claim that God exists due to the burden of PROOF not being met. :p

bokonon

8th August 2009, 03:43 PM

I am talking about a God which is constrained by LOGIC, not physics.
I don't think you are. None of my examples were logically impossible. Mere mortals are capable of creating sources of light and heat which do not emit dangerous radiation, and magnetic fields which do not depend on a huge volume of molten radioactive material, so they aren't even practically impossible.

The most you can say is that they fall into the category of "things god might have done, but didn't."

I think you are confusing "omnipotent" with "capable of doing things which are impossible", a bit like a stage magician, except that he actually makes impossible things happen instead of just creating the illusion that an impossible thing has happened. For me, "omipotent" means "capable of doing anything which is logically possible" and "omniscient" means "knows everything which is known" (i.e. not even everything which is knowable.)
I'm not confusing anything.

A world without mosquitoes would never have experienced yellow fever epidemics. An omnipotent and omniscient god could have wandered the earth and eradicated mosquitoes before men ever evolved, but it wasn't done.

A world without the yellow fever virus would never have experienced yellow fever epidemics. An omnipotent and omniscient god could have insured that the yellow fever virus never existed, but that wasn't done.

A world without the smallpox virus would never have experienced smallpox epidemics.

Mere mortals have succeeded in creating a world in which the smallpox virus is unknown in the wild.

If men could do it, an omniscient and omnipotent god could have done it.

Since it wasn't done until men did it, I once again say that your belief in a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god is illogical, given the state of the world in which we live.

Gord_in_Toronto

8th August 2009, 03:48 PM

<snip>

I am not a Philosopher but I am quite logical.

<snip>

:id:

Sun Countess

8th August 2009, 03:52 PM

I don't believe in an intelligent God at all. I'm just having a debate.
Fair enough.

I didn't say they were necessary to cleanse the Earth. I said they may be logically unavoidable for the Earth to be capable of supporting life..

Apparently not.
If an omnipotent god can't come up with a system that didn't randomly destroy large chunks of his chosen creatures on a regular basis, why build it at all? Is he not supposed to be benevolent as well? He already put us on a planet which is largely uninhabitable, but to not care that we faced random acts of death and destruction....the mind boggles.

How do you know? On what are you basing that opinion? How can you know whether the problems are logically solvable?
I don't know. I'm not omnipotent. But I do know that I wouldn't put a system out there with so many bugs in it, and which killed so many of the creatures that I supposedly loved because of those bugs.

You mean, change our physiology NOW, only after we evolved? Again, there are good reasons for believing that this is impossible, even for an intelligent God.
Change the physiology so that we evolved in a better fashion, more suitable for the environment he created for us. Barring that, fix it after the fact. If he supposedly created himself in human form (Jesus) to kinda sorta fix one screw-up because he changed his mind, why not send another envoy to clean up some of his other messes?

"Allows" assumes it is logically possible to prevent it. It assumes it is either possible to create a system where it doesn't happen, or that it is possible to know exactly when these things are going to happen and to be able to intervene to stop them.
So this god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Got it. Why postulate his existence at all then?

And though the problem of evil is a reason to question the existence of god, the better reason to not believe is the utter lack of evidence, coupled with plenty of evidence that humans throughout history have made up stories involving gods to explain what they otherwise could not.

BobG

8th August 2009, 03:58 PM

I'm wondering if any of you guys say that you believe in God because it is the
politically correct position. I do sometimes!!

I do when I'm with a fundy that I like and I don't want to get into an argument with him!

Bob

bokonon

8th August 2009, 04:03 PM

No. I just smile, and let him assume I'm not one of those evil atheists, because he knows I'm a nice guy.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:03 PM

Fair enough.

If an omnipotent god can't come up with a system that didn't randomly destroy large chunks of his chosen creatures on a regular basis, why build it at all?

Because the alternative is non-existence? A world filled with pain is better than no world at all.

I don't know. I'm not omnipotent. But I do know that I wouldn't put a system out there with so many bugs in it...

Reality isn't a piece of software produced by microsoft. What I am arguing is that is probably impossible to create a living ecosystem by fiat design. It has to be allowed to evolve. As a result, we will neccesarily end up with "bugs" or "design flaws."

Change the physiology so that we evolved in a better fashion, more suitable for the environment he created for us. Barring that, fix it after the fact. If he supposedly created himself in human form (Jesus) to kinda sorta fix one screw-up because he changed his mind, why not send another envoy to clean up some of his other messes?

That's an interesting interpretation of Christian doctrine. What was the screw-up Jesus was supposed to fix?

So this god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Got it. Why postulate his existence at all then?

I'm trying to seperate good arguments from bad ones. Saying that you don't believe in God because there's no scientific evidence isn't a particularly good argument. Saying that you don't believe because of the existence of evil is a good argument, but there are also some good responses to it.

And though the problem of evil is a reason to question the existence of god, the better reason to not believe is the utter lack of evidence...

What sort of evidence? Scientific evidence? I see no reason why God should submit itself to scientific scrutiny. I'm afraid this is just wishful-thinking on the part of the atheists/skeptics. Science is a powerful tool, but it isn't the only way. ;)

, coupled with plenty of evidence that humans throughout history have made up stories involving gods to explain what they otherwise could not.

That is not a reason for discounting all concepts of God.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:06 PM

I'm wondering if any of you guys say that you believe in God because it is the politically correct position.

The thought wouldn't even cross my mind. Personally, I defend politically-incorrect positions for the hell of it. Or rather, I openly attack politically-correct positions which aren't supported by the facts.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:36 PM

This is an argument I am not even going to bother addressing. If you think that there is no scientific basis or evidence for consciousness and works of art(as you said earlier), in the same way that there is no scientific evidence of God, well... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. This is a perfectly serious point. Science has little or nothing to say about a wide variety of topics which matter to real people. That includes most of what is covered by philosophy, art and religion. Asking for scientific proof in these areas indicates a lack of understanding of what these subjects are about and how they work.

Many people do not understand the burden of proof with respect to existential claims.

No, I'm asking why this has anything to do with proof at all.

There are some cases where proof, or strong supportive evidence, is needed. If you are in a court of law or trying to design a probe to land on Mars then you need to try to prove things. In the latter case, we have the scientific tools but we still sometimes get it wrong. In the former, we sometimes have to rely on convincing the jury the best we can, and we also sometimes get it wrong. But when it comes to questions like "Why don't you believe in God?" then simply demanding or even aiming for a scientific-level of proof or a beyond-reasonable-doubt level of proof may not be possible. Can you scientifically prove to me that Shakespeare was a great writer?

You can believe in God for whatever reasons you like, but the burden of proof lies with the claim "God exists", not the rejection of that claim.

WHY??? Are we in a court of law? Are we designing a space probe? Why do I have to prove anything???

The very reason that I do not believe in God, is because this burden has not been met. This is a logical reason.

No it isn't. You are assuming that if God exists, there would be scientific evidence to prove it. How are you justifying this assumption?

You seem to attempting to turn my rejection of the claim, into a claim itself. This semantic trickery is a very common tactic used by many apologists.

I'm not using semantic tricks. I'm merely pointing out that asking for scientific proof of things which couldn't be proved scientifically even if they were true, is pointless.

bokonon

8th August 2009, 04:36 PM

Reality isn't a piece of software produced by microsoft. What I am arguing is that is probably impossible to create a living ecosystem by fiat design. It has to be allowed to evolve. As a result, we will neccesarily end up with "bugs" or "design flaws."
This does overcome the "problem of evil", but once again it does so by dispensing with an omnipotent god. I couldn't object (on the grounds of "logical impossibility) to a god who created a flawed universe, but did the best he could.

Saying that you don't believe because of the existence of evil is a good argument, but there are also some good responses to it.
Not if you claim the god in question is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

That is not a reason for discounting all concepts of God.
Right, a flawed designer god is at least consistent with an imperfect world.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:44 PM

I don't think you are. None of my examples were logically impossible. Mere mortals are capable of creating sources of light and heat which do not emit dangerous radiation, and magnetic fields which do not depend on a huge volume of molten radioactive material, so they aren't even practically impossible.

The most you can say is that they fall into the category of "things god might have done, but didn't."

I'm saying that we do not have enough information to know what is or is not logically possible in physical reality.

A world without mosquitoes would never have experienced yellow fever epidemics. An omnipotent and omniscient god could have wandered the earth and eradicated mosquitoes before men ever evolved, but it wasn't done.

We have a rather different understanding of what omnipotent and omniscient mean. From my POV, you are setting up a strawman. IOW, there are more interesting definitions of omnipotent and omniscient than those you choose to use.

I have a concept of God which is indeed omnipotent and omniscient according to my own definitions of those words. It is omnipotent and omniscient in a way that no human could ever be. But it is neither omniscient nor omnipotent according to your definitions. From my POV, you are setting up a concept of God which is easy to refute rather than dealing with the concept of God being defended by the only person posting in this thread who is actually some sort of theist (me).

Yes, there are some people who believe that God literally made the world in seven days in about 6000BC. But don't expect a prize for being able to refute the existence of such a God. I could have done it when I was seven. It's not hard.

BobG

8th August 2009, 04:45 PM

No. I just smile, and let him assume I'm not one of those evil atheists, because he knows I'm a nice guy.

Actually, I too don't say that I believe in God but my manners and attitude will give them that impression.

Bob

Lord Emsworth

8th August 2009, 04:48 PM

Uh...The Will to Power!!!

It's a tough question. How to avoid nihilism? I don't know, but I know I'd rather live in a world where I have free will than one where I don't.

As far as I am concerned, you do live in a world where free will beyond compatibilism is nothing more than an incoherent and meaningless concept. I can't really say how things would be different without that concept. But I sure would like to be better at exercising my compatibilist free will. And I can also not really see where is the differece between that and a strife for betterment.

Compatibilsm has the choices contigent on that which would be subject to betterment. LFW ... hrmpf ... let's just say it draws absurdity after absurdity.

Maybe. Perhaps in this case an illusion of meaningfulness is better than no such illusion.

Sounds reasonable...

It sounds as reasonable as any statement about God. "God needs and has the capacity to do evil, else no real free will - He just always chooses good." As good as anything.

bokonon

8th August 2009, 04:56 PM

We have a rather different understanding of what omnipotent and omniscient mean. From my POV, you are setting up a strawman. IOW, there are more interesting definitions of omnipotent and omniscient than those you choose to use.
There are more "interesting" definitions of lots of things, but I don't think your "interesting" definitions are accurate.

I have a concept of God which is indeed omnipotent and omniscient according to my own definitions of those words.
Okay, Humpty Dumpty. I'll keep in mind that words don't mean the same things to you that they mean to everybody else. You may want to keep in mind that making up your own definitions of words makes having a rational discussion difficult, if not a complete exercise in futility.

It is omnipotent and omniscient in a way that no human could ever be. But it is neither omniscient nor omnipotent according to your definitions. From my POV, you are setting up a concept of God which is easy to refute rather than dealing with the concept of God being defended by the only person posting in this thread who is actually some sort of theist (me).
Yes, the concept of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god is pretty easy to refute by referencing the real world.

If you'd care to propose a different concept of god, I propose that you use words other than "omniscient" and "omnipotent", since they don't seem to mean what you think they mean.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 04:57 PM

This does overcome the "problem of evil", but once again it does so by dispensing with an omnipotent god.

No it doesn't. If it is impossible to create an ecosystem without letting it evolve then God isn't non-omnipotent because It can't do this. I am saying that it is mathematically impossible to create a living ecosystem without letting it evolve. I'm saying that there would be an infinite number of calculations required. Every time you wanted to change something, you'd have to work out exactly how it would effect everything else. As the system gets bigger and more complicated, so does the number of calculations required.

I think that the whole idea of an intelligent designer-God is an anthropomorphisation. We know what design is. It's something like making a model of a problem then trying to create a solution to it. It is an activity which requires storage and manipulation of information and therefore it requires some sort of complex entity like a brain or a CPU. However, even though I don't believe that God is intelligent or complex in this way, I think it is interesting to think about how God could/would approach the design of the cosmos if It was intelligent/complex. We humans are pretty good at designing things. But when it comes to designing an ecosystem, how would we do it? How do scientists who research evolution or ecology try to replicate the relevant processes? Can you imagine the difficulty of trying to design a virtual ecosystem by designing each component part individually? It would soon become impractical/impossible. No, if we want to create a virtual ecosystem then we write a program which allows us to set some initial conditions, maybe create some simple virtual organisms, and which allows the system to evolve over many iterations. Even humans, the greatest designers we know of, would choose an iterative, evolutionary process to create an ecosystem, because it's the only sensible way to do it.

Gate2501

8th August 2009, 05:02 PM

No, I'm asking why this has anything to do with proof at all.

Because the claim "God exists" is a positive existential claim. This claim bears a burden of proof. If you believe this claim then:

A: You believe that the burden of proof has been satisfied.

B: You believe it is true even though the burden of proof has not been satisfied, making your belief patently illogical.

The burden of proof and supporting evidence are a big part of this discussion, like it or not.

There are some cases where proof, or strong supportive evidence, is needed.

One of these cases, would be a claim like "X exists".

But when it comes to questions like "Why don't you believe in God?" then simply demanding or even aiming for a scientific-level of proof or a beyond-reasonable-doubt level of proof may not be possible.

Once again, the basis of my lack of belief in God, is that no evidence has been provided for the claim "God exists". I therefore logically reject that claim because the burden of proof has not been satisfied. If collecting evidence for the claim "God exists" is not possible, then why would you make such a claim? What would cause you to even concept this God in the first place? It is again, patently illogical.

Can you scientifically prove to me that Shakespeare was a great writer?

This is an opinion of his work. It is also a horrible analogy, a better one would be "can you scientifically prove to me that the works of Shakespeare exist".

WHY??? Are we in a court of law? Are we designing a space probe? Why do I have to prove anything???

If you are making a positive existential claim, you need to prove that claim if you wish other people with any grasp of logic to believe it.

No it isn't. You are assuming that if God exists, there would be scientific evidence to prove it. How are you justifying this assumption?

How would we know that he exists if there is no scientific evidence of his existence? The very idea of making the claim, not just the contents of the claim, becomes terribly illogical at this point.

I'm not using semantic tricks. I'm merely pointing out that asking for scientific proof of things which couldn't be proved scientifically even if they were true, is pointless.

Your entire argument is illogical, and could be used to support(illogically) the FSM just as well as any other god, or scientifically unobservable phenomena.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 05:07 PM

There are more "interesting" definitions of lots of things, but I don't think your "interesting" definitions are accurate.

They are accurate insomuch as they describe something which is ominpotent and omniscient in certain respects, especially compared to a human.

Okay, Humpty Dumpty. I'll keep in mind that words don't mean the same things to you that they mean to everybody else.

You think that words like these have one single fixed meaning???

Language doesn't work like that.

You may want to keep in mind that making up your own definitions of words makes having a rational discussion difficult, if not a complete exercise in futility.

No, what makes rational discussion futile is people who insist on using one definition of a word rather than engaging in a debate. It doesn't matter how I define those words provided (a) my definition is recognisable i.e. I am defining "omniscient" to mean "all knowing" in at least some respect and (b) that I have clearly defined what I mean by the word. If you refuse to define a word at all, or refuse to accept a definition of a word, then you are making discussion futile. Rejecting a definition doesn't work as a logical refutation of an argument. Words are just signs for concepts. If you start objecting to definitions then you are just having an argument about which sign should be attached to which concept rather than having an argument about philosophy or religion. I don't care whether you have a different definition of "omniscient" to me. It doesn't matter, provided you know what I mean when I say "omniscient."

bokonon

8th August 2009, 05:09 PM

If it is impossible to create an ecosystem without letting it evolve then God isn't non-omnipotent because It can't do this.
But obviously it is not mpossible, since every mortal who opens an animal park and every schoolchild who builds a terrarium manages to accomplish it.

I am saying that it is mathematically impossible to create a living ecosystem without letting it evolve.
You are simply asserting something which is not true.

I'm saying that there would be an infinite number of calculations required.
Clearly, there would not. An omnipotent god could create human beings which are capable of photosynthesis, and dispense with "ecosystems" altogether.

An omnipotent god could even let an ecosystem evolve, and eliminate non-essential bugs like mosquitoes and deadly viruses after the fact.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 05:13 PM

bokonon,

I have a concept of God whereby that God knows everything which is currently known. It doesn't know that was going through Charles Darwin's mind on his deathbed. It doesn't know who is going to win the next World Cup. But it does know everything you currently know, everything I currently know, and everything the other 7 billions humans know. I call this "omniscient". You apparently object to this, because you think "omniscient" has include knowing the above things also, which to me fall under the category of "unknowable" or "unknown". What word do you want me to use for my own concept of omniscient, or should we just use "omniscient-1" and "omniscient-2"?

It's the concepts which matter, not the words. All that matters about the words is that all participants in the debate know which concept they are refering to when they are used.

Geoff

bokonon

8th August 2009, 05:13 PM

I don't care whether you have a different definition of "omniscient" to me. It doesn't matter, provided you know what I mean when I say "omniscient."
I have no idea what someone who makes up his own definitions means when he uses a word in a way which can't be found in any dictionary.

As far as I'm concerned, it's nonsense, but since you seem unwilling to find a word or series of words which means what you seem to want these words to mean, I think I'll just excuse myself from this part of the conversation.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 05:19 PM

But obviously it is not mpossible, since every mortal who opens an animal park and every schoolchild who builds a terrarium manages to accomplish it.

No they don't. Ecosystems have to be self-sustaining. It's no use if somebody is supplying the food and cleaning away the waste.

You are simply asserting something which is not true.

Prove it! ;)

Clearly, there would not. An omnipotent god could create human beings which are capable of photosynthesis, and dispense with "ecosystems" altogether.

So where would these humans exist? Floating in space like Micheal Jackson in the video for "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough"?

Sun Countess

8th August 2009, 05:21 PM

Because the alternative is non-existence? A world filled with pain is better than no world at all. That's one opinion. What's wrong with non-existence? If none of us ever existed, who would know or care? I'm just saying that if I supposedly wanted to create a world to support creatures that I loved, and I couldn't figure out a logical way to do so without causing a lot of unavoidable pain and suffering, I wouldn't do it. But that's just my opinion. ;)

eta: Was a superhumongous universe more important than one habitable planet?

That's an interesting interpretation of Christian doctrine. What was the screw-up Jesus was supposed to fix?
I'll admit I've never understood it. Jesus was sent to do something, and Christians seem awfully pleased about it. Something to do about offering forgiveness for our sins and a chance at eternal life, but I realize that we're all still born under the same original sin.

I'm trying to seperate good arguments from bad ones. Saying that you don't believe in God because there's no scientific evidence isn't a particularly good argument. Saying that you don't believe because of the existence of evil is a good argument, but there are also some good responses to it.
How is that not a good argument? I don't believe in other things for which there's no scientific evidence. If I had to believe in every possible thing for which there's no evidence, I would never get anything done. How does a person live in a world where they believe that there are invisible creatures behind every corner, under every rock, hovering above us, watching us, living inside of us, etc. etc. etc.? I don't believe in fairies, pixies, elves, gremlins, goblins, ghosts, leprachauns, monsters, or probing aliens. Do you believe in any of them? If not, what reason do you give?

That is not a reason for discounting all concepts of God.
(^^This was in regards to evidence that humanity has historically made up thousands of gods.) This reminds me of someone claiming to have ESP being caught cheating in a test, and then claiming that none of their other successes were due to cheating.

If people have been making up gods across cultures and throughout history, doesn't that speak more to a common tendency to make up stories than it does to the actual existence of such a god? Humans have also historically made up little creatures (fairies, elves, leprachauns, etc). Should we then not discount all concepts of little creatures? No evidence of their actual existence, plus plenty of evidence of story-telling would lead me to believe that they're ALL imaginary creatures. Same with gods.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 05:21 PM

I have no idea what someone who makes up his own definitions means when he uses a word in a way which can't be found in any dictionary.

Err...there's nothing particularly unusual about the definitions I've given for omniscient or omnipotent. That's why I gave the example of the "can God create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" challenge to ominpotency. The point of that argument, which is pre-university level philosophy, is to show that "omnipotent" means what I am defining it to mean.

As far as I'm concerned, it's nonsense, but since you seem unwilling to find a word or series of words which means what you seem to want these words to mean, I think I'll just excuse myself from this part of the conversation.

I'm not interested in arguing about words. You seem to be.

UndercoverElephant

8th August 2009, 05:41 PM

That's one opinion. What's wrong with non-existence? If none of us ever existed, who would know or care? I'm just saying that if I supposedly wanted to create a world where of creatures that I loved, and I couldn't figure out a logical way to do so without causing a lot of unavoidable pain and suffering, I wouldn't do it. But that's just my opinion. ;)

Really? So you're God, and you're sitting there all alone, for eternity. You can either create a world where there is terrible suffering (even the process of creation involves unimaginable aeons of red-in-tooth-and-claw suffering), but also the possibility of all of the wonderful things that exist in this world, OR you can opt for an eternity of nothingness. You'd choose the eternity of nothingness?

I'll admit I've never understood it. Jesus was sent to do something, and Christians seem awfully pleased about it. Something to do about offering forgiveness for our sins and a chance at eternal life, but I realize that we're all still born under the same original sin.

That sounds to me like a mixture of Judaism and Christianity, which is part of the general problem, I think. Because we come from the modern Christian world, we are presented with this strange mish-mash of Old Testament and New. Yet Jesus of Nazareth preached a reformation of Judaism - the Sermon on the Mount was a rejection of Jewish (and Roman) morality.

I think Christianity has a particular problem regarding its own history and relationship to other religions. It went through certain processes that other religions did not. It got warped because it was adopted by the Roman Empire and used as a political tool.

How is that not a good argument? I don't believe in other things for which there's no scientific evidence.

It's not a good argument because it depends on the assumption that scientific proof of God is possible in principle. Most theists don't believe in God because science says so. They believe in God for reasons that have nothing to do with science. I believe in God for reasons which have nothing to do with science. I see science as a tool which is very useful for answering a specific type of question, but not much use for answering questions which aren't of that specific type.

If I had to believe in every possible thing for which there's no evidence, I would never get anything done.

Nobody is asking you to believe in every possible thing. Nobody is asking you to believe in anything.

How does a person live in a world where they believe that there are invisible creatures behind every corner, under every rock, hovering above us, watching us, living inside of us, etc. etc. etc.?

Dunno. I'd go mad, personally.

How does a person live in a world where they believe that each possible quantum outcome happens in parallel universes? That is, every time they leave their house they die in some branch of the multiverse and leave their children fatherless? Quite a few scientists believe this, and at least one of them was driven mad by it.

I don't believe in fairies, pixies, elves, gremlins, goblins, ghosts, leprachauns, monsters, or probing aliens. Do you believe in any of them? If not, what reason do you give?

No, I don't believe in any of those. In fact, I believe that the Earth is probably the only place in the Universe which supports intelligent life, and I think if you started a poll on this board that you'd find the majority of people here believe there is intelligent life out there somewhere, even though there is no evidence to support this claim...

If people have been making up gods across cultures and throughout history, doesn't that speak more to a common tendency to make up stories than it does to the actual existence of such a god?

Humans like to make up stories, including stories about God. I'm not sure why this is evidence either for or against the actual existence of something deserving of the name "God." It's just evidence that humans like making up stories to fill in gaps in their knowledge.

Humans have also historically made up little creatures (fairies, elves, leprachauns, etc). Should we then not discount all concepts of little creatures? No evidence of their actual existence, plus plenty of evidence of story-telling would lead me to believe that they're ALL imaginary creatures. Same with gods.

The problem here is that religion is more complicated than just stories about leprechauns. It has historically dealt with all sorts of issues which later came under the categories of philosophy, politics and science.

Sun Countess

8th August 2009, 06:22 PM

Really? So you're God, and you're sitting there all alone, for eternity. You can either create a world where there is terrible suffering (even the process of creation involves unimaginable aeons of red-in-tooth-and-claw suffering), but also the possibility of all of the wonderful things that exist in this world, OR you can opt for an eternity of nothingness. You'd choose the eternity of nothingness? Possibly. I think I'd tinker around with smaller ecosystems until I could have something I could live with, something which didn't cause such incredible amounts of pain and suffering for the beings I created. Why not create humans with better immunity to the various viruses and bacteria that are out there?

It's not a good argument because it depends on the assumption that scientific proof of God is possible in principle. Most theists don't believe in God because science says so. They believe in God for reasons that have nothing to do with science. I believe in God for reasons which have nothing to do with science. I see science as a tool which is very useful for answering a specific type of question, but not much use for answering questions which aren't of that specific type.
But what reason should I have for believing in something for which no scientific evidence is possible? Where does this belief come from? Sincere question: What non-scientific reasons do you have for belief in your god?

Nobody is asking you to believe in every possible thing. Nobody is asking you to believe in anything.
But if people (not saying you) want me to believe in one specific thing, they'd better give me a reason. There are people out there who believe in ALL the things I listed. They haven't convinced me to join them in their belief. Why should it be different or special when it comes to god, who is just one fictional character among many?

No, I don't believe in any of those. In fact, I believe that the Earth is probably the only place in the Universe which supports intelligent life, and I think if you started a poll on this board that you'd find the majority of people here believe there is intelligent life out there somewhere, even though there is no evidence to support this claim...
I believe it's possible that there's other intelligent life out there in the universe, because at least there's evidence that intelligent life can exist in this universe. I think it's possible we're not unique in this regard. Why even postulate the existence of a god?

The problem here is that religion is more complicated than just stories about leprechauns. It has historically dealt with all sorts of issues which later came under the categories of philosophy, politics and science.
I understand the reasons that these stories came about, and that they encompassed more than just the existence of a supernatural being. There's no reason at all to believe in the actual existence of these supernatural beings. Just like the fictional characters of Frodo Baggins, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, and Neo give no reason to believe there's an actual young male "chosen one" who will rid the world of evil.

UndercoverElephant

9th August 2009, 04:39 AM

Possibly. I think I'd tinker around with smaller ecosystems until I could have something I could live with, something which didn't cause such incredible amounts of pain and suffering for the beings I created. Why not create humans with better immunity to the various viruses and bacteria that are out there?

Our immune system is superb. An ecosystem HAS to be balanced. That means that there has to be a continual arms race between things like animal immune systems and the micro-organisms which attack them. It is inevitable that some of the time the micro-organisms will be on top. It cannot work any other way.

But what reason should I have for believing in something for which no scientific evidence is possible? Where does this belief come from?

Why do you believe you are conscious?
Why do you believe that some works of art are the result of creative genius?

There's plenty of reasons for believing in things for which no scientific evidence is possible. It's actually rather to weird to ask what those reasons are. Why do you believe you are conscious? Because you just know. Why do you think some works of art are the result of creative genius? Same answer. You just do. There's nothing wrong with this. It's normal.

Sincere question: What non-scientific reasons do you have for belief in your god?

Without wanting to get into the details, I'd say for reasons not dis-similar to those given above. A mixture of personal experience, intuition and inductive reasoning.

But if people (not saying you) want me to believe in one specific thing, they'd better give me a reason. There are people out there who believe in ALL the things I listed. They haven't convinced me to join them in their belief. Why should it be different or special when it comes to god, who is just one fictional character among many?

God isn't really a fictional character. Some fictional characters have been thought of as Gods, but that's not the same thing. What is different or special about God? One answer is that the issue of the nature and existence of God is a subject which has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy whereas the nature and existence of all the things on your list have not. There are various sophisticated concepts of God which can't just be dismissed as "it's a fictional character."

I believe it's possible that there's other intelligent life out there in the universe, because at least there's evidence that intelligent life can exist in this universe. I think it's possible we're not unique in this regard. Why even postulate the existence of a god?

There's several possible reasons why somebody might postulate the existence of a God, and the reasons given tend to directly link up with the nature of the God in question. For example - why is there something instead of nothing? If there had ever been a state of absolute nothingness then there would still be nothingness. Something exists, therefore there has never been a state of absolute nothingness. Therefore, there has either been an infinite series of contingent entities (entities which exist, but could have not existed and can cease to exist) OR there is at least one necessary entity. This can lead somebody to posit the existence of a God which is defined as "a necessary being" i.e. a being which couldn't have failed to exist and can't stop existing.

This is just one example. Arguments like this rarely make much impact on a committed atheist, but that doesn't mean they are unreasonable arguments. IMO, it is more unreasonable to believe that the cosmos just popped into existence from nothing, for no reason. That, for me, is indistinguishable from illogical magic. Things don't just pop into existence from nothing, for no reason, and with no explanation. Atheists wouldn't accept the claim that anything else can do this, so why do they find it so easy to believe the entire cosmos can do it? Answer: because they find the alternative explanations even less acceptable; they see it as the least bad answer even though, deep down, they surely know it doesn't actually make any sense.

As a more general point: almost everybody believes something and most of them are very bad indeed at identifying the weaknesses in their own belief system. You only have to look at the threads on consciousness to see this in action. Many people here are willing to put their hands up and admit that they don't even know where to start, but others will insistently claims that they "have no idea what the problem is." When their belief system is threatened, most people try to pretend the threat doesn't exist, and this applies to atheists, theists and believers of all stripes. Exactly the same is true of people with strong political beliefs. There is a tendency to play down the seriousness of the weaknesses in question. "So the cosmos just popped into existence out of nowhere, for no reason, with no explanation! So what? I don't understand why this is such a big problem...after all, the alternative is that a God popped into existence out of nowhere, and that's even sillier!" This sort of response is an attempt to mask the weakness of the original claim - a failure to admit that in this case, the atheist believes in something indistinguishable from magic.

PixyMisa

9th August 2009, 05:58 AM

Why do you believe you are conscious?
I don't believe so. I conclude it.

Why do you believe that some works of art are the result of creative genius?
Again, this is a conclusion. We examine the works of art in question, and compare them to other works of art of the same general time and place, what particular elements of composition are present or absent, with particular regard to novelty of technique or subject. When we find significant novelty, we attach to it the label "creativity". When we find statistically anomalous levels of creativity in one specific artist, we attach the label "genius".

Thus, there are those who, lacking a dataset of sufficient scope upon which to form a statistically valid conclusion, label (to pick an example entirely at random) Terry Brooks a "creative genius". The more experienced among us attach to these people the label "twelve-year-olds".

UndercoverElephant

9th August 2009, 07:19 AM

For whom it may concern:

PixyMisa has been on my ignore list for a long time, mainly due to the fact that he makes no effort whatsoever to understand anything I, or anybody else, says on this board. His sole purpose in being here is to "help" everybody-else see things perfectly, like he does. I'm not sure why he bothers posting responses to me. I don't even read them, let alone answer them.

PixyMisa

9th August 2009, 07:20 AM

I noticed.

The Platypus

9th August 2009, 09:06 AM

Why don't i believe in god. Several reasons.

- No evidence period. Not even a tiny shred.
- Defies logic, reason and reality.
- Sources lack credibility.
- Which god or gods? Their is a plethora of variations with new ones emerging constantly.
- The claims are completely ridiculous to begin with.
- Man has conjured up countless creatures, characters and entities.
- If a story sounds to good to be true, it usually is.
- Hearsay isn't reliable. Especially ancient hearsay.
- Watching those that do believe.
- Magic is not real.

PixyMisa

9th August 2009, 09:15 AM

That's a pretty good list, but you missed:

- Duck bill, webbed feet, lays eggs, and it's a mammal?!

The Platypus

9th August 2009, 09:37 AM

That's a pretty good list, but you missed:

- Duck bill, webbed feet, lays eggs, and it's a mammal?!

plus it has no nipples and poisonous barbs on the males.

BobG

9th August 2009, 10:57 AM

HghrSymmetry

9th August 2009, 11:14 AM

This is just one example. Arguments like this rarely make much impact on a committed atheist, but that doesn't mean they are unreasonable arguments. IMO, it is more unreasonable to believe that the cosmos just popped into existence from nothing, for no reason. That, for me, is indistinguishable from illogical magic. Things don't just pop into existence from nothing, for no reason, and with no explanation. Atheists wouldn't accept the claim that anything else can do this, so why do they find it so easy to believe the entire cosmos can do it?

It's been my experience that they do not say it popped in from nothing. I'm aware theists say they do, but it seems more of a manufactured statement to bolster their belief.
Most atheists seem to acknowledge what cosmologists already admit...it is unknown.
But just because it's unknown, doesn't support some sort of undefined entity.

Answer: because they find the alternative explanations even less acceptable; they see it as the least bad answer even though, deep down, they surely know it doesn't actually make any sense.

Adding in a homunculus to answer the unknown isn't a scientific conclusion, it's a theological one. ID proponents use this exact strategy. They claim postulating a unknown entity as the origin for everything is a scientific conclusion. They sincerely don't seem able to understand that this has nothing to do with science.

Skeptic Ginger

9th August 2009, 12:38 PM

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I have not seen any evidence.There is plenty of evidence. It happens to overwhelmingly support the conclusion, gods are fictional beings humans created in their imagination. There is no evidence humans ever interacted with real gods.

If one asks the right question, "what best explains god beliefs?", and follows the evidence to the conclusion, the conclusion is gods are fictional beings.

If one asks the wrong question, "do gods exist?", and tries to fit the evidence to the conclusion, you end up with agnosticism. You can't disprove gods exist but there is no reason to think they do.

Why is it the wrong question? Because we waste so much time with the concept of gods existing when as you note, there is no evidence they exist.

UndercoverElephant

9th August 2009, 12:58 PM

It's been my experience that they do not say it popped in from nothing. I'm aware theists say they do, but it seems more of a manufactured statement to bolster their belief.
Most atheists seem to acknowledge what cosmologists already admit...it is unknown.

That's not much of an admission, given the context. Very few people would claim there is currently a scientific answer, because there manifestly is not. The problem appears to be logical rather scientific. The argument that there could never have been a state of absolute nothingness because if there was then there would still be nothing, stands on its own. It looks to me like a pretty solid argument. So it's not just that there's currently no scientific answer, it looks like pure reasoning forces us to choose between an infinite series of contingent entities and the existence of a necessary entity. And given that choice, it is not unreasonable to believe in the necessary entity, which we might as well call "Brahman", since the concept is basically the same.

But just because it's unknown, doesn't support some sort of undefined entity.

The entity isn't undefined. It is clearly defined as a necessary entity or being. That means it is an entity or being which cannot not exist. It has always existed and will always exist: it necessarily exists. If people want to claim that this entity has other properties then they'll need to provide additional arguments to support those claims.

Adding in a homunculus to answer the unknown isn't a scientific conclusion, it's a theological one.

This is not a homonculus for two reasons. First, it's not inside your head. Second, it is where all infinite regress ends: there can't be another one of these things, there is only one.

ID proponents use this exact strategy. They claim postulating a unknown entity as the origin for everything is a scientific conclusion. They sincerely don't seem able to understand that this has nothing to do with science.

I can't help what ID proponents do, and I'm not claiming this is science. It's not. It's metaphysics and philosophy of religion.

Gord_in_Toronto

9th August 2009, 02:03 PM

<snip>

Things don't just pop into existence from nothing, for no reason, and with no explanation.

<snip>

Certainly they do; they are called Virtual_particles and one of the demonstrations of their reality is the Casimir_effect.

If virtual particles are being created in the trillions per second at the submicroscopic level, it's not too much of a stretch to think that it could happen once at the super-macroscopic level.

Brattus

9th August 2009, 02:31 PM

For two hundred million years dinosaur's ruled the planet. The only reason they are not here now is a huge chunk of rock slammed into the Earth.
We are not even supposed to be here. We are an aftermath of a planetary disaster.
So is the creator of creation itself taking leftovers now?
Sharks were here millions of years before we were. They survived the disaster.
Maybe God made the earth for sharks? Maybe God is a shark?
Maybe shark God is very interactive with his people and keep all sharks free from pain and well fed?
Maybe there is no God at all and never has been?
Either way it's rather arrogant of us to think it would have anything to with the human race.
Considering we were never meant to be here in the first place.

UndercoverElephant

9th August 2009, 02:48 PM

Certainly they do; they are called Virtual_particles and one of the demonstrations of their reality is the Casimir_effect.

If virtual particles are being created in the trillions per second at the submicroscopic level, it's not too much of a stretch to think that it could happen once at the super-macroscopic level.

Those aren't appearing out of nothing. They come from the quantum vaccuum. Where did the quantum vacuum come from??

slingblade

9th August 2009, 03:03 PM

Those aren't appearing out of nothing. They come from the quantum vaccuum. Where did the quantum vacuum come from??

I got mine at Wal-Mart.

Gate2501

9th August 2009, 03:17 PM

Those aren't appearing out of nothing. They come from the quantum vaccuum. Where did the quantum vacuum come from??

The argument from "first cause" is logically absurd.

It leads to infinite regress, among other things.

Where did the quantum vacuum come from?
leads to
God LOL
leads to
Where did God come from?

Usually at that point theists will make this argument even more illogical(special pleading) by saying that God is immune to regress. He just is! Its wacky! :rolleyes:

Gord_in_Toronto

9th August 2009, 04:49 PM

Those aren't appearing out of nothing. They come from the quantum vaccuum. Where did the quantum vacuum come from??

It doesn't exist.

HghrSymmetry

9th August 2009, 08:37 PM

That's not much of an admission, given the context. Very few people would claim there is currently a scientific answer, because there manifestly is not. The problem appears to be logical rather scientific. The argument that there could never have been a state of absolute nothingness because if there was then there would still be nothing, stands on its own. It looks to me like a pretty solid argument. So it's not just that there's currently no scientific answer, it looks like pure reasoning forces us to choose between an infinite series of contingent entities and the existence of a necessary entity. And given that choice, it is not unreasonable to believe in the necessary entity, which we might as well call "Brahman", since the concept is basically the same.

Perhaps reality isn't so restricted to require this unknown entity. Intelligent hominds that ponder the cosmos may be limited in their ability to understand other explanations. They tend to perceive things with finite beginnings and ends.
Interestingly, the top scientists tend not to cling to entities with unknown properties.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

The entity isn't undefined. It is clearly defined as a necessary entity or being.
There is no such evidence that it is necessary.
But perhaps you have some details as to its composition, of which I imagine most of us would be interested in.
Yes, that was an impertinent comment, but a perfectly reasonable one.
If we are proposing something as a part of reality, it should, at least have a logical, consistent, non contradictory answer.
Adding an even more unfathomably complex "something or other" as an answer to the universe's origin...well...isn't an answer at all.

That means it is an entity or being which cannot not exist. It has always existed and will always exist: it necessarily exists. If people want to claim that this entity has other properties then they'll need to provide additional arguments to support those claims.

I would say there currently isn't a way to know that information. Again, IMO, pure reasoning doesn't support that conculsion. Yes, I know, you think it does, but perhaps that is closer to philosophy, not "pure reason."

This is not a homonculus for two reasons. First, it's not inside your head. Second, it is where all infinite regress ends: there can't be another one of these things, there is only one.
Where infinte regress ends (if it does) isn't known.
Homoncuslus is relevent in the definition I was using;
is often used to illustrate the functioning of a system. In the scientific sense of an unknowable prime actor, it can be viewed as an entity or agent.
http://www.reference.com/browse/Homonculus

I can't help what ID proponents do, and I'm not claiming this is science. It's not. It's metaphysics and philosophy of religion.

I can't help much either, but being so geographically close to the Discovery Institue, I tend to hear their ramblings from time to time.

They seem to have similar opinions as your own, yet they do claim it is a sceintific conclusion.

Philosophy and metaphysics can I suppose be of some entertainment to bat around, yet it can be a bit tiring due to it's impotence.
It can't tell us how things work,
it has no predicitive power,
and doesn't provide us with meaningful answers...just more questions.

So in that sense, though somewhat fun to contemplete, it's ultimatly irrelevant.

PixyMisa

9th August 2009, 08:51 PM

Those aren't appearing out of nothing.
Yes, that is almost exactly what they are appearing out of.

They come from the quantum vaccuum.
Yes. In other words, nothing. A vacuum is defined by the absence of matter, and from it, we get matter. Appearing randomly. Without cause.

Where did the quantum vacuum come from??
Perhaps it appeared out of nothing.

Lord Emsworth

9th August 2009, 10:58 PM

There's several possible reasons why somebody might postulate the existence of a God, and the reasons given tend to directly link up with the nature of the God in question. For example - why is there something instead of nothing? If there had ever been a state of absolute nothingness then there would still be nothingness. Something exists, therefore there has never been a state of absolute nothingness. Therefore, there has either been an infinite series of contingent entities (entities which exist, but could have not existed and can cease to exist) OR there is at least one necessary entity. This can lead somebody to posit the existence of a God which is defined as "a necessary being" i.e. a being which couldn't have failed to exist and can't stop existing.

I don't think necessary being is a sufficient definition of "God." And neither do I think that many people actually mean "necessary being" when they discuss "God" or cast themselves as atheists or theists.

Granted, NB is a spiffy definitional criterion for "God" but it just isn't everything.

This is just one example. Arguments like this rarely make much impact on a committed atheist, but that doesn't mean they are unreasonable arguments.

Obviously those arguments have little impact, because that is rarely what is under discussion for the atheist. "God" is more, and needs to be more, much more than just that something - and whatever exactly - that is most fundamental in the big picture. And it rarely is just something like that for a 'believer;' often enough "God" means there are also certain prescriptions (the dos and don'ts), it means that certain revelations are true and factual, that there really is a wishing well, that "God" has certain anthropomorphic features, and a whole lot of other things and magic.

And yes, then such an argumentation is unreasonable. It's a very straightforward affirming the consequent. If the road is wet and so on. Only that it's more
If God (an anthropomorphic skydaddy) exists then it is by defintion necessary being.
We have necessary being. [Likely even "proven" by a borderline idiotic syllogism :oldroll:]
Therefore, God (an anthropomorphic skydaddy) exist.

IMO, it is more unreasonable to believe that the cosmos just popped into existence from nothing, for no reason.

Few atheists believe that actually. Sure, we could call whatever-is-the-cause-of-the-cosmos "God." But why?

That, for me, is indistinguishable from illogical magic. Things don't just pop into existence from nothing, for no reason, and with no explanation.

Some things just are for no reason, and with no explanation. Necessarily, and trivially so. (Whether it can be said that they pop into existence, no, probably not.)

Saying "God" just clouds that up, though. But in the end it is just calling stuff names and behaving as if.

Why IS there something rather than nothing? *Mmmmmmooooooooo*

Damien Evans

9th August 2009, 11:08 PM

This is correct. Now when the theists include "all loving" in their definition things change.

I don't believe any gods exist because of the lack of evidence and the lack of a good reason to believe one could exist.

This.

PlayingDeaf

9th August 2009, 11:46 PM

The usual definition of God alleges that he is all powerful and simultaneously present everywhere in the universe.

I don't believe in God for one...ah, maybe two reasons.
She hasn't given me any proof.
She did not intervene in the prohibition of marijuana.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:47 AM

The argument from "first cause" is logically absurd.

I haven't made any argument from first cause. At no point did I pose the question "What came before the universe?" or "What caused the universe?". I asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?" What I asked is about logical or sustaining causes, NOT temporal causes.

It leads to infinite regress, among other things.

Where did the quantum vacuum come from?
leads to
God LOL
leads to
Where did God come from?

Given the question I asked, and not the one I didn't, it leads to "Why does God exist?", and the answer has already been provided: God exists necessarily because God, in this case, has been defined as a necessary being. God can't not exist. This is part of what it means to be God, isn't it? If God exists, how could God have failed to exist?

You are offering a refutation of a temporal cosmological argument, but the argument you are trying to refute is a modal ontological argument.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:50 AM

It doesn't exist.

Then how can something come out of it?

Actually, I think things like virtual particles may give an important clue as to how something else might "come from nothing". What is important about the virtual particules is that there are two of them and they both "add up to nothing." They are like 1 and -1 "coming from zero". Add them together and it turns out that in some sort of sense, nothing exists. A similar solution has been proposed on a cosmological level - that all of the matter and energy in the universe exactly cancels out all of the potential gravitational energy in such a way that the whole thing together cancels out to zero. If so, then the answer to the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" might be "well, actually, if you add it all up, there's still nothing."

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:07 AM

Perhaps reality isn't so restricted to require this unknown entity. Intelligent hominds that ponder the cosmos may be limited in their ability to understand other explanations. They tend to perceive things with finite beginnings and ends.
Interestingly, the top scientists tend not to cling to entities with unknown properties.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I'm a big fan of Gould, although I think he got NOMA wrong. Right idea, wrong implementation.

There is no such evidence that it is necessary.

What sort of evidence are you talking about? Scientific evidence? This isn't science. It's philosophy. It's about definitions and logical arguments, not scientific evidence.

But perhaps you have some details as to its composition, of which I imagine most of us would be interested in.

What is Brahman/God made of? Silly question. It assumes Brahman/God is a material entity.

Yes, that was an impertinent comment, but a perfectly reasonable one.
If we are proposing something as a part of reality, it should, at least have a logical, consistent, non contradictory answer.

It's not "part of" reality. It's the sustaining cause of reality. The relationship is a bit like the relationship between 0 and the integers and the question you've asked is a bit like "What sort of integer is 0?" The answer is: 0 is not like any normal number. It's 0. It's special. It's different.

Adding an even more unfathomably complex "something or other" as an answer to the universe's origin...well...isn't an answer at all.

This thing is the exact opposite of complex. It is perfectly simple. It has no parts. It is not made of anything.

I would say there currently isn't a way to know that information. Again, IMO, pure reasoning doesn't support that conculsion. Yes, I know, you think it does, but perhaps that is closer to philosophy, not "pure reason."

Pure reason is philosophy.

I can't help much either, but being so geographically close to the Discovery Institue, I tend to hear their ramblings from time to time.

They seem to have similar opinions as your own, yet they do claim it is a sceintific conclusion.

Some of the things they've come out with recently are so similar to my own arguments that more than one person who was familiar with my posts on Dawkin's board has accused them of stealing my ideas.

The Discovery Institute are anti-science. I'm not. Perhaps they should have read what I posted more carefully?

Philosophy and metaphysics can I suppose be of some entertainment to bat around, yet it can be a bit tiring due to it's impotence.

You mean it doesn't give you nice, easy answers that everyone can agree on like science does? That's in the nature of the beast. Philosophy tackles questions that science can't even approach. It may not provide the sort of certainty that science does, but at least it can do something, unlike science.

It can't tell us how things work,
it has no predicitive power,
and doesn't provide us with meaningful answers...just more questions.

Well, it does provide us with answers. The problem is that those answers tend to be very hard to understand, and often make severe demands on us if we are to accept them are true. The answers also tend, as you suggest, to create additional questions. There's nothing wrong with this either.

LightningStrike

10th August 2009, 03:12 AM

Why IS there something rather than nothing?

So that I can know I am nothing. I need distinction to know anything.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:17 AM

I don't think necessary being is a sufficient definition of "God." And neither do I think that many people actually mean "necessary being" when they discuss "God" or cast themselves as atheists or theists.

I'd say they generally do mean this. Not many believers in God think God could have failed to exist. It's just that most of them don't just mean "necessary being." They mean "necessary being with a whole load of other properties like super-intelligence and perfect goodness, etc..."

Obviously those arguments have little impact, because that is rarely what is under discussion for the atheist. "God" is more, and needs to be more, much more than just that something - and whatever exactly - that is most fundamental in the big picture. And it rarely is just something like that for a 'believer;' often enough "God" means there are also certain prescriptions (the dos and don'ts), it means that certain revelations are true and factual, that there really is a wishing well, that "God" has certain anthropomorphic features, and a whole lot of other things and magic.

Sure. I was asked why *I* believe in the God that *I* believe in. I'm not an Abrahamic theist. My beliefs are more closely related to Eastern religions.

And yes, then such an argumentation is unreasonable. It's a very straightforward affirming the consequent. If the road is wet and so on. Only that it's more
If God (an anthropomorphic skydaddy) exists then it is by defintion necessary being.
We have necessary being. [Likely even "proven" by a borderline idiotic syllogism :oldroll:]
Therefore, God (an anthropomorphic skydaddy) exist.

This is just a flawed attempt at a logical argument. Yes, the AS is by definition an NB, but it doesn't follow that if you prove the NB exists then you've proved the AS exists. The relationship is the other way around. If you can prove the AS exists then it logically follows that an NB exists, but proving the NB exists doesn't prove the AS exists.

What we end up with here is an argument about the nature of God rather than an argument about the existence of God. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm a theist of some description. It is perfectly reasonable for me to argue with other theists in an attempt to convince them that it is a mistake to anthropomorphise God. This debate has been going on within theism for millenia. It's the most important difference between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic forms of religion and is also a key difference between Abrahamic theism as understood "on the street" and Abrahamic theism as it is defended by academics. There have been plenty of Christian philosophers who claimed that anthropomorphising God is a mistake, it's just these ideas have never penetrated very deeply into mainstream western religion. ETA: the same is also true of Buddhism and Hinduism. Both of those religions have produced some very profound and coherent philosophical ideas which reject any sort of anthropomorphised deity, but both have millions of followers who believe in all manner of "sub-Gods", including some which have human-like properties.

Some things just are for no reason, and with no explanation.

Maybe, but thing I'm positing exists for no reason (Brahman) is a perfectly simple entity and the thing which you are positing exists for no reason is the most complex entity we know of (the whole universe). Whose side do you think Occam is on here? Whose explanation contains the smallest amount of inexplicable stuff? It looks like it is mine. Surely it is more believable that a perfectly simple entity can exist for no reason than for an unimaginably complex one?

devnull

10th August 2009, 04:34 AM

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I have not seen any evidence.

Merv won in the 2nd post.

PixyMisa

10th August 2009, 05:11 AM

Then how can something come out of it?

Actually, I think things like virtual particles may give an important clue as to how something else might "come from nothing". What is important about the virtual particules is that there are two of them and they both "add up to nothing." They are like 1 and -1 "coming from zero". Add them together and it turns out that in some sort of sense, nothing exists. A similar solution has been proposed on a cosmological level - that all of the matter and energy in the universe exactly cancels out all of the potential gravitational energy in such a way that the whole thing together cancels out to zero. If so, then the answer to the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" might be "well, actually, if you add it all up, there's still nothing."
I know you won't read this, but yes.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 05:19 AM

Merv won in the 2nd post.

Why is there any proof involved at all?

The question is "Why don't you believe in God?" If the answer is "because there is no proof", then you've assumed that (a) proof would be possible if God exists and (b) proof is necessary in order to justify belief. Neither assumption is safe. People, including yourself, believe all sorts of things even though they aren't proved.

Put the boot on the other foot:

Q) Why do you believe in God?
A) Because there's no proof that God doesn't exist!

This is useless, but not because it is putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. It's useless because it involves the assumption that belief in God should be determined by whether or not there is proof, presumably of the scientific sort.

ETA: there is, of course, a long history of people on both sides of this debate who set out either to prove that God exists or to prove that God does not exist. This debate has achieved very little. I'm not sure that any of those arguments ever actually convince anybody to switch sides. All they do is provide the illusion of support for beliefs that people hold already, for other reasons.

bokonon

10th August 2009, 05:55 AM

thing I'm positing exists for no reason (Brahman) is a perfectly simple entity and the thing which you are positing exists for no reason is the most complex entity we know of (the whole universe). Whose side do you think Occam is on here? Whose explanation contains the smallest amount of inexplicable stuff? It looks like it is mine. Surely it is more believable that a perfectly simple entity can exist for no reason than for an unimaginably complex one?
No, it is more believable that something which is known to exist exists than that something which cannot be shown to exist exists. Occam wouldn't favor introducing an unnecessary "perfectly simple entity which created the most complex entity we know of," and it's incorrect to argue he would.

Lord Emsworth

10th August 2009, 06:18 AM

I'd say they generally do mean this. Not many believers in God think God could have failed to exist. It's just that most of them don't just mean "necessary being." They mean "necessary being with a whole load of other properties like super-intelligence and perfect goodness, etc..."

Yes, absolutely agreed. That is what I meant by "not sufficient."

Sure. I was asked why *I* believe in the God that *I* believe in. I'm not an Abrahamic theist. My beliefs are more closely related to Eastern religions.

Fair enough. But I would add, that although one of the most common thing you hear from atheists is that they disbelieve or don't believe any God, I don't think this is entirely true. They do have in fact certain criteria for when something counts as proper God and when not, that does not match the whole 'theist' spectrum. If it ain't omnimax, *waves white handkerchief* (Just an example.)

What we end up with here is an argument about the nature of God rather than an argument about the existence of God. There's nothing wrong with that.

Hopefully you end up discussing definitions or the nature of God. What also may happen is that people just talk past each other. In my experience this is by far more frequent.

Maybe, but thing I'm positing exists for no reason (Brahman) is a perfectly simple entity and the thing which you are positing exists for no reason is the most complex entity we know of (the whole universe). Whose side do you think Occam is on here? Whose explanation contains the smallest amount of inexplicable stuff? It looks like it is mine. Surely it is more believable that a perfectly simple entity can exist for no reason than for an unimaginably complex one?

Firstly, proposing an NB apart form anything in or about the universe (and maybe otherwise undefined) is not proposing anything much. It is about as good as saying "something."

And secondly, that is not how I understand the razor. It is not about simple vs complex. It is about the number of additional entities that we need in order to explain something.

Say you put your keys on the table, then leave the room for a minute to get yourself something to drink or so. Now when you come back find the keys unmoved. Here you don't need anything at all in order to explain that. You are not going to assume that somebody must've taken them only to put them back exactly where and how you left them.

But let's say you come back do find in fact the keys moved. Here you are going to assume that the replacement of the keys has one single cause, for instance somebody took the keys and then put them back, and not several causes, i.e. that one person took them and put them back, and then a second person took them and put them back and so on.

Now in your example the universe is already a given. It is not anything additional, and it it not going to go away either. We need it and we have it. The question is, do we need anything more? And how much?

And thirdly, I can easily think of a more complex thing than "the most complex entity we know of (the whole universe)". Namely, the whole universe plus something else. And then I am not sure what that would leave you with. If, on one hand, you treat whole compound, as in the whole universe, as a single entity existing for no reason, then you should, on the other hand, also treat the other compound, as in the whole universe plus Brahman plus its reasons, as a single entity existing for no reason.

Whose entity with no reason is bigger now; the universe, or the universe plus something else? :D

And lastly, there is no real reason, I think, why not some 'part' of the universe itself could be necessary being, i.e. that bit that you need in order for the rest to exist and that in turn is not contigent upon anything else. Like something with the big bang or something quantum (what do I know?) for instance. It is not very popular in the theist camp, although it would fit a bare necessary-being-and-no-more definition to a tee.

slingblade

10th August 2009, 07:02 AM

ETA: there is, of course, a long history of people on both sides of this debate who set out either to prove that God exists or to prove that God does not exist. This debate has achieved very little. I'm not sure that any of those arguments ever actually convince anybody to switch sides. All they do is provide the illusion of support for beliefs that people hold already, for other reasons.

I "switched sides," but there was a bit more to it than finally realizing there was no evidence for a god or gods. I also realized my belief had harmed me, and would continue to harm me if I retained it. That my belief in god was part of my greater belief in magic of all sorts, and that this belief was not just ignorant, but also a set-up for poor choices in life and much disappointment.

Some people never allow themselves to think in this way, or stop themselves quickly if they do. Reading or hearing the rational arguments against god can be persuasive for some, can allow them to give themselves permission to consider the idea. At the very least, someone who has said, "I've never heard a decent argument as to why god doesn't exist" will not have that excuse here. He or she may not accept the argument, but they can't say they never encountered it.

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 07:47 AM

Why IS there something rather than nothing? *Mmmmmmooooooooo*

1. This implicitly implies that "nothing" is possible and the most likely state of the universe. There is no evidence to think that.

2. Because of unintelligent forces.

3. I don't know.

Gord_in_Toronto

10th August 2009, 07:51 AM

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 07:55 AM

The question is "Why don't you believe in God?" If the answer is "because there is no proof", then you've assumed that (a) proof would be possible if God exists

If God existed but proof was impossible, I wouldn't believe because there would be no proof. God could exist and I would be wrong but I'd have a well founded belief.

(b) proof is necessary in order to justify belief.

People, including yourself, believe all sorts of things even though they aren't proved.

People do but they shouldn't. Evidence is the only good way to reasonably know anything.

Q) Why do you believe in God?
A) Because there's no proof that God doesn't exist!

This is useless, but not because it is putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. It's useless because it involves the assumption that belief in God should be determined by whether or not there is proof, presumably of the scientific sort.

Belief without a reason is pointless because it allows one to justify any belief regardless of how the universe is configured. Furthermore, no one, not even you, really accepts this proposition. You understand that you need evidence when it comes to every other aspect of life but simply turn to fideism when it comes to God. Why is that?

ETA: there is, of course, a long history of people on both sides of this debate who set out either to prove that God exists or to prove that God does not exist. This debate has achieved very little. I'm not sure that any of those arguments ever actually convince anybody to switch sides. All they do is provide the illusion of support for beliefs that people hold already, for other reasons.

People convert to and from theism all of the time. It is a trivial task to find such an example. Go look on Richard Dawkins' website. There is a whole forum devoted to the newly undevoted. Even if no one ever changed their mind, the debate is fun from an academic perspective.

Bikewer

10th August 2009, 08:01 AM

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 08:03 AM

Fascinating. It seems that in order to accommodate some sort of "God", one must retreat to a position where God is so rarefied and lacking of characteristics that it would be exactly the same as if this being didn't exist at all.....

Especially odd since the popular position of theologians was exactly the opposite 150 years ago. You don't suppose plausible explanations for life and the origins of the universe had anything to do with that, do you?

Glockjaw

10th August 2009, 08:10 AM

I don't believe in God because it is said that God is the embodiment of perfection.

In this world, there is no such thing as perfection. Perfection is a man-made abstract and in the end comes down to how you interpret something.

Ex. The yellow lines on a road look perfectly straight when you look at them from say, 50 ft. above. When you stand over them, bend down and look, you'll find that there are cracks in the paint and it doesn't run that straight around the edges.

Perfection is clearly in the eye of the beholder. So, if perfection is a man-made abstract and is relatively useless to the universe because the universe still functions regardless of how 'perfect' it is, then God must also be a man-made abstract.

There is no need for perfection in the world, and thus no need for god.

The only reason I see a need for god is to justify the meaning of your life. People are scared that they can't make their own meaning for life and so have to give themselves to a higher being to let 'them' do what they want with your life (aka god's will).

I believe this is the fundamental difference between theists and atheists. Theists don't want to admit that their life doesn't fit in to some big plan because otherwise, what would be the point of life?

I believe atheists have accepted this idea and take on responsibility for giving meaning to their own life. 'Tis a much nobler act to be atheist IMHO.

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 08:24 AM

I haven't made any argument from first cause. At no point did I pose the question "What came before the universe?" or "What caused the universe?". I asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?" What I asked is about logical or sustaining causes, NOT temporal causes.

I thought that you were gunning for a cosmological first cause argument, and were beating around the bush. Forgive me if that was not the case.

Given the question I asked, and not the one I didn't, it leads to "Why does God exist?", and the answer has already been provided: God exists necessarily because God, in this case, has been defined as a necessary being. God can't not exist. This is part of what it means to be God, isn't it? If God exists, how could God have failed to exist?

This is the worst case of special pleading that I have ever seen in my life(imho). God exists because we stuck "and he is a necessary being" in the definition of God? This is completely absurd, and could be applied to any entity for which there is no evidence, FSM comes to mind yet again. I won't worry about FSM existing however, because this logic is terribly bunk.

You are offering a refutation of a temporal cosmological argument, but the argument you are trying to refute is a modal ontological argument.

Right, again, sorry that I thought you were abut to foray into the argument from "first cause". I think that I just pretty well refuted your ontological argument however, unless you think that logic doesn't apply to it. Your entire argument is based on a heaping helping of special pleading.

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 08:45 AM

Why is there any proof involved at all?

I explained this all in very simple terms with respect to the Burden of Proof, and the requirement for supporting evidence in the case of positive existential claims. You stopped responding to these posts.

The question is "Why don't you believe in God?" If the answer is "because there is no proof", then you've assumed that (a) proof would be possible if God exists and (b) proof is necessary in order to justify belief. Neither assumption is safe. People, including yourself, believe all sorts of things even though they aren't proved.

As I explained to you before. In the case of (a)"proof of god might not be possible", not only does your claim of "God exists" seem absurd(because the BoP has not been satisfied), the very idea of even making such a claim becomes utterly illogical. Why would you make such a claim in the first place, if no evidence to support the claim is possible? What made you make the claim!? A flight of fancy!?

Calling (b)"proof is necessary in order to justify belief." an unsafe assumption, shows that you are willing to believe things contrary to logic and reason. You are right though, proof isn't necessary to justify your personal belief in a positive existential claim. I just hope you don't mind that your justification for believing said claim(for which you have no proof) is completely illogical, and might get pwnt on some internet forum somewhere.

Put the boot on the other foot:

Q) Why do you believe in God?
A) Because there's no proof that God doesn't exist!

Ridiculous. Putting the burden of proof on the rejection of the positive claim. Completely illogical.

This is useless, but not because it is putting the burden of proof in the wrong place.

Incorrect.

It's useless because it involves the assumption that belief in God should be determined by whether or not there is proof, presumably of the scientific sort.

See above.

ETA: there is, of course, a long history of people on both sides of this debate who set out either to prove that God exists or to prove that God does not exist. This debate has achieved very little. I'm not sure that any of those arguments ever actually convince anybody to switch sides. All they do is provide the illusion of support for beliefs that people hold already, for other reasons.

I do not seek to prove that God does not exist, I simply reject the idea that he does pending evidence of his/her/it's existence.

You have supplied none.

C_Felix

10th August 2009, 08:55 AM

I read most of the replies, and I'm just gonna direct my post to the heart of the matter:

God(s) is/are in invetion. (I'm gonna go with the plural so I don't have to constantly type is/are...etc...)

Gods were invented by man to explain things.
Why are there earthquakes? There are Gods and they made them so.
Why did they make them so? We can't question God.

What is lightning? Where does it come from? There are Gods and they made them so.
Why did they make them so? We can't question God.

Why are there volcanoes? There are Gods and they made them so.
Why did they make them so? We can't question God.

...etc...

Then science came along and explained all of these things.

Since science has supplanted the rationale, and more importantly, the need for Gods, I'm gonna go with science.

Part 2.
I was told that God has a book with my name on it. The "Everything C.Felix will ever do, say, etc..." That it is all planned for me.

A preist would come in every so often duing Sunday School to answer questions. I asked, "Why does God plan horrible lives for his children?"
"What do you mean?"
"Like Charlie Manson, or Berkowitz?" (I was in the 4th grade and about 10 years old when I asked this.)
"Its all part of his plan. You need to have faith."

That's when I lost it the faith and all that jazz.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:01 AM

No, it is more believable that something which is known to exist exists than that something which cannot be shown to exist exists. Occam wouldn't favor introducing an unnecessary "perfectly simple entity which created the most complex entity we know of," and it's incorrect to argue he would.

I'm not is saying that the simple entity created the complex one. If I was, then you'd have a point. I'm saying that everything else exists only because the simple thing exists, not that the simple thing actually designed the complex one.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:07 AM

If God existed but proof was impossible, I wouldn't believe because there would be no proof. God could exist and I would be wrong but I'd have a well founded belief.

People do but they shouldn't. Evidence is the only good way to reasonably know anything.

Yeah, but it's horses for courses...

Different types of knowledge are possible and different sorts of evidence are applicable.

Belief without a reason is pointless because it allows one to justify any belief regardless of how the universe is configured. Furthermore, no one, not even you, really accepts this proposition. You understand that you need evidence when it comes to every other aspect of life but simply turn to fideism when it comes to God. Why is that?

I don't believe anything without a reason. It's just that some of those reasons are personal and non-scientific. Provided this doesn't actually contradict science, this isn't a problem.

People convert to and from theism all of the time. It is a trivial task to find such an example. Go look on Richard Dawkins' website. There is a whole forum devoted to the newly undevoted. Even if no one ever changed their mind, the debate is fun from an academic perspective.

I was the administrator of that board for nearly two years. I'm still not convinced that the arguments for and against the existence of God made much impact on people. Some of the other arguments, those about metaphysics and epistemology for example, were more effective.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:11 AM

I thought that you were gunning for a cosmological first cause argument, and were beating around the bush. Forgive me if that was not the case.

No. First cause arguments fall down because both philosophy (Kant) and science (Einstein) have given us reason to believe that outside of the universe (Einstein) or our experience of it (Kant) there is no such thing as time. Therefore it is pointless to ask about temporal first causes.

This is the worst case of special pleading that I have ever seen in my life(imho). God exists because we stuck "and he is a necessary being" in the definition of God?

It's not special pleading. If God exists then God exists necessarily. God can't exist contingently, or it's not God. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God for this argument to hold true, just as it doesn't matter if you believe in unicorns for it to be true that unicorns have one, and only one, horn. You can argue that unicorns don't exist, but you can't claim they have no horns.

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 09:18 AM

Yeah, but it's horses for courses...

Different types of knowledge are possible and different sorts of evidence are applicable.

The title of this thread is "Why Don't You Believe In God?" I know that a person can have a personal experience that leads them to believe in God. That is good for THEM but it doesn't help ME. Either that person will have to relate to me in a way that I can appreciate or I'll need to have one of those experiences myself. Otherwise, it is all just noise.

I don't believe anything without a reason. It's just that some of those reasons are personal and non-scientific. Provided this doesn't actually contradict science, this isn't a problem.

See above.

I was the administrator of that board for nearly two years. I'm still not convinced that the arguments for and against the existence of God made much impact on people. Some of the other arguments, those about metaphysics and epistemology for example, were more effective.

So you don't take their words for it?

bokonon

10th August 2009, 09:19 AM

I'm not is saying that the simple entity created the complex one. If I was, then you'd have a point. I'm saying that everything else exists only because the simple thing exists, not that the simple thing actually designed the complex one.
You might have a point if there was some way to demonstrate that this simple thing exists. Since there isn't, the idea that everything which can be demonstrated to exist depends on a thing which cannot be demonstrated to exist is adding an unnecessary element, and thus fails the Occam's Razor test.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:22 AM

I explained this all in very simple terms with respect to the Burden of Proof, and the requirement for supporting evidence in the case of positive existential claims. You stopped responding to these posts.

That's because they are irrelevant. I never claimed I could prove God exists or that I believe in God because I can prove it. Somebody asked my why I believe what I believe and I answered them. Somebody else said that they don't believe in God because there's no proof or scientific evidence. I responded by saying that this is merely a negative reason for disbelieving - a lack of reason to believe, whereas the argument from evil is a positive reason for disbelieving. None of that has anything to do with proving anything.

We are talking about belief in God, not belief in whether Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind.

As I explained to you before. In the case of (a)"proof of god might not be possible", not only does your claim of "God exists" seem absurd(because the BoP has not been satisfied), the very idea of even making such a claim becomes utterly illogical. Why would you make such a claim in the first place, if no evidence to support the claim is possible? What made you make the claim!? A flight of fancy!?

Why do I claim I am conscious?
Why do I claim that Shakespeare was a great writer?
There's no proof! Therefore it is utterly illogical!!!

Except it's not illogical, is it? It's just something we can't prove.

Calling (b)"proof is necessary in order to justify belief." an unsafe assumption, shows that you are willing to believe things contrary to logic and reason.

No it doesn't. It shows I'm willing to believe things for other reasons that science and deductive reasoning. I'm willing to follow inductive reasoning and intuition. If those things do not actually lead me to a position which contradicts science or deductive reasoning then there is no problem with this.

You are right though, proof isn't necessary to justify your personal belief in a positive existential claim. I just hope you don't mind that your justification for believing said claim(for which you have no proof) is completely illogical, and might get pwnt on some internet forum somewhere.

It's not illogical. You are seeing things in black and white when the truth is that there is a large grey area. Science and deductive reasoning can show us that certain things are true and certain things are false, but, as Wittgenstein said...

when all scientific questions are answered, the problems of life will not even be touched upon

The truths of ordinary life cannot be reconciled with those of science. Science tells us nothing about art, morality or spirituality. It doesn't even tell us much about politics.

Ridiculous.

Incorrect.

One word responses will be ignored....please don't do a PixyMisa on me.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:27 AM

The title of this thread is "Why Don't You Believe In God?" I know that a person can have a personal experience that leads them to believe in God. That is good for THEM but it doesn't help ME. Either that person will have to relate to me in a way that I can appreciate or I'll need to have one of those experiences myself. Otherwise, it is all just noise.

Agreed.

So you don't take their words for it?

Take their words for what? That some poxy argument about God not being able to create a stone he can't lift made them change their mind?

Why do you think I bothered spending two years organising a board promoting the work of Richard Dawkins? Why did I bother spending three years studying philosophy? Of course arguments change people's minds. It's just that most of the arguments about the existence of God are either centuries old, and pretty useless, or they are fiendishly complicated and end up proving very little (e.g. they prove that a necessary being exists and end up saying little or nothing about what most people think of as God, plus you have to understand S5 modal logic and be trained in analysing logical arguments to realise why they work anyway.)

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:30 AM

You might have a point if there was some way to demonstrate that this simple thing exists. Since there isn't, the idea that everything which can be demonstrated to exist depends on a thing which cannot be demonstrated to exist is adding an unnecessary element, and thus fails the Occam's Razor test.

But the existence of this thing couldn't be demonstrated in principle. The only reason to believe it exists is out of logical necessity, not demonstration, by which I assume you mean "scientific evidence."

Towlie

10th August 2009, 09:31 AM

... science (Einstein) have given us reason to believe that outside of the universe (Einstein)...I challenge you to furnish even a single reference where Einstein implied that "outside the Universe" means something.

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 09:32 AM

No. First cause arguments fall down because both philosophy (Kant) and science (Einstein) have given us reason to believe that outside of the universe (Einstein) or our experience of it (Kant) there is no such thing as time. Therefore it is pointless to ask about temporal first causes.

Yep, this is correct.

It's not special pleading. If God exists then God exists necessarily. God can't exist contingently, or it's not God. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God for this argument to hold true, just as it doesn't matter if you believe in unicorns for it to be true that unicorns have one, and only one, horn. You can argue that unicorns don't exist, but you can't claim they have no horns.

You claimed:"Why does God exist?", and the answer has already been provided: God exists necessarily because God, in this case, has been defined as a necessary being. God can't not exist.

This is special pleading. You can say "If God exists then God exists necessarily." without it being special pleading, this is just adding fantasy characteristics to your fantasy being. However, when you use those fantasy characteristics for a reasoning as to *why* he exists, you are engaging in special pleading.

bokonon

10th August 2009, 09:34 AM

The truths of ordinary life cannot be reconciled with those of science. Science tells us nothing about art, morality or spirituality. It doesn't even tell us much about politics.
The claim you are making for your god -- that it exists -- is on par with the sorts of things science can tell us about art and morality. It can tell us that this work of art exists, and what physical characteristics it possesses. Questions of opinion and consensus ("i.e., this art is "good") can be quantified in terms of people who hold that opinion, but the existence of "good" art cannot be demonstrated scientifically, since it is strictly a matter of opinion.

Similarly, science can say "This moral viewpoint exists," but value judgments such as "good" and "bad" are simply opinions, and science cannot do much more than catalog them.

You are claiming that some entity has actual existence, which is not contingent on opinion. That is precisely the sort of thing science can demonstrate, for those things which do have actual existence.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:37 AM

This is special pleading.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer. "God can't not exist" is misleading. What I should have said, and originally did say, is "IF God exists THEN God exists necessarily." God can't exist contingently, just as unicorns can't be hornless.

You can say "If God exists then God exists necessarily." without it being special pleading, this is just adding fantasy characteristics to your fantasy being. However, when you use those fantasy characteristics for a reasoning as to *why* he exists, you are engaging in special pleading.

There are no fantasies involved. It is a strictly logical argument which boils down to believing that a necessary being is more likely to exist than an infinite series of contingent entities. I think you might be reading too much into what I am actually saying.

Paulhoff

10th August 2009, 09:41 AM

What does believing in a so-called god explain?

WHAT?

The same thing as beliving in any other magical being you can think of.

Paul

:) :) :)

bokonon

10th August 2009, 09:42 AM

But the existence of this thing couldn't be demonstrated in principle. The only reason to believe it exists is out of logical necessity, not demonstration, by which I assume you mean "scientific evidence."
There is, in fact, no logical necessity for it. That's merely another of your made-up definitions. When you write the words "I define God as that which is logically necessary," it doesn't create an actual logical necessity upon which the universe depends for its existence. It just creates an empty definition.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 09:47 AM

There is, in fact, no logical necessity for it. That's merely another of your made-up definitions. When you write the words "I define God as that which is logically necessary," it doesn't create an actual logical necessity upon which the universe depends for its existence. It just creates an empty definition.

I'm defining God as having that property for exactly the same reason I define unicorns to have one horn: because that's what most people believe is the case. I repeat: it makes no difference whether you believe in God or unicorns - unicorns have one horn and God can't exist contingently. Almost Nobody believes that unicorns are hornless. Almost nobody believes God can exist contingently. You think God can exist contingently? Then it is you, not I, who has bizarre definitions!

What about this don't you understand?? It's about words and concepts. You know...the ones we are using to communicate with each other... :rolleyes:

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 09:54 AM

Why do I claim I am conscious?

Dude, we need to leave this one at the door, because it has been demonstrated in other threads that you believe consciousness to be something not entirely materialistic in nature. We are going to end up in a meta argument that is completely off-topic.

Why do I claim that Shakespeare was a great writer?

This is not a positive existential claim, this is apples and oranges.

There's no proof! Therefore it is utterly illogical!!!

No, your examples are utterly illogical in regard to their analogousness to the positive existential claim "God exists", because they are not positive existential claims. One is going to send us into an argument about the nature of consciousness, and the other is an opinion of the greatness of an existing work not an opinion as to whether the works themselves exist.

No it doesn't. It shows I'm willing to believe things for other reasons that science and deductive reasoning. I'm willing to follow inductive reasoning and intuition. If those things do not actually lead me to a position which contradicts science or deductive reasoning then there is no problem with this.

But your positions do contradict science and logic. Belief in a claim like "X exists", when no scientific evidence is provided whatsoever in support of X, is patently unscientific. The burden of proof has not been satisfied.

It's not illogical. You are seeing things in black and white when the truth is that there is a large grey area. Science and deductive reasoning can show us that certain things are true and certain things are false

Existential claims are one of these things!

The truths of ordinary life cannot be reconciled with those of science. Science tells us nothing about art, morality or spirituality. It doesn't even tell us much about politics.

What do these have to do with the truth of existential claims? You are making bad analogies.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 10:34 AM

Dude, we need to leave this one at the door, because it has been demonstrated in other threads that you believe consciousness to be something not entirely materialistic in nature. We are going to end up in a meta argument that is completely off-topic.

That's not my fault. You keep trying to claim that it is illogical to believe in things when there is no proof that they exist. It is not. It is only illogical to believe in things when there is some sort of proof that they DON'T exist.

Do you understand the difference?? It's important.

When we've sorted that one out, I'll have a look at the rest of your post...

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 10:43 AM

Gate

This is a simple point of logic.

If I believed that there was a terrestrial peak higher than Mount Everest, then I'd be being illogical, because we have mapped the entire globe from space and there aren't any peaks higher than Everest.

If I believe in consciousness, great works of art or versions of God which don't contradict any existing scientific evidence (or anything else I believe) then I am not being illogical. I'm just employing a different method of justification of beliefs than you do, and I'm willing to defend my means as being at least as reasonable as yours are.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 10:53 AM

Existential claims are one of these things!

No, this is not true. I can make all sorts of existential claims about which science says nothing. Science passes judgement only on a specific subset of "existential claims", namely those which have something to do with the behaviour, past history and predicted future of observed physical reality. Since consciousness, great artworks and God are not physical in that sense (we do not observe any of them with scientific instruments, and wouldn't expect to either), science has nothing to say about them. From a strictly scientific POV, consciousness and God are meaningless concepts and great artworks are nothing more than the materials of which they are made.

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 10:59 AM

That's not my fault. You keep trying to claim that it is illogical to believe in things when there is no proof that they exist. It is not.

Yes, it is. I apologize for this short answer.

It is only illogical to believe in things when there is some sort of proof that they DON'T exist.

This would also be illogical, and on top of that, just plain wrong.

You are attempting to state that because the negative has not been proven, the positive claim of existence is logical. This betrays that you still do not understand the burden of proof.

Do you understand the difference?? It's important.

When we've sorted that one out, I'll have a look at the rest of your post...

We have sorted it out already. You clearly think that it is not illogical to believe in the existence of things for which no evidence has been provided, and for which the burden of proof remains unsatisfied.

I don't really know where we go from here.

rocketdodger

10th August 2009, 11:02 AM

No, this is not true. I can make all sorts of existential claims about which science says nothing. Science passes judgement only on a specific subset of "existential claims", namely those which have something to do with the behaviour, past history and predicted future of observed physical reality. Since consciousness, great artworks and God are not physical in that sense (we do not observe any of them with scientific instruments, and wouldn't expect to either), science has nothing to say about them. From a strictly scientific POV, consciousness and God are meaningless concepts and great artworks are nothing more than the materials of which they are made.

All of this is only true if you make the apriori assumption that conscious behavior is not entirely accessible by science. Which, I might add, there is very little evidence to support.

On the other hand, if conscious behavior is accessible, then:

1) Consciousness is something science can speak about, by definition.
2) God is something science can speak about, since God is nececssarily a product of human consciousness.
3) Art is something science can speak about, since both Art and the enjoyment of art are products of human consciousness.

So I guess it just depends on whether one is a dualist or not. Apparently you are a dualist?

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 11:06 AM

rocketdodger

10th August 2009, 11:16 AM

NooooOOOoOOOOooooooOOOooOOoooooooooo!

/tries to put worms back in can

Yeah, sorry.

I am just really sick and tired of these people who have a clearly insufficient education in cognitive science and/or artificial intelligence making wildly misinforming claims about epistemology.

Paulhoff

10th August 2009, 11:24 AM

Funny how some talk as if science has been around for thousands of years, like religion. Religion has not answered any question about the way the universe is and/or works, and it has had lots of time to change its book to show it has learned. Science will change has information is updated, and its books will change to show this. So just because science doesn't have an answer doesn't mean that sometime in the future it will not have one. But the thing is, we don't need a magical being to fill in the gaps because it doesn't answer anything, it is a worthless place holder. But we can use what has been learned so far to try to fill in the gaps, knowing that it may not be the right answer.

Also, do we know what is on the cutting edge of science at the time, I think not.

Paul

:) :) :)

fls

10th August 2009, 11:26 AM

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 01:20 PM

I suspect that you have already had one (or several of those experiences yourself). It seems that the distinguishing feature is the interpretation placed upon the experience, rather than the experience.

For example, even though I have had an alien abduction experience, I don't believe that I was actually abducted by aliens. Other people with the same experience quite vehemently believe they have.

Linda

One theoretically possible explanation for the difference is that actually yours was a hallucination and theirs was real.

You have no way of knowing whether somebody else experienced something you did, or whether they've just used a similar string of words to describe it.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 01:23 PM

All of this is only true if you make the apriori assumption that conscious behavior is not entirely accessible by science. Which, I might add, there is very little evidence to support.

On the other hand, if conscious behavior is accessible, then:

1) Consciousness is something science can speak about, by definition.
2) God is something science can speak about, since God is nececssarily a product of human consciousness.
3) Art is something science can speak about, since both Art and the enjoyment of art are products of human consciousness.

So I guess it just depends on whether one is a dualist or not. Apparently you are a dualist?

Not going to take the bait...this really would derail the thread. I gave three examples of things which are not considered by any sane person to part of the observable physical world - God, art and consciousness. If people want to jump backwards through hoops to try to convince themselves that, erm, actually we can observe consciousness, or that, erm, science can pass judgement on works of art or, um, God is generally considered to be physical...then I hope that their strange acrobatics serves as a warning to others not to try the same stunt.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 01:29 PM

Yes, it is. I apologize for this short answer.

This would also be illogical, and on top of that, just plain wrong.

OK, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. You don't understand the basic rules of logic.

You are attempting to state that because the negative has not been proven, the positive claim of existence is logical.

I claimed it WASN'T ILLOGICAL.

This betrays that you still do not understand the burden of proof.

Nope, it betrays that you do not understand how logic works. :(

We have sorted it out already. You clearly think that it is not illogical to believe in the existence of things for which no evidence has been provided, and for which the burden of proof remains unsatisfied.

As already stated on numerous occasions, there are some issues where NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE. In which case THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF.

Understand yet?

I don't really know where we go from here.

You go to a bookshop and buy a book on basic logic?

Bob: Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language.
Bill: Prove it!
Bob: Err...how? Why? (scratches head).
Bill: Because the burden of proof is on you because you made a positive claim!
Bob: Err..but how could anyone prove who is the greatest writer in the English language? It's an aesthetic judgement call, not something testable with science or deductive logic.
Bill: Dunno! You made the claim! PROVE IT! Until you can prove it, then what you believe is illogical!

:rolleyes:

Gate2501

10th August 2009, 01:46 PM

OK, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. You don't understand the basic rules of logic.

I'm afraid that it is you who does not understand.

I claimed it WASN'T ILLOGICAL.

If it is not Illogical, yet not logical, then that means what? That logic doesn't apply to your existential claim whatsoever? I'm afraid not, though it appears that you would love if it didn't.

Nope, it betrays that you do not understand how logic works. :(

My argument has been logically consistent from the first post. I reject your assertion of "X exists" because you have provided no evidence for X, and therefore the logical burden of proof has not been satisfied. Belief in X is not logical.

As already stated on numerous occasions, there are some issues where NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE. In which case THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF.

I am afraid that there is a burden of proof on your existential claim, no matter how hard you try to escape it. You can insert special pleading, to try and mitigate this burden, but that is Illogical. By saying that no proof is even possible, you reduce your claim to absurdity. Why would you make such a claim "X exists" if you cannot possibly even know what X is because there is no evidence of X? It is patently illogical.

Understand yet?

I understand that you are trying as hard as you can to wriggle out of providing supporting evidence for your claim. You are even will to go as far as saying that evidence for your claim is impossible, making the very posit of your claim beyond ridiculous.

Please provide evidence for the claim "God exists", until you can, belief in that claim will remain illogical. No amount of special pleading will change that.

I am sorry.

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 01:50 PM

I suspect that you have already had one (or several of those experiences yourself). It seems that the distinguishing feature is the interpretation placed upon the experience, rather than the experience.

I did have one but I disagree it is always so subjective.

Say God appeared to me every minute of every day and demonstrated hundreds of miracles to me. At some point, I'd have to wonder if it was a hallucination or not. If the vision became so entwined with the "real world" I would be forced to accept it as real in the same way I am forced to accept gravity.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:13 PM

I'm afraid that it is you who does not understand.

If it is not Illogical, yet not logical, then that means what? That logic doesn't apply to your existential claim whatsoever?

WOO-HOO! I think he's nearly got it!!!

Yes, Gate2501. There is no logical means of deciding whether Shakespeare was the greatest ever writer in the English language. You don't need logic to know you are conscious. Logic has nothing to say about the claim "I feel wonderful!"

My belief in God comes in exactly the same category. I can't prove it is true any more than you can prove that the God I believe in doesn't exist. Therefore my belief is perfectly logical. That means it is CONSISTENT WITH logic. It DOES NOT CONTRADICT logic. That is not the same "logical proven." It just means "not logically disproven."

My argument has been logically consistent from the first post. I reject your assertion of "X exists" because you have provided no evidence for X, and therefore the logical burden of proof has not been satisfied. Belief in X is not logical.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Jebus.

THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF TO SATISFY. IT'S AN UNPROVABLE CLAIM IN PRINCIPLE. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE. I CAN'T PROVE I AM RIGHT. I CAN'T PROVE YOU ARE WRONG. YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU CAN'T PROVE I AM WRONG. THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF.

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 02:22 PM

THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF TO SATISFY. IT'S AN UNPROVABLE CLAIM IN PRINCIPLE. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE. I CAN'T PROVE I AM RIGHT. I CAN'T PROVE YOU ARE WRONG. YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU CAN'T PROVE I AM WRONG. THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF.

If it is unfalsifiable, then the proposition is meaningless.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:26 PM

If it is unfalsifiable, then the proposition is meaningless.

So if I say "Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language" then I've said something meaningless?

What about the actual works of Shakespeare?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zEVZGuU3BU

Meaningless? :D

KingMerv00

10th August 2009, 02:28 PM

So if I say "Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language" then I've said something meaningless?

What about the actual works of Shakespeare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zEVZGuU3BU

Meaningless? :D

Sorry, let me rephrase. Any objective position on reality must be falsifiable to be meaningful.

The existence of God is an objective claim. Either he exists or he does not. The value of Shakespeare is subjective and is defined entirely on an individual basis.

Maia

10th August 2009, 02:29 PM

I think I do see what the basic disagreement is here, though...

Behold! The missing element in the argument above:

(computer of evil is not letting me copy and paste anything; I'll have to retype it)

Bob: I hereby declare that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor.
Bill: Prove it!
Bob: ?
Bill: The burden of proof is on you because you made a positive claim.
Bob: Well, I really can't....
Bill: You're not being very logical.

(THE MISSING ELEMENT...)
Bob: Okay, how about this? I feel very strongly that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor. Your mileage may vary.
Bill: Oh. Okay. That makes sense. Let's go get some ice cream. I'll get raspberry ripple.

The End! :)

(hey, Merv had a very similar thought at the same time! Clearly, I'm psychic and should open a 1-900 hotline. $4.99 a minute... hmmm.)

godless dave

10th August 2009, 02:33 PM

That's not my fault. You keep trying to claim that it is illogical to believe in things when there is no proof that they exist. It is not. It is only illogical to believe in things when there is some sort of proof that they DON'T exist.

Do you understand the difference?? It's important.

I understand the difference, but it's not important. It is both illogical to believe in things when there is no evidence they exist and illogical to believe in things when there is proof they don't exist.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:36 PM

Sorry, let me rephrase. Any objective position on reality must be falsifiable to be meaningful.

The existence of God is an objective claim. Either he exists or he does not.

OK...we have to take the discussion in several directions here.

(1) Strictly speaking my own position is that God neither exists nor doesn't exist - that God falls into a category which is not accurately described as either existence or non-existence. This position may sound obscure, but it is compatible with quite a lot of Eastern concepts of God and at least one prominent Christian philosopher (Tillich).

(2) If we assume that it is true that either God exists or doesn't exist then we have to ask whether the existence of God is actually a "claim about reality". Is God part of reality? Not really... I suspect what you mean "reality" is "physical reality". In which case God can only be part of reality if God is made of physical stuff and has a physical location. I'm sure there are some theists out there who think God is made of physical stuff and has a physical location, but it's got to be an irrelevant minority of them, right?

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:41 PM

I understand the difference, but it's not important. It is both illogical to believe in things when there is no evidence they exist and illogical to believe in things when there is proof they don't exist.

It is not illogical to believe in things when there is no evidence that they exist. "Illogical" means there is an identifiable logical inconsistency.

Let's say I believe that Viking explorers once landed in what is now Mexico. There is no evidence to support this claim. Where is the logical inconsistency?

Contrast with: "I believe there is a terrestrial peak higher than Everest". Where is the logical inconsistency now?

rocketdodger

10th August 2009, 02:46 PM

Not going to take the bait...this really would derail the thread. I gave three examples of things which are not considered by any sane person to part of the observable physical world - God, art and consciousness. If people want to jump backwards through hoops to try to convince themselves that, erm, actually we can observe consciousness, or that, erm, science can pass judgement on works of art or, um, God is generally considered to be physical...then I hope that their strange acrobatics serves as a warning to others not to try the same stunt.

If by "sane person" you mean "person who knows very little of the relevant information" then yes, you are correct.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:47 PM

I think I do see what the basic disagreement is here, though...

Behold! The missing element in the argument above:

(computer of evil is not letting me copy and paste anything; I'll have to retype it)

Bob: I hereby declare that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor.
Bill: Prove it!
Bob: ?
Bill: The burden of proof is on you because you made a positive claim.
Bob: Well, I really can't....
Bill: You're not being very logical.

(THE MISSING ELEMENT...)
Bob: Okay, how about this? I feel very strongly that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor. Your mileage may vary.
Bill: Oh. Okay. That makes sense. Let's go get some ice cream. I'll get raspberry ripple.

The End! :)

That pretty much sums it up, yes. Bob isn't being illogical, he's just making a claim which can't be proved true or false using science or deductive logic. It doesn't mean what he's saying is meaningless or even that it isn't true (chocolate is, after all, the greatest flavour of ice-cream), just that this is not the sort of claim about which it is appropriate to demand proof.

rocketdodger

10th August 2009, 02:53 PM

It is not illogical to believe in things when there is no evidence that they exist. "Illogical" means there is an identifiable logical inconsistency.

The inconsistency isn't in the belief itself.

It is in the application of the belief.

Because the fact is, one does not believe equally in every possible entity.

Even if you believe in a teapot around Saturn, you don't believe in one around Jupiter and Neptune as well. Or if you do, you don't believe in one around Mercury. And on and on.

So the inconsistency is why do you believe in one entity without evidence and not all entities without evidence?

The only possible solution is to believe only in entities for which supporting evidence can be found. Note that this can be done -- quite easily in fact -- with God. It just means that you are wrong about it being logically rational in the case of zero evidence.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 02:58 PM

There is a small portion of the population who set themselves up for the "Prove it!" strategy to be used against them. These are the people who are confident enough in their own ability to dowse for water that they are willing to humiliate themselves by trying to win Randi's money, and those who not only believe that every word in the Bible is literally true but that science can be used to support this claim. We have a word for such people and the word is "idiots."

The demand for proof also applies when dealing with legal matters, scientific experiments and papers, engineering projects, claims that something can be proven true with a philosophical argument and no doubt a few other things also. It does not apply to the vast majority of human matters, which is why I included the Wittgenstein quote before:

We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:05 PM

The inconsistency isn't in the belief itself.

It is in the application of the belief.

Eh? But you have no idea how I "apply" my beliefs.

But I'm glad you've now admitted that there is no logical inconsistency in what I believe.

Because the fact is, one does not believe equally in every possible entity.

Of course not. That's why the word "agnostic" exists.

Even if you believe in a teapot around Saturn, you don't believe in one around Jupiter and Neptune as well. Or if you do, you don't believe in one around Mercury. And on and on.

So the inconsistency is why do you believe in one entity without evidence and not all entities without evidence?

That's not an inconsistency either. Belief systems are complicated things. There's all sorts of reasons why I believe what I believe, including science, intuition, personal experience, internal logical consistency and the need to stay sane (which is the only justification I know of for rejecting solipsism). I don't believe ANYTHING without any evidence at all. That would be blind faith. I just don't restrict my justification for what I believe to science.

The only possible solution is to believe only in entities for which supporting evidence can be found.

The trouble with that claim is that you mean "scientific evidence" and we feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.

Richard Masters

10th August 2009, 03:12 PM

Been looking for a long time, from the perspective of Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness-ism, and other modern cults, like "The Secret" and still haven't come across any evidence. Some of these religions, for example, Mormonism, make the claim that if you ask sincerely and "with all your heart" you can know that the church is true. I think I've met those requirements.

In the case of standard Christianity, I would think that an all-powerful loving God would reveal Himself and His Plan (whatever it is) to anybody who sought it.

I went to a Catholic churches in Mexico and Protestant churches in Indonesia. They both freaked me out. I also attended the Mormon church when I was dating a Mormon girl, and I left both when I was asked to make a meeting to evaluate my finances and whether I should pay tithe...

Chances are they would have actually offered me some help with tuition, instead of making me pay tithe, but I didn't want to take money from other people, or be in debt with the church in any way, as I had strong doubts at that point.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:17 PM

I challenge you to furnish even a single reference where Einstein implied that "outside the Universe" means something.

The point was that there is no good reason to assume that time means anything outside the context of physical reality.

godless dave

10th August 2009, 03:24 PM

OK...we have to take the discussion in several directions here.

(1) Strictly speaking my own position is that God neither exists nor doesn't exist - that God falls into a category which is not accurately described as either existence nor non-existence. This position may sound obscure, but it is compatible with quite a lot of Eastern concepts of God and at least one prominent Christian philosopher (Tillich).

Yes, but is it compatible with our observations of reality?

(2) If we assume that it is true that either God exists or doesn't exist then we have to ask whether the existence of God is actually a "claim about reality". Is God part of reality?

Isn't being part of reality synonymous with "exists"?

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:26 PM

I did have one but I disagree it is always so subjective.

Say God appeared to me every minute of every day and demonstrated hundreds of miracles to me. At some point, I'd have to wonder if it was a hallucination or not. If the vision became so entwined with the "real world" I would be forced to accept it as real in the same way I am forced to accept gravity.

Yes.

godless dave

10th August 2009, 03:32 PM

It is not illogical to believe in things when there is no evidence that they exist. "Illogical" means there is an identifiable logical inconsistency.

Let's say I believe that Viking explorers once landed in what is now Mexico. There is no evidence to support this claim. Where is the logical inconsistency?

The logical inconsistency is that you have a conclusion (Viking explorers once landed in what is now Mexico) with no supporting premises or arguments.

Contrast with: "I believe there is a terrestrial peak higher than Everest". Where is the logical inconsistency now?

This time it's a conclusion that contradicts known facts. Everest has been measured to be the highest peak on earth, as measured by the distance its summit is above sea level.

godless dave

10th August 2009, 03:34 PM

That pretty much sums it up, yes. Bob isn't being illogical, he's just making a claim which can't be proved true or false using science or deductive logic.

But he's phrasing it as if it were such a claim, which is why in that example Bob is being illogical.

It doesn't mean what he's saying is meaningless or even that it isn't true (chocolate is, after all, the greatest flavour of ice-cream), just that this is not the sort of claim about which it is appropriate to demand proof.

No, it makes what he's saying imprecise. He's saying "chocolate is the greatest flavor of ice cream" when what he means is "chocolate is my favorite flavor". By phrasing his statement as an objective claim about reality instead of as a subjective personal preference, he's being logically inconsistent.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:35 PM

Yes, but is it compatible with our observations of reality?

Yes. It is not incompatible, and it bears an uncanny resemblance to those virtual particles and antiparticles and the cosmos adding up to nothing stuff...

http://naturyl.humanists.net/yinyang.gif

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.
Virtual particles and antiparticles anihilate each other...

Isn't being part of reality synonymous with "exists"?

Yes, which is why I had to give you two replies to your previous question.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:37 PM

But he's phrasing it as if it were such a claim.

No he isn't.

No, it makes what he's saying imprecise. He's saying "chocolate is the greatest flavor of ice cream" when what he means is "chocolate is my favorite flavor". By phrasing his statement as an objective claim about reality instead of as a subjective personal preference, he's being logically inconsistent.

Why is "chocolate is the greatest flavour of ice cream" an objective claim about reality?

Ferguson

10th August 2009, 03:38 PM

That's not an inconsistency either. Belief systems are complicated things. There's all sorts of reasons why I believe what I believe, including science, intuition, personal experience, internal logical consistency and the need to stay sane (which is the only justification I know of for rejecting solipsism). I don't believe ANYTHING without any evidence at all. That would be blind faith. I just don't restrict my justification for what I believe to science.
[/i]

In other words, you don't restrict your justification for what you believe to reality, but to emotional comfort. In your opinion, the universe is a "better" place if you posit some God existing. However, you also state that this God can not be tested or observed, in other words, this God has no impact on physical reality, he doesn't save people, heal people, move objects, or in any other way affect the observable universe. He is as "logically necessary" as Unicorns and Leprechauns, which can not be proven to not exist, and therefore can be logically said to exist by your reasoning.

Your attempts to equivocate objective claims like "x exists" with subjective opinion like "Shakespeare is great" or "chocolate tastes good" are transparent and blatantly illogical.

You can state your opinions until the cows come home, but pretending that you are basing the opinion on logic rather than emotion is patently insincere.

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:39 PM

The logical inconsistency is that you have a conclusion (Viking explorers once landed in what is now Mexico) with no supporting premises or arguments.

But I never claimed that I believed this because of science or logic. I just said I (hypothetically) believe it. Where is the logical inconsistency?

This time it's a conclusion that contradicts known facts. Everest has been measured to be the highest peak on earth, as measured by the distance its summit is above sea level.

Exactly.

godless dave

10th August 2009, 03:40 PM

No he isn't.

Why is "chocolate is the greatest flavour of ice cream" an objective claim about reality?

The word "is", and the lack of "I" or "me" in that sentence.

godless dave

10th August 2009, 03:41 PM

But I never claimed that I believed this because of science or logic. I just said I (hypothetically) believe it.

If you say you believe something, then you are saying you think something is true. You are saying that you think it is a fact that Viking explorers landed in what is now Mexico. You are asserting a conclusion.

Ferguson

10th August 2009, 03:43 PM

Why is "chocolate is the greatest flavour of ice cream" an objective claim about reality?

Because he's stating it as an objective claim about reality. Many people state their opinion as if it is objective truth, that does not make it correct. For example I could say, "The greatest band ever is The Burning Hotels, anyone who disagrees is a liar." However, this is stating a subjective opinion as objective reality. If I said, "My favorite band is The Burning Hotels," I am presenting my opinion.

Maia

10th August 2009, 03:46 PM

Okay... I think I see what the question would be... would UE's definition mean that "chocolate is the greatest flavour of ice cream" is just Bob's personal opinion, and also an opinion which a lot of other people might share, or would it mean that it's more than just Bob's personal opinion and also an opinion which a lot of other people might share? Is there something about "chocolate is the greatest flavour of ice cream" which would transcend personal opinion under this definition?

UndercoverElephant

10th August 2009, 03:50 PM

In other words, you don't restrict your justification for what you believe to reality, but to emotional comfort.

If you include my disbelief in solipsism then yes. Solipsism is just too emotionally disturbing for me to seriously consider it is true. Apart from that, emotional comfort is somewhere near the bottom of my list of reason to believe things. I am a HARD REALIST. I believe the sustainable population of the Earth, post fossil-fuels, is about 1 billion humans if we are lucky. Not very emotionally comforting. Rather hard to accomodate into one's belief system, especially if you have or want to have children...

In your opinion, the universe is a "better" place if you posit some God existing.

Nope. Didn't say that, don't think it either...

However, you also state that this God can not be tested or observed, in other words, this God has no impact on physical reality...

Or that. Whether or not something has causal effect on reality is not the same as whether it can be observed. It depends on the nature of the cause-effect relationship.

, he doesn't save people, heal people, move objects...

No.

, or in any other way affect the observable universe.

Maybe. (It, not "he", God doesn't have testicles.)

He is as "logically necessary" as Unicorns and Leprechauns, which can not be proven to not exist, and therefore can be logically said to exist by your reasoning.

No, unicorns and leprechauns aren't necessary entities.

Your attempts to equivocate objective claims like "x exists" with subjective opinion like "Shakespeare is great" or "chocolate tastes good" are transparent and blatantly illogical.

Ah, my bad. :)

You can state your opinions until the cows come home, but pretending that you are basing the opinion on logic rather than emotion is patently insincere.

http://www.afreeman.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/cow-biogas_z_1_1.jpg

Moo.