Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

New International Version (NIV)

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

So if "gods wrath" is against the sinful, why does it always strike down against the innocent?

Zombrex wrote: »

Really? What would be a "wider" definition of "exists".

Probably something along the lines of "things with an existence in reality and things with no existence in reality."

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

One way of looking at it, I suppose. Good thing you don't let your prejudices influence your thinking

It is the only way of looking at it.

You see the use of the scientific method is the application of evidence to a theory to see if the theory fits reality, while theology is the ignoring of any evidence which does not fit the theory, because the theory is the "truth" as revealed to us by authority figures and therefore cannot be questioned (in that way theologians act very much in the same way as most economists).

The difference is looking at reality and figuring out the hows and whys, and coming up with a notion and trying to fit reality within that notion, no matter how bad the fit is.

tommy2bad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is the only way of looking at it.
IYNSHO
You see the use of the scientific method is the application of evidence to a theory to see if the theory fits reality, while theology is the ignoring of any evidence which does not fit the theory, because the theory is the "truth" as revealed to us by authority figures and therefore cannot be questioned (in that way theologians act very much in the same way as most economists).
No it's not, that may be your understanding but you are misinformed
The difference is looking at reality and figuring out the hows and whys, and coming up with a notion and trying to fit reality within that notion, no matter how bad the fit is.

No, again you are misrepresenting theology. It's not fitting facts to a theory as opposed to fitting a theory to facts. It is in fact, the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths. While you may criticizes the principal of rational study of something for which their is no empirical evidence but to mischaracterize it is dishonest.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, again you are misrepresenting theology. It's not fitting facts to a theory as opposed to fitting a theory to facts. It is in fact, the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths. While you may criticizes the principal of rational study of something for which their is no empirical evidence but to mischaracterize it is dishonest.

Theology's answer to lightning:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to famine:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to the rainbow:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to Hitler killing 6m Jews, Atheists, Homosexuals, Socialists, Gypsies & dissenting Christians:
"It's all part of our ever-loving god's inscrutable plan, and is for a greater good."

If that isn't fitting facts to theory, then I am right now making sweet, sweet love to Osama bin Laden's corpse.

Fanny Cradock

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

Fanny Cradock

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Theology's answer to lightning:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to famine:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to the rainbow:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to Hitler killing 6m Jews, Atheists, Homosexuals, Socialists, Gypsies & dissenting Christians:
"It's all part of our ever-loving god's inscrutable plan, and is for a greater

Quite aside from the fact that there isn't a single theological voice, what makes you think that is what theologians are saying?

lmaopml

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

For my own part, I accept the evidence for the empirical claim that there is a God. I'm convinced - I just think others aren't convinced and either never examined or never really thought about it, and some just reject out straight. There is a gap to be crossed though and a search I think is necessary for some...

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and it will be given to you...etc. ( Some challenge )

So, I think we do use our reason to examine evidence, despite claims to the contrary, in order to establish a firm foundation where we put our faith. Others will unfortunately reject the truth and evidence of that claim, and some will never even engage with it for their own reasons.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

For my own part, I accept the evidence for the empirical claim that there is a God. I'm convinced - I just think others aren't convinced and either never examined or never really thought about it, and some just reject out straight. There is a gap to be crossed though and a search I think is necessary for some...

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and it will be given to you...etc. ( Some challenge )

So, I think we do use our reason to examine evidence, despite claims to the contrary, in order to establish a firm foundation where we put our faith. Others will unfortunately reject the truth and evidence of that claim, and some will never even engage with it for their own reasons.

If the empirical evidence was convincing everyone would believe it , just as we do with gravity .

And that is before we even get to the question of which God and why.

lazygal

lmaopml wrote: »

For my own part, I accept the evidence for the empirical claim that there is a God. I'm convinced - I just think others aren't convinced and either never examined or never really thought about it, and some just reject out straight. There is a gap to be crossed though and a search I think is necessary for some...

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and it will be given to you...etc. ( Some challenge )

So, I think we do use our reason to examine evidence, despite claims to the contrary, in order to establish a firm foundation where we put our faith. Others will unfortunately reject the truth and evidence of that claim, and some will never even engage with it for their own reasons.

What empirical evidence to which you refer proves the god in which you believe exists?

Brian Shanahan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Quite aside from the fact that there isn't a single theological voice, what makes you think that is what theologians are saying?

Because that is the sole idea from theistic belief? Because I can and do read? Because theology is a "discipline" which has no basis in fact?

Take your pick.

johnny-grunge

In my opinion it is unlikely there is a divine creator but not impossible. Trying to argue for or against the existence of god is a waste of time. The people arguing there is a god have no evidence and those arguing there is no god, likewise, have no evidence.

In saying that, it's utter madness to follow any sort of organised religion and I think anyone that does is ignorant.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

The Christian god doesn't exist, God exists and Christians have a set of beliefs about Him

The Christian god is a difference concept to say Zeus, or Baal. I simply use "Christian god" because in English god (a deity) and God are the same word. A god is not automatically the Christian god. Even if it was established that a god had to exist, it is still a leap to say the god has the characteristics Christians claim he does.

tommy2bad wrote: »

A wide range of beliefs btw, from vague, hand wavie mysticism to hard line fundamentalism. Which one has so offended you that you seen to be certain He doesn't exist.

I've no idea if he exists. I am pretty certain he is made up though, along with all other gods humans have imagined over the years.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I take the view that I don't believe he doesn't exist.

For the Christian notion of god, or all of them?

Do you not believe the Greek gods don't exist either?

tommy2bad wrote: »

I care about what works in its relevant place, why can't you get that?

That depends, how are you defining "works"? Do you mean "makes you happy?"

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Ah sure why break a great tradition, you've become quite a dab hand at this waffle - answering yourself and believing yourself, no wonder you agree with you so much, it's like a one sided conversation, it must be very comforting for you.

Well it is always going to be a one sided conversation Imaopml when I ask you a question and you ignore it.

lmaopml wrote: »

Er, yep, that's what I said - except 'Science' is not what you think it is......it's a bunch of people with a disciplin seeking knowledge, who may or may not be Christians.

Yes it is. What do you think I think it is?

You still haven't answered the question, why in this discipline of seeking knowledge do scientists, if they are following the scientific method, not allow concepts like "God" into their scientific theories if they and you and everyone else can have strong confidence in God's existence?

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, you and I both know that within the many and varied fields that they are in the business of seeking knowledge about the 'Natural' world. The clue is in 'Natural'. That doesn't negate that they can and often times do use the same reason to have confidence in their faith that there is indeed a God - and they do, obviously - using the same brain, reason, rational they used when having confidence in anything else.

So why isn't this part of science, or the scientific process?

lmaopml wrote: »

Where did I say there are 'other' ways to know things?
...
There is a discipline however, that I know is quite different in the lab.
...
I said people who are members of the scientific community don't suddenly go daft just because they have faith in God. You seem to believe that this reductionist philosophy of yours is a 'way of life' or should be.

You have answered your own question. Which always makes my life easier.

Why is there a way to know things in the lab, and a different other way to know things outside of the lab?

lmaopml wrote: »

When one gets their nose so stuck in the small things in the scientific world it's often times very difficult to stand back and see a tapestry, but it's not impossible, and neither is the scientific method a 'creed' to live by.

Why not? What is wrong with the scientific method that means it isn't enough to live by. Why have these other things not been incorporated into the scientific method if they work just a well?

lmaopml wrote: »

You take it very personally, but then I don't think it's really God that annoys you

Of course not. It is people that annoy me. Humanity spent an awful long time dwelling in ignorance and superstition because we hadn't developed or revised methods to accurately tell what was happening around us.

It would be an awful shame to allow some to drag us back there because the wish the world was one particular way.

tommy2bad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

Their isn't!
Any evidence we have is testimony or conjecture, while we may accept that as evidence it's not the sort you can repeat in a lab or verify with experiment.
This dosn't make theology redundant but it dose remove it from the hard sciences and closer to economics or philosophy.
It's still the 'Queen of Sciences'.

Fanny Cradock

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Because that is the sole idea from theistic belief? Because I can and do read? Because theology is a "discipline" which has no basis in fact?

Take your pick.

None of those are answers. You've only offered vague retorts.

johnny-grunge wrote: »

In my opinion it is unlikely there is a divine creator but not impossible. Trying to argue for or against the existence of god is a waste of time. The people arguing there is a god have no evidence and those arguing there is no god, likewise, have no evidence.

In saying that, it's utter madness to follow any sort of organised religion and I think anyone that does is ignorant.

If you think it's madness to follow any sort of organised religion I would assume you have evidence as to why this is so. Which would make your above statement partially false.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, again you are misrepresenting theology. It's not fitting facts to a theory as opposed to fitting a theory to facts.

By definition it is, since it starts off from a religious position and then attempts to explain reality in the context of that religious position.

You would agree that theology has very little use if God doesn't exist, or isn't as any human imagines him to be, correct?

All theology can do is compare one idea of ours against another idea of ours. We can say based on our idea of how God would be that he wouldn't do this, or he would do that. The question is our original idea sound is not entertained.

It is a house of cards. There is no feedback from reality itself.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

The Christian god is a difference concept to say Zeus, or Baal. I simply use "Christian god" because in English god (a deity) and God are the same word. A god is not automatically the Christian god. Even if it was established that a god had to exist, it is still a leap to say the god has the characteristics Christians claim he does.
I'd say the leap is believing in a God, the rest is a series of steps.


I've no idea if he exists. I am pretty certain he is made up though, along with all other gods humans have imagined over the years.
I'm pretty certain He dose exist, the concepts 'made up' over the years are what I question.

For the Christian notion of god, or all of them?

Do you not believe the Greek gods don't exist either?
Only one God, I reject parts of all the concepts and keep some of all of them.


That depends, how are you defining "works"? Do you mean "makes you happy?"

Provides a frame for living that is better than the others. I cant see the second law of thermodynamics helping with ethical or moral questions.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'd say the leap is believing in a God, the rest is a series of steps.

Why? Do you think merely by believing in a god a person will automatically believe in the right god?

The distribution of human population over geography and time would seem to contradict that position. A person born in Ireland 2,000 years ago would most likely believe in a completely different set of gods than you do, likewise a person born in India today.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm pretty certain He dose exist, the concepts 'made up' over the years are what I question.

Pretty certain why, and when you say "He" who are you referring to? Zeus? Baal? Loki? Yehova?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Only one God, I reject parts of all the concepts and keep some of all of them.

Why only one?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Provides a frame for living that is better than the others. I cant see the second law of thermodynamics helping with ethical or moral questions.

But you think the notion that a god exists does? How exactly is that any different to if a god didn't exist?

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

By definition it is, since it starts off from a religious position and then attempts to explain reality in the context of that religious position.

You would agree that theology has very little use if God doesn't exist, or isn't as any human imagines him to be, correct?

All theology can do is compare one idea of ours against another idea of ours. We can say based on our idea of how God would be that he wouldn't do this, or he would do that. The question is our original idea sound is not entertained.

It is a house of cards. There is no feedback from reality itself.

In as much as it starts with an assumption or acceptance of the existence of God, yes it's a house of cards. More so if like me, you start with the assumption that God is unknowable by humans except through revelation.
I've never claimed otherwise. First comes belief then theology.
You lack belief so no point in theology, like JC who see no point in evolution as he doesn't believe it.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

If something happened that you can't explain and which defied physical laws, would you believe it was caused by an interventionist god if that idea hadn't been implanted by religion already.

Person 1 - Wow, that was really weird, the limb just grew back
Person 2 - Praise God, clearly he has cured this person
Person 1 - What makes you say that?
Person 2 - Well, you explain it!
Person 1 - I can't.
Person 2 - Well then, clearly it was God, what else could it be?

This a logical fallacy, which is not confined to religion. People do it about everything, and in fact it is relatively easy to get people to do it. You simply implant an explanation for something, and then when something happens people default to that explanation rather than examining the rational for believing it actually was that explanation.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

In as much as it starts with an assumption or acceptance of the existence of God, yes it's a house of cards. More so if like me, you start with the assumption that God is unknowable by humans except through revelation.

But also what is the feedback mechanism? How do you tell between a truth theological assertion and a false theological assertion?

tommy2bad wrote: »

I've never claimed otherwise.

You claimed it wasn't fitting facts to a theory. Clearly it is if you start off with a theory and then view all facts within the context of that theory, like the American Televangelist who tries to fit every natural disaster into an explanation of what God is trying to tell us (Katrina - tolerance of gays, earthquake - government pride)

tommy2bad wrote: »

You lack belief so no point in theology, like JC who see no point in evolution as he doesn't believe it.

What is the point of theology even if you believe?

Say we both believe. And I make a theological assertion. And you make a theological assertion. How do you tell I'm right and you are wrong, or vice versa?

Brian Shanahan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

None of those are answers. You've only offered vague retorts.

Missed my point, which was that even the most superficial analysis of theological "thought" shows that it is illogical, full of inconsistencies and does not even carry a proper internal pathway from first premise to conclusion.

For example a lot of theists cite the bible as the word of god, but when confronted on their proof simply retort "because it says it is." This kind of circular logic is typical of theological thought. Another point is the incompatibility of omnipotence and omniescence, two traits attributed to the Abrahamic god, and routinely ignored by theological "theorists", despite the incompatibility totally destroying any chance that their god exists.
Or consider one of the "greatest thinkers" of the catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, whose ideas are still one of the main bases for christian theology in the west, and how his "proofs" for god can be so easily debunked, just by thinking logically.

Morbert

tommy2bad wrote: »

In as much as it starts with an assumption or acceptance of the existence of God, yes it's a house of cards. More so if like me, you start with the assumption that God is unknowable by humans except through revelation.

This is where the problems seem to begin.

For example, consider two believers. One is Christian. One is Muslim. Both claim to know God is real through divine revelation. Both believers cannot be right, so one believer must be mistaken. While this does not directly contradict the position that God can be known through revelation, it does raise the question of how a believer decides what is and isn't a revelation.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

I'll have to come back to this later but my understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the system is a range of probabilities and a measurement gives rise to a specific eigenstate. The measurement does not have to involve a mind directly.

Probabilities aren't something that exist by themselves, so the system wouldn't be "a range of probabilities". Instead, we say that, while a classical system is described by a configuration [latex]Q[/latex], a quantum system is described by a function on the space of all configurations [latex]\psi(Q)[/latex]. The wave function is not a probability function. For that, you need [latex]|\psi|^2[/latex]. So even if you adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, and interpret the function as a mathematical tool, the system still exists.

Meanwhile, what do you think of what I wrote in earlier posts regarding interpreting Bell's theorem and that it's proofs demonstrates that QM violates classical physics not just at the subatomic level but at the macro level.

I'm not sure what posts you're referring to here.

tommy2bad

Morbert wrote: »

This is where the problems seem to begin.

For example, consider two believers. One is Christian. One is Muslim. Both claim to know God is real through divine revelation. Both believers cannot be right, so one believer must be mistaken. While this does not directly contradict the position that God can be known through revelation, it does raise the question of how a believer decides what is and isn't a revelation.

You needn't even posit a christian and a Muslim, myself and philogos would be both christian and would have disagreements about what was and wasn't revelation, even disagree about what revelation is.
None of which invalidates our belief or the existence of God.

Morbert

tommy2bad wrote: »

You needn't even posit a christian and a Muslim, myself and philogos would be both christian and would have disagreements about what was and wasn't revelation, even disagree about what revelation is.
None of which invalidates our belief or the existence of God.

It doesn't invalidate a belief insofar as it is still possible for your belief in God to be true. However, it does mean the validity of claims of revelation are not compelling. I.e. A claim is not invalidated if it is said to be a revelation, but it is also not validated, since there exist contrary claims that are also said to be revealed.

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So if "gods wrath" is against the sinful, why does it always strike down against the innocent?

Is there anybody who is innocent in respect to sin? Or have we all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and do we need a Saviour?

It isn't Christian belief that some are good and some are evil. All have done what is evil rather than what is good at one juncture or another. Therefore we are rightfully deserving of God's wrath.

It is only thanks to Jesus taking God's wrath upon Himself on our behalf so that we could be forgiven that we can even stand before God.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

You needn't even posit a christian and a Muslim, myself and philogos would be both christian and would have disagreements about what was and wasn't revelation, even disagree about what revelation is.
None of which invalidates our belief or the existence of God.

If you don't consider the Bible as God's inspired word to mankind there are several gaping problems.

Do you decide what God's word is or does He simply declare it. If it is the latter it isn't really up for question, it is a manifest reality that He has said X rather than Y, if it is the former then we have to ask questions as to whether the god you are speaking of is just what you wish it to be, rather than the God who actually is.

They are intriguing questions, and I think they can't be answered until we come to the second understanding, namely that God's word is declared and declared by Him rather than decided by men.

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

Is there anybody who is innocent in respect to sin? Or have we all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and do we need a Saviour?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on new born babies, have they sinned? If so what sin are they guilty of?

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

They are intriguing questions, and I think they can't be answered until we come to the second understanding, namely that God's word is declared and declared by Him rather than decided by men.

Then to phrase my problem in a different way:

Is God's word declared in the Bible or the Quran?