Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[Silvia23]

yes yes all is true but if god was just a placebo to christians then what about all the Archaeologists in the world who have found artefacts which are "connected to god" n all that?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

yes yes all is true but if god was just a placebo to christians then what about all the Archaeologists in the world who have found artefacts which are "connected to god" n all that?

You've misunderstood what these artifacts are... and as far as christian artifacts go, we really don't have that much from early christianity, certainly nothing solid to connect to jesus.

 

[mr EaZy]

lol i thought that statement was funny- "artefacts connected to god"

God is that which is.

let me see if i can make sense out of what is going on here and you guys can see if im any good.

the difference between belief in god and belief in other things (boogie man) is that belief in god is linked with something real- i.e: when we look around we ask : is everything created? do i see creation surrounding me?

and those who answer yes, must come up with an answer. To believe in a toothfairy based on that is false because it has no casual connection as a myth to creation. Its link with teeth has proven to be a lie told by parents to compensate them for their pains.

For the boogiem eg, to say i believe in the BM out of the blue is ridiculous.

But the belief in god is different- there is an assertion that god created the universe and everything outside it and inside it. And we are inside it as well. Its like the tooth asking: "who is gonna take me after ive been pulled out?"

so the question is: do i believe there is a creator who created everything (call the creator God if you want, but essentially in any language- its the creator)

now we move from the logic of NTB- with drawing parallels to boogie men and tooth fairies to something specific- was it all created or not.

am i alright so far? im going to go veryveryveryveryveryvery slowly just so that i can perfect my thoughts as i go along

 

[Ennaybur]

Hey there KFunk, just wondering whether you've read that contraversial book "The God Delusion". If so, have you read Terry Eagleton's critique http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html ? What do you think of it?

I find it to be less of a critique of his arguments (though many from the book do have gaping flaws). I think while his claim that dawkins knows little about theology is likely true and in many cases this leads him to set up straw men, the strongest attacks are against faith at its very foundation before such questions can even arise.

i was just about to bring that up

 

[Ennaybur]

You know, all the reading of this thread has not convinced me that god exists. None of the arguements have successfully held up. How weak.

why not just admit that there is no logic, no facts to prove that god exists. It's a matter of 'faith'. In other words it is all in your (and your community's) heads.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the difference between belief in god and belief in other things (boogie man) is that belief in god is linked with something real- i.e: when we look around we ask : is everything created? do i see creation surrounding me?

None of that matters. I could come up with convaluted theories connecting pixies to explain why we feel 'love', does that mean it's some sort of worthy hypothesis?

Its link with teeth has proven to be a lie told by parents to compensate them for their pains.

What you have to understand is that when something is given supernatural, magical traits... such as a tooth fairy, it doesn't matter whether we claim that we know it's a lie because our parents say so. Maybe the tooth fairy has magically made them thought they do it because the tooth fairy works in mysterious ways?

For the boogiem eg, to say i believe in the BM out of the blue is ridiculous.

Of course not, but you might invent it to explain why you feel terror in the dark - It's the boogeyman's overpowering presence. Sure there are scientific attempts to explain why we feel terror in the dark, but they're just theories

But the belief in god is different- there is an assertion that god created the universe and everything outside it and inside it. And we are inside it as well. Its like the tooth asking: "who is gonna take me after ive been pulled out?"

What's the point of bringing this up? Of course my analogies aren't exactly the same, the key similarity however (disprovability) is still there.

so the question is: do i believe there is a creator who created everything (call the creator God if you want, but essentially in any language- its the creator)

'The creator' is very vague. I believe there was something that spawned this universe as we know it, does that mean I believe in God?

now we move from the logic of NTB- with drawing parallels to boogie men and tooth fairies to something specific- was it all created or not.

The only way in which you've shown God is different to other supernatural myths is by explaining exactly what the myth is, its details etc. The problem is that although we're dealing with different stories of supernatural beings, they all still have an equal likelyhood of being true because they are supernatural. God will always be as true as all those other stories as long as you wish to place him beyond the capability of scientific investigation.

The fact that we think we know the tooth fairy doesn't really take our teeth away has no bearing in a world where magic exists beyond our capability to explain.

 

[mr EaZy]

i.e because we know what really happens to our teeth depite what some of us were told?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i.e because we know what really happens to our teeth depite what some of us were told?

The point is that we don't REALLY know in a world where we're willing to accept magic. If God transcends time/our understanding then why can't a tooth fairy do the same? Why can't it take some of our teeth away, supplant us with the "real" myth that our parents are doing it and do all of this under the guise of "mysterious reasons" via "myserious powers" ?

 

[sam04u]

N-T-B, that argument is just so ridiculous now that it's lost any relevance to this discussion. 1,000 years ago there was no evidence of planets other than Earth, and so nobody believed one existed. In modern day times that has been proven wrong. 1,000 years ago there was no evidence of micro-organisms that causes infections, and diseases. Again, that has been proven to be true.

You can't accurately say that just because there is no evidence of something it doesn't exist. It just means that you can't prove it exists. In which case it comes down to faith. Do you believe it exists or doesn't? It's true that you can't prove a god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove anything super-natural doesn't exist. That still doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all we know the tooth fairy does exist. What does that prove?

It proves absolutely nothing, all it proves is that you've been using the same argument for over 6-months and still haven't figured out how irrelevant it is. I admit, using a mythical-creature as an explanation may sound absurd, but that's the whole nature of this. There isn't a better explanation, not yet anyways. That's not to say there isn't one, but if all the steps of the creation of the universe are discovered and proven to not need outside help, then you will have made a point.

As to whether some religions are accurate or not? That's easily refutable. Evolution, and GMC fragmentation > Light > Stars etc.

 

[KFunk]

You can't accurately say that just because there is no evidence of something it doesn't exist. It just means that you can't prove it exists. In which case it comes down to faith. Do you believe it exists or doesn't? It's true that you can't prove a god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove anything super-natural doesn't exist. That still doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all we know the tooth fairy does exist. What does that prove?

As far I know NTB isn't making as strong a claim as 'god doesn't exist' - if anything he is asserting that proposed 'proofs' are inadequate or, at most, that god is improbable. The thing about faith is that it has everything to do with belief and very little do do with actual existence, that is assuming that the world has some kind of objective reality unaffected by our personal convictions. As best as I can tell, to have faith is to be possessed of a certain degree of conviction/confidence, which is a very difference thing to reasoned evidence.

One thing you should be aware of is that when I, and I assume NTB as well, try to show that an argument for the existence of god is invalid we are simply trying to prove that the argument does not prove god's existence. The argument which goes 'argument X for god's existence is wrong, therefore god does not exist' is as deplorable an argument as any other. Even if argument X were exhaustive I have doubts about whether that argument could be made (or whether we could determine something to be exhaustive in the first place). I could be wrong, but it seems that the leap you are making is this; when NTB claims that there is as much evidence for god as for the tooth fairy you, believing that the tooth fairy does not exist, then conclude that NTB is claiming that god does not exist and, correct me if I'm wrong NTB, I don't believe that he claims to have disproved god's existence.

 

[sam04u]

if anything he is asserting that proposed 'proofs' are inadequate or, at most, that god is improbable.

Again, that's where his argument becomes irrelevant. Just because you can't prove something exists, that doesn't make it's existance improbable. There isn't a better explanation to the function that is attributed to this super-natural entity. If we assume that this entity was what created even a single step of the universe, and you can't disprove it didn't, then your argument is just as probable. Thus, it's incorrect to say that god is improbable since there is no explanation more accurate, and thus is the most probable explanation.

The thing about faith is that it has everything to do with belief and very little do do with actual existence, that is assuming that the world has some kind of objective reality unaffected by our personal convictions.

What is the relevance of faith in the 'actual existance' of something? Whether or not people choose to believe it is irrelevant to whether it exists or not, and you and NTB have argued that point several times. Now, considering that faith has no relevance in whether something exists or not, and since it cannot be disproved, and since there is no 'more' logical explanation. It is 'more' probable that such an entity does exist. Unlike with the tooth fairy where it is more probable that it was a human who replaced those teeth for money.

As best as I can tell, to have faith is to be possessed of a certain degree of conviction/confidence, which is a very difference thing to reasoned evidence.

And your point is? What reasoned evidence are you using in contrast? There is no reasoned evidence that God doesn't exist.

One thing you should be aware of is that when I, and I assume NTB as well, try to show that an argument for the existence of god is invalid we are simply trying to prove that the argument does not prove god's existence.

Is it even posssible to prove Gods existance? I don't think it's possible at all. I think at the end of the day it sits at exactly 50% if we were logical enough to process every single fact. And, then the other 50% comes from belief or 'faith' as you have refered to it in your incoherent rant.

The argument which goes 'argument X for god's existence is wrong, therefore god does not exist' is as deplorable an argument as any other. Even if argument X were exhaustive I have doubts about whether that argument could be made (or whether we could determine something to be exhaustive in the first place).

I couldn't agree with you more on this.

correct me if I'm wrong NTB, I don't believe that he claims to have disproved god's existence.

I actually think NTB does believe god exists. He's just too logical to except it untill he's 100% certain. If anybody knows more about this topic it's NTB. He could just as easily argue for god as he can against god. Infact, he probably has another account that he uses to argue for god. Who knows?

 

[lengy]

Who created God? Fail.

 

[sam04u]

Who created God? Fail.

The whole Idea behind what some people believe is god, is that that entity has 'always' existed. This is where my own scientific beliefs, and religious beliefs slightly conflict. But for the sake of the argument, nothing did. God has always existed. Can you prove god hasn't always existed? Cause I can't prove god has always existed. (Back to square 1)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

N-T-B, that argument is just so ridiculous now that it's lost any relevance to this discussion. 1,000 years ago there was no evidence of planets other than Earth, and so nobody believed one existed. In modern day times that has been proven wrong. 1,000 years ago there was no evidence of micro-organisms that causes infections, and diseases. Again, that has been proven to be true.

And I hold all those people who held those ultimately wrong beliefs to have been logical, though your actual examples are... well wrong. In my opinion if a scientist in 14th century britain made the conclusion that there were no black swans they would be right - Even though ultimately they were incorrect. It is much like today where (most of us) will proclaim there are no green swans, but maybe there are some on some part of some island... yet to be discovered.

My argument is that we're inductive creatures and while our inductive conclusions may ultimately be incorrect, it's either that or agnostic nihilism lol

You can't accurately say that just because there is no evidence of something it doesn't exist.

Correct.

It just means that you can't prove it exists.

Correct.

In which case it comes down to faith. Do you believe it exists or doesn't? It's true that you can't prove a god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove anything super-natural doesn't exist. That still doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all we know the tooth fairy does exist. What does that prove?

My basic argument is that if you accept God's existance then to be logical I think you'd have to except the existance of every other supernatural being someone can conjure up.

Another way to be logical is to reject God, the tooth fairy etc as they're things not yet / may never be proven.

The final and most accurate one is to be agnostic about all these claims. But I think such people professing agnosticism here are slightly dishonest - They make as many inductive guesses as I do about the world.

It proves absolutely nothing, all it proves is that you've been using the same argument for over 6-months and still haven't figured out how irrelevant it is.

I can't prove god doesn't exist. But my point is merely that as far as truths go, gods non-existance is probably one of the best we have. Sure it's possible God exists, but in that realm of possibility it's possible that we're all really plugged into the matrix, that pixies make us fall in love with each other and the tooth fairy carries away our teeth.

As to whether some religions are accurate or not? That's easily refutable. Evolution, and GMC fragmentation > Light > Stars etc.

How can you say that in a world where magical beings might be floating around messing with us? Such truths as evolution etc may not really be true.

Again, that's where his argument becomes irrelevant. Just because you can't prove something exists, that doesn't make it's existance improbable. There isn't a better explanation to the function that is attributed to this super-natural entity. If we assume that this entity was what created even a single step of the universe, and you can't disprove it didn't, then your argument is just as probable. Thus, it's incorrect to say that god is improbable since there is no explanation more accurate, and thus is the most probable explanation.

It's true that in an ultimate sense we can't show the improbability of god, but my point is more to show what such beliefs are when applied to the real world. I don't believe people allow the same standard for god as they do with every other aspect of their lives, so while it's quite easy for you to attack my view by envoking agnostic arguments when it comes down to it you're probably just as grounded in the reality we know as I am.

Now, considering that faith has no relevance in whether something exists or not, and since it cannot be disproved, and since there is no 'more' logical explanation. It is 'more' probable that such an entity does exist. Unlike with the tooth fairy where it is more probable that it was a human who replaced those teeth for money.

No, because as you actually pointed out earlier such probability games are really meaningless once you start putting magical things into the mix.

And your point is? What reasoned evidence are you using in contrast? There is no reasoned evidence that God doesn't exist.

My best evidence is that there's no evidence for it. Of course by ultimate standards this doesn't cut it, it is a leap of faith, but no more than it's a leap of faith to accept there is no teapot floating around uranus.

Is it even posssible to prove Gods existance? I don't think it's possible at all. I think at the end of the day it sits at exactly 50% if we were logical enough to process every single fact. And, then the other 50% comes from belief or 'faith' as you have refered to it in your incoherent rant.

Well don't all claims sit at such uncertainty by this standard? I think I'm sitting in my chair right now, I know this as best as I can by my current experience, but it's possible I'm really in a dream. I can't know either way, so it must be 50%... but you don't think that, do you? So why the change of course on the God question?

Proof of a miracle:

If the falsehood of such a miracle is more of a miracle than the miracle its self.

I actually think NTB does believe god exists. He's just too logical to except it untill he's 100% certain. If anybody knows more about this topic it's NTB. He could just as easily argue for god as he can against god. Infact, he probably has another account that he uses to argue for god. Who knows?

Nah there's much smarter people than me on both sides of this argument (Kfunk, Spadijer are the first examples that come into my mind from this forum) and many others who've probably spent much longer than me. I don't believe in God, I'd be a liar to say I never consider it, but in considering I never get over the first hurdle because I'd be lying to myself

 

[KFunk]

Sam04u, I think that you've made a straw man argument of my post by misrepresenting my position in the form of claims you have read into my post - ones which I did not make. I'll respond to your counter-arguments (straw, stick, brick or otherwise) in the following:

Just because you can't prove something exists, that doesn't make it's existance improbable.

I agree, I wasn't actually attempting to argue that. Firstly, what I was offering was an interpretation of NTB's posts, not an endorsement. Secondly I didn't assert that a lack of evidence implies improbability.

What is the relevance of faith in the 'actual existance' of something?

As I argued - very little. Assuming an objective reality beyond our minds I should think that faith in the existence of something cannot cause it's existence.

And your point is? What reasoned evidence are you using in contrast? There is no reasoned evidence that God doesn't exist.

I did not claim that there was, only that 'faith' is vastly inferior to reasoned evidence for the purpose of a logical proof.

Is it even posssible to prove Gods existance? I don't think it's possible at all. I think at the end of the day it sits at exactly 50% if we were logical enough to process every single fact. And, then the other 50% comes from belief or 'faith' as you have refered to it in your incoherent rant.

I'm interested in how you can construct such precise figures. If you have managed to determine that there is a probability of unity that god exists (50% + 50% = 100%) then doesn't that contradict your statement that you don't believe it possible to prove god's existence. Given this direct contradiction I suspect that I have misunderstood the above quote, could you explain it better?

 

[sam04u]

I'm interested in how you can construct such precise figures. If you have managed to determine that there is a probability of unity that god exists (50% + 50% = 100%) then doesn't that contradict your statement that you don't believe it possible to prove god's existence. Given this direct contradiction I suspect that I have misunderstood the above quote, could you explain it better?

Sure.
Basically, I said there is no way of proving whether God exists or doesn't. If we were able to take everything into account, I suggested it might rest at exactly 50%. That's where individual proof comes into consideration. People generally either believe God exists or they don't. Now, considering it's just as probable for either side, they draw on real life experiences or something else to justify their beliefs. ie(Faith)

Now, considering people either believe 100% or disbelieve, they would have to atleast have individual proof. That doesn't mean that God exists or doesn't exist. It just means that individual person believes that God exists or doesn't. (It would have to lie at 100% otherwise they would have an illogical view point of God.)

~~~~~~~


So, lets consider that was true. Wouldn't there be more Agnostic or Atheist people in the world? It's because of one little factor which we subconsciously accept into the equation. "There is no more logical explanation to atleast one or more steps in the creation of the Universe."

As long as there is no more logical explanation. It is slightly more probable that god exists than doesn't. I could be wrong though.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So, lets consider that was true. Wouldn't there be more Agnostic or Atheist people in the world? It's because of one little factor which we subconsciously accept into the equation. "There is no more logical explanation to atleast one or more steps in the creation of the Universe."

Yes, the fact that there is mystery in the universe allows the common God hypothesis to continue.

 

[cheesman]

instead of discussing the evidence for god
how about some evidence for god not existing?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

how about some evidence for god not existing?

Why do people keep asking this? If you read my above posts you'll find that I contend that God's non-existance (as far as I understand the concept of God) is as truthful as anything which we know, for in the realm of possibility where God exists all our truths are likely failures.

 

[cheesman]

they ask it because they havent received a decent answer
still, whats some evidence for him not existing?

lets turn this argument around, it seems to be just about ppl attacking evidence for his existence, which we all know gets us nowhere as it doesnt mean god doesnt exist if the given evidence is wrong.

so is there honestly evidence for him not existing? id like to see.
not that him ignoring u , not that bright, but id like other ppls answers, so this will be asked until i get them.