Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Calculon]

This isnt airy fairy stuff though.

But it doesn't matter that the other stuff is 'airy fairy' (or in the case of matrix/dream worlds etc at least more 'airy fairy'), it is logically analogous when it comes to the everyday reality of burden of proof etc.

This whole debate is just a distraction from the fundamental uncertainty which underlines life the universe and everything.

I agree there is fundamental uncertainty etc, all I'm saying is that first and foremost we need to be consistent in our logic.

But arrogantly claiming that God doesn't exist is really a shield to justify any selfish act we do in this corrupt and decadent age. It's nothing less than surrendering to barbarism.

It might be for some people, I wouldn't go presuming it is for everyone... It seems almost like the foolish arguments we hear that without good we're less moral, which I think has been shown many times to not be true.

 

[Iron]

It might be for some people, I wouldn't go presuming it is for everyone... It seems almost like the foolish arguments we hear that without good we're less moral, which I think has been shown many times to not be true.

Sure it's a broad sweep, but if you are certain that there is no creator, then you logically lead to the conclusion that life is about maximising your own power and pleasure at the expense of others. Just a general look at key people in our society/culture indicates this is the popular view.
Of course, this is no reason to believe in intelligent design, but it is reason to pause and consider how sure you are. It feeds into a broader argument about love and hate. If you cannot take the positive leap of faith to believe in something without evidence, then you can never truely love anyone other than yourself. Rather you slowly cultivate a burning hatred of humanity, and all those more fortunate than yourself, and you give yourself over to hate and Hitler.
The question is, do you believe in love ntb?

 

[Calculon]

Sure it's a broad sweep, but if you are certain that there is no creator, then you logically lead to the conclusion that life is about maximising your own power and pleasure at the expense of others.

Well not really... life is about whatever brings me pleasure (it's impossible for me to not do what I find most pleasurable given the circumstances etc) and for some people that will include looking out for others, we are empathetic afterall.

If you cannot take the positive leap of faith to believe in something without evidence, then you can never truely love anyone other than yourself.

In reality I do take little leaps of faith all the time throughout my life, I'm a big fan of induction.

The question is, do you believe in love ntb?

I don't know what you mean by love, I believe we have emotions, I know I sometimes feel like caring for others etc - If that's what love is then I believe in it.

 

[Username(8)]

Who is this 'God' character you are all talking about??

 

[sophie1989]

Who is this 'God' character you are all talking about??

The transcedent dimension./

 

[Username(8)]

The transcedent dimension./

I dont get it.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

I dont get it.

I doubt you ever will.

 

[Mr Gumby]

This common argument dismisses the fact that there is also no evidence to believe in atheism. Not believing is the easy way out, but it's equally as illogical.
Both sides have formidable arguments, but no evidence. Scientific advances have been able to disprove certain religious dogma, and that satisfies a lot of people that God doesn't exist, but that doesnt disprove intelligent design.
It will always be a question of faith

Iron,
How could atheism possibly need any evidence? What evidence could there conceivably be? If we need evidence not to believe in God, do defendants in court need evidence to prove their innocence? The burden of proof is traditionally placed on the person making a claim. In the same way as, in court, the burden of proof should be on the prosecution, so in a debate such as this the burden of proof is on those claiming God does not exist. Atheists are no more responsible for proving their case than someone who refuses to believe in unicorns.

 

[bazookajoe]

But does Gumby exist?

 

[Mr Gumby]

If you mean does the character, Mr Gumby, exist, obviously no. He was of course a character created by Monty Python, and featuring in several sketches, such as Gumby Brain Specialist. I believe he was played by Michael Palin.

Needless to say, though, my real name is not Mr Gumby. My reality is fairly well assured, given that I am sitting here having this conversation with you. If you are in the habit of talking to people who don't exist, I'm sorry for you.

 

[bazookajoe]

I meant the green guy made of clay

 

[Enteebee]

I meant the green guy made of clay

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RT3xtXtJarw

Classic.

 

[bazookajoe]

Hahaha I remember watching that for the first time and thinking my entire childhood had been destroyed

 

[KFunk]

The atheist v. theist argument should be as simple as that.

I agree. I think you put the case quite clearly. Of course, there are still disputes regarding what we should accept as evidence... yada, yada, but yeah, well put.

This common argument dismisses the fact that there is also no evidence to believe in atheism. Not believing is the easy way out, but it's equally as illogical.
Both sides have formidable arguments, but no evidence. Scientific advances have been able to disprove certain religious dogma, and that satisfies a lot of people that God doesn't exist, but that doesnt disprove intelligent design.
It will always be a question of faith

Once again, I think Gumby had the right idea in bringing the notion of 'burden of proof' into this debate. Think of things on purely reason-based grounds: if we decide that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of things for which we have no evidence then it becomes reasonable to believe in flying pots, talking fish, cupid, etc...

I do, however, note that you brought in concepts like purpose, meaning and explanation. I think the usefulness of god in these areas make an argument for why it can be beneficial for an individual to believe in god, but by no means does it mean that god exists or is more likely to do so. I geuss we're looking at a framework of 'believe what it is useful to believe' versus 'believe what is true'.

Something else I feel I should point out is that I don't think you have to choose to believe in one of two contradictory statements whenever such contradiction arises. For example, it might be the case that a rock the size of my fist is at some specified location 'L' on mars. Given my total lack of knowledge about this location I do not believe that 'fist-rock is at L' and I do not believe that 'fist-rock is not at L' - I am undecided. Furthermore, I don't feel that I commit any kind of logical faux pas in taking this stance.

In the same vein I think that someone can safetly assert that someone should not believe in god. This need not be taken as saying they should believe that god does not exist but rather, as above, that the matter is undecided (/undecidable) and that they should not believe either way. (of course, such a prescription would be from the perspective you should only believe true things).

 

[Enteebee]

Something else I feel I should point out is that I don't think you have to choose to believe in one of two contradictory statements whenever such contradiction arises. For example, it might be the case that a rock the size of my fist is at some specified location 'L' on mars. Given my total lack of knowledge about this location I do not believe that 'fist-rock is at L' and I do not believe that 'fist-rock is not at L' - I am undecided. Furthermore, I don't feel that I commit any kind of logical faux pas in taking this stance.

I think there's some double-think though when you're not agnostic about some undisprovable claims but are about others.

 

[Ennaybur]

I believe in the FSM. prove to me it doesn't exist and then i'll stop believing.

 

[bazookajoe]

COZ SPAGHETTI CAN'T FLY
End of discussion

 

[KFunk]

I think there's some double-think though when you're not agnostic about some undisprovable claims but are about others.

Naturally I would advocate applying the above to most propositions which are undecidable (in practice or in principle).

Edit: just to qualify my reply a little more... I realise that the above sentence actually confirms rather than denies your claim of double-think. The two main examples which come to mind, when trying to come up with things which I have weak evidence for but which I nonetheless believe, are my (revisable) beliefs that there is a world external to my mind and that other minds exist. I geuss there are certain levels at which things get messy and the very notions of 'evidence' and 'justification' come into question. Nonetheless, in cases like that of god or martian 'fist-rocks' I would advocate a stance of 'undecidable-agnosticism'.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I believe in the FSM. prove to me it doesn't exist and then i'll stop believing.

I can prove it doesn't exist because I can trace the source of it as a myth. Theism is not traceable to a definite point as the FSM is. In fact, theism's traceable line stops far after the migration from Africa. Thus many different cultures came to a similar conclusion, that theism is valid, without any interaction with each other,

As you say, the example of the FSM actually shows that things can be made up as easily as they are real. But conversely, I could go into a courtroom and say that I am not guilty of murder because the video camera which allegedly caught me killing someone is a creation of little green men, who want to frame me. So why wouldn't this fly?

Obviously this defense is insane because we are capable of calculating probabily and logic. It is not an issue of evidence to the contrary, it's an issue of reasonable doubt. People should be claiming why it is probable that God does not exist, in my opinion.

The logic that theism is wrong - because a similar scenario can be fabricated (although obviously falsely) - is very bad. Especially since the FSM has no rational place. The FSM attempt at being inherently ridiculous excludes its existence. It sounds obvious, but really the only way that we could prepose that there was a God was if its place wasn't ridiculous. To create a viable FSM analogy, one would have to get near the definition of God itself. Otherwise we wouldn't be having the debate, because God would obviously be ridiculous,

Lastly, even if my second point (that it being ridiculous excludes it as a logical analogy) was false: Just because y (FSM) can be created in an allegedly similar way to x (God) does not mean that, since y = man-made, x= man-made.

For tl;dr: The FSM analogy actually shows a common logical fallacy that, simply because something else as allegedly stupid can be made up, theism is wrong.

 

[Cai Zhi Long]

The very fact that Scientology as a religion exists at all proves how silly religion as a concept is.