Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

Chadd : yes... i dont know how you know , but im honest so ill admit: i get afraid im wrong sometimes.
KFunk... I truly cant imagine how a God that fits inside human understanding is any sort of God at all.
Ive always though , if I understand God , i am pretty much a goddess myself.
I think maybe you are a little harsh with me.
My central assumptions may be that. But how many people do you think there are in the world with these pitiful central assumptions?

Bolded: I am Diana after all

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ I agree 100%. And I don't think it is right for anyone else with their own opinions to insult or degrade someone else who didn't come to the same conclusion.

EDIT: That was directed at NTB's post.

 

[KFunk]

There is no reason to throw the idea of a god out the window. Science does not provide any reasoning as to why a god couldn't exist. To conclude that a god certainly does not exist is as irrational as saying that a god certainly does exist.

This is why I tend towards agnosticism, though I do feel that the balance of evidence tends to favour atheism.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Yeah I'm having an internal battle over Deism or Agnosticism.

Prove that it points to a deity? As an argument it's incredibly weak. It's like if I said "people die, this points to no god". We have a great many naturalistic explanations for the existence of our universe as it is, but even if we didn't that doesn't make assertion that a god must have done it any more logical.

Atheists like to shift the burden of proof from themselves to their debating opponents; in short, the believer in God must prove God, but the atheist will not defend his position that the universe is either eternal or accidental. Often this tactic works, the believer will then try to make an argument for God, only to have the atheist demand that the believer first define God in some clear manner. Once the believer makes this mistake, he loses the debate. - http://www.deism.com/atheism.htm

By that logic to say the tooth fairy certainly doesn't exist is as irrational as saying the tooth fairy does exist. Science does provide reasons as to why a personal god couldn't exist within our natural laws as far as we understand them.

We are 99% sure that the tooth fairy doesn't exist because it is a man-made creation and there is no reason for its existence. Define personal god? What are these reasons?

 

[KFunk]

But how many people do you think there are in the world with these pitiful central assumptions?

Oh, all of us, I'm sure. As I mentioned, I have ironed out some of mine, but I'm sure that there are more (one of my biggest joys reading philosophy is getting to a point where I undermine a central belief and float around untethered for a while. Strange thrill, I know). Hence the Socrates quote - the point is not to iron out all unfounded views and inconsistencies (this may not be possible, for all we know) but to at least make an attempt to critically examine our views.

 

[Enteebee]

This is why I tend towards agnosticism, though I do feel that the balance of evidence tends to favour atheism.

To me it's like saying you're agnostic about love pixies... are you going to do that? I know from bringing this up with you in the past you've said you would say you're agnostic about all such things but I just feel it doesn't tell us anything to say you're agnostic. I'm agnostic ultimately of all things, ultimately I would be agnostic even having run thousands of tests that there is no cancer-causing agent in a sample... but if I were asked them to make a statement I would say a) I found no evidence of a cancer-causing agent (which is philosophically consistent) but also I would be implying/if asked personally I would say b) There probably isn't a cancer-causing agent in the sample.

I would believe this to the point where I would be willing to risk death, something I feel requires the truest of belief we could say we have, even if ultimately we rationally know we cannot know for certain.

 

[darkliight]

Sure, if the entity is defined precisely then you might be lucky enough to get the following condition:


If god exists (G) THEN some event X will necessarily occur ............. (G --> X)

but using classical logic we know that,

If X does not occur THEN it is not the case that god exists (~X --> ~G)


and so you could feasibly generate an empirical case against the existence of god. However, some issues emerge. Firstly, the conditional implication (G --> X) has to be an airtight, logical one, such that X will necessarily occur if god exists. Secondly, X has to be such that (a) we can observe it and (b) we are highly unlikely to miss it.

Unfortunately, as I discussed a few pages back, religion has an unfortunate tendency to shield itself from such arguments by positing, say, that god requires faith rather than empirically justified belief, or that god works in mysterious ways and thus we can conclude little about god on the basis of empirical observations. This latter 'mysterious god' claim is something of a cure-all because it suggests that god is so beyond human understanding that we could never adequately determine the truth of a conditional of the form G --> X. Bullshit? Yes, in empircal terms, but that's what we're working with.

My problem with the eyelash analogy was that the probability of odd/even eyelashes is the same. It seemed to simplify things too much. Now, I don't think we can give any sort of probabilities for or against the existence of a god, but I think we can weigh each side up a little more than "true/false".

I don't think we need a precise definition of a god to rule one out either. We can suppose as many attributes as we like, and if we come across a contradiction or implausibility in every case, we will give more weight to the "god does not exist" side of the coin ... imo

 

[*TRUE*]

To me it's like saying you're agnostic about love pixies... are you going to do that? I know from bringing this up with you in the past you've said you would say you're agnostic about all such things but I just feel it doesn't tell us anything to say you're agnostic. I'm agnostic ultimately of all things.

Maybe KFunk is saying he cant with absolute integrity claim there is no God...but thinks enough evidence points towards there not being a God.
It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[darkliight]

Maybe KFunk is saying he cant with absolute integrity claim there is no God...but thinks enough evidence points towards there not being a God.
It seems pretty obvious to me.

That fits the definition of an (weak) atheist more than an agnostic, imo.

 

[*TRUE*]

That fits the definition of an (weak) atheist more than an agnostic, imo.[/quote
Yes.....i think Kfunk only means literally....

 

[Enteebee]

Maybe KFunk is saying he cant with absolute integrity claim there is no God...but thinks enough evidence points towards there not being a God.
It seems pretty obvious to me.

I know what he's saying, I agree with him and hold the exact same position. My point is that I still think he's as much an atheist as anyone else who claims to be an atheist. I don't believe there are people (or at least, very many) who claim to have absolute knowledge which is what it is implied is needed to accept 'atheism'.

 

[*TRUE*]

I know what he's saying, I agree with him and hold the exact same position. My point is that I still think he's as much an atheist as anyone else who claims to be an atheist. I don't believe there are people (or at least, very many) who claim to have absolute knowledge which is what it is implied is needed to accept 'atheism'.

Ok
But i disagree that there are not people who claim absolute evidence that there is no God. Ive met them

 

[Enteebee]

But i disagree that there are not people who claim absolute evidence that there is no God. Ive met them

People rarely talk to language of sceptical philosophy in their everyday dealings, it's offputting and muddies the waters... or maybe they really do believe they have absolute knowledge, but I doubt it *shrug*

 

[KFunk]

I know what he's saying, I agree with him and hold the exact same position. My point is that I still think he's as much an atheist as anyone else who claims to be an atheist. I don't believe there are people (or at least, very many) who claim to have absolute knowledge which is what it is implied is needed to accept 'atheism'.

I fluctuate a bit - whether I accept the label atheist or agnostic depends largely on mood or, more pertinently, the characteristics of the god in question. Some conceptions of god are, I think, a waste of time and can be readily rejected. Others are so untoucheable by empirical method that we cannot say much (though we may be able to provisionally reject them by considering an appropriate geaneology of religious belief, by providing a good naturalistic account of these beliefs).

I do feel that there is a time and place for the agnostic position. It is not just an exercise in fence sitting. When testing a new pharmeceutical product (to treat HIV, say) you cannot simply assume, in the absence of evidence, that it works or that it does not work. Either position is intellectually irresponsible. I am not arguing that cases of god/faeries/etc are perfectly analogous, but simply that agnosticism should not be rejected out of hand.

 

[Enteebee]

Others are so untoucheable by empirical method that we cannot say much (though we may be able to provisionally reject them by considering an appropriate geaneology of religious belief, by providing a good naturalistic account of these beliefs).

Ok I hadn't actually considered the prospect of say a deistic god, which I would accept agnosticism as a reasonable position in response. Would you accept that atheism is the more consistent/reasonable position to take in regard to a personal god i.e. The abrahamic god of the jews/christians/muslims?

 

[sams057]

welll after hundred of pages and thousands of responses the answer is....drum roll please...YES!!..there is a god....to all the atheists out there let me give u a little scenario...its actually an islamic story but it doesn't really have to be...ok long story short it goes like this:

there was a prominent sheikh at a time...he was being heckled by a prominent group of atheists at the time...both parties insisted their beliefs strongly...so one day they agreed on a public debate on the matter, i.e. each side tried to assert their arguments and disprove the other's arguments. anyway they picked a date, time and place. now the sheikh had a plan already to assert his argument. he let the aethiest group arrive at the location first, letting himself delay the debate on purpose...anyway time passed and the atheists were already rejoicing thinking the sheikh chickened out...until they spotted him coming down the river in a boat...they were surprised he made it nonetheless attempted to get on with the debate...however they couldn't help but mock the fact he almost didn't show up...so they asked him why this was so...so he told them this:
well i came to cross the river, only to realise i had no boat...so i sat there thinking how i am going to cross the river without a boat to no avail...suddenly out of nowhere, a nearby tree starting cutting ITSELF!! the wood broke off, started cutting itself into the shape of a small boat...the whole process of making a small boat was done right before my very eyes by ITSELF!!..its like an invisible person was doing it...it was miraculous+

at that point the group of atheists and the people gathered to watch the debate burst out into a fit of laughter, proclaiming "do you expect us to believe that the boat you just crossed the river with just appeared miraculously out of thin air and made itself without anyone making it..." upon which the sheikh said something very wise, which basically shut the people up. what he said was : "do you expect me to believe that the world, the whole universe, human beings, animal life, the complexity of the human body, etc. made itself without anyone making it...

P.S the sheikh won the debate

im not sayin u have to believe in islam or whatever, you can believe what you want, jus saying its mind-boggling that aetheists can believe that there is no god

 

[KFunk]

I don't think we need a precise definition of a god to rule one out either. We can suppose as many attributes as we like, and if we come across a contradiction or implausibility in every case, we will give more weight to the "god does not exist" side of the coin ... imo

Haha, apologies for my imprecision. Read 'precise ' as 'pinned down in some respect' rather than 'comprehensively and thoroughly described'. Yes, all you need is enough attributes to generate contradiction (all you need are two qualities X and Y such that X-->P and Y-->~P) but the problem then is that either (1) someone else will come along with a conception of god that does not contain that contradiction or (2) something to the tune of 'god is mysterious / beyond human understanding' can be pulled out in order to deny your 'precise' definition.

 

[KFunk]

Ok I hadn't actually considered the prospect of say a deistic god, which I would accept agnosticism as a reasonable position in response. Would you accept that atheism is the more consistent/reasonable position to take in regard to a personal god i.e. The abrahamic god of the jews/christians/muslims?

Yes, I am inclined to reject that god (in particular if it comes bundled with stories that feature talking snakes and so forth). There are different interpretations of the Abrahamic god, of course, depending on how literally/figuratively you read biblical passages (and similar for the Quran I assume) but I do find that the canonical personal god is a hard concept to buy into.

 

[Enteebee]

"do you expect me to believe that the world, the whole universe, human beings, animal life, the complexity of the human body, etc. made itself without anyone making it...

Where are the atheists that believe "the universe made its self" ? It's a straw man.

 

[inasero]

I think this claim rests on a misunderstanding. There is an important difference between believing god does not exist and not believing that god exists (let's call these respective propositions ~G, i.e. god does not exist, and G, i.e. god exists).

A lack of evidence for G is reason not to believe in G, but it is not reason to believe ~G. In other words, a lack of evidence either way gives you reason to hold the agnostic position where you don't believe G or ~G. Earlier in this thread I used the following analogy:

I have no reason to believe that I have an even number of eyelashes. Similarly, I have no reason to believe that this is not the case. Therefore I should hold the 'eyelash-agnostic' position of neither asserting that I have an even number of eyelashes, nor the negation of this claim.

In summary: a lack of evidence doesn't prove a negative existential claim (~G), but it gives reason not to assert a positive existential claim (G).

Yes you're absolutely right, and you give a nice simple explanation of why you're agnostic to boot. What true has been trying to say much better than I could express, is that faith for her is not a matter of empirical evidence. The evidence for Christians is how God is working in our and other peoples lives, and that suffices as evidence enough if that kind of makes sense.