Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

An Atheist will never believe in God, that's eternal darkness. They will spend eternity blaming God for their own choice, and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. "I was right to be wrong, how could I have known, God is still wrong, it was not all my fault, I want no part of such an unfair unjust God etc. etc. etc. etc." I keep telling you the gates of hell are bolted from the inside. Exactly as Lucifer and the fallen have rebelled against God chosen their own path.

Zombrex

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.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Simply put Wicknight do you want to discuss the question or not? The question pertains to God's existence. If we can establish God's existence it's a starting point for a lot of other discussions we have which are all directly dependent on this question.

Edit: In your last post you've attributed your second post to me whereas it is actually Quo Vadis'.

Zombrex

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.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Simply put Wicknight do you want to discuss the question or not? The question pertains to God's existence.

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've had many discussions with theists including yourselves where when this is pointed out you guys throw your hands up and say oh we wouldn't be convinced by anything. So I'm getting in on the ground floor, if you precede with this and we don't find it convincing you only have yourself to blame, like the sales man in Fanny's post who can't convince the housewife to buy his invisible drain cleaner.

Quo Vadis

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.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

And if those reasons don't stand up to much examination the person won't buy it.

How reasonable would it be then for the salesman to blame the customer for this, rather than himself and his poor reasons?

I think you stretch an already fallacious analogy beyond it limits. If somebody deems the claims of Christianity to be nonsense then I would expect that they move on.

philologos

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.

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

It's your loss, not his.

And yet I'm blamed for not believing his story. How does that work?

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

What about Moses' free will? Did god not prove he existed to Moses? Was his free will taken from him?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you stretch an already fallacious analogy beyond it limits. If somebody deems the claims of Christianity to be nonsense then I would expect that they move on.

And they are blamed by Christians, which was my point.

Blamed for not believing, blamed for rejecting God (rather than what they are actually doing, rejecting the unsupported claims of the Christians) and in a lot of cases blamed for being materialistic and immoral for doing so.

All because the Christian's argument for why he is correct wasn't convincing enough.

I would have much less issue with religion if the presences of atheists just made you guys all go "Umm, maybe our arguments aren't that convincing, can't really blame these guys for not believing us"

Unfortunately religion tends not to work like that.

Zombrex

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.

philologos

We need to settle some terms of discussion. How do you think we should do this? I've proposed an option that you don't agree with so what else do you propose. It must be a discussion in that both parties contribute on an equal basis.

Zombrex

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?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

We need to settle some terms of discussion. How do you think we should do this? I've proposed an option that you don't agree with so what else do you propose. It must be a discussion in that both parties contribute on an equal basis.

I've already told you what I purpose, you rejected it.

I propose that you ignore the question of if God can exist or is this likely and present the evidence that the Christian claims are accurate and supported. If this evidence is supported and accurate you will arrive at the conclusion that God does exist, even if this is very unlikely, just as scientists concluded that time slows down the faster you travel despite this seeming highly counter intuitive.

You insist that first we have to establish if God is likely to exist or not. Ok, off you go.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Listening to Wicknight sounding off about philosophy certainly sounds like hell to me.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I propose that you ignore the question of if God can exist or is this likely and present the evidence that the Christian claims are accurate and supported.

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?

Why is this disagreeable to you? A discussion rather than a monologue. If the discussion turns out to be the latter or a Q&A interrogation session honestly I don't see why I should be interested.

Zombrex

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.

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Sure, perhaps between serving the lusts of your fellow exiles. They won't all be nice pale Irish middle class pseudo intellectual schoolboys, and you won’t be in charge.

Yes, as an adult you chose, and like any adult in the adult world, you live with the consequences of your choice. Welcome the the big boys rules.

b318isp

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Sure, perhaps between serving the lusts of your fellow exiles. They won't all be nice Irish middle class pseudo intellectual schoolboys, and you won’t be in charge.

Yes, as an adult you chose, and like any adult in the adult world, you live with the consequences of your choice. Welcome the the big boys rules.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find nearly everyone of your posts condescending?

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Sure, perhaps between serving the lusts of your fellow exiles. They won't all be nice pale Irish middle class pseudo intellectual schoolboys, and you won’t be in charge.

Why not? Can't I choose this? You said I get to choose this.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Yes, as an adult you chose, and like any adult in the adult world, you live with the consequences of your choice. Welcome the the big boys rules.

Ah so I do choose. Ok I choose a beach with cocktails where I'm in charge.

Hell ain't sounding too bad.

b318isp

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?

Not to butt in too much, but PDN in his OP indicated that the discussion should follow lines of evidence for the existence of God.

Here's a starter:

- The existence of the universe
- The non tangible processes of the brain (e.g. the mind, self-conciousness, mental images)
- Motivation to do good and the associated feelings that go with it
- An appreciation of beauty, art, music

...

Zombrex

b318isp wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else find nearly everyone of your posts condescending?

It is a symptom of backing oneself into a corner.

He knows eventually he is going to have to admit that Christianity has nothing about choosing hell as described in the Bible, that this is an example of modern Christian cognitive dissidence, modern Christians being unhappy with the idea of an all loving God throwing people into a lake of eternal suffering (something ancient Christians had little trouble with).

So we must "choose" this for ourselves, can't be God's fault we end up there.

Which of course is ridiculous. If I was given the choice I would choose a beach with a cool breeze. But we aren't given a choice.

Quo Vadis

b318isp wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else find nearly everyone of your posts condescending?

Is just me, or do you require the approval of others ?
I could not care less what you, or anyone else’s opinion is of me is.
It's very liberating you know, you should try it. Free yourself. Seriously.

philologos

Here's what I propose. We have situated our discussion in terms of likelihood. Which is more likely that God as a Creator exists or he doesn't. Here's the cosmological argument given both in its traditional terms and in the modern form of the argument. We can probe into whether or not it is more likely that the universe as a finite existence has a cause or whether it doesn't.

Traditional form:

Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Modern form:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

If the universe is finite, it also must have had a cause. Finite things cannot cause themselves at least as far as I can tell. Therefore it seems more rational to believe that the universe had a cause rather than not.

Which seems more likely that there is a Creator which brought all things into existence, or that this existence came out of nothing? Simple question.

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

So we must "choose" this for ourselves, can't be God's fault we end up there.

Which of course is ridiculous.

How could an adult be responsible for his choices, it must be all God's fault, the God that doesn't exist right ?

Which proves my point again . . .

Quo Vadis wrote:

"I was right to be wrong, how could I have known, God is still wrong, it was not all my fault, I want no part of such an unfair unjust God etc. etc. etc. etc."

b318isp

We could also look at each of the three arguments in turn:

The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument

http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

EDIT: phiologos, you got there before me!

seeing_ie

b318isp wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else find nearly everyone of your posts condescending?

Absolutely.

This is the first time I've looked at this forum and I must say the tone of some posts seems quite unchristian.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Here's what I propose. We have situated our discussion in terms of likelihood. Which is more likely that God as a Creator exists or he doesn't. Here's the cosmological argument given both in its traditional terms and in the modern form of the argument. We can probe into whether or not it is more likely that the universe as a finite existence has a cause or whether it doesn't.

Traditional form:


Modern form:


If the universe is finite, it also must have had a cause. Finite things cannot cause themselves at least as far as I can tell. Therefore it seems more rational to believe that the universe had a cause rather than not.

Which seems more likely that there is a Creator which brought all things into existence, or that this existence came out of nothing? Simple question.

But those aren't the only two options. You're forgetting about "We don't know what caused the universe to come into existence". And just because we don't know, does not mean that it was God, or another deity who created the universe.

Besides which, if everything had a cause, what caused God?