0
scottbre

Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

Recommended Posts

jakee

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.




Yes, they are more commonly encountered.
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".




I don't agree with you at all.

You can say atheists believe that there is no god just like they believe there are no leprechaun's. But it's still not a belief. You are simply wording it in a way to make the claim that it is a belief. In reality it's a disbelief which is the opposite. Disbelief can not be a belief. While this is all semantics you are misrepresenting what atheists believe in an effort to make agnosticism seem more reasonable. When someone identifies as an Atheist the only thing that tells you about that person is that they don't believe in one specific claim and that is they don't believe that any gods exist.

Agnosticism is simply avoiding the question all together. Because either you believe there is sufficient evidence to convince you there is a god or there isn't but aren't willing to give your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

***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".




I don't agree with you at all.

You can say atheists believe that there is no god just like they believe there are no leprechaun's. But it's still not a belief. You are simply wording it in a way to make the claim that it is a belief. In reality it's a disbelief which is the opposite. Disbelief can not be a belief. While this is all semantics you are misrepresenting what atheists believe in an effort to make agnosticism seem more reasonable. When someone identifies as an Atheist the only thing that tells you about that person is that they don't believe in one specific claim and that is they don't believe that any gods exist.

Agnosticism is simply avoiding the question all together. Because either you believe there is sufficient evidence to convince you there is a god or there isn't but aren't willing to give your opinion.

LOL, don't presume to put words into my mouth. I am most certainly not attempting to present any particular 'label' as more reasonable than another. Nor am I unwilling to give an opinion.

It's simply that don't have any particular axe to grind here as I really don't care that much. The words however do have original meanings, which have gradually become distorted and/or are being adopted by people to suit their own particular idiom. Whilst I am personally in favour of a somewhat more structured approach to linguistics, I accept that the modern trend is for constant change, albeit at the significant loss of clarity.

Take, for example, the word "chronic". In 'proper' usage it means something persisting for a long time - see chronology or chronometer for it's roots in the Greek word for 'time'. In modern parlance however, it has adopted a meaning of generally bad, (or weed perhaps, in some circles), which causes all sorts of problems in making yourself understood when one group of people understand the word to mean one thing and everyone else thinks it means something entirely different.

However, let's see if we can't (in a very un-speakers corner way) try to move towards some common ground. :)
I would suggest that my quoted post is the original meaning of the words, which have now adopted a common vernacular which, in some circles, has become extended from their initial definitions, as per your post.

The words have perhaps now come to represent a spectrum; much like autism or sexuality etc etc.

I would still argue that atheism has, at it's heart, a profession of a belief that there is no god (of whatever flavour or number), as distinct from agnosticism, which espouses no particular knowledge of the presence of a deity or otherwise. I would stress however that I place no particular value judgement against either side, contrary to your supposition in the above post.

I would suggest that they are now a spectrum and have now become blurred by common parlance and adoption.

I, for example, identify with both atheism and agnosticism. I do not believe there is a god. This would tend to suggest that I am an atheist.

I accept however that I cannot possibly know one way or another with absolute certainty (and indeed would suggest anyone who claimed absolute certainty either way in this regard needed their head read). One could argue therefore that I must be agnostic.

Whilst I must accept this implicitly, I do not consider that it accurately represents my belief. I believe that there is no god. I do not, however, know it. It is merely a belief that I hold.

(How anyone can positively assert that this is anything other than a belief (or even that it perhaps represents merely the absence of belief) completely beggars belief (I guess that's a pun so, I guess it was intended). The existence or otherwise of a deity must be, as a matter of definition, a matter of belief one way or another, unless one can demonstrate some form of proof, which is itself the subject of this thread, (and even then, many people suggest the absence of proof is proof itself and belief/knowledge is in and of itself sufficient to substantiate His existence)). Enough, enough - too many brackets!!

Whilst I personally believe that there is no god, I don't profess to have much evidence to back that up. I'm not particularly engaged with a desire to debate it with anyone - it is merely a belief that one does not exist. That's it, just a belief.

Semantic attempts to turn such a belief on it's head and assert that it does not equate to a belief but merely presence of a disbelief are just that: semantics, and as such can easily be dismissed. (In short, they're childish bollocks).

So what am I, atheist or agnostic? Am I forever stuck in some newly created dichotomy of a modern idiom of what these historic words now currently mean? I think probably, yes. I'm stuck between the two.

I do not profess the non-existence of a god because I do not presuppose to know, on the basis of any rational evidence, that this is the correct state of affairs. I cannot be an atheist therefore and do not know how anyone can profess such knowledge, one way or the other.

(And, whilst I accept, tacitly, the argument that it behoves those who seek to prove such a state bear the task of discharging the burden of proof, I do not solely hold that against them) - the issue stands independent on any failure on the part of the advocate.

I do however, believe that those who propose the existence of a god are wrong. Agnosticism therefore cannot fully represent an appropriate moniker for my belief.

That, in essence, is a belief and no more or no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what he said

also, agnosticism isn't lazy or avoidance, it's more of an acknowledgment (at best) or apathy (even Better IMO)




evangelical persistence that one takes one side or the other is really a bit of annoyance at best - fanatical intrusiveness at worst, thus reinforcing the whole 'religious fervor' impression that keeps one from appreciating their heartfelt self definition

I'll acknowledge that believers have to take an active role in their choice. atheism is more passive or natural. It's easy enough to respect that this is an important point to sincere atheists on board here (not to be confused with angry or disenfranchised atheists who have an entirely different mindset than most our good friends here). No problem - I'll try going forward

the key to that is who will return the favor and acknowledge the definition of agnosticism as viewed by agnostics as legitimate also - they'll get the same respect in return. those that don't will continue to treated like evangelical religious nuts - for pure entertainment


edit:
Quote

the argument that it behooves those who seek to prove such a state



Faith is "belief in the pure absence of proof"
So I disagree, there is nothing to prove. Just a choice to believe, or (various forms of 'otherwise' that I wouldn't dare to try and define).

I actually think that anyone that says there is 'proof' must have very weak faith indeed because they are trying to rationalize what is supposed to be irrational (not in a bad way, but by definition).

"I believe because I believe" is the ONLY legitimate response of someone genuinely faithful.

Someone telling me they can 'prove' it actually lowers my sympathy with their cause since their faith is so weak that they are looking/rationalizing proof for something that must be unproveable.

(that this is very convenient for organized religions is a side topic)

Conversely - 'asking' someone of faith for 'proof' is ridiculous for the same reasons and just, frankly, antagonistic and intolerant.


(of course, the thread is titled "arguments", not "proof" so that's legitimate)

...
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
gowlerk

***
I wonder how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.



All of them.

except Michael - he has an inner ear infection,,,,and he's clumsy

...
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
The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's logically inconsistent in regards to the need to have evidence to support the non existence of God.

It's not logically possible to have any evidence of the non existence of anything. So because of this I think your logic falls apart.

The crux of the matter is what is your level evidence or logic for believing something? What does it take to convince you to believe a claim? The answer to this is different depending on the claim being made. The more outlandish the greater the level of evidence and the stronger the logic needed to convince.

So to me the question of whether or not you are an atheist comes down to one simple question. Are you convinced of the existence of God or gods? It's a yes or no question. Saying 'I don't know if I am convinced of the existence of God' is simply avoiding the question. If you say there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, it's also avoiding the question. Why? Because it's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything. This is not to say that I would not change my mind if evidence of the existence of gods were to come to light. I would.

But considering that many define God as being omnipotent and omniscient which is contradictory and is like saying you have a round square. It simply can not exist as a God defined in such a way also can not logically exist.

I would consider you to be an atheist based on what you have written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

I would consider you to be an atheist based on what you have written.



This is truly dizzying:

1 - Since a true believer must believe - with a total absence evidence (definition of faith)

2 - and you consider atheism to be defined as anyone that doesn't have evidence to believe (the faithful have to be 'convinced' but it doesn't count since there is no evidence. The non-faithful are excluded from the 'evidence' trap due to the definition of 'non-existence')

I would consider, based on this, that your definition puts everyone as an atheist. Anyone claiming otherwise is just fooling themselves - they are really atheists and just don't know it. Much akin to "God loves you anyway even if you don't believe in him/her/it/etc"

I don't think any bible or koran or toran could write it better - we just as well make bland statements about the 'majesty of a rainbow' or 'looking into a baby's eyes' as proof/nonproof of the existence of whether or not mr2mk1g's mom may or may not come to dinner.


this is what happens when people get to define the terms in their favor -

the next position based on human nature would be to legislate a collection of 10% of every atheist's income - which, by definition, is now every person on the planet. Very convenient.

(though intended as wry humor, I eagerly await whatever irritable bashing comes next - actually, I rather enjoyed your note and understand what you meant, but it's less fun to just acknowledge that and more fun to randomly hit typewriter keys for 5 minutes)

edit: strangely enough, the word "aknowledge" did not get highlighted as a spelling error.......I'm sure someone will consider that proof of a deity - znoodley or otherwise

...
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
I think you miss understand what I said. Everyone has different levels of evidence that will convince them of a claim. Those that rely on faith to believe have what I consider the lowest possible of level of evidence. It wouldn't qualify as evidence for me. But it convinces them. So it isn't as broad as you interpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Whilst I personally believe that there is no god, I don't profess to have much evidence to back that up."

This statement right here pegs this person as an atheist in my opinion. But the need to have evidence to back up his "belief" is not necessary and logically impossible. In order to say something exists evidence is necessary. But for those questioning the existence an absence of evidence is required. It's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

Those that rely on faith to believe have what I consider the lowest possible of level of evidence. It wouldn't qualify as evidence for me. But it convinces them.



faith is not "evidence" - it's a totally different thing - and if they call it evidence, then they are hypocrits to the entire foundation of their belief system. So the fact that it "convinces" them doesn't count when people are harassing each other to 'prove it'. (it's much like trying to convince an economist of anything, or a social engineer,,.........)

seriously, faith has no alpha/beta errors at all (true measures of one's "level of acceptable evidence")

So even if you didn't intend it to be broad........

Quote

I think you miss understand what I said..............So it isn't as broad as you interpreted.


You do realize I'm just playing Devil's advocate and having a bit of fun. Your writeup was really pretty good, as was mr2k(etc)'s

good for friendly discussion and mockery


blues

...
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
billvon

>I eagerly await whatever irritable bashing comes next

My level of belief in an omnipotent being is superior to your level of belief in an omnipotent being.

(I should make a T-shirt . . .)



my omniscient being already knew you'd say that

...
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
I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe. I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe.



nope - the faithful are atheists, I believe this without qualification - you've convinced me. I shall go forth and proclaim it to all the nations

Quote

I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made



yet he calls himself an agnostic and probably knows himself better than you know him
the real question, then, is which bathroom can he use then?

...
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
rehmwa

***I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe. I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made.



nope - the faithful are atheists, I believe this without qualification - you've convinced me. I shall go forth and proclaim it to all the nations

Good Luck! I am sure they will enjoy that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

The question of the day is.....Is Donald Trump's existence evidence for or against God?



If God were to somehow exist it may say something about his sense of humor!


I personally think it says more about the state of politics in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

The question of the day is.....Is Donald Trump's existence evidence for or against God?



clearly that's just the kind of question and ath-nogstic would ask:

1 - you can't have evidence for, that's the realm of faith, not proof - thou shalt not challenge this
2 - you can't have evidence for the non-existence of anything (don't ask, thou shalt not challenge this even more)

therefore, Donald Trump doesn't exist. but if he did, he could use any bathroom he likes


I think we've made a lot of progress today people. nice work.

...
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
But did this being tell it to someone thousands of years ago that wrote it down, then changed it, changed it, changed it, political royalty influence to change it, then change it, then change it, then translate it, then attack us non being believers for not understanding it?
Dammit. I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

But did this being tell it to someone thousands of years ago that wrote it down, then changed it, changed it, changed it, political royalty influence to change it, then change it, then change it, then translate it, then attack us non being believers for not understanding it?
Dammit. I'm confused.



don't be confused, simply just attack the believers back as hard as you can - neither of you will know why you are, but you'll both feel better as you talk past each other

to your original question - I don't think it was written down (isn't it a bit silly for an omniscient being to have to write down anything? I have to question your state of mind, perhaps you are a bit pasta deprived), but I'll get to work documenting it, and then I'll rev it a few times before release - then I'll send it to BillVon for the back of the T-Shirt - that should cover it

...
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
rehmwa

you consider atheism to be defined as anyone that doesn't have evidence to believe (the faithful have to be 'convinced' but it doesn't count since there is no evidence. The non-faithful are excluded from the 'evidence' trap due to the definition of 'non-existence')



Suppose Al and Bob roll two six-sided dice one hundred times, recording the sum of the pips on the top faces for each roll.

"Look. The sum is 7 nearly one-sixth of the time, but there are eleven possible sums, 2 through 12," Al exclaims. "These dice are weighted. They're not fair!"

"Such a conclusion is not justified," Bob says. "In order to justify such a conclusion, we would need to develop a research hypothesis, then design and perform an experiment to test that hypothesis."

"Can we do that?" asks Al.

"No," Bob replies. Why not? You said-"

"Because when we roll two dice, there are thirty-six possible combinations for the result. Six of those combinations have a sum of 7. All sums 2 through 12 are not equally likely."

"But shouldn't we test?" Al asks.

"No. We haven't observed anything that suggests that the dice might not be fair. It's not even a reasonable hypothesis," Bob answers.

Al has faith. He assumes the dice are loaded without evidence. Bob is an atheist. He doesn't need evidence that the dice are not loaded, because he's seen nothing to even suggest the possibility that they are loaded. At this point, it's not reasonable to even consider the question.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like it. You forgot Joe though.

Joe, who doesn't care, notes that Al uses dice to play Yahtzee, and Bob uses dice to play craps - and he can't figure out why they are arguing since they both use dice for totally unrelated reasons.

Joe think Yahtzee is boring and outdated, and Joe really hates gambling. But he doesn't care either way if the other two play Yahtzee or craps, it's their choice.

So, even though they invited Joe to sit around and roll the pair of dice one hundred times in a stifling house with no A/C on a hot day, Joe declines and spends the day at the beach drinking beer and playing cards and watching bikini models on a photo shoot.

...
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

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