Atheist or Agnostic?

kelly1

Hello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.

My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?

I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.

But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?

I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?

Is your atheism simply based on lack of evidence? Or is it more to do with the implausibility of the theological arguments you've heard?

And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods! Richard Dawkins has said that the God hypothesis "explains precisely nothing". That's true in scientific terms because science cannot by definition venture beyond the material. Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing but does that mean such a being cannot exist? Science can mathematicall formulate the laws of nature but we cannon explain why such laws exist and how the various constants have the values they have. Even in a multiverse situation, there might be different laws in each universe but there would have to be overall laws governing the multiverse. Where would those laws come from? And what is the ultimate nature of reality, mind or matter? And what is matter? Wave or particle? What comes after quarks and where does it end? How real is it? Anyway, that's enough rambling from me!

Regards,
Noel.

sink

Atheist because while there is no evidence for or against god, there is plenty of evidence that religion is made in man's image.

kelly1

sink wrote: »

Because while there is no evidence for or against god, there is plenty of evidence that religion is made in man's image.

Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.

So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.

And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.

sink

kelly1 wrote: »

And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.

It proves nothing beyond that men are capable of creating religion. In absence of further evidence it is reasonable to assume that all religions are man made.

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.

Science is restricted to the material world because no other "world" has ever been shown to exist.

So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.

Let's go with your metaphor for the moment and imagine you have an enormous, nondescript field, the field is the size of the United States and the soil is 100m deep.

You claim that there's a golf ball in this field and you know how to find it. An atheist doesn't deny that it's possible to find this golf ball, if it even exists, but they consider the chances of finding that golf ball to be next to impossible, so why waste your time even talking about it?

Atheists aren't looking for God, I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Atheists don't believe for certain that there is no God in the same way that Catholics belief for certain that there is a God. Atheists simply have no belief in any God.

And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.

How so? What's a "divine revelation"? How do you tell the difference between someone who's had a divine revelation and someone who's had an hallucination or other psychological abberation?

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof.

No I do not believe that god doesn't exist and having been on this forum before you will undoubtedly have been corrected on that before. You'll get nowhere by strawmanning us.

My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know. What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false. I simply don't think religious people know what they're talking about and if they do turn out to be right it will be nothing more than luck that they happened to pick the right religion

kelly1 wrote: »

But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?

I am an agnostic atheist

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such."

So yes that would be a more honest view, which is why I hold it

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.

Like most religious arguments, that logic only works if you begin with the assumption that god exists. Science restricting itself to the material world does not prevent us from recognising that human beings have a clear compulsion to make up religions. They have made up thousands so I see no reason to pick one of them and declare it to be true above all the false ones

kelly1 wrote: »

And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.

What it proves is that, as I said, people have a compulsion to make up religions. When all religions demand a leap of faith, why should I leap in your direction? I might as well pick my religion by the flip a coin tbh

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?

There's been a thread here, with a range of values between theism and atheism. Most people were on a 6 in a range of 1 to 7. I'll try and dig it up in a while.

And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods!

In all fairness, I'd dump your Christian God in there too. I don't see anything to separate him from the gods of old except that one is popular now. Given another few thousand years, someone else might be dismissing a comparison between the deity in vogue and the old Judeo-Christian God.

My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?

A complete lack of evidence of the supernatural, lack of a coherent argument for same. I just haven't found anything put forward by believers to hold any water.

liamw

An atheist is someone who lacks religious belief. I don't need to have disproven God to lack religious belief. Just like you are an atheist with respect to other religions.

How can you possibly know anything about God if he is outside the material world?

To me it is more reasonable to assume God doesn't exist until some evidence is presented that would shift the probability of such an existence.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. You are asserting that the Christian God exists, so you need to back up your position.

Sam Vimes

toiletduck wrote: »

There's been a thread here, with a range of values between theism and atheism. Most people were on a 6 in a range of 1 to 7. I'll try and dig it up in a while.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415

66% say "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' "

So do you want to rephrase your question in light of this new information kelly1, since you now know that the majority of us do not hold the position you think we do?

seamus

liamw wrote: »

An atheist is someone who lacks religious belief. I don't need to have disproven God to lack religious belief. Just like you are an atheist with respect to other religions.

I think the whole notion of atheism needs to be hammered home across the board.

Theism = I believe in a god or gods
Atheism = I don't believe in any gods.

"I don't believe in any gods" is not the same as "I believe there are no gods".

Saying that Atheists believe there is no God is like saying that Vegetarians believe there is no meat.

toiletduck

Here we go - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415&highlight=strongly

Might be worth a look Noel


Edit: Beaten to it!

Sam Vimes

toiletduck wrote: »

Here we go - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415&highlight=strongly

Might be worth a look Noel


Edit: Beaten to it!

Moohhaawwwwww

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.

My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?

I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.

But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence?

Which God?

kelly1 wrote: »

Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?

Wouldn't it be more honest for you to be agnostic too?

kelly1 wrote: »

I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?

Yes, many, although maybe not the same ones as you have read.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is your atheism simply based on lack of evidence? Or is it more to do with the implausibility of the theological arguments you've heard?

Both. Firstly, no theological argument has ever come close to describing a logically sound god that accounts for reality as it is. Secondly, starting from first principles (considering the creation of the universe-intelligently/unintelligently driven, naturally arisen, etc.), there just is no reason to say that any of it had an sentient drive behind it.

kelly1 wrote: »

And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods!

Why? These are reasonable arguments.

kelly1 wrote: »

Richard Dawkins has said that the God hypothesis "explains precisely nothing". That's true in scientific terms because science cannot by definition venture beyond the material. Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing but does that mean such a being cannot exist?

But if god exists, and god acts on/in the material, then the effects of his acts should be scene in the material (answered prayers, miracles ect). Anything time these have examined scientifically, they have always failed to confirm the god hypothesis.

kelly1 wrote: »

Science can mathematicall formulate the laws of nature but we cannon explain why such laws exist and how the various constants have the values they have.

Neither can religion. "God did it" is not an explanation, no more than me saying "I did it".

kelly1 wrote: »

Even in a multiverse situation, there might be different laws in each universe but there would have to be overall laws governing the multiverse.

Why? Who says they cant have arisen randomly?

kelly1 wrote: »

Where would those laws come from? And what is the ultimate nature of reality, mind or matter? And what is matter? Wave or particle? What comes after quarks and where does it end? How real is it? Anyway, that's enough rambling from me!

I think that you are assuming that these questions must have some human centric answers, answers that are emotionally relevent to humans and humanitys existence. There is, however, no reason to assume this.

Sam Vimes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? These are reasonable arguments.

Indeed, the only nonsense there is the arguments that the teapot and the FSM argue against, ie you can't prove something doesn't exist, therefore you should believe in it

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.

Science usually works on the effects of things on the physical universe, it actually rarely works directly on things themselves (ie, a lot of science is inference). If god exists and acts on the physical universe, then evidence of these acts will be seen in the physical world. They are not however.

kelly1 wrote: »

So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.

That may be a perfectly acceptable thing to do. If the metal detecter scans a golf ball sized area, can scan very quickly and the area you are searching in is metalic, then you are simply looking fo rthe spot where the detector detects nothing. You just have to be searching for the right thing.

kelly1 wrote: »

And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove?

That man can simultaneously be wrong in many, many different ways

Blackhorse Slim

kelly1 wrote: »

So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.

Your metaphor is seriously flawed. The Athiest/agnostic viewpoint is more comparabale to not trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.

When all you have is a metal detector, why go looking for golf balls?

Sam Vimes

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Your metaphor is seriously flawed. The Athiest/agnostic viewpoint is more comparabale to not trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.

When all you have is a metal detector, why go looking for golf balls?

What the theist wants us to do is throw away the metal detector, walk to a random point in the field because someone told us to go there (the bible) and say that we have faith that the golf ball is there......even though we can't see it

liamw

seamus wrote: »

How so? What's a "divine revelation"? How do you tell the difference between someone who's had a divine revelation and someone who's had an hallucination or other psychological abberation?

+1 would like to see a response to this

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.

Science can't disprove something a vague as a 'god' exists, however I would suggest that certain things could be seen as circumstantial evidence that a god such as the Christian God does not exist. A few for starters:

• God is supposed to be loving and benevolent, yet the world we live is filled with suffering and torment, and the weak, innocent and faithful usually feel the brunt of the violence.
  
• The planet we live on tries to kill many it's inhabitants every single day by drowning, wildfire, earthquakes, molten lava/ash, bacteria, etc.
  
• The God of the bible has been attributed unmistakably human attributes (and not all good ones), which suggests that he is a creation of humans themselves. He is even supposed to have a "son" which, for an entity outside of space and time, is a embarrassingly benign.
  
• Evolution. No it doesn't disprove God, but it makes the idea that we were just "created" to be Gods playthings seem rather outdated. And the eons-long process and seems somewhat removed from the idea that we are special amongst creatures.
  
• The size of the universe. What the heck is all that space for, if we are the chosen ones?

Okay, so there's nothing scientific about them, but they represent some significant elephants in the room for that religion.

kelly1

sink wrote: »

It proves nothing beyond that men are capable of creating religion. In absence of further evidence it is reasonable to assume that all religions are man made.

No, you can't make that assumption. You have no solid reason to rule out genuine divine revelation.

seamus wrote: »

Science is restricted to the material world because no other "world" has ever been shown to exist.

Only according to science. You're dismissing personal experience as invalid.

seamus wrote: »

Atheists aren't looking for God, I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Atheists don't believe for certain that there is no God in the same way that Catholics belief for certain that there is a God. Atheists simply have no belief in any God.

OK that's fair enough but at the end of the day, it's is only a belief. Therefore it's not logical to dismiss God due to lack of evidence.

seamus wrote: »

How so? What's a "divine revelation"? How do you tell the difference between someone who's had a divine revelation and someone who's had an hallucination or other psychological abberation?

Because we cannot detect God with the 5 senses, we have no physical means of determining God's nature. Since God is transcendent, we can only know God when He reveals His nature to us. The difficulty is in determining a true divine revelation but the possibility shouldn't be ruled out.

toiletduck wrote: »

In all fairness, I'd dump your Christian God in there too. I don't see anything to separate him from the gods of old except that one is popular now.

This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient! It's a silly strawman argument. Philosophers and theologians propose God for sound reasons but the same can't be said of teapots and crap like that. God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally. So let's drop the nonsense and we might actually make some progress in understanding each other's view.

toiletduck wrote: »

A complete lack of evidence of the supernatural, lack of a coherent argument for same. I just haven't found anything put forward by believers to hold any water.

Maybe you need to read more philosophy by authors such as Keith Ward or Richard Swinburne. Science is no help here.

liamw wrote: »

An atheist is someone who lacks religious belief. I don't need to have disproven God to lack religious belief. Just like you are an atheist with respect to other religions.

OK, thanks.

liamw wrote: »

How can you possibly know anything about God if he is outside the material world?

Revelation (general and private) is all we have to go on. If God can created a universe, He can surely communicate with us!

liamw wrote: »

To me it is more reasonable to assume God doesn't exist until some evidence is presented that would shift the probability of such an existence.

You're not going to find any scientific evidence so there's no point in waiting around for any. I would ask you too if you've read many philosophical arguments?

liamw wrote: »

The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. You are asserting that the Christian God exists, so you need to back up your position.

Trying to prove God's existence is futile but I think excellent philosophical arguments can be made before venturing into theology.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415

66% say "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' "

So do you want to rephrase your question in light of this new information kelly1, since you now know that the majority of us do not hold the position you think we do?

I don't think I do need to rephrase the question. I still think agnosticism is the more honest view. I get the impression that people hold atheistic beliefs due to lack of scienctific evidence. What I'm trying to get across is that science is quite limited in it's scope and should be used to support a materialist position.

seamus wrote: »

"I don't believe in any gods" is not the same as "I believe there are no gods".

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Can you explain please?

sink

kelly1 wrote: »

No, you can't make that assumption. You have no solid reason to rule out genuine divine revelation.

I have no reason to rule it in either. I have no reason to believe it is any more credible than anything I or anyone else can imagine.

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

No, you can't make that assumption. You have no solid reason to rule out genuine divine revelation.

As said though, I have no reason to rule it in either. I could make up *anything* and claim that you have no reason to rule it out.

Only according to science. You're dismissing personal experience as invalid.

Only because personal experience is not evidence of anything except perhaps that other people have experiences.

Therefore it's not logical to dismiss God due to lack of evidence.

It's not logical to include God in spite of a lack of evidence.

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Can you explain please?

I'll steal someone else's analogy here.

You believe that Ford make the best motor cars. I don't have a car and have no opinion in any case about cars. That doesn't mean that I believe that Ford *don't* make the best motor cars. Ford may or may not make the best cars from my POV.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient! It's a silly strawman argument. Philosophers and theologians propose God for sound reasons but the same can't be said of teapots and crap like that. God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally. So let's drop the nonsense and we might actually make some progress in understanding each other's view.

And what about the Norse gods?

And as for the part in bold, it seems god(s) can explain anything you want. Part of the nonsensical nature of religion imo.

Maybe you need to read more philosophy by authors such as Keith Ward or Richard Swinburne. Science is no help here.

Because you proclaim it so..? Hardly good enough.

Gambler

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.

My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?

I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.

But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?

I consider myself an Atheist because while I cannot prove that god doesn't exist I feel that the arguments against the existence of a god are more substantial and better made than the arguments for the existence of a god.

As I am sure other people have said many many times, I cannot prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable fairy flying around my head sticking it's tongue out at me, that doesn't mean that I should believe someone who tries to convince me of it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?

Yes, I have read them and none of them fill me with confidence. For example the good old "complexity of the human eye" as an argument for a creator debate holds absolutely no water for me personally.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is your atheism simply based on lack of evidence? Or is it more to do with the implausibility of the theological arguments you've heard?

And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods! Richard Dawkins has said that the God hypothesis "explains precisely nothing". That's true in scientific terms because science cannot by definition venture beyond the material. Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing but does that mean such a being cannot exist?

No but it also doesn't mean that such a being can exist.

kelly1 wrote: »

Science can mathematicall formulate the laws of nature but we cannon explain why such laws exist and how the various constants have the values they have. Even in a multiverse situation, there might be different laws in each universe but there would have to be overall laws governing the multiverse. Where would those laws come from? And what is the ultimate nature of reality, mind or matter? And what is matter? Wave or particle? What comes after quarks and where does it end? How real is it? Anyway, that's enough rambling from me!

Regards,
Noel.

I'm not sure what your points are about the laws to be honest. For example Pi can never be anything other than the value it is because a circle is a circle and pi is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter. It can never be any other value from what I can tell no matter what the multiverse.. Can you explain some specific examples of what natural you laws think might support the idea of there being a creator and the reasons for that support..

strobe

kelly1 wrote: »

This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient! It's a silly strawman argument. Philosophers and theologians propose God for sound reasons but the same can't be said of teapots and crap like that. God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally. So let's drop the nonsense and we might actually make some progress in understanding each other's view.

I think everyone not nobody, that professes a belief (however jokingly) in the FSM claims that he is omnipresent/omniscient and that he created the universe. You just apply this to Yahweh instead. But let's drop the joke God FSM.

Zulu's believe the Ancient one came from the reeds and created the world.

Hindus believe that the universe had no beginning but is instead a cyclical event recurring for infinity overseen by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

The ancient greeks believed that the sun and the moon were created by Vulcan giving arrows to other gods.

Some Australian aborigonies believe the world was painted into existance in the dreamtime by one of the many gods.

There are dozens of others, some which have fallen from belief with the inevitable calapse of the religion, some are still believed by millions and millions of people to explain the origin of the universe. I place no more value on the story of Yahweh creating the universe and life in the most roundabout and backwards manner I can imagine anyone, in six days flat no less, going about the task, than I do on the idea of the Hindu triumvirate overseeing the constant creation and collapse of a cyclical universe that has always existed. (infact if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd throw my money on the Hindu concept, rather than the Judeo-Christian)

Give me one proper reason why I should???? Please, I would love that.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think I do need to rephrase the question. I still think agnosticism is the more honest view. I get the impression that people hold atheistic beliefs due to lack of scienctific evidence. What I'm trying to get across is that science is quite limited in it's scope and should be used to support a materialist position.

You kind of missed the point there. You started with "As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist" but that is wrong. I am an atheist but I do not believe god doesn't exist. your understanding of what atheists call atheism is wrong. What you call the more honest view is the view that the vast majority of us hold but we still call ourselves atheists because our understanding of the word is different to yours

It's kind of like if I went into the christianity forum and insisted that all christians were creationists and asked "wouldn't it be more honest of you to accept evolution?", ignoring the fact that the vast majority of christians do in fact accept evolution and so already hold the position I am saying they should hold

Gambler

God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally.

I'm sorry but "God did it" doesn't explain anything. I would love to understand how you think God explains the origin of the universe (and I don't necessarily accept that there is an "origin", I personally favour a theory that the universe has always existed, probably with an expanding and contracting amount of matter that has a repeating big bang. I think that because humans have a finite existence that they can't easily get their heads around the idea of something that has no beginning or ending.) or how gods existence suddenly makes the natural laws make any more sense than they already do.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Can you explain please?

I've already explained the difference. I'll paste it again:

My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know (the equivalent of believing there is no god). What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false. I simply don't think religious people know what they're talking about and if they do turn out to be right it will be nothing more than luck that they happened to pick the right religion

No?

kelly1

toiletduck wrote: »

And what about the Norse gods?

Proposing multiple gods raises too many questions. The simplest proposition is a single God.

Gambler wrote: »

I consider myself an Atheist because while I cannot prove that god doesn't exist I feel that the arguments against the existence of a god are more substantial and better made than the arguments for the existence of a god.

Would you accept that the arguments you've heard against God could be flawed? For instance Richard Dawkins arguments in the God Delusion are easily dismantled. Maybe you've read too much biased rhetoric?

Gambler wrote: »

Yes, I have read them and none of them fill me with confidence. For example the good old "complexity of the human eye" as an argument for a creator debate holds absolutely no water for me personally.

The eye complexity argument doesn't hold much water with me either. I've just finished Keith Ward's book "Why there almost certainly is a God" and I found he made some very good philosophical arguments. I'd need to read it again before before I present his arguments coherently.

Gambler wrote: »

I'm not sure what your points are about the laws to be honest. For example Pi can never be anything other than the value it is because a circle is a circle and pi is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter. It can never be any other value from what I can tell no matter what the multiverse.. Can you explain some specific examples of what natural you laws think might support the idea of there being a creator and the reasons for that support..

First the fact that rational laws exist at all is remarkable. Why are we able to relate force, mass and acceleration in a simple equation. Why is it linear and consistent. Why does the speed of light have the value it does and why is it consistent. What are the laws of nature rational. Why aren't they chaotic and unintelligible? These facts suggest a Designer.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Proposing multiple gods raises too many questions. The simplest proposition is a single God.

The simplest proposition is no god and your god raises plenty of questions of its own. We've already had this discussion, where you think it's perfectly fine to reason your way out of multiple gods but when we reason our way out of your one you say that we're blind and using metal detectors to find golf balls etc

fitz0

kelly1 wrote: »

Only according to science. You're dismissing personal experience as invalid.

And you're dismissing the much more demonstrable scientific method as invalid.

kelly1 wrote: »

Because we cannot detect God with the 5 senses,

Or the other 4-16 senses. /pedant

kelly1 wrote: »

This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient!

I hereby claim that the FSM made all that is, all that was and all that will be in a state of drunken half-awareness. When he's sober he's both omnipotent and omniscient, paradoxes be damned.

Such is your reasoning that since you have not directly experienced the divine revelation of his noodly goodness, you are in no position to assert that the FSM does not exist.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think I do need to rephrase the question. I still think agnosticism is the more honest view.

Does that mean you are being dishonest by not labelling yourself agnostic? Or do you claim to know 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists and he/she/it is exactly as you claim, vague as it may be?

Dades wrote: »

[*]Evolution. No it doesn't disprove God, but it makes the idea that we were just "created" to be Gods playthings seem rather outdated. And the eons-long process and seems somewhat removed from the idea that we are special amongst creatures.

I see it as circumstantial evidence of there being no god. If he is all loving, then why did his love not extend to all those branches of the evolutionary tree that withered and died? Surely an infinitely compassionate being would guide a "design" process to avoid creating species that are subsequently culled.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

P
First the fact that rational laws exist at all is remarkable. Why are we able to relate force, mass and acceleration in a simple equation. Why is it linear and consistent. Why does the speed of light have the value it does and why is it consistent. What are the laws of nature rational. Why aren't they chaotic and unintelligible? These facts suggest a Designer.

I don't know so it must be god. the same logic that people used to dream up Thor to explain thunder

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

You're not going to find any scientific evidence so there's no point in waiting around for any. I would ask you too if you've read many philosophical arguments?

You can be sure if there was any scientific evidence for God it would be heralded from the bell towers. It's only that there isn't that people put forward "philosophical" arguments that are as useful as a ham sandwich at a Barmitzvah.

You can't just claim some other method of viewing the world is valid just because the only honest one doesn't support your views.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Proposing multiple gods raises too many questions. The simplest proposition is a single God.

I fail to see that, and I'm sure I'm not alone.



Ok, let's try something else. Lots of people claim they have experiences with ghosts/psychic powers etc. They claim that these phenomena are not testable by science and are only realisible to those who open themselves to it (personal revelation of a sort).

Now while technically I may be agnostic in regards to these claims, in reality I'll describe myself as a non-believer in them. As I know that under the conditions set forth by the proponents, I can never ever be 100% sure and there's always the possibility that some day they will actually put forward some proof.

I can be 99.9% sure that it's balls though :pac:


It's pretty much the same with my stance towards deities.

doctoremma

kelly1 wrote: »

Proposing multiple gods raises too many questions. The simplest proposition is a single God.

No, the simplest proposition is no god.

Edit: I was late with this!

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you accept that the arguments you've heard against God could be flawed? For instance Richard Dawkins arguments in the God Delusion are easily dismantled.

Please feel free, you'll have an eagerly awaiting audience.

kelly1 wrote: »

What are the laws of nature rational. Why aren't they chaotic and unintelligible? These facts suggest a Designer.

If the laws of nature weren't "rational" (and I don't think that's the appropriate word), we wouldn't be here, navel-gazing about how "rational" they are.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

You can be sure if there was any scientific evidence for God it would be heralded from the bell towers. It's only that there isn't that people put forward "philosophical" arguments that are as useful as a ham sandwich at a Barmitzvah.

You can't just claim some other method of viewing the world is valid just because the only honest one doesn't support your views.

Indeed. Any time there's the slightest whiff of some kind of hard evidence that can be viewed in a certain way to possibly infer the existence of a deity you never hear the end of it* but when it doesn't we go back to "science cannot speak on the topic of god", indistinguishable from pseudo-scientists, quacks and nonsense peddlers

*Sure didn't kelly1 himself do it....

doctoremma

kelly1 wrote: »

This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient! It's a silly strawman argument. Philosophers and theologians propose God for sound reasons but the same can't be said of teapots and crap like that. God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally. So let's drop the nonsense and we might actually make some progress in understanding each other's view.

I find this a very childish (but oft repeated) argument. Believers often seem to think that while I can dismiss their god(s) as unlikely, I would concede that they are more likely than the FSM, Santa Claus etc. When I fail to make any such concession, I have been accused of not taking things seriously, deliberately offending people etc.

The evidence for the Christian god is as convincing as the evidence for FSM, for Santa Claus, for the norse gods, for the orbiting teapot, for the pixies at the bottom of my garden, for the Hindu gods, for the tooth fairy.

So, to summarise: I really, honestly, truly view all these propositions with equally little regard. Consequently, the argument that one can explain a something more adequately than another is laughable.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

You're dismissing personal experience as invalid.

And you're dismissing personal testimony of Allah -- why?

kelly1 wrote: »

But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?

It's not a more "honest" view, but a more accurate view, which is why it's the position of most, if not all, people who call themselves atheists. See this post for more details on where you're going wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?

I have read most arguments for the existence of abstract deities ("God" in the general sense) and found them really quite silly, some of them amazingly so. I have also read most of the arguments for specific concrete deities (the catholic deity, the protestant one, the various islamic ones and so on) and found them likewise useless.

And even temporarily assuming that one or more of these proposed deities actually exists, their behavior is clearly and absolutely nuts and no more worthy of worship than some psychotic nutter with a knife to my neck.

kelly1 wrote: »

Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing

He certainly can be, or at least, what religious people say about him can be tested. ie, most religious people -- including yourself -- believe that praying achieves something in this world, ie, produces some physical outcome (wins lottery, lifeboat comes, plane doesn't crash, recovers after illness). These we can test for, and just as the philosophical argument fails badly, so also we find that everything that the religious say about their god's "listening" to them is false too.

kelly1 wrote: »

but does that mean such a being cannot exist?'

And you cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetting Monster doesn't exist either -- that doesn't mean that we should waste any more time disproving the FSM than we do your particular instance of your particular deity.

One doesn't need to look at every negative number to see if any one is positive. And so with deities -- the entire class is philosophically and epistemologically nonsense, and physically vacant.

kelly1

strobe wrote: »

There are dozens of others, some which have fallen from belief with the inevitable calapse of the religion, some are still believed by millions and millions of people to explain the origin of the universe. I place no more value on the story of Yahweh creating the universe and life in the most roundabout and backwards manner I can imagine anyone, in six days flat no less, going about the task, than I do on the idea of the Hindu triumvirate overseeing the constant creation and collapse of a cyclical universe that has always existed. (infact if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd throw my money on the Hindu concept, rather than the Judeo-Christian)

Give me one proper reason why I should???? Please, I would love that.

I think we can use our reason to rule out illogical explanations. For instance, science has shown (and I'm open to correction), that the universe began with a big bang and that the rate of inflation is increasing and that the universe (or multiverse) began at a finite time in the past according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (and Hawking/Penrose). If this is true, then we can rule out Hinduism as being false.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You kind of missed the point there. You started with "As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist" but that is wrong. I am an atheist but I do not believe god doesn't exist. your understanding of what atheists call atheism is wrong. What you call the more honest view is the view that the vast majority of us hold but we still call ourselves atheists because our understanding of the word is different to yours.

Seriously, this is news to me! I still don't see why you don't call yourself agnostic because what you're describing sounds a lot like agnosticism to me!

Gambler wrote: »

I'm sorry but "God did it" doesn't explain anything. I would love to understand how you think God explains the origin of the universe (and I don't necessarily accept that there is an "origin", I personally favour a theory that the universe has always existed, probably with an expanding and contracting amount of matter that has a repeating big bang. I think that because humans have a finite existence that they can't easily get their heads around the idea of something that has no beginning or ending.) or how gods existence suddenly makes the natural laws make any more sense than they already do.

But there's no evidence for a cyclical universe or a multiverse. Why are these hypotheses favoured over God? It seems to me that science goes out of its way to avoid the God question. It constructs roads and bridges around and over God.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

What are the laws of nature rational. Why aren't they chaotic and unintelligible? These facts suggest a Designer.

The christian deity is chaotic and unintelligible -- read the old testament. These facts suggest that he had nothing to do with creating a rational nature.

kelly1 wrote: »

Proposing multiple gods raises too many questions. The simplest proposition is a single God.

Good heavens, Noel!

Have you forgotten that your deity comes in three bits? :rolleyes:

Gambler

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you accept that the arguments you've heard against God could be flawed? For instance Richard Dawkins arguments in the God Delusion are easily dismantled. Maybe you've read too much biased rhetoric?

I can accept that they could be flawed but from my own examination of both sides of the coin I believe the arguments for god are more flawed than the arguments made against.

kelly1 wrote: »

The eye complexity argument doesn't hold much water with me either. I've just finished Keith Ward's book "Why there almost certainly is a God" and I found he made some very good philosophical arguments. I'd need to read it again before before I present his arguments coherently.

I would love a summary of the arguments, I am always interested in having my beliefs challenged so that I can re-examine them and try to expand them where possible..

kelly1 wrote: »

First the fact that rational laws exist at all is remarkable. Why are we able to relate force, mass and acceleration in a simple equation. Why is it linear and consistent. Why does the speed of light have the value it does and why is it consistent. What are the laws of nature rational. Why aren't they chaotic and unintelligible? These facts suggest a Designer.

Why should they be chaotic and unintelligible and why would that suggest that there is a designer?? How would the lack of a creator create a situation that a rock dropped in a vacuum with no other external influences would drop differently every time? Why would the lack of a designer mean that light would travel at different speeds. If anything surely a creator that has omnipotent powers would be more likely to create a little bit of chaos along the way?

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously, this is news to me! I still don't see why you don't call yourself agnostic because what you're describing sounds a lot like agnosticism to me!

Because I'm not an agnostic. There's a distinction to be made between knowledge (certainty) and belief. Take a look at this graph:



The less belief you have the further you move to the left and the less certain you are the further you move down. Your view of an atheist is a gnostic atheist, one who does not believe in a god and is certain that no god exists. My personal position is agnostic atheism, in that I don't believe in a god but nor do I assert that there is no god. There might be but I've seen nothing that suggests that's it's any more likely to be the christian god than Thor or Zeus. There is no way to determine with any level of reliability which, if any, religion is correct so I refuse to accept any of them until this situation changes. Bear in mind that I don't speak for all atheists but that is the position of most people on this forum as the poll I linked you to suggests.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.

My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?

I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.

The problem of evil is a logical valid and sound deductive proof of the non existance of God (the all loving, all knowing, all powerful God).

I have had this debate with you, PDN, Brian Calagy, several other Christians several times over the years and not doing it again unless you can "proove" you have done some work on your knowledge or application of any form of logic.

sink

kelly1 wrote: »

I think we can use our reason to rule out illogical explanations. For instance, science has shown (and I'm open to correction), that the universe began with a big bang and that the rate of inflation is increasing and that the universe (or multiverse) began at a finite time in the past according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (and Hawking/Penrose). If this is true, then we can rule out Hinduism as being false.

In truth science can say very little about the big bang, only that it happened. It is not known whether it was the beginning for we can't see past it or even see the event itself. All the scientific evidence gathered thus far point to the universe expanding from a single infinitely small point 13.7 billion years ago. What was the nature of that singularity prior to expansion and how that singularity got there in the first place is completely unknown.

Gambler

kelly1 wrote: »

But there's no evidence for a cyclical universe or a multiverse. Why are these hypotheses favoured over God? It seems to me that science goes out of its way to avoid the God question. It constructs roads and bridges around and over God.

No there isn't, that's why I said "I personally favour a theory" and not "What actually happened" or "I believe". In this case I haven't got a strong enough set of arguments to allow me to go as far as saying that I believe it to be true. I just feel that of all the theories I have heard I favour this one but have no evidence to back that up or firm enough argument to make in it's favour.

For me I find less of an argument for god having done it. If there is a god why would god do it that way? Why bother with a giant explosion of matter? Why create a universe that is expanding at a slowing rate over time? What part of this suggests that god is the best possible explanation?

doctoremma

kelly1 wrote: »

It seems to me that science goes out of its way to avoid the God question. It constructs roads and bridges around and over God.

If the scientific method can find a natural explanation for something, we have to favour that over goddunnit. goddunnit does not explain anything and therefore cannot compete with a rationale based on physical evidence.

The scientific method doesn't construct roads and bridges around god, it ploughs straight through the god concept and doesn't even notice a bump in the road.

strobe

kelly1 wrote: »

I think we can use our reason to rule out illogical explanations. For instance, science has shown (and I'm open to correction), that the universe began with a big bang and that the rate of inflation is increasing and that the universe (or multiverse) began at a finite time in the past according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (and Hawking/Penrose). If this is true, then we can rule out Hinduism as being false.

But that's just my point, science has suggested (shown is a bad choice of words on your part) that countless ideas put forward by the bible are utter nonsense. Two people spawning all of mankind created at the same time as the dinosaurs and everything else, as an obvious example. But you are more than happy to either discount these "facts" and except others, pick and choose as you will, or say no the science is wrong. But it's not wrong in regards to Brahma and Shiva, it's only wrong in regards to Yahweh.

For the record, I am open to the possibility (I find it very very unlikely) that there exists some form of entity that exists outside of our realm of understanding and it created our universe, there are huge obvious problems with that idea, but I am open to the fact that it may be the case. But the bibles Yahweh, the Hindus Shiva, the Sceintologists Xenu, the Greeks Zues, the Zulus Ancient One and the internets FSM, I am calling equal levels of laughable bullsh1t on. There is nothing to suggest any of these things are describing this "entity" if it somehow does exist, and there is tons of things to suggest that each and every one of these suggestions are silly fairytales. Complete falsehoods created knowingly by people to further their own ends or the clutching explanations of uneducated early civilisations to explain the things that were at that time un-explanable to them.

Sam Vimes

strobe wrote: »

But the bibles Yahweh, the Hindus Shiva, the Sceintologists Xenu, the Greeks Zues, the Zulus Ancient One and the internets FSM, I am calling equal levels of laughable bullsh1t on. There is nothing to suggest any of these things are describing this "entity" if it somehow does exist, and there is tons of things to suggest that each and every one of these suggestions are silly fairytales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
"Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts"

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

It seems to me that science goes out of its way to avoid the God question. It constructs roads and bridges around and over God.

It's the other way around -- religious people keep moving their deity around the place, so that it's always undisprovable and unobservable.

That's what happened to the Greek gods when they disappeared from the top of Mount Olympus and into the clouds, after it was found that they did not live on the top of Mount Olympus.

Then your own deity disappeared from the clouds when it was suspected or found that he didn't live there either. Not that this stopped Elijah, Jesus, and later Mohammad, all from disappearing up into the clouds when their work on the planet's surface was done.

Now that science -- people really -- knows that gods don't live on the tops of mountains or in the water vapour which makes up clouds, all these historic deities have been unceremoniously shoved into "another dimension", there to await the arrival of some interfering scientific type who will herald their next house-move.

robindch

doctoremma wrote: »

The scientific method doesn't construct roads and bridges around god, it ploughs straight through the god concept and doesn't even notice a bump in the road.

Yep -- because the religious see the scientists coming and either mount a ferociously dishonest campaign (eg, the creationists), or simply up stakes and move as quickly as possible before the arguments for their deity are left in tatters. Again.