Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[beowulf 1]

Regarding any argument, the question is always whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the argument. So the question is always how much evidence and of what quality of evidence will you accept as being sufficient for you to believe the argument to be true. To be more accurate regarding your 3rd option, it's simply avoiding the question all together. I don't choose not to believe in any deity. I simply find the evidence to be insufficient to compel me to believe. If new evidence were to come to light that could change. But as of now I have not seen or heard of anything that would qualify as evidence of any deity.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

nothing wrong with either position - I'm fond of the 3rd

But you're much fonder of the 2nd.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,903]

This arguing for or against God existing is basically the same thing as determining why matter exists. Even if you believe in God you then have to wonder "why does God exist".

It quickly becomes obvious that mankind can never understand existence. Those who believe are merely people who have decided to stop wondering before it makes them stark raving mad.

If you make the decision to believe it all becomes quite clear and less troubling. On that level faith makes perfect sense.

God be with you as She is always with me. See my sig line for more detail on how YOU can be satisfied too.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[beowulf 1]

Nice job trying to misrepresent the argument all together.

NO, it's not about the Why? Why is entirely subjective. Whether or not God exists is not a subjective question.

Your critical thinking skills are very poor.

[gowlerk 1,903]

I feel the question naturally leads to more questions. No matter what answer you choose to believe. A never ending circle of questions that render the first question irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you mean by calling such a question "not subjective". I can find absolutely no objective means of determining the answer. Therefore it is subjective.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I can find absolutely no objective means of determining the answer. Therefore it is subjective.

When you can't determine the answer to a question it does not mean that it's a subjective question.

The question is whether or not a deity exists, in this case the Christian god. The question is objective regardless of whether or not you can determine the answer. Because there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity the answer must be No. You can either avoid the question or claim to know the answer based on your own personal subjective evidence that can't be scientifically tested or you can simply base your answer on the fact there is a lack of evidence and await any evidence to the contrary. But based on the wide variety of definitions for deities, it's very likely that deities are simply a figment of human imagination.

[kallend 1,621]

Humans worldwide currently worship over 4,000 different deities. The objective evidence to support the existence of each one is exactly the same.

...

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

[beowulf 1]

Also I don't simply choose not to believe. My belief is based on the evidence available. When someone sells me a used car I don't base choice of buying the car entirely on what the seller says about the car. I examine it and make my determination on the best available evidence in front of me.

[beowulf 1]

kallend

Humans worldwide currently worship over 4,000 different deities. The objective evidence to support the existence of each one is exactly the same.

I agree, but there are people who worshiped their ancestors so you could say that those particular gods did exist.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

beowulf

***
Humans worldwide currently worship over 4,000 different deities. The objective evidence to support the existence of each one is exactly the same.

I agree, but there are people who worshiped their ancestors so you could say that those particular gods did exist.

Well, I thought that many of the "ancestor worshippers" actually worship trees or rocks or other things like that, things that the worshippers believe their ancestors' spirits now inhabit.

So while the ancestors certainly did exist, the current form in which they are worshipped leaves a bit of a credibility gap.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[beowulf 1]

Yeah, only thing that could be said is that their ancestors did exist at one time. Not that they inhabit whatever they claim that their ancestor inhabits. I wasn't trying to say that any claim that their ancestor lives on in some other form is credible.

[gowlerk 1,903]

beowulf

Also I don't simply choose not to believe. My belief is based on the evidence available. When someone sells me a used car I don't base choice of buying the car entirely on what the seller says about the car. I examine it and make my determination on the best available evidence in front of me.

There is indeed no evidence to support belief in God. Yet a substantial percentage of people profess to believe. They are probably wrong, but it is possible that in some form there is actually a Creator of some sort. We can not know one way or another. It is not possible to be certain. It is not, and I believe it will never be possible for mankind to understand the nature of his existence. God cannot be ruled out.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[quade 3]

gowlerk

God cannot be ruled out.

The point is though, neither can he be ruled in.

Generally speaking as an adult, one can safely ignore the possibility of the existence of say, Santa Claus, for precisely the same reason.

Generally speaking, sometime around the age of say 7 to 10 people figure out there is a different explanation for presents appearing on Christmas day. Once that other explanation comes to light there is no reason to believe in Santa further other than for the purposes of nostalgia and mythology. (Okay, and possibly manipulating people into giving you stuff. Hmmm.)

If a person in the 21st century looks at science it is not only possible but extremely likely they can gather enough understanding to eliminate the need for "God" to have created the universe. God becomes reduced to nothing more than a metaphor and that, by definition, is a human construct.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[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

mh
.

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

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The big question (according to Lewis) is where does that energy go?

Heat.

When you ask the question "where does the energy go?" in relation to anything, the answer is pretty much always heat. Decomposing biological matter creates heat. That's why you can bake a potato in a compost heap.

Quote

I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul,

He can make that remark that all he wants, but pretending the reason he makes it has anything to do with logic or thermodynamics is just silly.

Quote

And it definitely gives one pause if one thinks it through scientifically

No, if you think it through scientifically it's simple. If you ignore science and think it through metaphysically (like you and Lewis) then it may well give you pause... but all you're doing is inventing stuff you want to hear, nothing more.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,621]

If you consider the "soul" to be the information content of the body (including but not just the brain), then the 2nd Law would apply to death, in addition to the heat of decomposition.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

jcd11235

4 - Don't believe by default, because there's no reason to even consider the possibility

Same as 2, YMMV. (the fact that it's a default is moot other than default beliefs tend to drive positions of intolerance for others - in general). It's not really that big a deal. But you guys really take exception to the point.

jcd11235

Before today, have you ever deliberately chosen not to believe in fuzzy purple flying elephants that shoot piranha out of their trunks during cold weather?

well crap - one more thing I disbelieve - thanks, thanks a lot.

I'll disbelieve until one ever comes along. Which I doubt (especially since Roger Zelazny died and isn't writing fiction any more). If I ever see one, I'll post it to Facebook and let you know personally..

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

beowulf

there isn't sufficient evidence to support the argument

and,,,, based on this what do you choose? (i would agree with your logic. But you do choose, no matter how silly you might hold the choice of those that you disagree with in such disdain)

it's not rocket science

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

Quote

nothing wrong with either position - I'm fond of the 3rd

But you're much fonder of the 2nd.

yeah, but it's not as interesting a discussion - people want absolutes so terribly badly, and it's really not that big a deal to cope without it - there's lot of fuzzy areas out there. The other day I was flying in to work on my elephant (Nemo), and we had to clear the flight line by shooting some piranhas at a flock of geese. They were so pissed they flew up and shit all over Nemo. It took forever to wash that gunk out of his fuzz. The guy at the wash said it would NEVER come out in this cold weather. That was his "belief" and he had a ton of experience in the area.

But, I tell you, Nemo's fuzz is just as shiny and purple as it's ever been.

And, frankly, whether the fuzz came out clean or not, it really wasn't his business. Didn't really hurt him one way or the other, but he really got his panties in a wad when we said we were gonna wash Nemo anyway.

...
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

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

If a person in the 21st century looks at science it is not only possible but extremely likely they can gather enough understanding to eliminate the need for "God" to have created the universe. God becomes reduced to nothing more than a metaphor and that, by definition, is a human construct.

I agree, God is a human construct and religion is a social construct. Even in past eras, before we gained some technical knowledge of how things work through science, there were people who recognized the folly of believing in scriptures. And understood that these books were written by the hand of man like all our other fables. But they were mostly kept quiet by social forces and the power of churches. We are social animals and religion is a very powerful organizational force.

In my mind it is not possible for a "God" such as the biblical one to have created the universe. Even if She did, that still leaves the open ended never ending question of what came before Her.

The closest I can come to accepting a "creator" is the possibility that the universe as I understand it has an engineer, or a conductor. I do not assign a human form to Her. I only give Her a gender because it makes pronoun selection easier.

In an age where our brightest theorists ponder things like infinite numbers of parallel universes and fantastical realities that humans have no hope of understanding, it is not unreasonable for people to decide to believe in some sort of creator.

Quote

The point is though, neither can he be ruled in.

Also absolutely true. The evidence suggests that our existence is entirely random, and has no meaning or larger point at all. We are just a temporary arrangement of the available molecules and we got here by natural selection. That is nearly as hard to believe as a creator is. And it leads to the ultimate and completely unanswerable question.

Not why are we here, but rather, "why is here".

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[beowulf 1]

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

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.

[beowulf 1]

rehmwa

*** there isn't sufficient evidence to support the argument

and,,,, based on this what do you choose? (i would agree with your logic. But you do choose, no matter how silly you might hold the choice of those that you disagree with in such disdain)

it's not rocket science


I do my best to base my beliefs on the best available evidence and scientific reasoning. Those that choose to believe in deities do so despite all evidence and sound reasoning.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

yeah,

So you go through life using a much 'perfect faith' as this guy?

Quote

people want absolutes so terribly badly

Religion tends to offer absolutes. It answers all the questions. How did the universe begin? God did it. Why did she have to die? God wanted it. What makes us who we are? The immortal soul.

Atheism doesn't give any answers to those things. It just dismisses one (obviously stupid) answer.

(Also, things that fly do not get called Nemo. That's so wrong it's hurting my brain. He's a submariner for god's sake!)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

beowulf

****** there isn't sufficient evidence to support the argument

and,,,, based on this what do you choose? (i would agree with your logic. But you do choose, no matter how silly you might hold the choice of those that you disagree with in such disdain)

it's not rocket science


I do my best to base my beliefs on the best available evidence and scientific reasoning. Those that choose to believe in deities do so despite all evidence and sound reasoning.

agree -

except - the entire definition of faith (conveniently defined for the power structures that administer religion to faithful) is belief in the total absence evidence. So it's pretty much impossible to take that definition and argue logically for, or against, existence. One can argue the the definition is a 'set up' and defy that definition. But it's more fun to approach under the rules set up by the brokers.

I choose not to believe (actually choose not to care much since there is no practical gain either way - I don't need more friends so I don't need a community, I don't get satisfaction belittling others for their choices (mostly)) - because it's not really conceivable logically. because I think the organized church is a crock (I treat church like I do political parties). And the payoff is substantial only if one is amenable to placebo effects (which I do believe in) or the intangible effects of goodwill between people (which I also believe in, but consider that it should be effective with a much less indirect rationalization). These are all substantive arguments, but not decisive unless you want to define alpha and beta criteria (also subjective)

We make choices all the time - I like that. No strings on me.

...
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

[beowulf 1]

gowlerk

***Also I don't simply choose not to believe. My belief is based on the evidence available. When someone sells me a used car I don't base choice of buying the car entirely on what the seller says about the car. I examine it and make my determination on the best available evidence in front of me.

There is indeed no evidence to support belief in God. Yet a substantial percentage of people profess to believe. They are probably wrong, but it is possible that in some form there is actually a Creator of some sort. We can not know one way or another. It is not possible to be certain. It is not, and I believe it will never be possible for mankind to understand the nature of his existence. God cannot be ruled out.

I am not sure that god can not be ruled out. Many definitions of god are self contradictory and therefore can be ruled out. Just like a round square is a contradiction so is an omniscient and omnipotent being. Stefan Molyneux makes a very good logical argument for this. https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html