Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Well, this seems like a very original idea, I must say OP.

As for the existence of God, you have to define first what you mean by "God". As this is Christianity Forum I'm going to assume you mean the One Abrahamic God. This is the God who's personified in the Bible. It shouldn't be extremely hard to debate the reality of this particular personification - I think that modern science can tackle this one pretty easily.

However, the God who's personified in the Bible also is said to fills the role of Supreme Being and initiators of Space, time and energy. It is in his apparent role as creator of the universe where both sides of the debate could falter.

It is not beyond the realm of modern science to disprove the interference of this Supreme Being in Earthly affairs or indeed in the overall evolution of what we perceive as reality since "Initiation". It is much more difficult to disprove the existence of an "Initiator"* - if indeed this Initiator is conscious or an actual entity. I believe that there exists a philosophical paradox which renders the case where this "Initiator" exists and the case where the "Initiator" doesn't exists to be both logically flawed.

Such and argument could and will last forever, so I'd expect this to be a very long thread

*By "Initiator" I mean Supreme Being

I think we need to come up with new terms for this discussion or at least to recognise limitations. We should rule out proof because proof lies solely in the realm of mathematics. The question lies more in terms of probability. What is more probable than the other? Is it more probable that there is a God who has created the world or that the universe came into being of its own accord?

The question seems to lie in these three positions:

1. Theism - It is more likely that there is a God than not. (Christianity and other forms of traditional theism would also argue that certain forms of theism are more probable than others).

2. Agnosticism - God may exist or God may not exist.

3. Atheism - It is less likely that God exists than not exists.

Some atheists would accuse me of leaving out the possibility that an atheist can be to some degree agnostic, or that a theist can be to some degree agnostic, but actually this solution allows for that agnosticism because it is placed in probability. If you think that God's existence is as likely as a fairy at the back of your garden there may be a minuscule degree of agnosticism but it is still fair to say that one still regards the existence of God as being less likely.

We need to focus on the likelihood of God's existence rather than expecting absolute proof. This also means that the reasons will be pointed at showing how the existence of God is more evident than not, or that the non-existence of God is evident. This will mean that both atheists and theists according to the above definition deviate from the full agnostic position that we can't know which of course has no burden of proof but I don't feel that atheists can also claim this as their position does deviate from de-facto agnosticism even if they claim to be agnostic atheists.

philologos wrote: »

I think we need to come up with new terms for this discussion or at least to recognise limitations. We should rule out proof because proof lies solely in the realm of mathematics. The question lies more in terms of probability. What is more probable than the other? Is it more probable that there is a God who has created the world or that the universe came into being of its own accord?

The question seems to lie in these three positions:

1. Theism - It is more likely that there is a God than not. (Christianity and other forms of traditional theism would also argue that certain forms of theism are more probable than others).

2. Agnosticism - God may exist or God may not exist.

3. Atheism - It is less likely that God exists than not exists.

Some atheists would accuse me of leaving out the possibility that an atheist can be to some degree agnostic, or that a theist can be to some degree agnostic, but actually this solution allows for that agnosticism because it is placed in probability. If you think that God's existence is as likely as a fairy at the back of your garden there may be a minuscule degree of agnosticism but it is still fair to say that one still regards the existence of God as being less likely.

We need to focus on the likelihood of God's existence rather than expecting absolute proof. This also means that the reasons will be pointed at showing how the existence of God is more evident than not, or that the non-existence of God is evident. This will mean that both atheists and theists according to the above definition deviate from the full agnostic position that we can't know which of course has no burden of proof but I don't feel that atheists can also claim this as their position does deviate from de-facto agnosticism even if they claim to be agnostic atheists.

It should also be remembered that atheism is a rejection of the claims of theists, not a proclamation about a general unknown entity that may or may not be divine (a general notion of a creator).

Someone saying (not saying you said this) that you cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist and thus atheism is as faith based as theism is missing the point.

You cannot demonstrate a god doesn't exist. You can though demonstrate that humans invent deities and that this is a more likely explanation for why humans believe this stuff than the actual deity existing.

After all it should always be remembered that the only evidence ever presented for the existence of any deity is the testimony of humans who claim to have interacted with said deity.

If you reject these claims as unreliable or false you are de-facto an atheist, without ever having to make any claim positive or negative about the existence of a creator deity.

Wicknight wrote: »

It should also be remembered that atheism is a rejection of the claims of theists, not a proclamation about a general unknown entity that may or may not be divine (a general notion of a creator).

Absolutely, but why is one making such a rejection other than a perceived idea that it is less likely that God indeed exists?

Wicknight wrote: »

Someone saying (not saying you said this) that you cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist and thus atheism is as faith based as theism is missing the point.

The terms that I've framed my points in don't require anyone to demonstrate anything. All they require the contributors to do is to provide reason as to why they believe that God is more or indeed less likely.

Wicknight wrote: »

You cannot demonstrate a god doesn't exist. You can though demonstrate that humans invent deities and that this is a more likely explanation for why humans believe this stuff than the actual deity existing.

See above.

Wicknight wrote: »

After all it should always be remembered that the only evidence ever presented for the existence of any deity is the testimony of humans who claim to have interacted with said deity.

Very debatable, but we need to situate reasonable terms for the discussion to be framed in before it can start.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you reject these claims as unreliable or false you are de-facto an atheist, without ever having to make any claim positive or negative about the existence of a creator deity.

If you don't know that puts you in a different situation than accepting that it is more or less likely that God exists. Even "agnostic theism" or "agnostic atheism" make such claims about the likelihood of God's existence. Defacto agnosticism doesn't at least in the terms that I've provided.

We need to provide reasonable terms for this discussion if we are going to have it.

Barrington wrote: »

The burden of proof has to lie with those making the claim. Otherwise, anybody could claim anything. I could claim to have the world's largest collection of air guitars, but it's up to me to prove its bigger than everyone elses.

Religion is like selling an invisible product. The salesman has to prove why you should buy it.

Good answer

philologos wrote: »

Absolutely, but why is one making such a rejection other than a perceived idea that it is less likely that God indeed exists?

How likely God is to exist is some what irrelevant to whether your religion knows he does and has interacted with him.

The analogy most often used to illustrate this point is the two men standing behind a door. Man one says "I believe their is a tiger behind that door" and the second man says "Don't be silly you couldn't possibly know that"

The first man gives various reasons why he believes the tiger exists, some of them supernatural (the tiger talks to me in my mind) others merely appeals to logic (well you can't prove their isn't a one), all of which are rejected by the second man.

Notice at no point the second man states anything about the likelihood of a tiger being behind the door. That is some what irrelevant to the question of whether the first man knows the tiger exists or not.

philologos wrote: »

The terms that I've framed my points in don't require anyone to demonstrate anything. All they require the contributors to do is to provide reason as to why they believe that God is more or indeed less likely.

Again though you should appreciate that the likelihood of a creator deity is some what irrelevant to whether humans have interacted with him.

There being a tiger behind the door doesn't mean the man knew there was.

The question of how likely a god is to exist is both rather unknowable and rather irrelevant.

A far more relevant question is how likely is the explanation that humans believe in such beings because they have been actually interacting with them over explanations that don't require their existence, such as hyper agency detection and other mental tricks.

philologos wrote: »

Very debatable

I mean actual evidence, not just something that may or may not have been produced by a deity depending on whether you already believe in such a being, ie don't answer "the universe cause only a god could produce it" :pac:

philologos wrote: »

but we need to situate reasonable terms for the discussion to be framed in before it can start.

Agreed, I'm not disagreeing with your post merely expanding upon it.

philologos wrote: »

If you don't know that puts you in a different situation than accepting that it is more or less likely that God exists. Even "agnostic theism" or "agnostic atheism" make such claims about the likelihood of God's existence.

Again few atheists make claims about the likelihood of the existence of god. Not saying none do, Dawkins has made claims about the likelihood of a creator deity, claims that a lot of atheists rejected as some what groundless.

If you examine the claims they are actually claims about the likelihood of the accuracy of claims by humans about said interaction with these gods. See analogy with tiger behind the door.

This may seem some what pedantic to point this out, but it is actually a rather central point, not least of which because thinking about it highlights some of the unspoken assumptions theists hold (for example the idea that if a god is likely to exist then it is likely to be their god) and expect atheists to follow.

Wicknight wrote: »

How likely God is to exist is some what irrelevant to whether your religion knows he does and has interacted with him.

We need to look into how likely it is that God can exist before we can discuss as to what nature that God had, or how He related to people. These are subdiscussions to the question that is posed here.

Wicknight wrote: »

The first man gives various reasons why he believes the tiger exists, some of them supernatural (the tiger talks to me in my mind) others merely appeals to logic (well you can't prove their isn't a one), all of which are rejected by the second man.

In fairness these aren't the only reasons that have been posed to you as to how it is likely that God exists and it would be dishonest to claim such. We need to situate how we ant to do this in order to do it properly and effectively.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again though you should appreciate that the likelihood of a creator deity is some what irrelevant to whether humans have interacted with him.

Not at all. It is exactly a prerequisite to further discussion.

Wicknight wrote: »

A far more relevant question is how likely is the explanation that humans believe in such beings because they have been actually interacting with them over explanations that don't require their existence, such as hyper agency detection and other mental tricks.

Which would be changing the current discussion which is equally important.

Wicknight wrote: »

I mean actual evidence, not just something that may or may not have been produced by a deity depending on whether you already believe in such a being, ie don't answer "the universe cause only a god could produce it" :pac:

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting looking into what would indicate that God as described in Judeo-Christianity either exists or doesn't exist which is perfectly in keeping with the topic of the discussion. Hence why I have posed the 3 descriptions I have done as a means of framing the discussion.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again few atheists make claims about the likelihood of the existence of god. Not saying none do, Dawkins has made claims about the likelihood of a creator deity, claims that a lot of atheists rejected as some what groundless.

Nearly every one of the new-atheists I have read or heard (E.G Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett) has made some form of claim to the probability of God's existence.

Wicknight wrote: »

This may seem some what pedantic to point this out, but it is actually a rather central point, not least of which because thinking about it highlights some of the unspoken assumptions theists hold (for example the idea that if a god is likely to exist then it is likely to be their god) and expect atheists to follow.

This is the reason why we need to establish how likely it is for a God to exist before we can look into the particular claims. That's only logical and I think you know this too.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

A person who separates themselves from God and chooses eternal darkness instead of eternal light, has choosen it for themselves. As I said the gates of hell are intellectually bolted from the inside by ones own ego.

I'm pretty sure no one who given a choice would choose eternal darkness in a lake of sulfur.

The only thing an atheist picks is that Christians have not presented a compelling argument for the existence of their deity over any other deity.

This of course means that the atheist won't accept the offer of salvation from Jesus Christ and will be punished for their sinful behavior if it turns out the Christian God is the real one.

But no one chooses eternal darkness. God chooses that for them. Being omnipotent he could have just as easily chosen eternity in another blissful paradise as being what awaits non-believers. The idea of a place separated from God and that this place must be horrible are both rather illogical propositions. God can certainly make such a place, and choose to send people their. But that is his decision, not theirs, such a place does not have to exist as it is described.

But then if the idea of this hellish place wasn't taught to potential believers that wouldn't be much of a motivation to join the religion now, would it

Wicknight wrote: »

Most parents don't disappear to an unknown place only to interact with their children occasionally through intermediaries and prophets. :P

Believers see God everywhere, God is a sprit and all beauty and love is God.

Wicknight wrote: »

On the other hand, if God doesn't exist but is instead the invention of humans then this is the only evidence anyone could ever have of his existence.

No, it’s actually perfectly devised, as using your own God given intellect you're free to believe or not, and the freedom of free will remains intact.

philologos wrote: »

We need to look into how likely it is that God can exist before we can discuss as to what nature that God had, or how He related to people.

We really don't, and again this simply highlights the flawed thinking of a lot of theistic arguments, the proposition that if we establish he can exist this is some how support for the argument that he does.

Using a real world example, if you asked a physicist 150 years ago how likely is it that time itself slows down the fast you move they would have probably said very unlikely. Yet that is exactly what we find.

Anything could exist, anything could be true, particularly if we suppose that this thing can have any property imaginable and exist outside of space time and not conform to any laws of nature.

Supposing that this is or isn't likely is rather irrelevant. The only thing you need to do is demonstrate that the most accurate explanation for why humans believe is that they are really interacting with a deity. Anything else is just philosophical smoke and mirrors.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Believers see God everywhere, God is a sprit and all beauty and love is God.

You don't see God anywhere. If you did the photos entering your eyes could be recorded on photo-sensitive paper.

You see things you choose to explain by saying "God did it", and as your post itself points out one has to be a believer first in order to come to that conclusion.

philologos wrote: »

No, it’s actually perfectly devised, as using your own God given intellect you're free to believe or not, and the freedom of free will remains intact.

I'm free to believe my laser measuring device as well but it gives much more accurate results than my own eyes. Despite this my free will remains intact, shockingly

God, if he exists, made humans bad at personal assessment and good at empirical study. He then decided to only appear in the form of person assessment. This supposition seems rather implausible.

On the other hand if God is simply imagined then it would be necessary for believers to suppose he cannot be empirically studied because he is not actually there.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

An Atheist does not believe in the afterlife, that's eternal darkness.

An atheist does not have power over where we go after we die. God does.

If God gave an atheist the power to choose where they went it wouldn't be to eternal darkness and suffering. Therefore the idea that an atheist chooses this is frankly ridiculous.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

They will spend eternity blaming God for their own choice

Not if God gave them a choice. If I ended up in a blissful paradise full of other atheists and empty of Christians after death I wouldn't blame God for a thing.

Wicknight wrote: »

An atheist does not have power over where we go after we die.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not if God gave them a choice.

Athiests are given the choice
An atheist decides his own fate

Wicknight wrote: »

If I ended up in a blissful paradise full of other atheists and empty of Christians after death I wouldn't blame God for a thing.

Now you're getting it . . . I told you the gates were bolted from the inside . . . you are the company you keep.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am more than happy to discuss the question so long as you appreciate that what you are supposing is important to the answer really isn't.

You can attempt to explain first that a creator is likely and then jump to it being the Christian God, but you should understand that this is terrible logic.

I think as it is the prerequisite to practically every single other discussion we have on this forum that it is important. You're welcome to come to any conclusion you like but it seems that you're denying the obvious.

Not at all. We start with establishing the existence of God as Creator so we can actually analyse the claims of Christianity that depend on this being established as a prerequisite.

Skipping along before we've even dealt with the most rudimentary claim seems absurd.

philologos wrote: »

I think as it is the prerequisite to practically every single other discussion we have on this forum that it is important. You're welcome to come to any conclusion you like but it seems that you're denying the obvious.

Not at all. We start with establishing the existence of God as Creator so we can actually analyse the claims of Christianity that depend on this being established as a prerequisite.

Skipping along before we've even dealt with the most rudimentary claim seems absurd.

Ok, I look forward to telling you I told you so. :P

What Jakkass is an argument for the likelihood of the existence of a creator deity.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Now you're getting it . . . I told you the gates were bolted from the inside . . . you are the company you keep.

And we are all happily discussing philosophy and Battlestar Galactica on a beach of eternal sunshine and cocktails.

Right? I mean we choose where we go, don't we?

philologos wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned in the absence of absolute proof the only option is for us both to clarify the reasons why we believe that such an entity is unlikely?

Ok, as I said, off you go.