0
scottbre

Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

Recommended Posts

rehmwa

***No, it isn't.



Withdrawing my "YMMV" comment as wasted understanding and tolerance

Adding "YMMV" to an incorrect statement does not make that statement less incorrect. You were wrong. Get over it.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
beowulf

******No matter how good or well thought out an argument for something is... if there is no evidence that can be independently and scientifically tested there is no reason to believe and it is worthless. That's why the independent confirmation of scientific claims are so important. With out them they are meaningless and can not be taken seriously. Religion makes claims about the real world that can not be confirmed in any way. So there is no good reason to take their claims seriously. All of the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those claiming God exists.



I like what C.S. Lewis said about this (I am paraphrasing because I do not have the actual quote handy) in relation the Thermodynamics (Lewis Apologia, et al)--

We human beings exist as both matter and energy. By our own physical laws, backed with science, logic, reason and mathematics, we can prove scientifically that we possess these characteristics.

We know that matter and energy co-exist and cannot be created or destroyed under normal physical law (see Richard Feynman on "The Character of Physical Law").

That the matter and energy exist is without question.

We know that when a person dies, the matter of which they are comprised begins to break down into its constituent elements (read: decompose).

The big question (according to Lewis) is where does that energy go? I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul, and he struggled mightily to reconcile faith with reason.

That remark by Lewis amazed me: that anyone of faith would care enough about it to try to explain it in scientific terms instead of just "well, the Bible says so".

And it definitely gives one pause if one thinks it through scientifically - there is a place where science, logic and reason cannot go, only faith can, noodly appendages notwithstanding B|

mh
.


What you wrote only vaguely resembles thinking scientifically. This "place where science, logic and reason cannot go, only faith can" is called imagination. While it may seem real to you and others it's just all in your mind. We have no evidence that the mind can live with out a physical body. C. S. Lewis is just bullshitting you.

I believe you deliberately overlooked the central concept of my post, and that is that no one truly knows, but one tries to understand, hence my remarks about Lewis and Feynman. That is your choice, of course, but I always find remarkable the lengths which some will go to in order to "prove" things which cannot be proven.

Still, to quote Richard Feynman, "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, rather than answers which cannot be questioned." B|

mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235

******No, it isn't.



Withdrawing my "YMMV" comment as wasted understanding and tolerance

Adding "YMMV" to an incorrect statement does not make that statement less incorrect. You were wrong. Get over it.

I think it's so great how you just refuse to take yourself too seriously. Your laid back attitude is refreshing and clean. Like a mountain stream.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe you deliberately overlooked the central concept of my post, and that is that no one truly knows, but one tries to understand, hence my remarks about Lewis and Feynman.



No, that's not the central concept of your post.

The central concept of your post was "Hey, here's an unexplainable scientific problem that could be solved by the existence of soul and/or god!". And it's not true. There is no science involved at all.

Quote

Still, to quote Richard Feynman, "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, rather than answers which cannot be questioned."



It's fine to have questions - but in this case the proposed answer is just something you've made up. An answer that might make you feel better but has no basis in fact, cannot be derived from any theory and as such is completely useless. What Feynman would have to say about that would be "Shut up and calculate".


(He may or may not have been the guy that said that, but I'm pretty sure he agreed with it.)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your central concept was that no one knows then why did you include C. S. Lewis paraphrase "I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul, and he struggled mightily to reconcile faith with reason." Which is a very poorly thought out attempt at trying to claim that a soul is something real rather then imagined. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive and in this context contradictory by definition.

The biggest problem is that religion claims to know what they can't possibly know. People who claim their particular god is real are simply pretending to know things they can't possibly know. Having faith in God is simply wishing really hard that God is real. I am not making any claim to knowledge when I disbelieve the claims that God exists. All I am saying is those making the claim have failed supply sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof for their claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find people who loudly proclaim the atheism is the only correct belief and who want to prove it "scientifically" to be even more annoying than most religious zealots. Everyone believes something and we all have to respect that. The only belief I do not respect is the belief that everyone must submit or be damned.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you are saying is you don't like anyone who questions your belief and wants evidence to back it up.

I have a bridge to sell you but don't you dare question anything I say about it!!


The whole point of this thread was "Arguments for (or against) the existence of God", so what the fuck are you doing here if you don't like people poking holes in the claims for the existence of God???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also you are very wrong when you characterize atheism as a belief. By definition it is not a belief but the very opposite. It is disbelief in the claims of the existence of gods. I can only conclude that fairies don't exist because of the lack of evidence. The same can be said for gods or unicorns.

Here is a fairly short read the explains very clearly pretty much what I think. I put it in a previous post but it's worth repeating. https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on the form of atheism. The "I don't believe in god because there's no evidence" isn't a belief.
The "THERE IS NO GOD" is a belief, in my (ahem) belief. While the scientific method is a wonderful construct, it's a human construct, and our lack of evidence doesn't really mean that something isn't so; we might just not have framed an issue appropriately. Really. We're not that smart yet -- smarter than people 700 years ago when they believed lots of stuff we know isn't true, but not all-knowing. And a declaration that something doesn't exist is just as dogmatic as a declaration that it does.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Now you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned. Especially since my main belief is that I don't know. What I don't like is rude people who don't respect other's beliefs. I didn't think you were one of those, was I wrong about that?

If someone believes something how can that not be a belief? I believe that my grasp of English is strong enough to know the meaning of the word believe. Therefore that is one of my beliefs. My turn to be didactic.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally those that say "There is no God" when you press them are on the side of "there is no evidence of any god". I have yet to meet anyone that doesn't believe in any god that isn't on evidence side.

The lack of evidence is not a reason to believe anything. If it were then we would have to believe everything that anyone imagines regardless of how silly. Asking for evidence before believing anything is purely logical. If there is no evidence or the evidence provided is not compelling then it only makes sense to disbelieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Really? Now you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned. Especially since my main belief is that I don't know. What I don't like is rude people who don't respect other's beliefs. I didn't think you were one of those, was I wrong about that?

If someone believes something how can that not be a belief? I believe that my grasp of English is strong enough to know the meaning of the word believe. Therefore that is one of my beliefs. My turn to be didactic.



I find it rude for you to complain about atheists asking for evidence on a thread about arguments for god. If an atheist can't do that in this thread then where can they?


Let me rephrase your question.

If someone disbelieves something how can that not be a belief?

Does that really make sense to you? Is disbelief a belief? Those two words are opposites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The biggest problem is that religion claims to know what they can't possibly know. People who claim their particular god is real are simply pretending to know things they can't possibly know. Having faith in God is simply wishing really hard that God is real. I am not making any claim to knowledge when I disbelieve the claims that God exists. All I am saying is those making the claim have failed supply sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof for their claim.



You might be right. I would encourage you however to read "The Summa Theologiae" by Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God. Give it a read. You're still free to make up your own mind one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't say I will even attempt to read all five volumes. But I will read the section regarding the existence of god. But as I said before no matter how good an argument is, it's nothing with out evidence that can be tested scientifically and repeated by others.

I recommend you read this that I have posted twice earlier. https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markharju


...The big question (according to Lewis) is where does that energy go? I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul, and he struggled mightily to reconcile faith with reason....
.



Would that not simply be heat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

I would encourage you however to read "The Summa Theologiae" by Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God. Give it a read.



Read it (translated, I don't read Latin).

When Aquinas says he has five proofs of "God," his logic is flawed by circular premises.

Great for the 13th century, I guess, but certainly doesn't hold up at all in the 21st and no more authoritative about the existence of "God" than Greek Mythology is about the existence of Zeus.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

Not impressed. One of William Lane Craig's favorite arguments is the "First Mover" argument of Thomas Aquinas. I have heard him make this argument among others but haven't read the original writings of Thomas Aquinas till now. I wasn't impressed by Dr Craig's rehashing of one of Aquinas's arguments and I am not impressed by the original arguments. The simplest problem that I have with all of the arguments by Thomas Aquinas is that they all assume God to exist. An example is the "First Mover" argument, could there have been some "First Mover" that started this universe into existence? Possibly, but no one really knows for certain. There are different ideas based on what we know about physics. For argument's sake lets assume there is a "First Mover", we can't simply assume that a god must be the "First Mover" or that the Christian God was the "First Mover". The "First Mover" could be a dog in another universe taking a shit on a side walk that caused this universe to exist for all we know.

So here are the assumptions made by Thomas Aquinas in the First Mover argument.

1. That there is a First Mover
2. The First Mover is a god
3. The First Mover god is the Christian God

I don't find any of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God to be valid or all that impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned. Especially since my main belief is that I don't know. What I don't like is rude people who don't respect other's beliefs.



Then it's pretty ridiculous that you find atheists who talk about science more annoying than religious zealots. First, anyone who ascribes to a particular religion does, by definition, think that everyone else is wrong - atheists and those who ascribe to other religions alike. They may not say it, but it's true.

Now, if you do call atheism a belief it only exists as a stated belief because other people have already stated that god exists. If no-one had ever said that then no-one would ever have to think about atheism. It's a reaction to religion therefore it is always stated in those terms. That's why it is stated as explicitly anti-religion. But if you say that makes it more confrontational that's lazy thinking, since every major religion is implicitly anti-every-other-religion as well.

Then, where atheists use science is almost always to refute a particular claim of religion. Terracentrism? Nope. Young earth? Not true. Flood? Didn't happen. Natural evolution impossible? Lol, sorry. No other way for the universe to begin? Hey, we're getting there. Now - if you say you don't mind having your beliefs questioned then you should be all over that. If person A) says 'this can't possibly happen without god' and person B) says 'actually we've done a lot of work on that and it turns out it can happen without god' then why the fuck are you getting pissed off at person B? He's a hell of a lot better than person C) who says 'you're right it can't happen without god, but it happens because of my god not your god because this old book says my god is the one true god.'
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would encourage you however to read "The Summa Theologiae" by Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God.



Haha. I doubt Aquinas ever convinced anyone who didn't already agree with him. It's poor stuff.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

I find people who loudly proclaim the atheism is the only correct belief and who want to prove it "scientifically" to be even more annoying than most religious zealots. Everyone believes something and we all have to respect that. The only belief I do not respect is the belief that everyone must submit or be damned.



'Belief' is anathema to atheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Agnostic's don't profess to know and therefore don't hold any particular firm belief one way or the other. They don't have any, (over perhaps a mildly held), belief in the existence or non-existence of a god.

Atheists believe that there is no god. They positively believe something to be true - that there is no god. That's a belief.

The clue is in the ancient Greek roots of each word: "a theos" = "without god" vs "a gnostos" = "without knowledge".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose that in a thread discussing the existance of God I should expect to have my words subjected to this kind of scrutiny.

From the Wiki entry for the word "Atheist"

Quote

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]




I am speaking in broad terms and the meaning I an ascribing to the word is the broad meaning. The human behaviors that I object to are of those who aggressively object to the beliefs of others and loudly argue that they must change their beliefs. No two people believe the exact same thing.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr2mk1g

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Agnostic's don't profess to know and therefore don't hold any particular firm belief one way or the other. They don't have any, (over perhaps a mildly held), belief in the existence or non-existence of a god.

Atheists believe that there is no god. They positively believe something to be true - that there is no god. That's a belief.

The clue is in the ancient Greek roots of each word: "a theos" = "without god" vs "a gnostos" = "without knowledge".



Wrong.

There is a big difference between calling bullshit and 'believing' something.

If one evaluates the odds of something as being so infinitesimal as to be effectively nonexistent, that possibility may conveniently be dismissed.

"That which is submitted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The human behaviors that I object to are of those who aggressively object to the beliefs of others and loudly argue that they must change their beliefs.



Then, again, if you were being honest you would object to loud religious people far more than loud atheists.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markharju

*********No matter how good or well thought out an argument for something is... if there is no evidence that can be independently and scientifically tested there is no reason to believe and it is worthless. That's why the independent confirmation of scientific claims are so important. With out them they are meaningless and can not be taken seriously. Religion makes claims about the real world that can not be confirmed in any way. So there is no good reason to take their claims seriously. All of the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those claiming God exists.



I like what C.S. Lewis said about this (I am paraphrasing because I do not have the actual quote handy) in relation the Thermodynamics (Lewis Apologia, et al)--

We human beings exist as both matter and energy. By our own physical laws, backed with science, logic, reason and mathematics, we can prove scientifically that we possess these characteristics.

We know that matter and energy co-exist and cannot be created or destroyed under normal physical law (see Richard Feynman on "The Character of Physical Law").

That the matter and energy exist is without question.

We know that when a person dies, the matter of which they are comprised begins to break down into its constituent elements (read: decompose).

The big question (according to Lewis) is where does that energy go? I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul, and he struggled mightily to reconcile faith with reason.

That remark by Lewis amazed me: that anyone of faith would care enough about it to try to explain it in scientific terms instead of just "well, the Bible says so".

And it definitely gives one pause if one thinks it through scientifically - there is a place where science, logic and reason cannot go, only faith can, noodly appendages notwithstanding B|

mh
.


What you wrote only vaguely resembles thinking scientifically. This "place where science, logic and reason cannot go, only faith can" is called imagination. While it may seem real to you and others it's just all in your mind. We have no evidence that the mind can live with out a physical body. C. S. Lewis is just bullshitting you.

I believe you deliberately overlooked the central concept of my post, and that is that no one truly knows, but one tries to understand, hence my remarks about Lewis and Feynman. That is your choice, of course, but I always find remarkable the lengths which some will go to in order to "prove" things which cannot be proven.

Still, to quote Richard Feynman, "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, rather than answers which cannot be questioned." B|

mh
.

C.S. Lewis was at Oxford, hence he has no credibility ;-)
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0