I think I've heard every theist argument.

[KingMerv00]

I try my best to see all sides of an argument. I've listened to those who believe in God for years now and I have begun to get frustrated. I find it very difficult to listen to theists because the same dozen or so arguments for God repeat themselves regularly and each one is crushed by simple logic. Have I really reached the end of my religious self-examination at the age of 26? Has anyone seen any new approaches to the God question I might not have heard? I'm desparate for an challenge.

Here is a list of aguments that pop into my head:

Fideism
God-of-the-Gaps
Holy Books as evidence
Argument for morality
Pascal's Wager
Fine-Tuner
Various "word game" proofs of God
Personal revelation
First Cause

Help! My brain needs philosophical excercise!

[PixyMisa]

Argument from alcohol?

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

Benjamin Franklin

[grayman]

Could you give a representative example of each argument?

[Tanstaafl]

Argument from orgasm?

Oh god...oh god...Oh GODDDDD!

[MelBrooksfan]

There's that Watchmaker tripe, also.

[MelBrooksfan]

Could you give a representative example of each argument?

God-of-the-Gaps: Jeans are comfortable, therefore god exists.

Holy Books as evidence: The Foundation series is uncontestable proof that Isaac Asimov is/was god.

Argument for morality: Good people believe in god, therefore god exists.

Pascal's Wager: God helped Pascal win a bet, therefore god exists.

Fine-Tuner: When my car broke down, the local mechanic fixed it in short order and at a great price. If he isn't god, he surely must be Isaac Asimov's son.

etc

I apologize for the horrible nature of the preceeding jokes.

[latent aaaack]

You forgot arguements that unknowingly circumvent logic totally which reduce to 'I like my god, therefore everything I like about the universe must have come from him.' Arguements like the universe is so complex, harmonious, beautiful, and morality is so good, and so on, that there must be a god. But that's more of a drive-by type of arguement a few stones away from "have fun in hell, blasphemer," passive aggressive praying or worse yet near-sarcastic religious sentiment such as after a hostile rant in an arguement "Oh and by the way...Jesus loves you. Have a nice day."

[ponderingturtle]

There's that Watchmaker tripe, also.

That would be first cause or fine tuner. In some combination or individualy.

[KingMerv00]

Could you give a representative example of each argument?

Do you mean site examples online?

[grayman]

Or give non-joke examples similar to MelBrooksfan.

[grayman]

You forgot arguments that unknowingly circumvent logic totally which reduce to 'I like my god, therefore everything I like about the universe must have come from him.'..."

Reminds me of this quote: "I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." - Emo Phillips

[MelBrooksfan]

Serious Examples:

Fideism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism): The idea that in a battle of Reason VS. Faith, faith always wins.

God-of-the-Gaps (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html): There is some 'gap' in scientific knowledge. This gap can only be explained by god (for the lazy, any way. Luckily, real scientists do not give up so easily).

Holy Books as evidence: The Bible proves the existence of god.

Pascal's Wager (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html): There are two possible outcomes: There either is a god, or there isn't. If you believe in god and it turns out that there isn't, you've lost nothing more than the atheist. If you're an atheist and there really is a god, you have lost considerably. Therefore it is a 'safer bet' to simply believe in god.

Personal revelation: God spoke to me thus proving his existence.

First Cause (http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/category/religion/): I assume this is the argument chain that begins "What created the earth?" and then keeps going until you have to say "I don't know." at which point they leap and conclude that it must be god.

[Azure]

What about the part where you can't prove/disprove God....

[KingMerv00]

Examples

Fideism: Faith is a valid means to obtain objective truth. Therefore I believe in God.

God-of-the-Gaps: Science does not know the origin of the universe. Therefore God must be the cause.

Holy Books as evidence: Bible sites prophecy X. X happened. Therefore a God inspired the Bible.

Argument for morality: Morals could only come from a divine being. That divine being is God.

Pascal's Wager: Pascal's Wager is a specific example already.

Fine-Tuner: If the physical constants were only slightly different, life would not have arisen. Therefore, God adjusted these constants with the purpose of creating a stable, living sustaining universe.

Various "word game" proofs of God: See Thomas Aquinas.

Personal revelation: The Virgin Mary appeared to me in a dream. Only a divine being could have caused that vision. Therefore, God exists.

First Cause: Everything is caused by something else. In order to terminate this infinite regression we need an omnipotent being outside of time. I name this being "God".

Why did you ask for examples Grayman?

[Yiab]

What about the part where you can't prove/disprove God....

That's an extreme version of god-of-the-gaps, I think. In any case, it's an argument from ignorance.

Here are some examples, followed by quick refutations.

Fideism: You don't need a reason to believe in god, just have faith.
Refutation: That's meaningless gibberish.

God-of-the-gaps: We only know what was happening 1/4 of a second after the big bang, so god was before that. Wait a minute, now we know what happened 1 Planck time after the big bang? Then god was before that.
Refutation: Non sequitur plus moving goalpost.

Argument for morality: Without god, how can you justify being a moral person?
Refutation: Morality is independent of god's words (Dawkins does a wonderful demonstration of this).

Fine-tuner: If the charge of the electron were 0.00000001% more or less than it actually is, we would never have come into existence, therefore god must have chosen that exact value so that we could exist.
Refutation: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.

[latent aaaack]

If you're done learning all the fallacies that people in religious debates use then I suggest doing the same for political debates. It could actually go a long way towards improving discourse if there was a wiki listing at least 90% of the fallacious types of statement and attacks used in political discussion that crop up again and again. With religion and worse, politics, there's too much of an attitude that 'my opinion' equals 'my personal property' meaning it's then fundamentally wrong for someone to change, disprove, or subject it to rational enquiry.

[MelBrooksfan]

It could actually go a long way towards improving discourse if there was a wiki listing at least 90% of the fallacious types of statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[grayman]

Why did you ask for examples Grayman?

So I could understand better. :)

[Jon.]

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.


God can be defined as "that being, no greater than which anything exists." A being which exists is greater than a being which doesn't exist, therefore God must exist in order to satisfy the definition.

This is definitely a word game. Here is one refutation. If there is no form of life higher than human beings, then the "greatest" (defined in some unspecified manner) human being alive is, by definition, God. Upon the death of that person, presumably, the next-greatest person becomes God. Since there is no evidence for any form of life (or being) higher than humans, a human is God.

Another refutation would simply be to say that a being which could be greater than anything which exists, without existing itself, would be even greater. Therefore God doesn't exist.

[KingMerv00]

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument



God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined).
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind.
God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).

[MelBrooksfan]

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.

To expand on the Thomas Aquinas note of earlier: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

[Jon.]

King Merv is, of course, more correct than I was in stating the ontological argument. My first refutation would not work for that version; however, my second would work. It all depends on your definition of "greater", which is so vague as to be functionally meaningless.

[Azure]

That's an extreme version of god-of-the-gaps, I think. In any case, it's an argument from ignorance.

Here are some examples, followed by quick refutations.

Fideism: You don't need a reason to believe in god, just have faith.
Refutation: That's meaningless gibberish.

God-of-the-gaps: We only know what was happening 1/4 of a second after the big bang, so god was before that. Wait a minute, now we know what happened 1 Planck time after the big bang? Then god was before that.
Refutation: Non sequitur plus moving goalpost.

Argument for morality: Without god, how can you justify being a moral person?
Refutation: Morality is independent of god's words (Dawkins does a wonderful demonstration of this).

Fine-tuner: If the charge of the electron were 0.00000001% more or less than it actually is, we would never have come into existence, therefore god must have chosen that exact value so that we could exist.
Refutation: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unfortunately, I can't think of an example of a "word game" proof of god.

So are you going to prove/disprove the existence of God, or are we done here?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think there are very few theists who actually buy any of the mentioned "proofs"--except maybe the obvious non-proof "fideism". Really, most believers say it's a matter of faith and not something provable or testable.

The bigger question, "why do you believe anything in particular?" is of greater concern. As refutations of Pascal's Wager, fideism, God of the gaps, etc. point out, there is not a dichotomy between atheism and belief in a particular God (Judeo-Christian, for example), but an infinity of supernatural beliefs you could espouse. I don't understand how someone who accepts ANYthing on faith can filter out any other nutty belief as being nonsense.

There was a story maybe a year ago of a psycho with a 666 tattoo who claimed he is a new incarnation of Jesus Christ. Conventional religions quickly poo-pooed his claim, but I never heard any reasonable explanation of how they can accept the absurd beliefs they have and reject his claim.

[aggle-rithm]

God can be defined as "that being, no greater than which anything exists." A being which exists is greater than a being which doesn't exist, therefore God must exist in order to satisfy the definition.


This argument was brought up on the excellent Australian mini-series, "Brides of Christ" (well, it was set in Australia, don't know if it was produced there). One of the novices, upon being told this argument, said it was a pile of rubbish. She was told to shut up.

[Azure]

I think there are very few theists who actually buy any of the mentioned "proofs"--except maybe the obvious non-proof "fideism". Really, most believers say it's a matter of faith and not something provable or testable.


I don't.

Like you said, to me it is a matter of faith.

Anyone who has faith...and believes these 'proofs' has by definition no faith at all.

[KingMerv00]

So I could understand better. :)

Ah. Go forth now enlightened.

[KingMerv00]

I don't.

Like you said, to me it is a matter of faith.

Anyone who has faith...and believes these 'proofs' has by definition no faith at all.

Everyone implicitly rejects fideism in their everyday life. I know of no one who believes that the bus will be on time from faith alone.

Why apply faith only to religion?

[Azure]

Everyone implicitly rejects fideism in their everyday life. I know of no one who believes that the bus will be on time from faith alone.

Why apply faith only to religion?

Don't you think that is a invalid comparison since most of us will 'see' the bus arrive on time many times...but still, don't we 'trust' or have 'faith' that the bus will arrive on time again, since we don't actually 'know' that it will?

Sorta like trusting that your drinking water won't be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Don't really know if you can apply faith there...although my world religions teacher gave us a very good article where the author mentioned that based on a survey....many people had faith in certain unknowns during their life. And not all of it was religious either, or supernatural.

We've never seen God....which is why faith only applies to religion.

Basically, if you believe in the supernatural, you must have faith.

[KingMerv00]

Don't you think that is a invalid comparison since most of us will 'see' the bus arrive on time many times...but still, don't we 'trust' or have 'faith' that the bus will arrive on time again, since we don't actually 'know' that it will?

Sorta like trusting that your drinking water won't be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Don't really know if you can apply faith there...although my world religions teacher gave us a very good article where the author mentioned that based on a survey....many people had faith in certain unknowns during their life. And not all of it was religious either, or supernatural.

We've never seen God....which is why faith only applies to religion.

Basically, if you believe in the supernatural, you must have faith.

Perhaps I'll change my argument then.

On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? If someone believes in the FSM, why are they wrong? If I have faith that I am the new messiah, are my beliefs valid? I'm sure you don't believe everything simultaneously.

It doesn't bother you at all that your premise and conclusion are one in the same?

[Jon.]

Don't you think that is a invalid comparison since most of us will 'see' the bus arrive on time many times...but still, don't we 'trust' or have 'faith' that the bus will arrive on time again, since we don't actually 'know' that it will?

Sorta like trusting that your drinking water won't be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Don't really know if you can apply faith there...although my world religions teacher gave us a very good article where the author mentioned that based on a survey....many people had faith in certain unknowns during their life. And not all of it was religious either, or supernatural.

We've never seen God....which is why faith only applies to religion.

Basically, if you believe in the supernatural, you must have faith.

If you believe in anything for which there is no evidence, you must have faith.

For such a believer, the problems, as I see them, are two:

First, how do you decide what to believe in? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different varieties of Christianity alone. Then there are all the other faiths in the world. At some point, you are applying your judgment and saying that one of these is "better" than the others, and is your judgment not human and therefore fallible?

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?

Second, any proposition that can be advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This leaves the impartial observer unable to assess the validity of any faith-based claims.

[KingMerv00]

If you believe in anything for which there is no evidence, you must have faith.

For such a believer, the problems, as I see them, are two:

First, how do you decide what to believe in? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different varieties of Christianity alone. Then there are all the other faiths in the world. At some point, you are applying your judgment and saying that one of these is "better" than the others, and is your judgment not human and therefore fallible?

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?


I totally ninja'd you.

Just to expand...If fideism is allowed then contradictory statements can be equally valid. One person can have faith Jesus was the only Son of God while another my believe that Rick is the the only Son of God. If they use faith they are both equally "right".

[Jon.]

I totally ninja'd you.

Only because my post is longer and more thought-out. :p

[Azure]

Perhaps I'll change my argument then.

On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? If someone believes in the FSM, why are they wrong? If I have faith that I am the new messiah, are my beliefs valid? I'm sure you don't believe everything simultaneously.

It doesn't bother you at all that your premise and conclusion are one in the same?

People can believe whatever they want...that is their prerogative.

I choose to have faith that God exists.

And even though some people think I should be...I am NOT fundamental in my belief.

An open mind is an enlightened mind. Works both ways you know.

[Azure]

I totally ninja'd you.

Just to expand...If fideism is allowed then contradictory statements can be equally valid. One person can have faith Jesus was the only Son of God while another my believe that Rick is the the only Son of God. If they use faith they are both equally "right".

Sure.

Just like some idiots believe that Xenu brought billions of people to planet earth, stacked them in volcano's, and blew them up with Hydrogen bombs.

Among these advanced teachings, one episode revealed to those who reach OT level III is the story of Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy. Xenu (sometimes Xemu) is introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. Scientologists believe the alien souls continue to do this today, causing a variety of physical ill-effects in modern-day humans. Hubbard called these clustered spirits "Body Thetans", and the advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating them and neutralizing their ill effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

You do realize that there are people who are spiritual, but not religious?

[Azure]

If you believe in anything for which there is no evidence, you must have faith.


Absolutely. Which is why the whole idea of 'proof' that God exists is a fallacy.


This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?


I really don't know. There have been man madmen through history who have tried to esteem themselves as God.

How do you know? Probably through faith.

[Jon.]

You do realize that there are people who are spiritual, but not religious?


What does that mean and how does it relate to the discussion of believing in things on faith, in spite of a lack of evidence?

[Azure]

What does that mean and how does it relate to the discussion of believing in things on faith, in spite of a lack of evidence?

One of the biggest knocks atheists have on people that believe in God, is their 'religious' views.

You CAN believe in God...and not be religious. I call such people theists.

They simply believe that there is something greater than themselves.

So this statement...

This applies not only to established religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc.) but also to modern cults. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross, was resurrected and then went directly to heaven, and that he will return, how can you dismiss the claims of the innumerable madmen who have said they are that returned Jesus? More importantly, how will you know the returned Jesus when (if) he does return?

Would not apply to them.

[KingMerv00]

People can believe whatever they want...that is their prerogative.

I choose to have faith that God exists.

And even though some people think I should be...I am NOT fundamental in my belief.

That doesn't answer my question though. On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? What about faith-based contradictory statments?

An open mind is an enlightened mind.

This isn't always true.

Works both ways you know.

My mind is very open. I believe all sorts of counter-intuitive ideas. Evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics...

I started this thread in hopes of hearing more arguments for the existance of God. It made me sad that the debate was so easily finished. I absolutely love when my beliefs are challenged...it helps me to get closer to the truth.

I am ready to believe in God. I just need a reason.

[Jon.]

One of the biggest knocks atheists have on people that believe in God, is their 'religious' views.

You CAN believe in God...and not be religious. I call such people theists.

Well, then you have a much narrower definition of theism than most people.

They simply believe that there is something greater than themselves.

So this statement...



Would not apply to them.

Except that they would still not be in a position to dismiss anybody else's claim without exposing their own claims (such as they may be) to the same dismissal.

[ImaginalDisc]

What about "Arguement from moral touchstone," or whatever it is called: The assertion that if god doesn't exist, we'd all become murderous barbarians.

[KingMerv00]

I really don't know. There have been man madmen through history who have tried to esteem themselves as God.

How do you know? Probably through faith.

We don't believe them because they lack evidence.

[Azure]

That doesn't answer my question though. On what basis do you reject an infinite number of alternative supernatural beliefs? What about faith-based contradictory statments?


If I believe in God...how can I reject Xenu? Again, through faith.

I know this sounds repetitive...


This isn't always true.


Give me an example for a closed-mind is a good thing.


I started this thread in hopes of hearing more arguments for the existance of God. It made me sad that the debate was so easily finished. I absolutely love when my beliefs are challenged...it helps me to get closer to the truth.

I am ready to believe in God. I just need a reason.

I don't think you'll ever find a reason to believe in God, because the reason you're looking for 'cold, hard proof' does not exist.

[KingMerv00]

What about "Arguement from moral touchstone," or whatever it is called: The assertion that if god doesn't exist, we'd all become murderous barbarians.

Covered in my OP. See? No new arguments left.

[Azure]

What about "Arguement from moral touchstone," or whatever it is called: The assertion that if god doesn't exist, we'd all become murderous barbarians.

There are people who believe in God who are murderous barbarians...and people who don't believe in God who are murderous barbarians.

Subjective claim.

[KingMerv00]

If I believe in God...how can I reject Xenu? Again, through faith.

I know this sounds repetitive...

I can believe whatever I like through faith and be justified?

What about contradictions?



Give me an example for a closed-mind is a good thing.

I think you misunderstood. I meant that people who are open minded aren't always enlightened.

I don't think you'll ever find a reason to believe in God, because the reason you're looking for 'cold, hard proof' does not exist.

You believe in God. I do not. We contradict each other. One of us must be right. Now what should we do?

Please don't say "faith". It is a word that can justify anything.

[Azure]

Well, then you have a much narrower definition of theism than most people.

Expand that definition to anyone who believes in a supernatural being.


Except that they would still not be in a position to dismiss anybody else's claim without exposing their own claims (such as they may be) to the same dismissal.

Sure. Which is why I can't truthfully say that Scientology is a false belief.

I believe it is...but by no means can I prove it.

[KingMerv00]

Sure. Which is why I can't truthfully say that Scientology is a false belief.

I believe it is...but by no means can I prove it.

You don't need to prove Scientology is false. They need to prove it is true.

I don't see why their faith isn't enough.

[Azure]

I can believe whatever I like through faith and be justified?

What about contradictions?


Give me an example.

I'm trying to remember an incident in the 70's...where someone coerced a lot of people into killing themselves for religious reasons. Anyone remember that?

The outcome there would probably be a contradiction to their belief. I can't really remember the specific details though.


I think you misunderstood. I meant that people who are open minded aren't always enlightened.


No, I'm just being a prick. :D


You believe in God. I do not. We contradict each other. One of us must be right. Now what should we do?


Beat each other up?

What CAN we do?

Please don't say "faith". It is a word that can justify anything.[/QUOTE]

I know. It is also the only thing that will justify a belief in God.

[Azure]

You don't need to prove Scientology is false. They need to prove it is true.


We were talking about dismissing other beliefs.

They need to prove it is true in order to attract people to their belief system. Obviously they're doing something right.


I don't see why their faith isn't enough.

It can be, yes.

[Jon.]

Expand that definition to anyone who believes in a supernatural being.

Okay, as long as you also remove the qualifier about not being religious. The Pope is a theist.



Sure. Which is why I can't truthfully say that Scientology is a false belief.

I believe it is...but by no means can I prove it.

Okay, so why do you choose your faith (whatever it is) over others?

[Jon.]

I try my best to see all sides of an argument. I've listened to those who believe in God for years now and I have begun to get frustrated. I find it very difficult to listen to theists because the same dozen or so arguments for God repeat themselves regularly and each one is crushed by simple logic. Have I really reached the end of my religious self-examination at the age of 26? Has anyone seen any new approaches to the God question I might not have heard? I'm desparate for an challenge.

Here is a list of aguments that pop into my head:

Fideism
God-of-the-Gaps
Holy Books as evidence
Argument for morality
Pascal's Wager
Fine-Tuner
Various "word game" proofs of God
Personal revelation
First Cause

Help! My brain needs philosophical excercise!

I can think of two others.

Credo consolans. I believe because it consoles me, or makes me feel better, although I know there is no evidence or rational reason to believe in the truth of my beliefs.. There is no real refutation for this, except to say that the person does not really believe, they just act as if they do.

Argument from inertia. My family/our people have "always" believed this, so I do too. IMO, this is at the root of the beliefs of a very large segment of the theistic community. It has, of course, no validity and does not really need to be refuted beyond pointing out other things that people "always" believed (the earth is flat, blacks are inferior and ought to be slaves, the Osmonds are good entertainment) that turned out to be false (or at least rejected).

[Azure]

Okay, as long as you also remove the qualifier about not being religious. The Pope is a theist.


So you assume anyone who believes in the supernatural, or spiritual word is automatically religious?


Okay, so why do you choose your faith (whatever it is) over others?

Probably because of my childhood.

[KingMerv00]

Give me an example.

I'm trying to remember an incident in the 70's...where someone coerced a lot of people into killing themselves for religious reasons. Anyone remember that?

Another misunderstanding. If faith is a valid way of objective truth, why do different faiths contradict? Do you just believe and hope you picked the right one?

Beat each other up?

That would violate my "no losing teeth rule".

What CAN we do?

Carefully look at reality and make a rational decision?

I know. It is also the only thing that will justify a belief in God.

I think your use of the word "justify" is wrong.

[Jon.]

So you assume anyone who believes in the supernatural, or spiritual word is automatically religious?

Not at all. I accept that there is a difference between "spiritual" and "religious." The precise difference varies from person to person and argument to argument, but it generally revolves around the involvement or non-involvement of the structures of organized religion. However, I was pointing out that most people who are "religious" are also theists. It appeared that you wanted to restrict the term "theist" to those who are "spiritual" but not "religious."



Probably because of my childhood.

I applaud you for your candour. Does it not concern you that, if you had had a different childhood you might have a very different faith?

[KingMerv00]

So
Probably because of my childhood.

What about your childhood?

[Azure]

Another misunderstanding. If faith is a valid way of objective truth, why do different faiths contradict? Do you just believe and hope you picked the right one?


I have faith that my belief in God is correct.

I never said I was religious.


That would violate my "no losing teeth rule".


I was so looking forward too it.


Carefully look at reality and make a rational decision?


Absolutely.


I think your use of the word "justify" is wrong.

How would you describe it?

I don't know how else to explain how one could 'justify' their belief in God.

[Azure]

Not at all. I accept that there is a difference between "spiritual" and "religious." The precise difference varies from person to person and argument to argument, but it generally revolves around the involvement or non-involvement of the structures of organized religion. However, I was pointing out that most people who are "religious" are also theists. It appeared that you wanted to restrict the term "theist" to those who are "spiritual" but not "religious."


No, no restrictions here.

I didn't want to make it seem that way.

Fair enough though.


I applaud you for your candour. Does it not concern you that, if you had had a different childhood you might have a very different faith?

Its not a concern, really....because I am not religious, at this point.

I only believe in a supernatural being.

[Azure]

What about your childhood?

I was brought up with the belief that there is something greater than ourselves out there.

Not religious though....my parents haven't ever imposed their religion on me...I have yet to come full circle on that.

[KingMerv00]

You believe in a supernatural being. Fine. I don't care whether that belief is "spiritual" or "religious". It is still based on nothing.

You don't have any solid rules about this being. Why does that mean you are free to believe without reason?

[Azure]

You believe in a supernatural being. Fine. I don't care whether that belief is "spiritual" or "religious". It is still based on nothing.

Sure.

[KingMerv00]

Sure.

And your "nothing" is better than your neighbor's "nothing" how?

[Jon.]

I was brought up with the belief that there is something greater than ourselves out there.

Does this "something" have any attributes that you know of?

[blobru]

I'm trying to remember an incident in the 70's...where someone coerced a lot of people into killing themselves for religious reasons. Anyone remember that?


Jonestown: cult leader Jim Jones. A couple of feds nosing around his commune were shot, then he and 900+ followers drank cyanide-laced kool-aid.
Waco might be a more recent example, depending on whose account of how the fire started you believe.

[I]Credo consolans. I believe because it consoles me, or makes me feel better, although I know there is no evidence or rational reason to believe in the truth of my beliefs.. There is no real refutation for this, except to say that the person does not really believe, they just act as if they do.

A common refrain akin to the "winning locker room" argument: "First of all, I like to thank God for givin' me strength to beat my opponent to a bloody pulp..."
(refutation: the bloody pulp believed in God too.)

[ponderingturtle]

Jonestown: cult leader Jim Jones. A couple of feds nosing around his commune were shot, then he and 900+ followers [i think] drank cyanide-laced kool-aid.
Waco might be a more recent example, depending on whose account of how the fire started you believe.

Actualy it was a congressman named Leo Ryan

[blobru]

Actualy it was a congressman named Leo Ryan

Sorry, federal employees. He was shot dead and his aide Jackie Speier was wounded five times.
I wanted to draw the comparison to Waco, which was also a showdown between cult and federal authority.
In hindsight, referring to a man who was gunned down doing his job as one of a "couple of feds" seems flip and callous on my part.
RIP.

[Azure]

And your "nothing" is better than your neighbor's "nothing" how?

Did I say it was better?

[Azure]

Does this "something" have any attributes that you know of?

A creator...something that holds everything together?

Probably along the lines of the Christian God...but I'm not so fundamental in my approach towards him.

[Azure]

Jonestown: cult leader Jim Jones. A couple of feds nosing around his commune were shot, then he and 900+ followers [i think] drank cyanide-laced kool-aid.
Waco might be a more recent example, depending on whose account of how the fire started you believe

The first one is the one I'm referring too.

Obviously their faith didn't help them much.

What happened in Waco?

[Jon.]

A creator...something that holds everything together?

Probably along the lines of the Christian God...but I'm not so fundamental in my approach towards him.

Well, that's very ... vague of you.

Do you think that there has to be a "creator"? If so, what created the creator?

Do you think that "everything" needs to be "held together"? Why?

What does "along the lines of the Christian God" mean? Omnipotent? Omniscient? All-loving? Three-in-one? Male?

Does this entity impact on the universe, and more particularly on the Earth, and even more particularly on humanity, today? Did it ever?

[Azure]

Well, that's very ... vague of you.

Do you think that there has to be a "creator"? If so, what created the creator?


The whole essence of a creator is that he was the beginning.

Where do you think everything came from? The original source?


Do you think that "everything" needs to be "held together"? Why?


Yes.


What does "along the lines of the Christian God" mean? Omnipotent? Omniscient? All-loving? Three-in-one? Male?


Along those lines yes. Male? I never realized that gender was a defining qualification of God.


Does this entity impact on the universe, and more particularly on the Earth, and even more particularly on humanity, today? Did it ever?

Yes. Obviously as a creator it would impact everything it created.

[blobru]

What happened in Waco?

That was David Koresh in the early '90s. When officers tried to search his Branch Davidian compound for a weapons cache, shooting broke out and several were killed. After a prolonged siege and negotiations in which some cult members were allowed to surrender, the compound was stormed with armored tanks. A fire started (some investigators say deliberately by cult members committing suicide, some say by the tanks)... in any event, 75 people inside, including Koresh, perished in the blaze.

[Seismosaurus]

I have faith that my belief in God is correct.

May I ask why?

[Jon.]

The whole essence of a creator is that he was the beginning.

Where do you think everything came from? The original source?

I don't know. I don't understand the physics around the Big Bang. However, I do understand that declaring a god to be the "beginning" only pushes the question back a step: what created the creator? If the creator didn't need a creator, then why does the universe?



Yes.

You didn't explain why you think everything needs to be held together.



Along those lines yes. Male? I never realized that gender was a defining qualification of God.

Every Bible I've seen refers to the Christian God as "He" and "Father".

And if you think that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, you will need to deal with the problem of evil.




Yes. Obviously as a creator it would impact everything it created.


Would you not expect there to be some evidence of this impact?

[Azure]

That was David Koresh in the early '90s. When officers tried to search his Branch Davidian compound for a weapons cache, shooting broke out and several were killed. After a prolonged siege and negotiations in which some cult members were allowed to surrender, the compound was stormed with armored tanks. A fire started (some investigators say deliberately by cult members committing suicide, some say by the tanks)... in any event, 75 people inside, including Koresh, perished in the blaze.

Thank you!

I remember reading something about that.

Wasn't there a movie made about such a following?

[Azure]

May I ask why?

Because I'm pre-programmed to believe in God?

How the heck should I explain 'why' I believe in God?

[Azure]

I don't know. I don't understand the physics around the Big Bang. However, I do understand that declaring a god to be the "beginning" only pushes the question back a step: what created the creator? If the creator didn't need a creator, then why does the universe?


Aha.

You've now officially stumped me.

But I do believe that a Big-bang is a very possible explanation for the birth of the universe. That does not mean that there wasn't a supernatural being that created it.

Yes, what created the creator? Nobody seems to know that answer.


You didn't explain why you think everything needs to be held together.


Okay, I mis-worded my original answer.

I believe that a supernatural being, God, created the universe is such a way that it could evolve by itself. So, your 'why' question should not be directed towards that, but towards my belief of a supernatural being having actually 'created' the universe.

To answer that....I sincerely believe that there had to be a controlling aspect to the creation, simply because of the chances a perfect planet could be created.

Does that mean there are no other perfect planets? No. But those perfect planets must have had perfect circumstances surrounding their creation as well.

Every Bible I've seen refers to the Christian God as "He" and "Father".


And which God have you heard of that isn't referred to as that? Can God have a gender? Perhaps father is a not to be taken as a literal term....rather as a 'father' of the universe.


And if you think that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, you will need to deal with the problem of evil.


Yes I know that. Still working on it. :)


Would you not expect there to be some evidence of this impact?

No. Evidence would cite proof...which would nullify faith.

[Seismosaurus]

Because I'm pre-programmed to believe in God?

How the heck should I explain 'why' I believe in God?

Well how you explain is up to you isn't it? As for whether you can or not... well if not you then who?

[Azure]

Well how you explain is up to you isn't it? As for whether you can or not... well if not you then who?

Alright...I'll basically give the same answer I gave in another post.

I believe that a supernatural being, God, created the universe is such a way that it could evolve by itself. So, your 'why' question should not be directed towards that, but towards my belief of a supernatural being having actually 'created' the universe.

To answer that....I sincerely believe that there had to be a controlling aspect to the creation, simply because of the chances a perfect planet could be created.

Does that mean there are no other perfect planets? No. But those perfect planets must have had perfect circumstances surrounding their creation as well.

[Jon.]

Aha.

You've now officially stumped me.

But I do believe that a Big-bang is a very possible explanation for the birth of the universe. That does not mean that there wasn't a supernatural being that created it.

It doesn't mean there was, either.

Yes, what created the creator? Nobody seems to know that answer.

So, if you're willing to stop there, why are you not willing to stop one question earlier and say you don't know what caused the Big Bang?



Okay, I mis-worded my original answer.

I believe that a supernatural being, God, created the universe is such a way that it could evolve by itself. So, your 'why' question should not be directed towards that, but towards my belief of a supernatural being having actually 'created' the universe.

To answer that....I sincerely believe that there had to be a controlling aspect to the creation, simply because of the chances a perfect planet could be created.

Does that mean there are no other perfect planets? No. But those perfect planets must have had perfect circumstances surrounding their creation as well.

The anthropic principle. Have you ever considered that you're throwing a dart at a big wall, then drawing the target around the dart and declaring that you have scored a bulls-eye? The universe is an awfully big place. The odds were very very good that some planet(s) would be "perfect" so as to give rise to life. Earth was (the) one, so we are here to ask the question. If some other planet had been "perfect" we would have been there asking the same question.

And if this being is so powerful, and can create any universe it wishes, doesn't it seem awfully wasteful to create such a vast one just to give rise to us?



And which God have you heard of that isn't referred to as that? Can God have a gender? Perhaps father is a not to be taken as a literal term....rather as a 'father' of the universe.

There are plenty of gods that have been female, although those have been within pantheons that also included male gods. I just wonder why you adopt so many of the attributes of the Christian god but balk at this one.



Yes I know that. Still working on it. :)

Good luck with that. ;)



No. Evidence would cite proof...which would nullify faith.


Watch out for those zebra crossings!:D

Seriously, though, have you considered this? That would imply that God was careful not to leave evidence of his/her/its existence, just so that we could believe by faith. What kind of twisted logic is that? The same kind that makes gardens with one forbidden fruit tree, I guess.:rolleyes:

[Seismosaurus]

I believe that a supernatural being, God, created the universe is such a way that it could evolve by itself. So, your 'why' question should not be directed towards that, but towards my belief of a supernatural being having actually 'created' the universe.

To answer that....I sincerely believe that there had to be a controlling aspect to the creation, simply because of the chances a perfect planet could be created.

Does that mean there are no other perfect planets? No. But those perfect planets must have had perfect circumstances surrounding their creation as well.

The "fine tune" argument? Hmmm, okay.

[blobru]

Thank you!

I remember reading something about that.

Wasn't there a movie made about such a following?

I wouldn't doubt it.

Yes, what created the creator? Nobody seems to know that answer.

Causa sui is the traditional response from theists.
Not much of an answer really, but hey, it's a tough question! :o

[Lonewulf]

Yes.

Another vague answer from our vague theist.

[Azure]

It doesn't mean there was, either.


Absolutely.


So, if you're willing to stop there, why are you not willing to stop one question earlier and say you don't know what caused the Big Bang?


You don't know either.

I choose to believe it was God, especially given the perfect circumstances of our planet.


The anthropic principle. Have you ever considered that you're throwing a dart at a big wall, then drawing the target around the dart and declaring that you have scored a bulls-eye? The universe is an awfully big place. The odds were very very good that some planet(s) would be "perfect" so as to give rise to life. Earth was (the) one, so we are here to ask the question. If some other planet had been "perfect" we would have been there asking the same question.


Odds are very good? Remote, to say the least.


And if this being is so powerful, and can create any universe it wishes, doesn't it seem awfully wasteful to create such a vast one just to give rise to us?


Well he could do like Xenu did and stack us into volcano's and blow up up with hydrogen bombs.

Why wasteful? I never said there were no other planets with lifeforms.


There are plenty of gods that have been female, although those have been within pantheons that also included male gods. I just wonder why you adopt so many of the attributes of the Christian god but balk at this one.


I never balked at it. Just seems stupid to suddenly attribute gender to the essence of God. Again, WOULD a supernatural being have a gender?


Good luck with that. ;)


Thanks.


Seriously, though, have you considered this? That would imply that God was careful not to leave evidence of his/her/its existence, just so that we could believe by faith. What kind of twisted logic is that? The same kind that makes gardens with one forbidden fruit tree, I guess.:rolleyes:

If God would have left 'scientific' evidence...where would faith go?

Remember, people believe looking outside gives them 'proof' God exists...when in fact it gives them nothing in the way of 'real' proof.

[Azure]

Another vague answer from our vague theist.

I never professed to have all the answers.

Like blobru said...it is a tough question.

If you don't like it, by all means, go away.

[Lonewulf]

I never professed to have all the answers.

Like blobru said...it is a tough question.

It gets tougher as you keep trying to pigeon-hole yourself into a belief.

When someone asks you "why?", it is at least polite to explain in your response why you choose not to answer such a question. Just a pointer.

If you don't like it, by all means, go away.

I'll go where I like, thanks.

Anyways, I feel like I should make an argument here. You talk about our "perfect planet" so often, I have to ask you a question:

Would we even be able to marvel at a planet if we didn't exist on it?

Think about it for a second. If there's a billion in one chance of having a world that can support life, then life will evolve on one world out of a billion.

Think about it some more. To the life that evolves on that world, they will adapt to the planet to perfection. Of course sunlight and water will be great to those that live on the world with sunlight and water. We've adapted perfectly to our surroundings thanks to evolution, and yet we're limited to what's available on this planet. There are spectrum of light we cannot see, frequencies of sound that we cannot hear, and all for a very specific reason: Evolution selected for it. There is nothing supernatural about any of it.

Think about it yet further. To the perspective any life that evolved on any world, the elements are "perfect" for life in their surrounding area. But what was so incredibly special?

Absolutely nothing. Just statistics. A one in a billion chance is an incredibly vast number, and a one in a bajillion is even larger. But if you have a large enough data set, that number is not so incredible, and the probability of at least one instance become closer and closer to 1. From the perspective of that one, it's incredible, but statistically speaking, it's nothing at all.

You want to fudge the numbers and add in your god-being. That's fine. But I find inventing mythical concepts to be rather silly.

[Azure]

It gets tougher as you keep trying to pigeon-hole yourself into a belief.

When someone asks you "why?", it is at least polite to explain in your response why you choose not to answer such a question. Just a pointer.


I missed it the first time.

Or is that a problem?


You want to fudge the numbers and add in your god-being. That's fine. But I find inventing mythical concepts to be rather silly.

Are you done now?

I don't care what you think is silly.

[Lonewulf]

I missed it the first time.

Or is that a problem?

Are you done now?

I don't care what you think is silly.

That's cool. I edited my post above. If you want to respond, that's fine.

[Azure]

That's cool. I edited my post above. If you want to respond, that's fine.

I read it.

I can't disagree with it, because I believe in evolution.

i have already said that I believe our universe was created to evolve by itself.

[Lonewulf]

I read it.

I can't disagree with it, because I believe in evolution.

i have already said that I believe our universe was created to evolve by itself.

To answer that....I sincerely believe that there had to be a controlling aspect to the creation, simply because of the chances a perfect planet could be created.

^--- I was refuting this argument.

With a large enough data set, a "perfect planet" is not anything spectacular. There does not need to be a controlling aspect. Just physics, time, and statistics.

Maybe I just disagree with you because I'm "pre-wired" to. No free will or thinking, just wiring. ;)

[CapelDodger]

Well, that's very ... vague of you.

Being, I suspect, somewhat less charitable than you, I'd have used the term "vacuous". Otherwise, we're rowing in the same boat :) .

[Azure]

^--- I was refuting this argument.

With a large enough data set, a "perfect planet" is not anything spectacular. There does not need to be a controlling aspect. Just physics, time, and statistics.

Maybe I just disagree with you because I'm "pre-wired" to. No free will or thinking, just wiring. ;)

And I have said all along that other 'perfect' planets could very well exist.

Maybe we are pre-wired...I seriously doubt it though.

My belief system came from a result of numerous teachings and a lot of reading.

Not because I was hardwired to automatically believe that way.

[Lonewulf]

And I have said all along that other 'perfect' planets could very well exist.

So do you admit that it's no proof of God?

[Hokulele]

And I have said all along that other 'perfect' planets could very well exist.

Maybe we are pre-wired...I seriously doubt it though.

My belief system came from a result of numerous teachings and a lot of reading.

Not because I was hardwired to automatically believe that way.


Personally, I have never felt that a concept of god can be proven/disproven (never much cared to try either), but have done a little bit of reading on the whole "hard-wired" bit. You may want to try this author and this website. (http://www.numenware.com/article/360/)


ETA: By author, I mean Ramachandran, not the blog author.

[CapelDodger]

I don't care what you think is silly.

Your concern has as much impact as your beliefs. It remains silly (infantile, even) to conjure-up supernatural comfort-blankets, however woolly they are.

[Azure]

So do you admit that it's no proof of God?

Did I say it was proof?

How many times have I stated that it is impossible to prove/disprove God?

[Azure]

Personally, I have never felt that a concept of god can be proven/disproven (never much cared to try either), but have done a little bit of reading on the whole "hard-wired" bit. You may want to try this author and this website. (http://www.numenware.com/article/360/)


ETA: By author, I mean Ramachandran, not the blog author.

And if he is right....do we have free-will?

What other things are we hard-wired to believe in?

EDIT: I have to say, I agree with your initial comment. There is no point in trying to prove/disprove God.

[Azure]

Your concern has as much impact as your beliefs. It remains silly (infantile, even) to conjure-up supernatural comfort-blankets, however woolly they are.

Are you done?

You think I care what you think is silly?

[Hokulele]

And if he is right....do we have free-will?

What other things are we hard-wired to believe in?


Did you read the site? The book on the page I linked to actually does discuss this.

EDIT: I have to say, I agree with your initial comment. There is no point in trying to prove/disprove God.


:)

[Lonewulf]

Did I say it was proof?

How many times have I stated that it is impossible to prove/disprove God?

In short, you believe in something without any adequate reason for doing so. Okay.

Is there anything else that can be believed in without any adequate reason for doing so?

And if he is right....do we have free-will?

Define "Free Will"? From my perception, we are capable of making choices, there is no doubt about that. But I am a determinist, in that I think of the universe in terms of cause and effect, instead of complete randomness.

What other things are we hard-wired to believe in?

Where do thoughts or decisions come from? Is it something in the body, or without? In this universe or without?

[Jon.]

You don't know either.

I choose to believe it was God, especially given the perfect circumstances of our planet.

"Choose" to believe? I think there's a whole thread about that. "Perfect" circumstances - yes, for us, but that's not surprising, considered we evolved here. Have you ever read Douglas Adams' tale of the puddle?



Odds are very good? Remote, to say the least.

Given one planet, yes, very remote. Given the number of planets in the universe, not remote at all. In fact, almost unavoidable.



Well he could do like Xenu did and stack us into volcano's and blow up up with hydrogen bombs.

Why wasteful? I never said there were no other planets with lifeforms.

??? I don't see your point here.



I never balked at it. Just seems stupid to suddenly attribute gender to the essence of God. Again, WOULD a supernatural being have a gender?

I'm not attributing gender, but you said it was roughly along the lines of the Christian God. The Christian God is always described as male. I wonder why you are reluctant to include this part. Why is it "stupid" to attribute gender to God?


If God would have left 'scientific' evidence...where would faith go?



If God had left scientific evidence, there would be no need for faith. Every rational person would believe in God. How would this be a bad thing?

[Lonewulf]

If God had left scientific evidence, there would be no need for faith. Every rational person would believe in God. How would this be a bad thing?

Humans say faith is a good thing, and preferable to evidence in God's existance.

Therefore, faith is good.

Therefore, God must desire faith.

Therefore, God would have left no scientific evidence.

Ahhh, yes, it makes so much sense. No, actually, it doesn't.

[Miss Anthrope]

Humans say faith is a good thing, and preferable to evidence in God's existance.

Therefore, faith is good.

Therefore, God must desire faith.

Therefore, God would have left no scientific evidence.

Ahhh, yes, it makes so much sense. No, actually, it doesn't.

Nominated.

[blobru]

EDIT: I have to say, I agree with your initial comment. There is no point in trying to prove/disprove God.
Except exercise. ;)

It's interesting that you also mention free will.

A theist might argue thus:

This First Cause / God thing seems very hard to imagine, but---
Our individual experience of free will is direct and very hard to deny.
For there to be such a thing as free will, the will has to transcend cause-and-effect.
If the will enacts without prior cause, it becomes a first cause.
So we have direct experience of a transcendent first cause, our own free will.
For the universe to exist, it must cause itself; i.e., have a transcendent first cause.
Our experience of free will is evidence of transcendent first cause.
Free will is a property of conscious beings, so this transcendent first cause which created the universe must also be the property of a conscious being.
Therefore the universe was created by a conscious Being (or beings): God (or gods).

This is a First Cause argument, but from analogy with our direct experience of free will: our intuition of a transcendent first cause.
Sort of First Cause meets existentialism.
Not exactly the new type OP was asking for, but a fresh coat of paint at least...

[Azure]

In short, you believe in something without any adequate reason for doing so. Okay.

Is there anything else that can be believed in without any adequate reason for doing so?


If you want to call it 'without reason' go ahead.


Define "Free Will"? From my perception, we are capable of making choices, there is no doubt about that. But I am a determinist, in that I think of the universe in terms of cause and effect, instead of complete randomness.


Oh, so we're alike there.

I also don't think everything is 'random'...hence my belief in a deity.

As for Free Will? I look at it this way. Do I have a choice right now whether or not I should respond to you?

If I do...I have free will. I could very well ignore your post too.

Do I believe in fate? Kinda hard to say...I think God knows what choices we will make, but he doesn't influence our being to make certain choices.


Where do thoughts or decisions come from? Is it something in the body, or without? In this universe or without?

I firmly believe YOU make your 'own' thoughts and decisions.

So no, I don't think the universe, OR God controls you in such a manner.

[Azure]

"Choose" to believe? I think there's a whole thread about that. "Perfect" circumstances - yes, for us, but that's not surprising, considered we evolved here. Have you ever read Douglas Adams' tale of the puddle?


No. I'll have to find time for that.


Given one planet, yes, very remote. Given the number of planets in the universe, not remote at all. In fact, almost unavoidable.


Given the number of planets...I think an educated estimate is somewhere around 10 planets having a chance of sustaining life. According to Eskeptic...and the point they make about the movie 'A privileged planet.'


??? I don't see your point here.


Unless I misunderstood...you said it is 'wasteful' for God to put us on one planet...and leave the rest of the universe without life.

I made a stupid comment about Scientology...and asked why it was wasteful if other planets with a certain kind of lifeforms might also exist.


I'm not attributing gender, but you said it was roughly along the lines of the Christian God. The Christian God is always described as male. I wonder why you are reluctant to include this part. Why is it "stupid" to attribute gender to God?


If you attribute gender to a God...to me it has human characteristics. And suddenly, it is not so much a God anymore.

God, as a humanized figure, usually taking the form of a man, has often appeared as a character in various works of fiction such as movies, books, and television shows. Though depictions vary, God is usually portrayed as wise, old sage, with a patient and calm personality. In cartoons God is usually depicted as a caricature of Michelangelo's classic painting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

In popular culture of course....perhaps to make God more personal? I still can't figure out how a supernatural being could be either a male or a female.


If God had left scientific evidence, there would be no need for faith. Every rational person would believe in God. How would this be a bad thing?

Well then we'd all agree...and how boring would that be? ;)

[Lonewulf]

If you want to call it 'without reason' go ahead.

Okay. It's without reason, then, and has no reason to be taken seriously. Done.

Oh, so we're alike there.

I also don't think everything is 'random'...hence my belief in a deity.

There does not have to be a deity for non-randomness.

As for Free Will? I look at it this way. Do I have a choice right now whether or not I should respond to you?

If I do...I have free will. I could very well ignore your post too.

Where did the decision come from? Specifically, what process made that decision?

Do I believe in fate? Kinda hard to say...I think God knows what choices we will make, but he doesn't influence our being to make certain choices.

Since any argument here will be under presumption of an unproven God, there is no reason for me to debate it.

I firmly believe YOU make your 'own' thoughts and decisions.

Thoughts and decisions based on what? Particularly, thoughts and decisions that come from where?

So no, I don't think the universe, OR God controls you in such a manner.

But what does control your mind? If your mind is based on your brain, it is based on a physical construct. A construct that is filled with limitations, and is powered by an electrochemical process. There are some things you can control, and some you can't. You cannot choose to be manic-depressive, you cannot choose to be bipolar, you cannot choose to have chronic depression, and you cannot choose certain emotional states of being.

"Choices", as they occur, do not have a 50/50 chance everytime they're made; there's always a finite number of choices.

[Lonewulf]

Well then we'd all agree...and how boring would that be? ;)

If you think it's boring to have evidence of a deity, then you're bored easily. Perhaps a lack of imagination.

[PixyMisa]

Given the number of planets...I think an educated estimate is somewhere around 10 planets having a chance of sustaining life. According to Eskeptic...and the point they make about the movie 'A privileged planet.'
Ten?! Where the heck did that number come from?

There are on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe. Planets seem to be pretty common (http://exoplanets.org/). Our solar system alone has somewhere between 8 and, oh, 20, discovered so far. (Including 2005FY9, Easterbunny.)

Let's assume that 90% of stars don't have planetary systems; that the average planetary system has 10 planets; and that 90% of those are automatically unable to sustain life simply due to temperature (too hot - organic molecules decompose; too cold - necessary chemical reactions don't work).

That leaves us with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets with the right general conditions. What happened to the other 999,999,999,999,999,999,990?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

KingMerv, Do you frequently read apologist books old or new? Do you actively attempt to go out and seek arguments in support of the existence of a God? Or do you simply sit here and wait for dull theists to come and peddle their fallacious arguments so you can refute them and then claim you've "head every theistic argument"?

[KingMerv00]

KingMerv, Do you frequently read apologist books old or new? Do you actively attempt to go out and seek arguments in support of the existence of a God? Or do you simply sit here and wait for dull theists to come and peddle their fallacious arguments so you can refute them and then claim you've "head every theistic argument"?

I do try to read apologists but I find it difficult. I start to read and they bring up the same dozen or so debunked arguments. It gets tiresome.

I started this thread in hopes of finding more. Do you know any? I'd be very happy hear of new ones.

No luck so far. Azure is arguing a combination of fideism and fine tuning.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2674452#post2674452)
And your "nothing" is better than your neighbor's "nothing" how?

Did I say it was better?

You didn't but it is implied. You believe in YOUR "nothing" and not your neighbor's "nothing". That means you must find the qualities of your "nothing" to be better than his "nothing".

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2674452#post2674452)
You didn't but it is implied. You believe in YOUR "nothing" and not your neighbor's "nothing". That means you must find the qualities of your "nothing" to be better than his "nothing".

Maybe he flipped a coin? Would God be heads or tails?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I do try to read apologists but I find it difficult. I start to read and they bring up the same dozen or so debunked arguments. It gets tiresome.

I started this thread in hopes of finding more. Do you know any? I'd be very happy hear of new ones.

No luck so far. Azure is arguing a combination of fideism and fine tuning.


I can post a thread with some more novel arguments if you want.

[KingMerv00]

I can post a thread with some more novel arguments if you want.

Yes. That would be very helpful.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes. That would be very helpful.


I posted a thread up for you in this section. Tell me if you've heard those arguments before.

[Beerina]

Pascal's Wager (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html): There are two possible outcomes: There either is a god, or there isn't. If you believe in god and it turns out that there isn't, you've lost nothing more than the atheist. If you're an atheist and there really is a god, you have lost considerably. Therefore it is a 'safer bet' to simply believe in god.

Technically, Pascal's Wager isn't a proof of God. It's a heuristic designed to, in theory, optimize your existence over the long run. It actually accepts that God might very well not exist.

[Beerina]

God can be defined as "that being, no greater than which anything exists." A being which exists is greater than a being which doesn't exist, therefore God must exist in order to satisfy the definition.

This is definitely a word game. Here is one refutation.

Well, per your examples, that definition if flawed in that the greatest thing that exists, even if it is a garden slug, becomes "god" since nothing greater exists.

The philosophical arguments often rotate around a slightly different definition though, "that beyond which nothing greater is possible."

And that definition, too, fails. Thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know there is no such thing as a greatest infinity -- there are infinitely large sets that are infinitely larger than other infinitely large sets (no 1 to 1 mapping both ways exists.)

So if a god is just an infinitely large bag of abilities, it's possible that there are not just other gods more powerful (their bags are larger) but there are infinitely more powerful gods who are to them what they are to a mortal. And thos gods could have still larger gods. And thanks to transfinite mathematics, we know this chain can never stop since there is no largest set that such that no infinitely larger set exists.

So the entire concept of God that modern monotheisms tout is flawed logically. But that god was always just the result of "my god is tougher than your god" game of one-upsmanship over the millenia.

[ponderingturtle]

Personally, I have never felt that a concept of god can be proven/disproven (never much cared to try either), but have done a little bit of reading on the whole "hard-wired" bit.

It would be easy to prove god exists if there was evidence, sort of like proving that canada exists is not that hard.

[Darth Rotor]

What about "Arguement from moral touchstone," or whatever it is called: The assertion that if god doesn't exist, we'd all become murderous barbarians.
Hobbes, or R. E. Howard, styled barbarians?

"In [the state of nature] there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequentially no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities which may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; No account of Time; No Arts; No Letters; No Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short" (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan )

DR

[PixyMisa]

The Howard barbarians get all the hot chicks. Okay, so some of them are green and lay eggs, but still...

[rikzilla]

Ten?! Where the heck did that number come from?

There are on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe. Planets seem to be pretty common (http://exoplanets.org/). Our solar system alone has somewhere between 8 and, oh, 20, discovered so far. (Including 2005FY9, Easterbunny.)

Let's assume that 90% of stars don't have planetary systems; that the average planetary system has 10 planets; and that 90% of those are automatically unable to sustain life simply due to temperature (too hot - organic molecules decompose; too cold - necessary chemical reactions don't work).

That leaves us with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets with the right general conditions. What happened to the other 999,999,999,999,999,999,990?


Pix,...there is such a thing as "exponential notation" ya know? ;)

But really, our galaxy alone has something like 10^11 stars, and there are even likely to be more than 10^11 galaxies in the universe. It's an unbelievable number of possible life bearing planets. So why does anyone think we're so special? Because we just happen to be here? The Catholic Church once taught that the earth was the center of the universe and was then debunked by science. (Even though scientists at that time were known as "heretics" and often used as firewood)

The universe is merely a giant random number generator. If you can pull the handle of a slot machine an infinite number of times, you're bound to see a vast number of payoffs. There's really no need of further explaination. It's of course more personally meaningful (I guess) to think of a friendly God providing you the "perfect" payoffs you see...but logically speaking an infinity of random possibility explains it well enough withour resorting to a magic being.

-z

[Darth Rotor]

But really, our galaxy alone has something like 10^11 stars, and there are even likely to be more than 10^11 galaxies in the universe. It's an unbelievable number of possible life bearing planets.
I just had an unbelievable thought: 1011 pints of Guinness. That's just enough to handle the world Rugby cup refreshments requirement, I think.

So why does anyone think we're so special? Because we just happen to be here?
I think the Guinness has an influence on that.
The universe is merely a giant random number generator.
Note: 'is merely' is a flag that means "ration of reductionist tripe to follow."
If you can pull the handle of a slot machine an infinite number of times, you're bound to see a vast number of payoffs.
And a bad case of tennis elbow. :(
There's really no need of further explaination. It's of course more personally meaningful (I guess) to think of a friendly God providing you the "perfect" payoffs you see...but logically speaking an infinity of random possibility explains it well enough withour resorting to a magic being.
But it's the "infinity plus one" pull that pays out the really big jackpots in Vegas, which is why I never one won. :)

DR

[blobru]

Hobbes, or R. E. Howard, styled barbarians?
:mad: "Conan not atheist, by Crom!"

[Dunstan]

Have you read all of these? (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

Some of my favorites:

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that. (3) Therefore, God exists.


ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

[blobru]

Have you read all of these? (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

bust-a-gut funny :p thanks!

toss in...
Argument from the "Trailer Park Boys":
HOW THE %$#@ did that show get on the air?
therefore, God exists.